Green revolution, white revolution, and a bright future: lessons from Tamil Nadu, India

Green revolution, white Green revolution, white revolution, and a bright future: revolution, and a bright future: lessons from Tamil Nadu, Indialessons from Tamil Nadu, India

Kei Kajisa (IRRI & FASID)Kei Kajisa (IRRI & FASID)

Venkatesa Palanichamy (TNAU)Venkatesa Palanichamy (TNAU)

Background (1)• Positive interactions between crop and livestock

sectors.

• Differential impacts of FYM

(Rasmussen et. al, 1998; Dawe, et. al., 2003; Edmeades, 2003; Hati et al., 2007)

Crop Livestockfodder

Farmyard manure (FYM)

Ordinary soil Poor soil

Lowland rice little Some

Upland cereals Some High

Background (2)• Retail price of chemical fertilizer is very hig

h.• Examples: price (US$) of 50 kg of chemical fertilize

r in 2006– Kenya: 24.6– Mozambique: 27.5– Botswana: 39.5– Ghana: 19.5 – Egypt: 6.7– Int’l mkt: 17.9 (urea in 2007)

• Role of locally produced FYM as substitute for chemical fertilizer

• Upland cereals are the staple crops for many African countries

Research Issue• It is important to consider how to incorporate live

stock sector into ag development strategy for Africa

• Paucity of empirical research that explore the impact of crop sector development and livestock sector development together.

• TN has experienced GR (1970s~) and WR (1980s~).

• Using TN data, we investigate– How has the farming system changed over time?– What are the impacts? (by crop, by soil type)– How have they contributed to the poverty alleviation?

DataCost of Cultivation of Principal Crops (CCPC)

scheme in Tamil Nadu

Period Sampling Sample Size

Questionnaire

1971-80 Annual 40 villages

400 HHs

1981-92 3-year rotating panel

60 villaegs

600 HHs

1993-onward 3-year rotating panel

60 villaegs

600 HHs

Detailed dairy data

Soil type data

Findings from recent CCPC data (1993-2003)

• A direct impact of FYM application exists only for upland cereals but not for paddy.

• An indirect impact through an increase in the marginal product of chemical fertilizer is observed for both paddy and upland cereals, particularly when soil quality is inherently poor.

• The impacts are spatially constrained within a village where dairy sector development has taken place because FYM markets are not integrated beyond the villages due to its non-tradable attribute.

Key Hypotheses• The development of dairy sector increases the

supply of FYM.• Productivity and profitability of crop farming

increase faster (or does not decline faster) over time in the areas with the dairy sector development than in the areas without it.

• The above feature is more clearly observed for upland cereals than for lowland paddy, as well as for poor soil type areas than for rich soil type areas.

• Dairy development contributes to poverty alleviation in poverty prone area (cultivating upland cereal under poor soil condition).

Descriptive stat (1) Period

1971-80 1981-90 1991-03

No. of cattle per HH (head)

Dairy villages 2.5 2.2 1.7

Non-dairy villages 2.4 2.1 1.3

Prop. of improved cows

Dairy villages na na 0.62

Non-dairy villages na na 0.50

Annual milk production per HH (liter)

Dairy villages 554 750 784

Non-dairy villages 84 136 146

Annual dung production per HH (t)

Dairy villages 7.4 6.1 5.3

Non-dairy villages 5.5 6.1 3.7

Descriptive stat (2) Period

1971-80 1981-90 1991-03

Upland cereals yield (t/ha)

Dairy villages 1.12 1.30 1.29

Non-dairy villages 1.03 1.17 1.20

Upland cereals cultivated area per HH

(ha)

Dairy villages 0.26 0.15 0.12

Non-dairy villages 0.17 0.11 0.08

Paddy yield (t/ha)

Dairy villages 3.22 4.07 4.49

Non-dairy villages 2.80 3.57 4.36

Paddy cultivated area per HH (ha)

Dairy villages 0.74 0.67 0.63

Non-dairy villages 0.78 0.61 0.56

Descriptive stat (3)

• Change of per capita HH income from 93-95 to 2001-03.

Good soil Poor soil

Dairy villages

25 34

(35%)

20 30

(50%)

Non-dairy villages

17 20

(18%)

14 19

(43%)

Income: Rs. in 1973 value

Econometric Approach

• yijt=f(Xijt, Djt; aij aj)– yijt: yield (paddy/cc), profit (paddy/cc), HH income

of HH i in village j in year t– Xijt: determinants of HH– Dj: village-level indicator of dairy sector developm

ent– a: fixed effects

• Can we safely assume Dj is exogenous to each individual? IV method?

Thank you very much