• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Copyright
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 List of Figures
 Acknowledgement
 Introduction
 Maize production trends and...
 Maize production constraints
 Priority constraints for resea...
 Agenda for maize research and development...
 Summary and conclusions
 Reference
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 Back Cover






Group Title: Maize in India : production systems, constraints, and research priorities
Title: Maize in India
CITATION PDF VIEWER PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00077493/00001
 Material Information
Title: Maize in India production systems, constraints, and research priorities
Physical Description: vi, 42 p. : ill., maps ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Joshi, P. K
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Publisher: CIMMYT
Place of Publication: Mexico D.F
Publication Date: 2005
 Subjects
Subject: Corn -- India   ( lcsh )
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references (p. 32).
Statement of Responsibility: P.K. Joshi ... et al..
General Note: "IFAD"
Funding: Electronic resources created as part of a prototype UF Institutional Repository and Faculty Papers project by the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00077493
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 60576792
lccn - 2007388580
isbn - 9706481176

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

india ( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front cover
    Title Page
        Page i
    Copyright
        Page ii
    Table of Contents
        Page iii
    List of Tables
        Page iv
    List of Figures
        Page v
    Acknowledgement
        Page vi
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
    Maize production trends and systems
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
    Maize production constraints
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
    Priority constraints for research
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
    Agenda for maize research and development in India
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
    Summary and conclusions
        Page 30
        Page 31
    Reference
        Page 32
    1
        Page 33
    2
        Page 33
    3
        Page 34
    4
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
    5
        Page 38
        Page 39
    6
        Page 40
        Page 41
    7
        Page 42
    Back Cover
        Back cover
Full Text









r,. ;rI5


I


Fi7

* ^ ,us,,
sj.' :S.E.


.... .


f,









Maize in India:


Production Systems, Constraints, and


Research Priorities







P.K. Joshi1
N.P. Singh2
N.N. Singh3
R.V. Gerpacio4
P.L. Pingali5


JJL
IFAD


CIMMYTMR


i National Centre for Agricultural Economics and Policy Research (NCAP), New Delhi, India.
2 Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), New Delhi, India.
3 Directorate of Maize Research (DMR), New Delhi, India.
4 International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Laguna, Philippines.
5 Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO-UN), Rome, Italy.































CIMMYT (www.cimmyt.org) is an inter nationally funded, not-for-profit organization that
conducts research and training related to maize and wheat throughout the developing world.
Drawing on strong science and effective partnerships, CIMMYT works to create, share, and use
knowledge and technology to increase food security, improve the productivity and profitability
of farming systems, and sustain natural resources. Financial support for CIMMYT's work comes
from many sources, including the members of the Consultative Group on International
Agricultural Research (CGIAR) (www.cgiar.org), national governments, foundations,
development banks, and other public and private agencies.

International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) 2005. All rights reserved.
The designations employed in the presentation of materials in this publication do not imply the
expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of CIMMYT or its contributory or ganizations
concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city, or area, or of its authorities, or
concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. CIMMYT encourages fair use of this
material. Proper citation is requested.

Correct citation: Joshi, P.K., N.P. Singh, N.N. Singh, R.V. Gerpacio, and P.L. Pingali. 2005.
Maize in India: Production Systems, Constraints, and Research Priorities. Mexico, D.E: CIMMYT.

Abstract: Maize is a promising substitute crop allowing diversification from the rice-wheat
system in the upland areas of India. The crop has high production potential, provided the
available improved hybrids and composites reach the farming community. This study found
that major biotic production constraints were Echinocloa, Cynodon dactylon, rats, and
termites, which reduced maize production levels by more than 50%. Other important abiotic
and biotic stresses listed in descending order of importance were: caterpillars, water stress,
stem borers, weevils, zinc deficiency, rust, seed/seedling blight, cutworm, and leaf blight.
Non-availability of improved seeds, inadequate input markets, ineffective technology
dissemination, and lack of collective action were the principal socio-economic constraints.

ISBN: 970-648-117-6

AGROVOC descriptors: Maize; Hybrids; Agricultural economics and policies; Socioeconomic
environment; Seed production; Food crops; Diversification; Soil resources; Water resources;
Farming systems; Environmental conditions; Agricultural research; India.

AGRIS category codes: E10 Agricultural Economics and Policies
F01 Crop Husbandry

Dewey decimal classification: 633.1554


Printed in Mexico.












