International Journal of Agricultural

Science and Research (IJASR)

ISSN(P): 2250-0057; ISSN(E): 2321-0087
Vol. 5, Issue 4, Aug 2015, 21-28
TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.

SOCIO ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF CHICKPEA GROWERS IN BIHAR, INDIA

MEERA KUMARI1, LOKESH KUMAR MEENA2 & SHOJI LAL BAIRWA3
Department of Agricultural Economics, Bihar Agricultural University, Bhagalpur, Bihar, India

ABSTRACT
Paper is focused to assessment the socio-economic of chickpea growers in Bihar. Results of the study shows that
about 40 percent of sample farmers were of large categories followed by small and marginal farmers in adopted villages.
We can say that with increase in size of holding proportion of cultivated land with respect to total owned land decreases.
On an average, the proportion of male and female in sample households were found to be nearly 52.5 percent and 47.5
percent respectively. The majority of female workers were found engaged in household works but a substantial proportion
was also engaged in agriculture. Each and every household of both the district had approximately 100% of mobile
ownership followed by ownership of two wheeler and television set. Fellow farmer among all sources was given top
priority whereas for disease management fellow farmers followed by extension staff and input dealers were the major
sources of information in control villages of Bhagalpur. For Banka, almost similar pattern was followed as fellow farmers
ranked 1st followed by research station and extension staff for New seed except control village for pest management.
This finding clearly indicates that proportion of farmers approaching research station to meet their seed requirement was
quite low for chickpea production which also indicates the poor extension service in this respect

KEYWORDS: Chickpea, Occupation, Information, Cropping Pattern and Land Utilization

INTRODUCTION
Agriculture is the backbone of our country and has a prime role in Indian economy. This sector provides
livelihood to about 65 per cent to 70 per cent of the labour force. (Meena. et. al., 2014). Agriculture not only provides food
for growing population but also contributes around 14.60 percent ages of countrys GDP with tremendous domestic and
export potential (Meena., et. al., 2014., Dubey et al., 2008).
The economic condition of Bihar is totally dependent on cultivation and its most of the population is not only
engaged in farming but also completely linked to the agriculture and its associated activities (Vijoy, 2014). The state is the
poorest by all the means of socio-economic indicators. A large group of landless labour from rural areas of the state
migrates to other states like Punjab, Delhi, Mumbai and even in some parts of U. P in the sowing and harvesting seasons
for their livelihood.(GoB, 2009 & Salam, et al., 2013). In Bihar Agriculture sector has experienced a considerable growth
during the past three decades. The progress has been spectacular in 1980s when state recorded agriculture growth of 2.50
percentages which outpaced the population growth (2.35%) during the period which could not be sustained during nineties
(GoB, 2008). There is a good scope for pulses industry also. In case of Pulses, productivity in the state is greater than
All-India. In the year 2006-07, in case of Bihar it is 735 kg/ha while in case of India it is 616 kg/ha. Gram, Tur and Lentil
are the major pulses grown in the State (GoI, 2008 & Salam, et al., 2013). In the process of technological development in
Bihar, pulse crops got major setback and its area declined from 1626 thousand hectare in 1970-71 to 524.34 thousand
hectare

in

www.tjprc.org

the

year

2011-12.

It

produces

519.87

thousand

metric

tonnes

of

pulse

[email protected]

