Annals of Arid Zone-21 (4),289-297, ]982

Economics of mixed cropping in the arid zone farmingsystems of Rajasthan

D. V. SINGH

Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpur - 342003

ABSTRACT

Mixed croppIng is a common practice in the arid zone of Rajasthan onaccount of the "spreading risk" effect and fulfillment of the multiple requirementsof the farmers. A study of 100 households from three clusters of two villages eachin Jodhpur district reveals mixed cropping as relatively more popular systemamongst small farmers and covers upto three-fifths of the gross cropped area. Theincome from mixed crops as compared with the sole crops is generally higher and,under unfavourable conditions more stable than in normal conditions.

INTRODUCTION

Mixed cropping is an integral part ofthe traditional agriculture in the rainfedareas of India. The preference of mixedcropping gains ground with the cropdiversification strategy 111 reducingweather induced instability and the risk infarming. Mixed cropping helps meet thefarmers' multiple requirements of food,fodder, cattle feed and cash simultane-ously. Mixed cropping covered upto 83per cent of the total cropped area indifferent parts ofthe country (Aiyer, 1949;Jodha, ]979; Mathur, 1963). It was foundnegatively associated with size of thefarm (Jodha, 1979). Mixed croppinghelped to distribute the labour for farmoperation throughout the year and gavehigher and more dependable per unit areagross returns than did sole crops (Anony-mous, 198]; Mathur, 1963). However,very little evidence is available to supportthese relationships for arid parts of

Rajasthan. Thus, an attempt has beenmade ill this paper to examine the impor-tance of mixed cropping in Jodhpurdistrict in respect of : (i) coverage in grosscropped area; (ii) relationship with thesize of farm; (iii) income; and (iv) incomevariability.

METHODOLOGY

Data were collected under Farm struc-ture study in Jodhpur district for threecrop years, i.e., 1977-78 to ]979-80 forthree clusters of two villages each. Onehundred households were selected bystratified random sampling based on theprobability proportional to size of opera-tional holdings. Samples thus selectedincluded 43 farmers from less than 4 ha,26 from 4-8 ha and 31 farmers from morethan 8 ha size-group. The detailed infor-mation was gathered by cost-accountingmethod. The analytical framework con-sisted of tabular analysis.

292 : D. V. SINGH

Table 2. Share of individual crop areas in mixed cropping and proportion of total mixed croppedarea under each crop during 1977-80

Crop Share of individual Proportion of total mixedcrop areas in mixed cropping cropped area under each crop

(%) * (%)

Bajra 50.1 51.0

Mung 41.1 5.7

Molh 64.6 8.7

Guar 40.4 13.0

Til 92.6 12.9Jowar (fodder) 1.7 Negative

Wheat (irrigated) 5.3 0.3

Wheat (dry) 28.2 3.7Raya 46.1 2.1

Gram 93.7 2.6

*For calculating the proportion, the area of the concerned crop grown as sole as well as its actualshare in the mixture was considered. The actual share of the crop in the mixture is based on theseed rates follow.:-d by the farmers.

Table 3. Percentage of important crop mixtures in tLe total mixed cropped area during 1977-80

Crop mixtures Clusters

Basni-Boranada Karwar-Jipasni Lordi-Jajiwal All c!L!sters

Bajra + molh 12.6 38.1 3.7 17.8

Bajra + mung + til 1.5 1.7 29.4 135

Bajra + molh + til 14.1 6.9 14.4 11.7

Bajra + til 19.6 3.3 8.1 8.9Moth + guar 5.7 146 2.0 8.2Guar + til 18.0 2.1 0.5 4.9

Bajra + mung + moth + til 1.6 8.6 4.2

Bajra + mung + molh 5.1 3.9 3.5

Mung + til 10.6 1.8 3.1

Bajra + moth + guar 4.0 6.0 3.0Bajra + mung 4.0 0.4 3.7 2.7Wheat + raya (mustard) 7.1 3.9 4.2Gram + raya (mustard) 6.7 2.9Others 9.9 13.1 13.3 11.4Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

ECONOMICS OF MIXED CROPPING IN RAJASTHAN : 293

the Basni-Boranada, bajra+moth in theKarwar-Japasni cluster and bajra+mung+til in the Lordi-Jajiwal cluster were themost important mixtures. Mixtures ofrabi crops were taken when these cropswere sown on conserved soil moisture.

Bajra was the principal crop in mostof Ihe combinations. Pulse, guar, tit werethe companion crops in all the mixturesin kharif Most of the combinationsconsisted of two crops, however, thecombination of four mixtures were notuncommon. The prevalent mixtures arethe result of farmers' tireless efforts andinformal experimentation with cropswhich satisfy multiple requirements ofthe farmers and also fit in the existing

agricultural environments of the region.The presence of the important mixturesin the individual clusters are testimonyof it. For example bajra meets the foodand fodder requirements; pulses and oilseeds provide ready cash and also servethe replenishment of soil fertility. Guarserves the need of cattle feed as well ashelps in increasing soil fertility. Recently,due to its industrial use guar is going tooccupy a place of cash crop to thefarmers.