Contents













Page No.
T a b le s .......................................................................................................................... iv
Fig u re s ........................................................................................................................ v
Appendices ...... ... ................................................................... v
A know ledgm ents ...................... ............................................................ ........... ................ ...... vi
1. In tro d u action .... ........................... ............ .................... ................... .... ............... .. 1
1.1 Background .. .... .............................................. ................ ............. 1
1.2 Characterization of Maize Production Environments .................................................. 1
2. Maize Production Trends and Systems ............................... .. .............................. 4
2.1 M aize Production Trends .................................................. .................................... 4
2.2 M aize Production System s ................................................. .................................. 6
2.2.1 Adoption of improved varieties .......................... ........................................ 6
2.2.2 Crop rotation and calendar ............................................. ............................. 7
2.2.3 Land and crop management practices............................ .................................. 8
2.2.4 In put use and lev els ............................................ ............................................. 9
2 .2 .5 Y field lev els ...................... .............. .. .... ... .............. ... ............. 13
2.2.6 Economics of maize production .......................................................... ........... 13
2.2.7 Post harvest practices and product/by-product utilization patterns................... 16
3. Maize Production Constraints ........................................................... ........................... 18
3.1 Biotic and Abiotic Constraints........................ .............................. ............................ 18
3.2 Institutional and Economic Constraints ........................................ .. ................ 19
3.2.1 O utput prices .. ................................. ............ ...... ........ .... 19
3 .2 .2 M markets ................................................................................................... 20
3.2.3 Technological know -how ...................................... ......................................... 20

4. Priority Constraints for Research............................ .... ................................ 21
4 .1 M eth o d olog y ........................................ .......................... ................................... 2 1
4.1.1 Abiotic and biotic constraints .................................... ................................ 21
4.1.2 Low prices .......................................... ......... 21
4.1.3 Lack of m markets ................................................. ........................................ 22
4.1.4 Non-availability of improved cultivars ....................................... ................ 22
4.2 Prioritization of Maize Production Constraints........................................................ 22
4.2.1 Abiotic and biotic constraints .................................... ................................ 22
4.2.2 Socio-econom ic constraints ........................................... ............................ 23
5. Agenda for Maize Research and Development in India ................................................ 24
5.1 Regional Priorities ......................................................... ..................................... 24
5.1.1 Central and w western regions ........................................ ............................ 25
5.1.2 Eastern Uttar Pradesh and Bihar ......................................... .. ................ 25
5.1.3 Southern region ........................ ......................................... ............................ 25
5.1.4 Anticipatory research ........................ ................................. ............................ 27
5.2 N national Research Priorities ........................ ................................ ............................. 27
6. Summary and Conclusions ............................................................... ............................ 30
7. References .............................................. .............. 32












Tables










Page No.


Table 1. Socio-economic and infrastructure development indicators
in maize agro-ecological regions, India, 1999...................... .................................. 2
Table 2. Salient agro-climatic features of selected districts, India, 2001. ................................................. ..... 3
Table 3. Salient socio-economic and technology adoption features in selected districts, India, 2001. ............... 3
Table 4. Annual compound growth rates (%) of area, production, and yield of maize,
coarse cereals, and food grains in India. ................. ...... .......... ..................................... 4
Table 5. Maize production, area, and yield in selected states of India ................................... .................... 4
Table 6. Annual compound growth rates (%) of maize production in selected states of India. ........................ 5
Table 7. Season-wise area under different maize cultivars (as % of total maize area)
in selected states of India, 200 1. ................... ............. .................... .... .. ........... ................. 6
Table 8. Existing cultural practices for maize cultivation in selected states of India, 2001. .............................. 8
Table 9. Cost of maize production (Rs/ha) in selected states of India, 1996/97.............................................. 9
Table 10. Average seed use (kg/ha) of different maize cultivars by season in
selected states of India, 2001 ................................................ .. .................................. 9
Table 11. Input use for maize production in selected states of India, 2001 ................................................ 10
Table 12. Use of family and hired labor (person-days/ha) in maize production by
type of cultivar in selected states of India, 2001. ........................................ .......................... 10
Table 13a. Resource use pattern in maize production (local varieties) in selected
traditional m aize grow ing states of India, 2001 .......................................................... ... 11
Table 13b. Resource use patterns in maize production (composite maize) in selected
traditional m aize grow ing states of India, 2001 .......................................................... ... 11
Table 13c. Resource use pattern in maize production (hybrid varieties) in selected
traditional and non-traditional maize growing states of India, 2001. ................................................. 12
Table 14. Yield (t/ha) of different types of maize cultivars in selected states of India, 2001. ......................... 13
Table 15a. Cost of cultivation (Rs/ha) of various maize cultivars in selected states of India, 2001. .................. 14
Table 15b. Net returns over cost (Rs/ha) of various maize cultivars in selected states of India, 2001 .................. 14
Table 15c. Unit cost of production (Rs/kg) of various cultivars in selected states of India, 2001...................... 15
Table 16. Maize area (%) and possible strategies for improving production efficiency,
by yield and cost of production category, India, 2001 ....................................................... .... 16
Table 17. Maize utilization and marketing (% of total maize production) in selected states of India, 2001. ....... 17
Table 18. Important biotic constraints affecting maize production in selected states of India, 2001 .............. 18
Table 19. Important abiotic constraints affecting maize production in selected states of India, 2001. ............. 19
Table 20. Prices of winter season harvested maize (Rs/kg) in selected states of India, 2001. ........................ 19
Table 21. Prices of rainy season harvested maize (Rs/kg) in selected states of India, 2001............................ 20
Table 22a. Prioritization of major constraints to maize production in traditional
maize growing areas (BIMARU states), India, 2001. ............................... ............... 22
Table 22b. Prioritization of major constraints to maize production in non-traditional
m aize growing areas (KAP states), India, 2001. ........................ .................. ... ....................... 23
Table 23. Prioritization of socio-economic constraints to maize production in selected traditional
and non-traditional maize growing states of India, 2001 ..................................... ..................... 23
Table 24. Top 10 priority constraints for maize research by region and rainfall regime, India, 2001. .............. 26
Table 25. Overall research prioritization for maize in India, 2001. .................. ........................ .............. 28











