Chapter Six

CHANNELS OF FOOD SUPPLY AND FOOD CONSUMPTION PATTERN

It is well known that India is predominantly an agricultural economy. Land is an

important factor for those depending on agriculture for their livelihood. In addition to

wage employment programmes, providing access to land to the landless through land

reforms, had been one of the public interventions in food security, in the early post­

independence period. Access to land, either through ownership or tenancy, is

considered one of the major determinants of food security and social security, since

land is mandatory for subsistence (Guhan, 1994). However, land is a scarce

commodity and it is not possible to provide land to all the landless. Despite land

reforms, there exists an unequal distribution of land continues. Land reforms and

tenancy reforms have improved the land distribution pattern to a certain extent and

benefited a significant proportion of the poor(Parthasarathy, 1995). The land reforms,

besides reducing the land concentration, also reduced the hold of the large farmers

over the common propoerty resources. Thus, this had an indirect positive effects on

poverty. However, due to the population pressure, the common property resources are

reducing at a high rate . thus affecting their access by the vulnerable sections.

167

However, increasing inequality in the distribution of land and access to resources

which are essential for the success of modern agricultural technology will increase

inequality in rural income distribution(Rao, 1975). This happens especially if the

nu.rnber of landless increase and if t~eir rea! per capita income either falls cr remains

constant(Alauddin and Tisdell, 1991, p.160). The inverse relationship between land size

and productivity is well debated and documented in the literature on agricultural

economics. However, with the introjuction of new technology this relationship is

getting transformed into constant or direct one i.e., larger farmers having higher

productivity compared to smaller farms.

In Kamataka, the number of marginal farmers, with land holding below one hectare

increased from 32.26 per cent in 1970-71 to about 40.57 per cent in 1990-91.

Similarly, the number of small farmers, with land holding between one and two

hectares accounted for 25.05 per cent in 1970-71 and marginally increased to 27.46

per cent in 1990-91 (for details refer Appendix· 6.1 ). Keeping the land distribution

pattern in view, an attempt is made in this chapter to study food security of

households by analysing ·annual consumption, expenditure and supply pattern of

foodgrains of households, with respect to farm size.

To recapitulate, the concept of food security needs to be analysed, both in terms of

168

physical access and economic access with respect to farm size. There are several ways

of measuring the yearly household consumption. In this study, consumption is

measured in two ways. First, the difference between total quantity produced and sum

of quantity marketed, gifted, used for seeds and losses. This gives the calculated

availability of the grain for household consumption. Second, per month consumption

of grains directly estimated on the basis of field data and projected for one year. The . .

physical access to food is analysed by studying the sources of food supply for

households of different sizes of land ·holding in rainfed and irrigated regions

separately.

The hypothesis being made is that per capita food consumption increases with increase

in farm size. The rationale of the hypothesis is that food security, defined in terms of

physical and economic access, can be maintained by the households, either by physical

access or economic access or both. There are three main factors which determine the

mode of access to food, namely, level of output, family size and composition and

number of working members in the household. These factors are common to both

irrigated as well as rainfed regions. The cropping pattern also partly determines the

accessibility to food 1•

1 The soil condition, irrigation intensity, size of land holding and partly the number of working members in the household determine the cropping pat~ern. This ii in addition

169

In order to understand the consumption pattern of the households, it is also important

to study the production pattern of the households. This is mainly because, a large

proportion of the consumption would depend on the production pattern. The

oroduction oattern also nartlv reflects on the problem of chronic food insecurity. Food - .a .a • ., ..

supply refers to the quantity of food made available by the households through various

sources. And food consumption refers to the actual quantity consumed during a

specified period by the households. The quantities under food supply and food

consumption need not be equaL Hence, for the indepth analysis, the two variables are

dealt separately. The production pattern is studi~d in relation to farm size, cropping

pattern and land productivity. The chapter consists of two sections. Section I, gives a

brief explanation on farming conditions .. of the sample households. Section II deals

with category wise food supply pattern and consumption pattern of households. It tries

to answer the question of how sources of food supply affects food security.

Section I

Pattern of Foodgrain Production

In this section, food security is analysed in relation to the farm size taking total

to the exogenous factors such as prices of crops.

170

production of foodgrains, marketed quantity, and area under food grains and non-food

grains. The analysis is made for rainfed and irrigated regions. At the macro level,

aggregate food supply in sufficient quantity is necessary to maintain food security.

Similarly, at the micro level, the production level is an important factor in maintaining

household food security. If higher proportions of supply is obtained f~om own farm

production, higher would be the food security. Food supply from own farm reduces

the seasonal variation .factor.

The foodgrain production pattern of households is analysed below. As is clear from

Table 3.2 , the cropping pattern in rainfed areas differ from the cropping pattern in

irrigated areas. Hence, area, production and yield pattern for irrigated and rainfed areas

have been analysed separately.

Rainfed Area

Among the foodgrains, ragi, jowai' and horsegram are the main crops cultivated

followed by paddy in the rainfed area. The households use both local as well as high

yield variety seeds to cultivate ragi and jowar. In the sample, there are no households

in the marginal farmer category, cultivating paddy. There are 12.5 per cent households

in small farmer and 33.33 per cent in large farmer category cultivating paddy. The low

171

percentage of households cultivating paddy among the small farmer category are due

to two reasons. First, access to irrigation is limited. Second, even with available

irrigation, priority is given to ragi, being the staple food of the region, followed by

jowar and horticulture. Due to lack of ground water resources, the large fa..rmers with

irrigation facility also do not benefit to a larger extent.