Mixed cropping and size offarm

Mixed cropping has been found morepopular cropping system among smallfarmers. Data in Table 4 reveals that

Table 4. Extent of mixed cropping according to size groups during 1977-80

CIl ster Size groups Proportion of gross cropped area in mixed cropping (%)

(ha) 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 Average

Basni-Boranada <4 41.3 50.0 51.3 47.3

4-8 27.9 37.1 46.9 37.9

>8 20.4 '18.5 39.8 26.5

Karwar-Jipasni <4 28.0 62.0 36.6 46.6

4-8 42.5 43.7 41.4 42.5

>8 34.7 55.0 35.6 41.4

Lordi-Jajiwal <4 69.3 66.2 62.8 65.8

4-8 82.0 49.1 47.5 57.5

>8 50.7 59.2 64.0 58.2

Cluster average <4 47.6 59.7 49.6 52.8

4-8 51.3 43.3 45.6 46,3

>8 36.1 46.5 45.8 42.9

294 : D. v. SIl"GH

the extent of mixed cropping had inverserelationship with the size of farm. Overthe period of three years average it wastrue in all the clusters. In different yearsseparately the inverse relationship didnot strictly hold in a few cases, however,on the whole the extent of mixed crop-ping had a tendency to decline with thesize of farm.

Apart from the factors (irrigation,HYV's) explained earlier, the small far-mers raised mixed cropping due to thefollowing reasons. Both because of poorcapacity to take ri,k and paucity of landto sow di fferent sole crops in differentplots, the small farmers often resort tomixed cropping to a larger extent thanthe large farmers. Another reason forhigher proportion of mixed cropping onsmall farms is the fact that the smallfarmer has to satisfy all his subsistenceoriented as well as his profit-orientedrequirements from the same small pieceofland. For example, about 94 per centof the bajra production was used fordomestic purposes to meet the subsistencerequirements of the family. Whereas 18,38. 37 and 34 per cent of mung, moth, titand guar production was used for familyconsumption and the rest was sold tomeet the cash requirements of the farmfamily. Mixed cropping according to thesmall farmers is relatively convenientmeans to serve his purpose well. Sincemixed crops are not given costly inputsthis suits from the point of view of thesmall farmers (Anonymous, 1981). Thus,any break-through in mixed croppingtechnology will benefit less endowed

farmers more than the relatively betterendowed farmers (Jodha, 1979).

Income of mixed croppingMixed cropping in kharif as well as in

rabi were found more profitable than solecrops (Table 5). In khar((, mixed croppinggave higher gross income in all the clustersexcept in the Karwar-Jipasni clusterwhere gross income from sole crops wasmarginally higher than mixed crops in]979-80. Although mixed cropping gavehigher gross income over sole crops, thedifference in income between mixed andsole crops was relatively mere (68 percent) in ] 978-79, the year of unfavourableweather, than in ]979-80 (I] per cent),the year of favourable weather. Thesedifferences were statistically significantwith regard to the year 1978-79 in allclusters and size groups. However, thiswas not the case for ]979-80. It indicatesthe importance of mixed cropping as acrop diversification strategy against riskin adverse weather conditions. Further,it was assumed that very low or negativecorrelation between gross income of soleand mixed crops would make a case fordiversification. 1he low and neg<itivecorrelation coefficients (- 0.043 to 0.492)lead to confirm the above hypothesis.However, the extent of crop failure insole (I] .7%) and mixed (13.6%) cropsdo not support the above statement.Since the higher susceptibility of the solecrops to the crop fadure as against mixedcrops is also attributable to soil types,soil moisture content and amount of rain-fall over the area under crops and cropperiod.

ECONOMICS OF MIXED CROPPING IN RAJASTHAN : 295

Table 5. Cost, gross and farm business income (Rs/ha) in relation to different cropping systems

l

Cluster/size group

1978-79 kharfj

Gross incomeMixed Sole

Paid out costMixed Sule

Farm business incomeMixed Sole

Basni-Boranada

Karwar-Jipasni

Lordi-Jajiwal

< 4 ha

4-8 ha

> 8 ha

All clusters

1979-80 kharif

Basni-Boranada

Karwar-Jipasni

Lordi-Jajiwal

<4 ha

4-8 ha

> 8 ha

AI! clusters

Rabi

360.8

259.1

597.3

292.9

459.0

428.2

406.9

563.0

303.1

405.4

270.0

556.1

428.4

431.4

197.7

181.2

374.2

196.8

309.7

217.3

241.7

533.2

315.5

300.0

242.4

477.3

391.0

388.8

149.5

97.5

157.5

86.0

112.8

134.7

119.3

145.0

85.5

135.3

95.1

124.5

132.8

123.5

194.0

73.4

143.4

106.4

155.6

153.7

148.2

142.0

89.4

155.5

98.7

145.8

124.4

125.6

211.3

161.6

439.8

206.9

346.2

293.5

287.6

418.0

217.6

270.1

175.0

431.6

295.6

307.9

3.7

107.8

230.8

90.4

154.1

63.6

93.5

. 391.2

226.1

144.5

143.7

331.5

266.6

263.2

Lordi-Jajiwal

< 4 ha

4-8 ha

> 8 ha

1606.0 975.1

17028 1267.0

2596.2 876.0

1215.9 977.9

367.0

369.8

435.7

340.5

365.0

312.1

328.7

421.5

1239.0

1333.0

2160.5

875.4

609.2

954.9

547.3

556.4

Notes: 1. In khar(f'season plotwise data for mixed crops were not available for comparison withsole crops during 1977-78.