Figures





Page No.
Figure 1. IFAD-CIMMYT India RRA Survey locations. ......................... .................... ................. 2
Figure 2. Maize production in India, 1961-2000. ......................... ........ ............................ 4
Figure 3. Maize area in India, 1961-2000. ................. ....................................... 4
Figure 4. M aize yields in different states of India, 1999. ...................... ..................................... 5
Figure 5. Egg and maize production in Andhra Pradesh, 1980/97. ............................. ................. 6
Figure 6. Egg and maize production in Karnataka, 1980/97. .................................................... 6
Figure 7. Area under different maize cultivars during the rainy season. ........................................ 7
Figure 8. Area under different maize cultivars during the winter season. ........................................ 7
Figure 9. Delineation of maize production systems according to cost of production-combined. ... 15
Figure 10. Delineation of maize production systems according to cost of production-hybrids. ....... 15





Appendices





Page No.
Appendix 1. Important maize cultivars in selected traditional maize growing
states of India, 2001 ...................................................... .......................................... 33
Appendix 2. Important cropping systems in maize growing states of India, 2001.................... 33
Appendix 3. Maize cultivation calendar by season, in selected maize growing
states of India, 2001 .................................................. .............................................. 34
Appendix 4. Production constraints and their impact on maize production,
BIM A RU states, India, 2001 .................................................................... 35
Appendix 5. Production constraints and their impact on maize production,
Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh states, India, 2001. ................................ ................ 38
Appendix 6. Prioritization of biotic and abiotic constraints to maize production
in selected states and agro-ecological regions of India, 2001. ................................. 40
Appendix 7. Value of damage due to socio-economic constraints to maize production
in selected states and agro-ecological regions of India, 2001. ................................. 42











Acknowledgments











This project was made possible by funding from the United Nations International
Fund for Development (IFAD) through a grant administered by CIMMYT. The
authors would like to thank IFAD and CIMMYT for enabling studies of this kind.

The authors are grateful to Dr. Mruthyunjaya and Dr. Raj K. Gupta for providing the
necessary facilities for conducting the study. The authors also benefited from
discussions with Dr. Dayanatha Jha and Dr. Suresh Pal. We are extremely grateful
for the overwhelming support extended by the Vice Chancellors, Research
Directors, Extension Directors, state government officials, and scientific teams in
Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. The authors are personally
grateful to the Vice Chancellors Dr. V.P. Gupta, Dr. G.B. Singh, Dr. S.B. Singh, Dr.
A.S. Faroda, and to the Research Directors Dr. R.K. Gupta, Dr. R.P Katiyar, Dr.
Pratap Singh and Dr. C.P.S. Yadav. It would have been impossible to complete
the study without the extraordinary cooperation and active participation of
scientific teams in the conduct of rapid rural appraisal (RRA) surveys in various
locations. Special thanks are due to Dr. Jawahar Thakur, Dr. R.K. Singh, Dr. P.K.
Mishra, and Dr. V.N. Joshi for coordinating the RRA activities. Authors also
sincerely thank Dr. Laxmi Tewari and Dr. Raka Saxena for arranging and providing
district-level maize data and preparing the GIS maps. We also acknowledge the
editorial review of this document by Sarah Fennell, consultant, and Alma McNab,
senior science writer/editor, and design and formatting by Eliot Sanchez, CIMMYT
Corporate Communications, Mexico.


The authors are responsible for any errors in this publication.











1. Introduction


1.1 Background

The last decade of the 20th century witnessed extensive
economic reforms in India, which in turn saw growing
stocks of surplus wheat and rice. This, however, came at
an associated cost of degradation of both soil and water
resources. At the global level, prices of these two
leading cereals declined sharply, inducing the farming
community to partly diversify agriculture to sustain and
augment farm income and improve the quality of soil
and water resources.