From Table 6.3 it is observed that, in the cultivation of ragi, 93.83 per cent of total

farmers use high yield variety seeds. Similarly, 17.28 per cent of total farmers use

local variety seeds. When analysed class wise, i.t is observed that, 15.38 per cent of

marginal farmers, 17.5 per cent of small farmers and 26.67 per cent of large farmers

use local variety seeds. The variations in the seeds variety occurs due to two reasons.

First, though majority of the farmers do not have land under irrigation, high yield

variety. seeds are used to maximise the output. Second, farmers in small and large

category with irrigation facility use high yield variety seeds under irrigated conditions

and local variety under rainfed conditions. It is also observed that larger proportion

of large farmers use local variety compared to marginal and. small farmers.

The use of high yield variety seeds for jowar is less compared to ragi. The farmers

cultivating jowar under high yield variety were observed to be 57.69 per cent in the

marginal farmer category, 42.5 per cent and 73.33 per cent in small and large farmer

172

category respectively. Similarly, 11.54 per cent of marginal farmers, 20 per cent of

small farmers and 40 per cent of large farmers use local variety for jowar cultivation.

Table 6.1 Distribution of Households Cultivating Various Crops Rainfed Area

Crops MF SF LF Total

Paddy 0(0.00) 5(12.50) 5(33.33) 10(12.35)

Ragi(HYV) 25(96.15) 37(92.50) 13(86.67) 75(92.59)

Ragi(Local) 15(57.69) 7(17.50) 4(26.67) 15(18.52)

Jowar(HYV) 4(15.38) .18(45.00) 11(73.33) 44(54.32)

J owar(Local) 3(1 1.54) 13(32 .. 50) 6(40.00) 22(27.16)

Horse gram 24(12.31) 38(95.00) 22(27.16) 77(95.06)

Note: F1 ures m bracket refer to the ercenta e to total sam >le size m that cate g p g p gory.

In addition to cereals, pulses are also cultivated. Horsegram is largely cultivated

although tur is also cultivated .in some parts o~ the taluk. From the sample, it was

observed that 88.46 per cent of marginal farmers, 95.5 per cent of small farmers and

93.33 per cent of large farmers cultivated horsegram. Tur is not cultivated in the

surveyed village.

In the context of choice of crops discussed above, the area, production and yield

pattern of each of the crop varieties have been analysed. Tables 6.2A, 6.2B, 6.2C gives

the average(A VG.) area, production and yield of crops and. coefficient of variation

173

(C. V) for each category.

Table 6.2A Fanning Class wise Average Area under Major Crops (in acres)

Crop MF SF LF ALL

AVG. c.v AVG. C.V AVG. c.v AVG C.V

Paddy 0.00 0 0.06 268 0.12 154 0.05 280 (0.00) (I. 70) (1.80) ( 1.30)

Ragi 1.29 62 1.78 46 2.43 55 1.78 57 (HYV) (50.60) (50.57) (36.49) (46.35)

Ragi 0.12 249 0.20 249 0.60 170 0.25 246 (local) (4.70) (5.68) (9.02) (6.51)

Jowar 0.28 115 0.23 132 0.73 140 0.35 159 (HYV) (10.98) (6.53) (10.93) (9.11)

Jowar 0.05 256 . 0.22 197 0.65 172 0.24 251 (local) (1.96) (6.25) . (9.78) (6.25)

Horse 0.81 66 1.03 63 2.13 52 1.17 73 gram (31.76) (29.27) (31.98) (30.48)

Total 2.55 51 3.52 39 6.65 48 3.84 60 (100) (100) (100) (100)

From Table 6.2A it is observed that in the rainfed region, a relatively high proportion

of area is under ragi cultivation. Ragi is getting the maximum priority since it is the

staple food and its possession provides the necessary food security. Similarly, equally

high importance is ·attached to horsegram which accounts for 31 per cent of the total

area . The share of area under jowar is comparatively less. Though the average area

under each crop, more or less, increases from marginal farmer to large farmer

category, the average cropping intensity is highest for marginal farmer category,

174

followed by small farmer and large farmer category. This shows that the marginal

farmers are trying to maximise their food security by using the small piece of land

more intensively. The average yield of foodgrains produced by the farmers does not

show much variations across categories of farmers. exceot in the case of oaddv where - • £ ~ ~

the difference in yield among small and large farmers is nearly three times(Table

6.1 B). It is clear from the table that, marginal farmers are not growing paddy as it

requires irrigation to which they do not have access.