2. In rabi season data for mixed crops for comparison with sole crops were available inLordi-Jajiwal cluster during 1979-80 only. The rabi crops were raised on conservedsoil moisture in the cluster.

3. To arrive at the value of gross income, the average prices of three post-harvestmonths, compiled from Krishi Upaj Mandi, Jodhpur, were computed.

296 : D. V. SINGH

Analysing the data size groupwise,income from mixed cropping exceededthe income from sole crops in all the sizegroups. The maximum gross income wasfrom the medium size groups (4-8ha), followed by the large size (more than8 ha) and small size (less than 4 ha).The reason for this state of affair was thebetter resource availability and theirutilization by the medium farmers andabsence of resources with the smaIlfarmers. The resources available in theform of farm implements, etc., amountedto the extent of Rs. 184 and Rs. 868 perhectare in respect of small and mediumfarms.

In rabi season also the economic per-formance of mixed cropping was foundto be supeJior to sole crops. Mixed crop-ping earned 65 and 103 per cent highergross and farm business income than thesole crops in rabi.

The reasons for higher income frommixed crops over sole crops is the com-plementary and supplementary character-istics of the crops sown. Mathur (1963)states that cotton, jowar and groundnutgave higher yield when sown in combina-tion than when sown singly. So, an acresown mixed not only gives a higher outputof the main crop but produces some othercrop/crops as well. Another reason ofyield advantage through mixed crvppingis the better use of growth resources/ellvironments (Anonymous, 1981). Forinstance moth in mixed cropping helps inconserving soil moisture by its spreadingnature. This in turn helps increase theyield. Moth and guar in the kharif andraya and gram in the rabi season arerelatively more drought resistant crops.As companion crops they survIve tnadverse conditions and thus ensure someyield.

Table 6. Gross income variability in relation to different cropping systems in kllarifseason.

Cluster/size group

Ba~ni-Boranada

Karwar-Jipasni

Lordi-Jajiwal

<4ha

4-8 ha>- 8 ha

All clusters

(Co-efficient of variation, %)

1978-79 1979-80

Mixed Sole Mixed Sole

63.5 61.1 70.6 46.0

45.7 47.0 46.1 51.2

24.2 52.4 82.6 68.6

75.5 79.7 92.9 73.4

53.1 65.5 84.7 60.3

59.7 61.9 56.8 51.6

57.4 62.8 62.4 56.7

ECONOMICS OF MIXED CROPPING IN RAJASTHAN: 297

Income variability

Variability in yields is the main chara-cteristic of dry land farming. Gross incomehas been taken into account to measureand compare the variabiliy of mixed cropswith sole crops. The variability of grossincome is the outcome of variability inyields and prices prevalent during theyears. Since such decomposition is adifficult task in respect of mixed cropswhen there are as many as 26 combina-tions of mixtures, one has to rely on grossincome alone. Variability of gross incomefor the present analysis has been measuredby the co-efficient of variation. In spiteof profitability and suitability of mixedcrops over sole crops the variability ofgross income in mixed crops was in noway less marked than the variability insolecrops. Co-efficient of variation given inTable 6 indicates that mixed crops wereequally prone to income fluctuations assole crops. It may be pointed out thatincome variations in respect of mixedcrops were comparatively less than solecrops in 1978-79, the year of moisturestress, than in 1979-80, the normal year.This further shows that mixed crops ascompared to sole crops are more stable

in income in abnormal years than innormal years. However, coefficient ofvariations between mixed and sole cropswere not found significantly different fromeach other either clusterwise or size groupwise in any of the years.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am thankful to the Director and theChief Scientist, Central Arid ZoneResearch Institute, Jodhpur, for providingfacilities. Thanks are also due to ShriD. L. Vyas, CAZRI, Jodhpur, for valuablesuggestions and comments.

REFERENCES

Aiyer, A. K. Y. N. 1949. Mixed croppingin India. J. agri. Sci. Camb. 19 : 4-15.

Anonymous 1981. A Decade of DrylandAgriculture Research at CAZRI,Jodhpur (1971-1980).

Jodha, N. S. 1979. Intercropping in tradi·tional farming systems. Proceedingsof International Workshop on Inter-cropping, lCRISA T, Hyderabad.pp. 282-291.

Mathur, P. N. 1963. Cropping Patternand Employment in Viderbha. IndianJ. agric. Econ. 18 : 38-43.