Maize is considered a promising option for diversifying
agriculture in upland areas of India. It now ranks as the
third most important food grain crop in India. The
maize area has slowly expanded over the past few
years to about 6.2 million ha (3.4% of the gross
cropped area) in 1999/2000. Paroda and Kumar (2000)
predicted that this area would grow further to meet
future food, feed, and other demands, especially in
view of the booming livestock and poultry producing
sectors in the country. Since opportunities are limited
for further expansion of maize area, future increases in
maize supply will be achieved through the
intensification and commercialization of current maize
production systems.

The changing global scenario is compelling policy-
makers to adhere to the regulations and obligations set
by the World Trade Organization (WTO). The resulting
new economic regime is expected to alter the
economics of existing cropping systems, including
maize, in terms of production, value added, and trade.
The question often raised is how research and
development efforts can efficiently contribute to
intensifying maize production in upland areas while
protecting the interests of poor maize producers. To
answer the question, it is necessary to study and
characterize maize production systems, and future
policy and technology interventions need to be
formulated accordingly. This study attempts to identify
existing maize production constraints and explore
future sources of intensification. More specifically, this
study aims to: (1) characterize maize production


systems in upland areas, (2) assess the historical
performance of maize, (3) identify constraints limiting
maize production, and (4) assess opportunities for
maize intensification in the upland areas of India.



1.2 Characterization of Maize
Production Environments

In India, maize is grown in a wide range of
environments, extending from extreme semi-arid to
sub-humid and humid regions. The crop is also very
popular in the low- and mid-hill areas of the western
and northeastern regions. Broadly, maize cultivation
can be classified into two production environments: (1)
traditional maize growing areas, including Bihar,
Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh
(BIMARU), and (2) non-traditional maize areas,
including Kamataka and Andhra Pradesh (KAP). In
traditional areas, the crop is often grown in marginal
eco-regions, primarily as a subsistence crop to meet
food needs. In contrast, maize in the non-traditional
areas is grown for commercial purposes-i.e., mainly to
meet the feed requirements of the booming poultry
sector. Key indicators of development in these two
contrasting production environments are given in Table
1. Low levels of literacy, income, and urbanization
characterize traditional maize growing areas in the
BIMARU states, where a large number of poverty-
ridden people live. In contrast, the KAP states show low
poverty levels, modest urbanization, and agricultural
income above the national average.

To better understand maize production systems at the
micro-level in traditional and non-traditional areas,
rapid rural appraisal (RRA) surveys were conducted at
selected locations using a three-stage stratified
sampling scheme. During the first stage, three districts
from each state were identified. The selected districts
were among the top maize producing districts and
represented major agro-ecological regions in the state
(Figure 1). These included Begusarai, Munger, and
Siwan in Bihar; Chindwara, Jhabua, and Mandsaur in










Table 1. Socio-economic and infrastructure development indicators in maize agro-ecological regions, India, 1999.
Non-traditional
Traditional maize growing areas maize growing areas
Indicators of Madhya Uttar Andhra All
development Units Bihar Pradesh Rajasthan Pradesh Pradesh Kamataka India
Populationt millions 82.88 60.38 56.47 166.5 75.73 52.74 1027.01
Povertyt % population 42.60 37.43 15.28 31.15 15.77 20.04 26.10
Urbanization % population 13.14 23.18 22.88 19.84 26.89 30.92 25.71
Literacy % population 38.48 44.20 38.55 41.60 44.09 56.04 52.51
Electrification % villages 70.71 94.23 85.42 75.81 99.92 98.51 85.95
Road length Per 100 sq. km 50.53 47.59 38.01 67.94 58.27 75.09 66.11
Banks Per 100,000 population 5.30 6.17 6.62 5.77 6.51 9.13 6.93
Credit to agriculture Rs/capita' 147.00 192.00 260.00 191.00 658.00 822.00 271.00
Agricultural production Rs/ha' 7,864.00 6,371.00 4,876.00 10,690.00 13,419.00 12,194.00 11,691.00
Average size of holding ha 0.87 2.35 3.56 0.85 1.56 2.13 1.45
Irrigated area % gross cropped area 43.67 22.53 28.25 63.91 43.67 23.57 36.86
Source: Center for Monitoring Indian Economy (2000) Profiles of districts, CMIE, New Delhi.
SPopulation is based on preliminary estimates for 2001.
* Poverty based on poverty data for 1997.
US$1.00 = Indian Rs 44.00 (May 2004).