Table 6.28 Fanning Class wise Average yield of Major Crops (in qtls/acre)

Crop Marginal Fanner Small Fanner Large Fanner ALL

Avg c.v Avg C.V Avg c.v Avg C.V

Paddy 0.00 91 3.69 282 11.07 143 3.83 278

Ragi 3.29 284 3.79 73 3.36 17 3.59 78 (HYV)

Ragi 0.17 139 0.47 230 0.78 171 0.43 236 (local)

Jowar 5.47 271 7.39 129 9.53 93 7.27 122 (HYV)

Jowar 0.67 76 l.l3 246 l.l6 158 0.98 239 (local)

Horse 1.04 109 0.98 52 0.81 45 0.98 61 gram

Substantial variations are observed in the yields of local and high yield variety seeds

for ragi and jowar. The intra-class varaitions in yield of crops shows that, in the case

of marginal farmers, the variations in yield are higher for crops under high yield

175

variety seeds as compared to local variety seeds. Where as, in the case of small and

large farmer category, the variation in yield is higher for crops under local variety

seeds. Across the categories, there is an increase in the yield levels for all crops except

ragi(HYV), from marginal farmer to l~rge fanner category,

The average production of food grain show wide variations in the level and increasing

trend between marginal farmer and large farmer category. Jowar production is highly

dependent on the rainfall pattern. Hence, the inter - yeat and cross sectional variation

in the production of jowar is substantial. On an average, yield of irrigated jowar is

seven to eight times the yield of rainfed jowar. Across the categories, it is least in case . .

of marginal farmer category with around six times and highest in case of large farmer

category,.i.e. more than eight times.

Irrigated Area

Unlike the rainfed region, paddy is an important crop of this region, where access to

assured irrigation exists. Ragi and sugarcane are the other major crops produced in the

irrigated areas. Among the foodgrain crops, paddy is the main crop followed by ragi.

Jowar is produced by a very small percentage of farmers on dry plots, unused for main

agricultural purpose. The jowar is produced however, mainly as feeds for the livestock.

176

In the sample, only 77.78 per cent of marginal farmers cultivated paddy(see, Table

6.3). This is mainly because households with very small plots, i.e., less than one acre,

prefer to produce either sugarcane, which requires less labour or mulberry for cocoon

rearing, from which income is generated at short intervals or two to three months.

Paddy is cultivated by all the farmers in the other two categories. In the case of ragi,

only 39.58 per cent of marginal farmers 80 per cent of small farmers and 91 per cent

of large· farmers cultivate the crop. It· may be _mentioned that geneally ragi is not

cultivated regularly by the marginal farme~s, but instead, cultivated once in two years

between two sugarcane crop periods.

Table 6.3 Distribution of Households Cultivating Various Crops

Irrigated Area

Crops MF SF LF Total

Paddy 112(77.78) 40(100.00) 22(100.00) 174(84.47)

Ragi 57(39.58) 32(80.00) 20(91.00) 109(52.91)

Sugarcane 120(83.33) 40(100.00) 22(100.00) 182(88.35)

The area and yield of major crops are given in Tables 6.4A and 6.4B. From Table

6.4A, it is oberved that, in all the three categories, the share of area under paddy is

approximately 50 per cent of net sown area. The yields of ragi and sugarcane is

comparatively lesser in the case of marginal farmers. The coefficients of variation in

the yields show that the intra category variations in yields are lesser for small and

177

large farmers compared to marginal farmers.

Table 6.4A Fanning Class wise Average Area under Major Crops (in acres)-lrrigated Area

Crop Marginal Fanner Small Fanner Large Fanner All All

Avg C.V Avg C.V Avg C.V Avg c.v

Paddy 0.62 86 1.53 52 3.09 40 1.06 99 (40.00) (41.92) (40.13) (40.61)

Ragi 0.17 50 0.38 69 0.70 54 0.26 121 (10.97) (10.41) (9.09) (9.96)

Sugar 0.76 75 1.74 "42 3.91 31 1.29 94 cane (49.03) (47.67) (50.78) (49.43)

Total 1.55 71 3.65 54 7.70 42 2.61 105 (100) (100) (100) (100)

~- \ 1?, CA CK ~ · ..... "\~ e--< s. '\A,. ::>· c """'4--~' e c <?c f-..lo\-~. t:,')"-'Y.:. "" ' c..;

P.,v"J· ~ ~....,e....-"\je.. j J -\~:> -\-<:>~"-'' ~p .,\ ~-­

"\ \J ~''""+w'"' .

Table 6.48 Fanning Class wise Average Yield of Major

Crops (in qtls/acre) - Irrigated Area

Crop Marginal Fanner Small Fanner Large Farmer All All

Avg C.V Avg c.v Avg C.V Avg c.v

Paddy 20.00 67 22.94 19 18.73 18 20.44 56

Ragi 5.56 139 10.52 58 10.30 35 7.03 106

Sugar 34.12 52 43.58 23 40.74 21 36.67 44

cane

FARM SIZE AND PRODUCTIVITY

There are several views about the relationship between farm size and productivity.-

A.K.Sen(l962), who had initiated the debate argued that productivity was more on small

S,:,Y"\) I·' \<. ( \'1 "'2.. ') /

.Er!o<VQ..,.-,\c ~.cA.

4;2-

farms as compared to large farms. Ashok Rudn1(1908) and Krishna Bharadwaj(l97 4) have

counter argued that there was no systematic pattern of dependence between yield per acre and

farm size. In this study, the effects of farm size on yield and production levels of food grain

crops is tested. The .relationship is tested for both rainfed a.."ld irrig~ted regions using

household data on productivity in the sample villages. The results are thus explained below.

Rainfed Area

The relationship is more significant in the log.:.linear form. Taking a double-log function

log(TTP) = f( log(NSA)), the relationship is as follows,

log(TTP) = 2.98 + 0.687 log(NSA) + e, (5.67)

R2 = 0.28, F Statistics = 32.12, 2 Tail Sigf. = 0.00, D-W Statistics = 2.17 where TTP is the total output, NSA is the farm size and e is the error term.