22

Meera Kumari, Lokesh Kumar Meena & Shoji Lal Bairwa

(Directorate of Economics and Statistics, 2013, & GoB, 2009).This is only 4% of pulse production of the country.
The percentage area under pulses to gross cropped area has also declined with an increase in gross irrigated area
(Chopra, 1982). Among pulse crop grown in Bihar Lentil is the only pulse crop whose cropped area increased by 20,000
hectares. Its production is still greater to all India average (991kg/ha). Area under pulses experienced not only declining
trend but had been most instable during the last two and half decades. It has been observed that variability in area of total
pulse is comparatively lower (about 1.19%) than production (2.32%) and productivity (177.60%). However, in case of
individual pulse crops, pea has highest variability in area and production where as productivity of lentil shows highest
variability (Anonymous (2012).
It confirmed that rainfall during late kharif season has positive and significant impact on increase in pulse area
and similar to price of pulse. Particular reference to chickpea in Bihar, the area of chickpea has declined from 2.45 lakh in
1975-76 to 0.56 lakh hectare in 2010-11although productivity has increased from 550 kg/ha to 1000 kg/ha during the same
period, even after 2003, the chickpea area has been in declining trend due to growing popularity (and public policy
emphasis) on Rice-Wheat system. It has been noticed that as irrigation facilities developed, chickpea gradually gets
marginalized in Bihar and other parts of Indo-Genetic Plains. In addition to this, there is a huge variability in area and
production of chickpeas during 2000-2012 has been observed, however the productivity during the same period is more
stable) which indicates that there is a scope to increase production potential of chickpea in the state if adequate policy
measures are taken. This phenomenon has threatened the nutritional security of vegetarian population in general and poor
population, in particular.

METHODOLOGY
The target districts and communities for conducting baseline survey on chickpea cultivation in Bihar under TL2
project was mainly based on the technology intervention (PVST of chickpea on farmer field) under the collaborative
efforts of ICRISAT and Bihar Agricultural University, BAU, Sabour during the year 2010-11. In this regard two districts
of Bihar were selected purposively. In each district a cluster of 3 villages from two different blocks were selected as
adopted village and 3 villages from surrounding areas with comparable agro ecological and market condition were chosen
to serve as control villages. Selection of control village would enable the team to do a comparable counter factual analysis
in impact evaluation. In total, a cluster of 3 villages from adopted and 3 villages from control i.e. 6 villages in each district
were identified for conducting base line survey.
Two districts Banka and Bhagalpur were selected. The top three village in Bhagalpur districts
(close to Bihar Agricultural University, Sabour or research station) i.e. Khankitta, Rajpur and Pipra were selected as
adopted and the control villages in the district were Kurpat, Lailakh, and Jicho. The adopted villages in the Banka district
were Kotwal, Kotwali, and Simaria, and the villages those served as control were Gurudwara, Padampur and Babura.
Stratified Random Sampling technique based on probability proportion to size method to farm size was used to conduct the
interview. From each of the adopted villages a sample of 30 farmers were interviewed and from each control villages a
sample of 15 farmers were interviewed. Thus, a total of 135 from each district totaling to 270 farmers were interviewed.
In this way a total of 180 beneficiaries from the 6 adopted villages to whom the technology was provided and 90
non-beneficiaries from the control village to whom the technology was not provided were surveyed purposively.
Thus, with the total sample size of 270 samples was surveyed in Bihar.

Impact Factor (JCC): 4.7987

NAAS Rating: 3.53

23

Socio Economic Assessment of Chickpea Growers in Bihar, India

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Characteristics of Chickpea Growing Farmers
Land owned by sample households has been classified on the basis of their uses and categorized as cultivable land
(irrigated, dry) fallow land, leased in land and leased out land as below. It may further be categorized as marginal, small
and large farm according to size of holding.
Table 1: Size of Holding of Selected Respondents
Bhagalpur
Adopted
Control
15(16.66)
30(66.66)
29(32.22)
7(15.55)
46(51. 11)
8(17.77)
90(100)
45(100)

Category
Marginal
Small
Large
Total

Banka
Adopted
35(38.88)
30(33.33)
25(27.77)
90(100)

Control
4(8.88)
10(22.22)
31(68.88)
45(100)

Pooled Sample
Adopted
Control
50(27.77)
34(37.77)
59(32.77)
17(18.88)
71(39.44)
39(43.33)
180(100)
90(100)

Distribution of sample farmers indicated that about 40 percent of sample farmers were of large categories
followed by small (32.77%) and (27.77 %) marginal farmers in adopted villages. However in control villages 43 percent
were having large size of holdings followed by marginal farmers (37.77) and only 18.88 percent were having small size of
holdings respectively
Table 2: Average Land Holding Size across Farm Categories (ha)
Particulars