Madhya Pradesh; Banswara, Bhilwara, and Udaipur in
Rajasthan; Behraich, Bulandshar, and Hardoi in Uttar
Pradesh; Karimnagar, Mahboobnagar, and Nizamabad in
Andhra Pradesh; and Belgaum, Chitradurga, and
Dharwad in Karnataka. During the second stage, two
blocks (sub-districts) from each selected district were
chosen using the same criterion of larger maize area.
For the third stage, two villages from each block were
randomly selected for interacting with maize producers
and conducting the RRA. In all, RRA was conducted in
72 villages across 18 selected districts and 6 states. A
brief profile of selected districts with respect to agro-
climate, and socio-economic and technological


indicators is presented in Tables 2 and 3. The selected
districts represented a wide range of agro-ecological
regions delineated under the National Agricultural
Research Project (Ghosh, 1991). Each agro-eco region
is a homogenous and contiguous entity for better
targeting research and technology transfer.

Maize in India is grown in diverse environments-from
the cool, dry area of Chitradurga, Karnataka, to the
warm, wet plateau of Chindwara, Madhya Pradesh. For
the most part, landholdings are marginal (less than 1.0
ha) and small (between 1.0 and 2.0 ha), and use of
inorganic fertilizers is extremely limited, with some
exceptions in Andhra Pradesh (Table 3). The cost of
agricultural outputs was highly variable among the
selected districts but less than the national average (Rs.
11,691/ha or US$ 266/ha) in most districts surveyed.
The area planted to hybrids also showed considerable
variation. The non-traditional maize growing southern
states had a perceptible presence of hybrids compared
to the traditional northern states, especially in pockets
of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, where hybrid
cultivation is at a significantly lower level. The value of
agricultural output was extremely low in Munger and
Begusarai districts in Bihar, Jhabua district in Madhya
Pradesh, Bahraich district in Uttar Pradesh, Nizamabad
in Andhra Pradesh, and Dharwad in Karnataka (Table 3).
There are not enough employment and income-
augmenting opportunities in either the farming or non-
farming sectors. These indicators clearly reveal that
farmers in maize growing areas are poor and waiting
for a low-cost technological breakthrough.


Figure 1. IFAD-CIMMYT-India
RRA Survey locations.
Note: Map not to scale.












Table 2. Salient agro-climatic features of selected districts, India, 2001.


Agro-ecological Mean annual Tempe-
State District region rainfall (mm) rature (oC) Topographyt


Soil type (scientific) Soil type (local)


Traditional maize growing states
Bihar Munger South Bihar Alluvial Plain 1,110 8-35 Normal, Diara Belt Alluvial heavy textured Sandy loam, clayey
Siwan North West Alluvial Plain 1,211 7-36 Normal Alluvial light textured Loam, sandy loam
Begusarai North West Alluvial Plain 1,214 11-33 Normal, Diara Belt Alluvial light textures Loam, sandy loam
Madhya Chindwara Satpura Plateau 700-1,400 11-36 Normal, hilly Black clay loam Shallow medium black,
Pradesh (Tamiya Block) gravelly, clayey
Mandsaur Malwa Plateau 800-1,200 8-38 Normal Medium black Medium black, sandy loam,
clayey loam, sandy


Jhabua Jhabua 600-800 6-38 Hilly tract
Rajasthan Banswara Humid South Plain 880 3-45 Normal
Bhilwara Sub-humid Southern Plain 700 2-46 Dry, normal
Udaipur Sub-humid Southern Plain 700 2-46 Dry, normal, hilly
Uttar Behraich North Eastern Plain 1470 5-44 Normal
Pradesh Hardoi Central Plain 885-1160 6-42 Normal uplands
(eastern part)


Bulandshar Western Plain


Non-traditional maize growing states
Andhra Mahboob- Northern Telangana
Pradesh nagar
Karimnagar Northern Telangana

Nizamabad Scarce Rainfall Zone

Karnataka Chitradurga Central Dry Zone
Dharwad Northern Dry Zone
Belgaum Northern Dry Zone


Sandy loam to sandy clay loam Red yellow,
Red, mixed red and black Mixed red, black, calcareous
Lithosols, alluvial Sandy, alluvial
Lithosols, alluvial Sandy, loam, alluvial
Alluvial Clay loam, sandy loam, loam


Alluvial


700 3-44 Normal, Doab between Alluvial
Ganga and Yamuna rivers

900-1150 13-42 Normal Chalkas
of later
900-1150 13-42 Normal Chalkas
of later


Sandy loam, calcareous,
clay loam
Loam, sandy clayey


with small patches Sandy loam, black cotton soil
te soils, loamy
with small patches Sandy loam, black cotton soil
te soils, loamy


500-750 17-40 Normal, dry soils Chalkas, alfisols Loam, clayey and sandy soil,
black cotton soils
456-717 10-35 Normal Chalkas, loamy Red loam to deep black soils
465-786 11-38 Ridges, undulating land Granite, quartz, sand stone Black clay medium and sandy soil
465-786 12-40 Undulating land, plateau Granite, quartz, sand stone Black clay medium and sandy soil


Source: IFAD-CIMMYT-India RRA Surveys, 2001.
t Diara beltis the shallow riverbed, submerged during the rainy season; crop cultivation is done only when rainwater recedes. Doab area is the land between the Ganga and the Yamuna rivers.