Regressing productivity on farm size gives the following relationship,

Y = 1091.62 - 48.34 NSA + e, (-1.24)

where Y = productivity and NSA = farm size.

R2 = 0.19, 2 Tail Sigf. = 0.217, F Statistics= 1.55, D-W Statistics= 2.04

Irrigated Area

The production of foodgrains is dependent more on the area compared to yield. production

of crops has a direct relationship with farm size. The elasticity of output to farm size is

determined to be 0.58, and the equation is,

log(TTP) = 4.25 + 0.825 log(NSA) + e, (32.26)

where TTP is the total output, NSA is the farm size and e is the error term.

R2 = 0.84, F Statistics= 1040.96, 2 Tail Sigf. = 0.00, D-W Statistics= 1.51

Regressing productivity on farm size, the following relationship is obtained,

Y = 19935.33 - 1024.43 NSA + e, (-5.34)

where Y = productivity, NSA = farm size

R2 = 0.12, 2 Tail Sigf. = 0.00 F Statistics = 28.52, D-W Statistics = 1.25

From the above equations, it is observed that farm size has a negative relationship with

productivity in both rainfed and irrigati!d areas. A.P.Rao's study(1967), based on

disaggregated farm level data belonging to same village and using logarthimic linear function,

concluded that productivity remained constant over all the holding sizes. Comparing the

elasticities of output to farm size in both, rainfed and irrigated regions, it is observ.ed that the

elasticities are less than 1 in both the regions. However, the coefficient is higher in the

irrigated area as compared to the rainfed area~ The negative relationship obtained in the

irrigated area could be due to two reasons. First, majority of the farming households have

180

farm size less than 4 hectares. Thus, given the range of farm size, it is difficult to obtain a

good result. Second, the distribution of water through canal irrigation is not uniform through

out the year and also accross farms. Hence, this creates differences in the levels of

productivity.

Section II

Food Availability and Consumption Pattern

This section focuses on three aspects, namely, per capita cereal consumption, per capita cereal

availability and per capita expenditure on total food, at the household level. As mentioned

earlier, the terms food availability and food consumption differ from each other. Food

consumption refers to the actual consumption made by the households and food availability

refers to the quantity of food available to the households through home grown sources, open ..

market, PPS and other sources. All the three aspects mentioned abm~e, relate to household

food security. Each of the three aspects have been dealt for both _rainfed and irrigated areas.

RAINFED AREA

Food Consumption Pattern

From Table 6.5, a high degree of intra-class variation in consumption as observed in the

coefficients of variation for different classes of households. On an average the per capita total

181

cereal consumption is 201 kgs per annum. A steady increase in the per capita cereal

consumption is observed across the categories of households. The per capita consumption of

total cereals shows an increase from 14 7 kg/year for landless households to 225 kg/year for

large farmers.

Table 6.5.Class wise Per Capita Consumption · of Cereals- Rainfed Area (kgs./annum)

Total Ragi Jowar Rice

qty cv qty cv qty

II 93 68 19 119 35

mf 119 58 40 65 28

sf 117 51 65 80 27

If 125 62 67 76 30

all 116 56 53 83 26 No }..e.·. - v..~~· C·V-::.

Wheat Total

·cv qty cv qty cv

58 0 0 147 67

71 7 71 194 66

101 6 59 215 72

53 3 92 225 70

88 6 77 201 71

Co· •• 1..-~ e...r-..--\ 0 \[ ~ o...,~-\o..... .

There is an increase in the average family size from four persons for the landless category to

eight persons for the large farmer category. Thus. despite a substantial increase in the per . .

household food availability, the per capita consumption does not increase substantially across

the categories.

The cereal wise analysis shows that the consumption of ragi does not show much variations

across categories mainly due to the fact that it is a staple food. Variations are significantly

182

higher in the consumption of rice and jowar across the categories. In addition to the fact that

rice is not the staple food in this region, the consumption of rice has been in smaller quantities

as compared to ragi and jowar for several other reasons. First, In majority of the cases, rice

is purchased either from open market or fair price shop. Second, the purchase of rice is much

dependent on the purchasing power of the individuals. The households with green card

purchase full quantity of rice and wheat. The other households purchase only 50 to 75 per

cent of total allotment. Third, purchase of rice from· the open market is normally given the

least priority due large differences in -the prices of rice, ragi and jowar.

Table 6.6 Relationship between Per Capita Consumption of Cereals with Farm Size and Household Size - Rainfed Areas

Item Coeffficient Coefficient (farm size) (HHS)

Ragi 0.3156 -0.4011 (0.002) . (0.000)

Jowar 0.215 -0.3397 (0.025) (0.001)

Rice .. 0586 -0.2~13 (0.298) (0.005)

Wheat -.2295 -.3884 (0.018) (0.000)

Total .2624 -.4380

1 Cereals I (.008) I (0.000) I

Note: Figures m bracket denote I-T ailed S1 gnificance Value HHS - Household size.