BHAGALPUR

Own land

Leased-in land

Leased-out land

Operated land
Particulars

BANKA

Own land

Leased-in land

Leased-out land

Operated land

Irrig/Dry
Irrig
Dry
Total
Irrig
Dry
Total
Irrig
Dry
Total
Irrig
Dry
Total
Irrig/dry
Irrig
Dry
Total
Irrig
Dry
Total
Irrig
Dry
Total
Irrig
Dry
Total

Marginal
0.688
0
0.688
0.0488
0
0.0488
0
0
0
0.7377
0
0.7377
Marginal
0.58
0.01
0.59
0.11
0.06
0.17
0
0
0
0.69
0.07
0.76

Small
1.358
0.25
1.606
0.0333
0
0.0333
0
0
0
1.391
0.25
1.639
Small
1.45
0.07
1.52
0.045
0.015
0.06
0
0
0
1.49
0.08
1.57

Large
4.02
2.6
6.62
0.0148
0.0072
0.0292
0.088
0
0.088
3.948
2.604
5.552
Large
4.35
0.49
4.84
0.05
0
0.05
0
0
0
4.4
0.49
4.89

Pooled
2.19
0.76
3.30
0.03
0.001
0.036
0.035
0
0.035
2.22
0.76
2.98
Pooled
1.64
0.13
1.77
0.07
0.03
0.11
0
0
0
1.71
0.16
1.88

Pooled analysis indicated that average operational land holdings across different categories for Banka was about
1.88 ha/household out of that 1.71 ha was irrigated and remain were dry land. Where as in Bhagalpur it was estimated
about 2.98 ha/ households in which 2.22 ha was irrigated. On the basis of results, we can say that with increase in size of
holding proportion of cultivated land with respect to total owned land decreases. Apart from these, on an average
www.tjprc.org

[email protected]

24

Meera Kumari, Lokesh Kumar Meena & Shoji Lal Bairwa

i.e.11ha/household area was leased in land and no area was leased out to the other farmers in Banka, where as in Bhagalpur
it was estimated approximately about 0.036 hectare leased- in from other land owner and out to the others under study.

SOCIOECONOMIC AND INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES

Table 3: Socio-Economic Profiles of Sample Farmers in Bihar, 2011-12
Bhagalpur
A
C
100
100
7.4
7.9
2.82
2.9
0.78
1.7
1.05
0.71
51
53
10.45
8.5

Banka
A
C
100
100
6.8
7.06
2.7
3.3
1.6
1.5
0.58
0.47
51
45
9.31
8.48

Male headed households (%)

Household size (No)
Male Workers(no)
Female Workers (no)
Dependency Ratio*
Age of Household head (Years)
Education Level of household head (No.
of years)
Participation in local bodies (%)
0
0
0
Proportion belonging to forward castes
62.22
0
0
(%)
Proportion belonging to religious
33.33
0
0
minorities (%)
Proportion with agriculture as the main
51.11
42.22
54.44
occupation (%)
Proportion with business/service as
44.44
48.88
45.55
secondary occupation (%)
Ownership of two wheelers/bicycles (%)
96.66
75.5
96
Ownership of television sets (%)
100
66
83
Ownership of mobile (%)
100
95.5
100
* Dependency ratio= (Size of family-Number of workers)/Number of workers