Table 3. Salient socio-economic and technology adoption features in selected districts, India, 2001.
Size of Gross cropped Maize Maize Irrigated % area Fertilizer Value of
Agro-ecological land holding area (GCA) area area as % area to planted to use crop output
State District region (ha) (000 ha) (000 ha) GCAt GCAt(%) HYVs* (kg/ha) (Rs/ha)


Traditional maize growing states
Bihar Munger South Bihar Alluvial Plain 0.71
Siwan North West Alluvial Plain 0.68
Begusarai North West Alluvial Plain 0.50
Madhya Chindwara Satpura Plateau 2.00
Pradesh Mandsaur Malwa Plateau 2.53
Jhabua Jhabua 2.12
Rajasthan Banswara Humid South Plain 1.65
Bhilwara Sub-humid Southern Plain 2.02
Udaipur Sub-humid Southern Plain 1.62
Uttar Pradesh Behraich North Eastern Plain 0.87
Hardoi Central Plain 0.89
Bulandshar Western Plain 1.23
Non-traditional maize growing states
Andhra Mahboob- Northern Telangana 2.23
Pradesh nagar
Karimnagar Northern Telangana 1.30
Nizamabad Scarce rainfall zone 1.30
Karnataka Chitradurga Central dry zone 2.44
Dharwad Northern dry zone 2.90
Belgaum Northern dry zone 2.38


186.0 44.6
274.9 27.0
198.7 78.0
593.4 50.2
831.0 90.5
459.0 104.7
339.7 113.4
532.6 170.5
375.7 157.9
698.5 400.3
329.5 52.9
281.7 100.4

703.0 46.6

476.0 97.6
338.0 62.8
694.1 110.0
1,331.3 112.2
1,015.2 88.6


23.9 40.5
9.8 51.8
39.3 48.8
8.5 14.0
10.9 24.2
22.8 13.3
33.4 24.2
32.1 41.5
42.1 33.3
57.3 19.9
16.1 60.4
35.6 95.8


9.8 67.4

28.8 94.4
8.9 25.1
15.8 23.9
8.4 13.8
8.7 32.8


48.7 3,407
37.8 7,018
142.4 5,312
25.6 7,709
51.5 8,062
21.7 3,595
55.3 4,466
46.3 7,025
25.2 5,317
38.9 5,541
45.9 8,972
93.8 10,247


85.4 197.2 11,618


224.8 13,049
71.9 4,854
78.3 14,852
50.3 3,563
64.4 10,194


Source: IFAD-CIMMYT-India RRA Surveys, 2001.
GCA = Gross cropped area.
t HYVs= High yielding varieties.
US$ 1.00 = Indian Rs. 44.00 (May 2004).
1 na = not applicable.












2. Maize Production Trends and Systems


2.1 Maize Production Trends

Production of cereals other than rice and wheat
stagnated during the 1980s and declined marginally
during the 1990s (Table 4). During these two decades,
maize performed better than other important coarse
cereals (barley, sorghum, and pearl millet). Production
of maize continued to increase and reached 11.5 million
tons in 1999/2000, from a mere 4.1 million tons in
1960/61 and 7.5 million tons in 1970/71 (Figure 2),
mainly due to a notable rise in its yield levels. Maize
yields went up from 1.1 t/ha in the triennium average
ending (TE) 1981/82 to 1.7 t/ha in TE 1998/99. The
maize area also gradually expanded from about 4.4
million ha in TE 1960/61 to 5.9 million ha in TE 1980/81
and 6.2 million ha in TE 1998/99 (Table 5 and Figure 3).




Table 4. Annual compound growth rates (%) of area,
production, and yield of maize, coarse cereals, and food
grains in India.
1981-90 1991-99
Commodity Production Area Yield Production Area Yield
Rice 3.62 0.41 3.19 1.90 0.62 1.27
Wheat 3.57 0.46 3.10 3.81 1.67 2.11
Maize 1.89 -0.20 2.09 2.55 0.84 1.69
Coarse cereals 0.40 -1.34 1.62 1.48 -0.54 -0.08
Food grains 2.85 -0.23 2.74 1.94 -0.17 1.52
Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, GOI (various issues).


Production (m tons)


2



8 ----- ----------



4-

2-

0
1961 1971 1981 1991 2000
1961 1971 18 91 20


Figure 2. Maize production in India, 1961/2000.