183

Table 6. 7 Class wise Share Cereals in total Cereal Consumption -· Rainfed Area (in percentages)

Class Ragi Jowar Rice Wheat Total

LL 66.67 11.11 22.22 0.00 100

MF 56.67 27.20 12.22 3.90 100

SF 62.40 22.82 11.64 3.14 100

LF 59.83 30.30 7.96 1.91 100

ALL 60.25 25.15 11.55 3.05 100

The per capita consumption of cereals and farm size relationship is analysed with the help of

Table 6.6. There is a significant correlation between per capita consumption of ragi and farm

size with a coefficient of 0.32. Where as, the ~orrelation between per capita consumption of

jowar and farm size is lower with a coefficient of 0.215. The correlation between per capita

consumption of cereals and household size is negative with respect to all cereals. Though the

average annual household consumption of ragi increases from 2.33q for landless category to

9.47q for large farmer category, the per capita consumption increases substantially from 0.93q

for landless category to 1.17q for small farmers and marginally increases to 1.25q for large

·farmers category. The per household consumption of jowar shows an increase from 0.33q for

landless category to 5.2q for large farmer category, however, the per capita consumption

shows an increase from 19kgs to 67kgs only. The average rice consumption of the landless

households is very low though it is higher in percentage terms(see, Table 6.7). In the case of

farming households there is a gradual decrease in the average consumption of rice from 0. 92q

184

for marginal farmers' to 0.38q for large farmers' category. But the high coefficients of

variation for consumption of rice show that the number of households actually consuming rice

form a very small proportion in the sample. In rainfed area, rice is not consumed daily. On

enquiring about the time interval of rice consumption in the households, it was determined

to be 3.22 days for the entire sample. Similarly it was 3.22 days for landless, 3.57 days for

marginal farmers, :2.94 days for small farmers and 3.43 days for large farmers. During the

interview with the households, in majority of the cases, it was mentioned that rice was

provided only once a day to the children and once or twice a week for the adults.

Consumption of Cereals by Source :

From Table 6.8, it is observed that home grown .source forms the major source of food

availability for the three farming categories. The share of home grown source in the case of

ragi shows an increase from 70.53 per cent for ~he marginal farmers to 93.29 per cent for the

large farmers, with an average of 79.68 per cent for all households. The share of home grown

source in the case ofjowar is similar to ragi' s case. The share of PDS in total rice supply is

moderately high at 43.33 per cent for the marginal farmers and reduces to 25 per cent for the

large farmers. The consumption of !arge farmer households is nearly twice the quautiiy of·

average consumption of landless households.

185

Table 6.8 Class wise Source wise Food Supply Rainfed area (quintals per annum)

Class Home Open PDS Wages in growns market kind ource

Ragi

LL 0.00 1.08 0.00 0.00

MF 0.79 0.33 0.00 0.00

SF 1.11 0.21 0.00 0.00

LF 1.39 0.10 0.00 0.00

ALL 1.02 0.26 0.00 0.00

Jowar

LL 0.00! 0.19 0.00 0.00

MF 0.48 0.16 0.00 0.00

SF 0.51 6.06 0.00 0.00

LF 0.76 0.03 0.00 0.00

ALL 0.53 0.09 0.00 0.00

Rice

LL 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.00

MF 0.00 0.17 0.13 0.00

SF 0.28 0.06 0.07 0.00

LF 0.14 0.01 0.05 0.00

ALL 0.15 0.08 0.08 0.00

Total

1.08

1.12

1.32

1.49

1.28

0.19

0.64

0.57

0.79

0.62

0.35

0.30

0.41

0.20

0.31

In the rainfed areas, there are basically three major sources of food supply through which

foodgrains are obtained. They are own farm production, open market and fair price shop. The

system of wages in kind and gifts do not exist. The main reason being lack of surplus grains

186

to distribute as wages in kind 2. Among the landless households, 100 per cent of ragi

requirement is purchased from the open market. The households' purchasing power limits

them to store the quantity of ragi for less than ~ month. The- annual requirement of ragi per

household does not vary considerably across the different categories of households. But the

own farm production is much less than the annual need in the in the case of marginal and

small farmers and is marginally less than the annual requirement in the case of large farmers.

There are intra category variations in the storage capacity of own farm production and open

market purchases of farming households. Households with irrigation facility produce ragi

either partly or fully under irrigation. It is reflected in the coefficient of variation of ragi

purchases, from 20 for landless category to 281 for.large farmer category. In all the three

farming categories, the annual production of jowar is higher than the annual requirement. The

increasing trend of coefficient of variation for jowar purchased from the open market shows

that, the number of households dependent on open market decrease with increase in farm size.

The food reserve is comparatively low in the case of marginal farmers due to low production

le~els. However, it is almost the same for small and large farmers, due to the fact that jowar

consumption is seasonal - not more than 4 to 5 months in a year. Rice, in majority of the

cases, is purchased either from the open market or fair price shop. The landless households

2It is an exceptional case wherein, a landless worker ::-ecieved jowar as wages in kind on compassionate grounds. >imilarly, another household recieves paddy as gift >ccassionally from a relative in the neighbouring district. ~hese two cases have not been considered for analysis purpose LS they are rare cases.

187

have not been provided with Green cards and hence are not in a position to purchase rice

from the fair price shop. Comparing the coefficients of variation of rice purchases in open

market and fair price shop shows that, there are fewer purchases at the open market compared

to the fair price shop.

Food Expenditure Pattern :

An inverse relationship is also observed betwee? per capita food expenditure and farm size

with a correlation coefficient of -0.3633, significant at 10 per cent level. Fro~ Table 6.9 it

is observed that the main item of expenditure is non-:-cereals. The share of expenditure on

cereals from open !D-arket in total food expenditure shows a reduction from 49.81 per cent for

the landless category to 1.21 per cent for the large farmer category, compared to 5.31 per cent

for the total sample.