Pooled
A
C
100
100
7.1
7.48
2.76
3.1
1.19
1.6
0.81
0.59
51
49
9.88
8.49

0
4.44

0
31.11

0
2.22

13.33

16.66

6.66

66.66

52.77

54.44

33.33

44.95

41.10

100
100
100

96.33
91.5
100

87.75
83
97.75

Socio economic profile of sample farmer indicated that100 percent households of sample villages headed by male.
On an average, the proportion of male and female in sample households were found to be nearly 52.5 percent and 47.5
percent respectively. Further, it was observed from the table that out of total population nearly 53 percent of population
had agriculture as main occupation in adopted villages, however for control villages it was 54.44 percent followed by
business and services respectively. On the basis of Dependency ratio thus it may be said that although, the majority of
female workers were found engaged in household works but a substantial proportion was also engaged in agriculture,
however their involvement in non-agriculture occupation was very limited as compared to their counterparts.
Educations is considered as one of the most important indicators for development and have a look on data that
levels of education for selected household head were lagged much behind as indicated by having only middle level i.e. 9.88
and 8.49 respectively for both of the district. One remarkable point has been observed during the survey that each and
every household of both the district had approximately 100% of mobile ownership followed by ownership of two wheeler
and television set.

AGRO-ECONOMIC FEATURES
Source of Information for Adoption of Pulse Technology
We tried here to analyze the source of information for adoption of new seed, fertilizer management, pest
management and disease management in pulse crop, because it involves different kinds of operation which is required to
be performed for getting optimum yield. However, the operations are not carried out uniformly by the farmers because

Impact Factor (JCC): 4.7987

NAAS Rating: 3.53

25

Socio Economic Assessment of Chickpea Growers in Bihar, India

different farmers have different level of technical knowledge and resources in possession and also have different needs.
Therefore adopting these practices may invariably be different from farmer to farmer. To analyze the sources of
information for different purpose, the proportion of sample farmers who adopted a particular operation by getting
knowledge from above mentioned operations was worked out and presented below
Table 4: Sources of Information to Sample Farmers in, 2011-12 Bhagalpur (Wt. Scale)
Sources of
Information
Input-dealers
Research station
Extension staff
T.V/Radio
Magazines/News
paper
Fellow farmers
Friends/relatives

New
Seed/Cultivar
A
C
3
2
2
5
6
7
5
4

3
2
4
6

1
4

1
3

1
5

Fertilizer
Management
A
C
3
2
7
4

Pest Management
A

Disease
Management
A
C
3
1
4
5

4
2
3
5

3
1
4
5

4
2
3
5

1
5

1
6

2
6

1
6

2
6

It could be observed from the table that, despite having nearby research station and K.V.K., fellow farmer among
all sources was given top priority followed by research station input dealers and friends and relatives as 2nd and 3rd for new
seed cultivar by the respondents of Bhagalpur districts However for fertilizer management pest management and disease
management fellow farmer followed by extension staff, and input dealer, ranked accordingly by adopted village and
control villages however research station followed by fellow farmer in control villages for fertilizer management were
ranked accordingly by some of the farmers of control villages, Whereas for disease management fellow farmers followed
by extension staff and input dealers were the major sources of information in control villages of Bhagalpur some of
farmers of control villages were also rely on services provided by the research station for disease management.
Table 5: Sources of Information to Sample Farmers in Banka, 2011-12 (Wt. Scale)
Sources of Information
Input-dealers
Research station
Extension staff
T.V/Radio
Magazines/News paper
Fellow farmers
Friends/relatives

New
Seed/Cultivar
A
C
2
4
4
2
3
3
6
6
7
7
1
1
5
5

Fertilizer
Management
A
C
3
4
4
3
2
2
6
6
1
1
5
5

Pest
Management
A
C
4
4
3
2
2
3
6
6
5
5
1
1
7

Disease
Management
A
C
4
4
3
1
2
3
6
5
5
1
2
7

For Banka, almost similar pattern was followed as fellow farmers ranked 1st followed by research station and
extension staff for New seed except control village for pest management, they were found to give top priority to the
research station. It may be concluded that majority of farmers rely on fellow farmers for getting any information or
package of practices for raising the crop. This finding clearly indicates that proportion of farmers approaching research
station to meet their seed requirement was quite low for chickpea production which also indicates the poor extension
service in this respect.

www.tjprc.org

[email protected]