Area (m
7

6

5


ha)

--------- --------- -

_ __- -_ -_ -




1971 m- E1 -




1961 1971 1981 1991 2000


Figure 3. Maize area in India, 1961/2000.


Table 5. Maize production, area, and yield in selected states of India.
Production (000 tons) Area (000 ha) Yield (kg/ha)
State tTE 1981 TE 1991 TE 1999 TE 1981 TE 1991 TE 1999 TE 1981 TE 1991 TE 1999
Traditional maize growing states
Bihar 807.9 1,172.6 1,371.8 854.1 684.8 718.6 946.7 1,709.0 1,897.7
Madhya Pradesh 674.7 1,185.7 1,075.4 772.6 877.8 843.9 873.3 1,350.0 1,276.0
Rajasthan 704.9 1,128.6 1,090.2 899.5 958.8 946.1 780.0 1,176.7 1,151.0
Uttar Pradesh 936.4 1,394.2 1,372.6 1,183.6 1,100.5 1,013.7 792.3 1,263.3 1,336.7
Non-traditional maize growing states
Karnataka 392.0 733.6 1,643.3 149.0 261.5 528.6 2,630.9 2,805.6 3,108.7
Andhra Pradesh 583.8 456.6 1,216.0 314.1 308.3 400.5 1,858.8 1,481.2 3,036.2
All India 6,485.7 8,892.4 10,754.4 5,887.0 8,892.9 6,221.5 1,100.0 1,530.0 1,730.0
Source: Derived from Center for Monitoring Indian Economy (2000) agriculture, CMIE, New Delhi.
STE: liennium average ending.


1











This is a clear indication that maize is gradually
spreading to new areas and, to some extent, also
replacing barley, sorghum, and pearl millet as a feed
and fodder crop.

During 2001-02, as much as 70% of the maize grown in
India was cultivated in six states (Andhra Pradesh, Bihar,
Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Uttar
Pradesh). In 1999/2000, the national average maize
yield (1.8 t/ha) was far behind the world average of
4.86 t/ha. During this period, the average maize yield
on about 45% of the total maize area in India was less
than 1.5 t/ha, and on only 15% was it slightly more
than 3 t/ha. Lower yields and higher production costs in
India, as compared to other countries, made maize
non-competitive on the international market. In a
globally competitive environment, maize yields in India
need to increase to protect the maize producer.

In 1999/2000, maize yield levels across states ranged
from less than 1.5 t/ha in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan,
and Uttar Pradesh to more than 3 t/ha in Andhra
Pradesh, Karnataka, and West Bengal (Figure 4). In
Bihar, where a sizable area of maize was cultivated
under irrigation, yield levels were still low, approaching
2 t/ha. These four traditional maize growing states
(Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh)
have huge potential to raise maize production through
increasing yield levels and intensifying cultivation in
upland areas, provided that existing constraints are
alleviated. In 1998/99, these states accounted for
nearly 60% of the total maize area and about 40% of
total production in India. An increase in average maize
yields of about 25% in these states would result in
additional maize production equal to more than 1
million tons throughout the country. In contrast, the
non-traditional maize growing states of Andhra Pradesh



Andhra Pradesh -
Karnataka -
West Bengal -
Punjab -
Himachal Pradesh -
Bihar -
Maharashtra -
Jammu & Kashmir -
Gujarat-
Madhya Pradesh -
Orissa
Rajasthan
Uttar Pradesh -
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Yield (kg/ha)

Figure 4. Maize yields in different states of India, 1999.


and Kamataka account for 26% of total maize
production and cover only 15% of the area, mainly due
to high productivity. The study covered both of these
contrasting production environments.

Maize area, production, and yield levels in the
surveyed states are given in Table 5, and their
periodical growth rates in Table 6. Maize in the non-
traditional states performed impressively during the
1990s. Maize production increased annually at a rate of
9.25% in Andhra Pradesh and 11.66% in Karnataka,
primarily due to area expansion and higher yields
(Table 6). Maize production in Karnataka increased from
392,000 tons in TE 1981 to 1.643 million tons in TE
1999. This state ranked first in maize production in TE
1999, although it had ranked sixth in TE 1981 and fifth
in TE 1991. Similarly, maize production in Andhra
Pradesh jumped substantially, from 584,000 tons in TE
1981 to 1.216 million tons in TE 1999. In both these
non-traditional maize growing states, maize yields
were significantly higher than in traditional maize
growing areas. Egg and maize production followed
similar trends in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh (Figures
5 and 6), showing close linkages between maize
production and the poultry sector.