Table 6.9 Class wise Source wise Per Capita Expenditure on Food- Rainfed Area (in percentages)

Class LL MF SF LF

Home grown 0.00 46.79 44.86 45.14

PDS(Total) 2.28 3.33 3.53 1.56

Open Market 49.81 8.52 3.89 1.21

Non-Cereals 29.89 11.03 18.16 17.73

Milk 15.99 28.59 26.12 32.53

Meat 2.03 1.73 3.46 1.82

Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

188

ALL

44.70

3.00

5.31

16.11

28.16

2.72

100.00

The expenditure on total food includes mainly foodgrains from home grown stock,

purchases from fair price shop, open market, other non-crereal food, meat and milk.

The landless households have highest expenditure on open market purchases followed

expenditure is on foodgrains followed by expenditure on non-cereals. In all the four

categories, the expenditure on milk constitutes a high proportion except for the

landless households, followed by non-cereals, which includes pulses, edible oil.-

vegetables, etc,. Thus, dependency on the open· market is highest for the landless

households. The dependency reduces with increase in farm size category.

IRRIGATED AREA

Food Consumption Pattern :

Rice is the staple food in. the irrigated area followed by ragi. The consumption of

wheat is very less compared to other cereals(Table 6.10 and Table 6.11 ). From Table

6.1 0, a comparatively higher coefficient of variation is observed for rice consumption

in the landless category . This due to the dependence on wages in kind and open

market. Similarly the higher coefficients of variation of per capita total foodgrain

consumption for marginal famier category, which is due to the changes in cropping

pattern strategies. There is a positive correlation between foodgrain consumption and

farm size. For the total sample, correlation coefficient of 0.398 was determined at 1

189

per cent significance level.

Table 6.10 Class wise Per capita Consumption of Cereals Irrigated Area (kgs/annum)

Class Rice Ragi Wheat

Qty cv Qty cv Qty cv

11 102 51 75 38 20 160

mf 111 25 68 33 20 114

sf 126 11 53 20 25 100

If 138 20 . 61 30 12 153

all 111 33 64 36 20 143

Total

Qty CV

197 38

199 69

204 67

211 32

195 68

Consequently for all the three categories, i.e., landless, marginal and small farmers and

specifically the first two categories, the number of working members in the household

and employment pattern are important determinants of variation in consumption. From

Table 6.8, an increase in the per capita annual food consumption is observed across

the categories of households from 1.97q for landless category to 2.1lq for large.farmer

category. The increase in stability of availability· of cereals with increase in farm size

is refleCted in decline in the coefficients of variation from 51 for landless category to

20 for large farmer category in the case of rice. Similarly a decline in the coefficient

of variation is observed from 38 to 30 in the case of ragi. The share of wheat in total

consumption is very small to create big impact in the variation of total

consumption(Table 6.11). In irrigated area, increase in the share of staple cereal (rice)

190

•

and consequently decrease in the share of supplemnt (ragi) in total cereal consumption

is very distinct. In comparison, in the rainfed area the staple cereal (ragi) does not

show any such trends across the categories. The variation in the trend could be

attributed to jowar, '.Vhich is not consumed in the irrigated area.

From Table 6.11, it is observed that the share of ragi in total cereals reduces from

42.98 per cent in the case of landless households to 13.20 per cent in the case of large

farmer category.'The share ofragi is determined to be 23.58 per cent and 18.12 per

cent for marginal and small farmer category respectively. The share of cereal, specially

rice, from open market and wages in kind form a substantial proportion among

landless and marginal farmer households. The number of working members is an

important factor in determining the share of open market purchases and wages in kind

in the consumption of cereals. If the landless and marginal farmers obtain more of

wages in kind, the dependence on the market-would be reduced to that extent. In the

farmers category, range is higher for the marginal farmers compared to other

categories. certain households produce paddy to be stored for nearly two years do not

sell the produce.

From Table 6.12, there is a positive correlation observed between per capita

consumption of total cereals and rice with farm size. However, the correlation is

negative in the case of ragi and wheat. The correlation between per capita consumption

191

and houehold size is negative with respect to all cereals. This observation is common

to both rainfed and irrigated areas.

Table 6.11 Class Wise Share of Cereals in Total Cereal Consumption

Class Rice Ragi

LL 54.03

MF 61.16

SF 79.52

LF 86.33

ALL -63.33

Table 6.12 Correlation of Per Capita Consumption of Cereals with Farm Size and Family Size

42.98

36.89

·19.24

13.20

34.61

Item Coefficient of Coefficient of Farm Size Household

Size

Rice .3214 -.1298 (0.000) (0.013)

Ragi -0.1928 -.2139 (0.000) (0.000)

Wheat- -.1434 .2846 (.007) (0.000)

Total .2752 -.1913 (0.000) (0.000)

192

Wheat Total

2.99

1.95

1.24

0.47

2.06

100

100

100

100

100

Food Availability :

In the irrigated area, there are mainly four sources of food supply. They are home

grown, open market, fair price shop and wages in kind3• From Table 6.13 it is

observed that for the farmers category major sourc.e of food supply of rice and ragi

is the home grown source. It is also observed that in addition to the landless

households, the marginal farmers also depend on open market and wages in kind to

a certain extent to obtain rice.