26

Meera Kumari, Lokesh Kumar Meena & Shoji Lal Bairwa

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Results found that about 40 percent of sample farmers were of large categories followed by small and marginal
farmers in adopted villages. Pooled analysis indicated that average operational land holdings across different categories for
Banka was about 1.88 ha/household out of that 1.71 ha was irrigated and remain were dry land. Where as in Bhagalpur it
was estimated about 2.98 ha/ households in which 2.22 hectare were irrigated. Socio economic profile of sample farmers
indicated that 100 percent households of sample villages headed by male. On an average, the proportion of male and
female in sample households were found to be nearly 52.5 percent and 47.5 percent respectively. The majority of female
workers were found engaged in household works but a substantial proportion was also engaged in agriculture also. Each
and every household of both the district had approximately 100% of mobile ownership followed by ownership of two
wheeler and television set. Fellow farmer among all sources was given top priority whereas for disease management fellow
farmers followed by extension staff and input dealers were the major sources of information in control villages of
Bhagalpur. For Banka, almost similar pattern was followed as fellow farmers ranked 1st followed by research station and
extension staff for New seed except control village for pest management. This finding clearly indicates that proportion of
farmers approaching research station to meet their seed requirement was quite low for chickpea production which also
indicates the poor extension service in this respect. Majority of farmers rely on fellow farmers for getting information or
package of practices for raising the crop and allied activities.

IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The following are some of the policy recommendations which have emerged out of the present study and merit
the attention of the policy makers. First is Replacement of traditionally grown varieties with high yielding varieties.
Second is inclusion of short duration varieties of chickpea as catch crop. Third is improving market information system
and infrastructure. Fourth is Linking MSP to market price can bridge the gap between demand and supply. Fifth and last is
co-ordination of research extension and farmers to encourage farmers participatory research etc.

REFERENCES
1.

AICRPs (2011) Annual Report on Gram, Arhar, Moong, Urad, etc. undertaken by indian institute of pulse
research, Kanpur.

2.

Anonymous (2012). Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperation
Government of India.

3.

Chopra, K. (1982) Pulse production in India- A state wise Analysis, Indian Journal of Agril. Economics 37 (3):
pp 371 380.

4.

Directorate of Economics and Statistics (2011) Government of Bihar. Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperation
Government of India.

5.

Dubey, A. K., Srivastava, J. P. and Sharma, V. K. (2008). Attitude of respondents towards KVK training
programmes. Indian Research Journal Extension Education. 8 (2/3):78-80

6.

F.A.O. Stat., (2009) Government of India 2000 Expert Committee Report on Pulses, Technology Mission on
Oilseeds and Pulses, Department of Agricultural and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi.

Impact Factor (JCC): 4.7987

NAAS Rating: 3.53

27

Socio Economic Assessment of Chickpea Growers in Bihar, India

7.

Government of Bihar (2008), Bihar Economic Survey-2008-09, Ministry of Finance, Patna, March, pp.23.

8.

Government of Bihar (2008), Bihar through Figure, Department of Statistics and Evaluation, Patna

9.

Government of India (2008), Bihars Agricultural Development: Opportunities and Challenges, A Report of the
Special Task Force on Bihar, New Delhi, April, p.16.

10. Meena, L. K., Bairwa, S. L., Lakra, K., and Sirohiya, L. (2014). Analysis of the profile on participating and
non-participating farmers in chickpea production technology. Agricultural Update, 9 (1): 31-36.
11. Ranjan, K. P and Singh, R.K.P. (1998) Cropping Pattern in Backward Agriculture A Case of North Bihar.
Agricultural Situation in India. pp. 69 72.
12. Ranjan, K. P. (1996) Pulse production in North Bihar during Post-green Revolution Period. The Bihar Journal of
Agricultural Marketing. 4 (4): pp 407 416.
13. Salam, M. A., Anwer, M. E. and Alam, M. S. (2013) an analysis Agriculture and the economy of Bihar:
International Journal of Scientific and Research. 3 (11) pp 1-19.
14. Vijoy, P. (2014) agricultural development and out migration in Bihar. International Journal of Research in
Commerce, Economics and Management. 4 (5) pp: 30-33.

www.tjprc.org

[email protected]