The small and large farmers do ·not depend on PDS to obtain rice. The landless and

marginal farmers who own milch animals, exchange organic manure for paddy/rice,

once a year. On an average, for every five carts of manure, nearly 40 kgs. of paddy

is obtained. In the sample, 12 per cent of the landless households and five per cent of

marginal farmers were observed to obtain rice/paddy varying from 35 to 60 kgs per

household. Ragi is produced on a comparatively smaller scale than paddy. In Table

6.13, it is shown that in the case of landless and marginal farmer category, major

source of supply of ragi is the open market. But they also receive from wages in kind,

though to a lesser extent. This is because ragi is produced on a much smaller scale

compared to paddy. In the sample, four per cent of marginal farmers and nine per cent

3Among the marginal farmers and landless households there is another source of food supply, namely, exchange of organic manure with cereals, mainly paddy and ·only one case of making food available through alms was observed. This has been discussed in detail in Chapter 7.

193

of small farmers exchanged paddy for ragi from large farmers at arbitrarily set prices.

Table 6.13 Class wise Source wise Per Capita Food Supply Pattern - Irrigated area (quintals per annum)

Class Home grown. Open PDS Wages in source market Kind

Rice

LL 0.00 0.71 0.11 0.23

MF 2.06 0.59 0.05 0.12

SF 2.44 0.00 0.00 0.00

LF 2.93 0.00 0.00 0.00

ALL L76 0.23 0.04 0.22

Ragi

LL 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.27

MF 0.19 0.63 0.00 0.05

SF 0.49 0.05 0.00 0.00

LF 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00

ALL 0.19 0.11 0.00 0.07

Total

1.05

2.82

2.44

2.93

2.25

0.80

0.87

0.54

0.46

0.77

On an average three to four kilograrnmes of ragi was exchanged for two kilograrnmes

of paddy.

Food Expenditure Pattern :

The per household expenditure on total food has a positive relationship with farm size

with a correlation coefficent of 0.563 significant at I per cent level. But the per capita

194

expenditure showed a weak but negative relationship with farm size. The correlation

coefficient was determined to be -0.145 at 22 per cent significance level. No

significant trend is observed in the average per capita expenditure on total food for

different categories of households(scc,Table 6.14). In the lam.lless category, imajor

proportion of the expenditure on total food is on cereals purchased from the open

market followed by purchase of non-cereals. In the marginal farmer category, the

expenditure on cereals is constituted partly by foodgrains from home grown source and

partly by open market purchases. This is in additio-n to the expenditure on non-cereals.

In the case of small and large farmer category, the major expenditure is incurred on

non-cereals followed by foodgrains from home grown source. The share of expenditure

on meat and non-cereals shows an increase from Rs.60 and Rs.296 rrespectively for

landless category to Rs.l71 and Rs.427 for large farmer category explains that as

income increases, the expenditure on non-cereals· as a whole increases. It is interesting

to note that the expenditure on other essential food items does not show much

variations across categories. This is despite the fact that price paid for these items by

all households is same.

Table 6.14 gives the range of expenditure incurred in each category for different food

items. It is observed that the variation is higher among the landless and marginal

farmer category compared to the other two categories. The variation is higher for

195

cereals in these two groups.

Table 6.14 Class wise Source wise Per Capita Expenditure on Food - Irrigated area (Rs. per annum)

class LL MF SF LF

Home grown 0.00 39.13 48.33 57.28

PDS(Total) 5.21 2.20 1.83 0.78

Open Market 43.66 16.08 0.64 0.00

Non Cereals 28.08 27.49 18.74 15.69

Milk 17.41 31.86 23.34 20.15

Meat 5.64 8.36 7.12 6.11

Total 100.00 100.00 -100.00 100.00

ALL

30.66

2.37

15.73

. 21.97

22.81

6.47

100.00

In the light of discussion made so far, it may oe said that access to decreases food

insecurity. But the degree of insecurity varies with the agro-cliamtic conditions. In the

rainfed region, a l~w correlation is observed between land size and food consumption.

Where as in the irrigated region the correlation is comparatively more significant.

Food security was observed to be maintained through both, physical as well as

economic access. For instance, in the irrigated region, marginal farmers were observed

to produce only non-food crops such as sugar cane or mulberry and thus obtain

income to purchase cereals.

Nutritional Status of Households :

An attempt is made to analyse the foodgrain consumption of households from

196

nutritional point of view. Cereals account for nearly 70 to 80 per cent of total energy

intake and more than 50 per cent of protein intake in normal diets(Park, 1995). The

minimum calorie requirement levels are subject to controversy because the minimum

nutrition requirement is a function of age, sex, structure, climate and degree of

physical activity(S.K.Ray, 1971 ). There is a wide gap between the rural and urban

physical activity. It is more labour intensive in the rural area~. There exists concealed > •

hunger among the rural households. In a study by VKRV Rao( 1980), it is shown that

th~re is sufficient cereals available in the rural areas but very inuch lacking in other

substitutes such as milk, egg, fish, vegetables, etc,. The commodities move away from

the rural into the urban areas due to the availability of purchasing power.

The energy equivalents of cereals are 3480 kcal/kg for rice and wheat, 3490 kcal/kg

for jowar and 3280 kcal/kg for ragi. Class wise average per capita calorie intake per

day shows an increase from 2129 kcal/day for landless households to 3302 kcal/day

for large farmer households in the rainfed area. Similarly, the average calorie intake

in the irrigated area shows an increase from 2570 kcal/day for the landless households

to 4623 kcaVday for the large farmer households. Taking 2150 kcal/person as the

minimum calorie requirement per day, the households are grouped into two

197

categories4• One group with less than 2150 kcallday and the other with more than 2150

kcal/day of calorie intake (See, Tables 6.15 and 6.16). The analysis shows that

substantial percentage of households in each of ~he categories in the rainfed area are

below the mentioned norm. The percentag~ share varies" from 67 per cent for the

landless category to 27 per cent for the large farmer category with an average of 43

per cent for the entire sample. In the irrigated area, the percentage of households

below the specified norm varies from 36 per cent for the landless category 12 per cent

for the marginal farmer category to zero for the large farmer category with an average

of 23.5 per cent for all the households. However, 90 per cent of the total households

with less 2150 kcal/day of calorie intake belo~g to landless and marginal farmer

category.

Table 6.15 Class Wise Per Capita Calorie Intake (Kcal/Day)

Class Rainfed Area Irrigated Area

LL -2129 2570

MF 2732 3791

SF 3162 4411

LF 3302 4623

ALL 3012. 3558

Taking 2400kcal/day-per capita as the norm, gives a picture similar to one shown in

4This norm is an average of m1n1mum requirements of adult males and females, prescribed by the ICMR Expert Group (Park, 1995,p368), also see, Saroj Gupta(1987, pp 71).

198

Table 6.14 (see, Table 6.15)s. It is observed that, in the irrigated area, the number of

people with less than 2400 kcal/day are concentrated in the first two categories and

to a little extent in the third category also. In the rainfed area, there is a decline in the

Table 6.16 Percentage Distribution of Households by Per Capita Calorie Intake by ICMR Norm

Class < 2150 > 2150 Total Kcal/day Kcal/day

Rainfed Area

LL 67.00 33.00 100.00

MF 48.15 51.85 100.00

SF 43.59 56.41 100.00

LF 26.67 73.33 100.00

ALL 42.86 57.14 100.00

Irrigated Area

LL 35.87 64.13 100.00

MF 22.22 77.78 100.00

SF 12.50 87.50 100.00

LF 0.00 100.00 100.00

ALL 23.49 76.51 100.00

proportion of households with less than 2400kcal/day, from 66.67 per cent in the

landless category to 40 per cent for the large farmers, with an overall average of 51.19

52400kcal/day-per capita is a norm set by the Nutrition Expert Group of the Planning Commission for rural population.

199

per cent. In the irrigated area, the variation in the proportion of households with less

than 2400kcal/day of calorie intake, is higher as compared to the rainfed area. In the

irrigated area, the proportion of households with less than 2400kcal/day is observed

to reduce from 56.52 per cent for the landless category to 28.47 per cent for the

marginal farmers. This prportion declines sharply to 4.54 per cent for the large

farmers.

Table 6.17 Percentage Distribution of Households by Per Capita Calorie Intake by Planning Commission Norm

Class < 2400 > 2400 Total

Kcal/day Kcal/day

LL 66.67 33.33 100.00

MF 57.69 42.31 100.00

SF 47.50 52.50 100.00

·LF 40.00 60.00 100.00

ALL ~1.19 48.81 100.00

Irrigated

Area

LL 56.52 43.48 100.00

MF 28.47 71.53 100.00

SF 12.50 87.50 100.00

LF 4.55 95.45 100.00

ALL 33.22 66.78 100.00

To summarise, one of the objectives of this chapter was to examine the role of access

·200

to land in providing food security to the households. This is in view of the unequal

distribution of land, where majority of the farming households belong to marginal and

small category. The other objective was to study the various sources through which

food is obtained by the households and its impact on food security. The ieveis of

consumption of households were examined and relating to food security.

The main findings of the chapter are as follows. In the rainfed area, high yield variety

and 'local variety of crops are cultivated by all ·the categories of farmers. The

proportion of large farmers cultivating local variety crops are higher as compared to

marginal and small farmers. The cropping intensity is observed to be higher for the

marginal farmer as compared to the small and large farmers. This implies that the

marginal farmers try to maiximise the output in order to reduce food insecurity. Ragi

being the staple food in rainfed area, it is cultivated by all the farming households.

Where as, jowar which is vulnerable to weather conditions, is produced by lesser

proportion of households.

As compared to the rainfed area, the inter-class and intra-class variation in cropping

intensity is minimal in the irrigated area. Large proportion of area is under cash crop

in the irrigated area. The proportion of marginal farmers cultivating the staple food

are lower in irrigated area as compared to corresponding class in rainfed area. With

201

regard to consumption of foodgrains, ragi is the staple food in the rainfed area as

compared to rice in the irrigated area. The sources through which cereals ae obtained

are more for the landless and marginal farmers in the irrigated area as compared to the

' households of corresponding classes in the rain fed area. The additional source of food

supply is the wages in kind. This reduces the food insecurity for the landless and

marginal farmers in the irrigat~d area to a certain extent.

The levels of per capita consumption of ·cereals show an increasing trend between

landless and larger farmer households, in both rainfed and irrigated areas. However,

the per capita levels of consumption is lower in rainfed area compared to the .

corresponding class in the irrigated area. This is true in terms of calorie intake also.

The proportion of total households below the required norms is observed to be higher

in the rainfed area as compared to the irrigated area.

202