Table 6. Annual compound growth rates (%) of maize in
selected states of India.
Annual compound growth rate
State Period Production Area Yield
Bihar 1971-80 -1.26 -0.50 -0.77
1981-90 2.67 -3.02 5.86
1990-99 2.10 0.57 1.52
1971-99 1.79 -1.11 2.93
Madhya Pradesh 1971-80 1.06 2.51 -1.43
1981-90 5.07 1.28 3.73
1990-99 -0.71 -0.78 0.11
1971-99 3.24 1.44 1.77
Uttar Pradesh 1971-80 -4.71 -3.25 -1.51
1981-90 4.95 -0.10 5.05
1990-99 -1.19 -1.24 -0.06
1971-99 1.29 -1.29 2.63
Rajasthan 1971-80 -1.93 0.61 -2.52
1981-90 0.99 0.02 1.01
1990-99 0.55 -0.29 0.80
1971-99 2.00 0.90 1.10
Andhra Pradesh 1971-80 5.54 1.35 4.14
1981-90 -0.07 -1.28 1.23
1990-99 9.25 3.50 5.56
1971-99 4.31 0.76 3.52
Karnataka 1971-80 0.12 3.98 -3.72
1981-90 7.25 6.39 0.81
1990-99 11.66 9.85 1.65
1971-99 5.36 5.46 -0.10
India 1971-80 -0.63 -0.13 -0.47
1981-90 1.89 -0.20 2.09
1991-99 2.55 0.84 1.69
1971-99 2.22 0.17 2.06
Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, GOI (various issues).











Maize production
r 1400


Egg (millions) 7 %





S* Maize production (000 t)


Egg production
2000-


Egg (millions) z o






*< *'"*a Maize production (000 t)


1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996
Yar
Figure 5. Egg and maize production in Andhra Pradesh,
1980/97.


In contrast, maize performed quite dismally in
traditional growing areas (BIMARU states), although
better in some than in others. During the 1990s, maize
production increased in Bihar, declined in Madhya
Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh, and stagnated in Rajasthan
(Table 5). In TE 1998/99, Bihar's maize production
(about 1.4 million tons) accounted for about 44% of the
total maize area and contributed 68% of total production
in India. Production grew by about 2.1% annually during
1990/99, largely due to yield increases as farmers
increasingly cultivated improved cultivars and used
inorganic fertilizers. In Uttar Pradesh and Madhya
Pradesh, however, the area under maize decreased, and
Rajasthan yield levels fell during the same period.


1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996
Year
Figure 6. Egg and maize production in Karnataka,
1980/97.



2.2 Maize Production Systems

2.2.1 Adoption of improved varieties

At about 60% of the total maize area in 1997/98,
adoption of improved maize cultivars at the national
level was relatively lower than that for rice (74%) and
wheat (85%). In the study sites, there is a contrast
between the traditional and non-traditional maize
growing areas with respect to adoption of improved
cultivars. In non-traditional areas the entire maize area is
planted to hybrids (Table 7), for which seed replacement
is high (75-90%). In these areas, maize is a commercial
crop, and farmers intend to make a profit using the
available improved technologies in their maize
production.


Table 7. Season-wise area under different maize cultivars (as % of total maize area) in selected states of India, 2001.
Agro-ecological Rainy season area Winter season area Area under recycled seed
State District region Local Composite Hybrids Local Composite Hybrids Rainy Winter
Traditional maize growing states
Bihar Munger South Bihar Alluvial Plain 75 25 0 0 0 100 100 10
Siwan North West Alluvial Plain 50 25 25 0 40 60 100 10
Begusarai North West Alluvial Plain 10 20 0 5 15 80 75 15
Madhya Pradesh Chindwara Satpura Plateau 75 25 0 50 25 25 100 100
Mandsaur Malwa Plateau 40 50 10 50 40 10 80 75
Jhabua Jhabua 75 20 5 75 20 5 100 100
Rajasthan Banswara Humid South Plain 60 25 15 4 6 90 80 40
Bhilwara Sub-humid Southern Plain 94 3 1 <1 <1 <1 90 <1
Udaipur Sub-humid Southern Plain 90 6 4 <1 <1 <1 90 <1
Uttar Pradesh Behraich North Eastern Plain 50 40 10 10 15 75 90 75
Hardoi Central Plain 70 20 10 10 80 10 90 90
Bulandshar Western Plain 20 30 50 nct nc nc 40 <1
Non-traditional maize growing states
Andhra Pradesh Mahboobnagar Northern Telangana nc nc 100 nc nc nc 5 nc
Karimnagar Northern Telangana nc nc 100 nc nc nc 25 nc
Nizamabad Scarce rainfall zone nc nc 100 nc nc nc nc nc
Karna-taka Chitradurga Central dry zone nc nc 100 nc nc nc nc nc
Dharwad Northern dry zone nc nc 100 nc nc nc nc nc
Belgaum Northern dry zone nc nc 100 nc nc nc 10 nc
Source: IFAD-CIMMYT-India RRA Surveys, 2001.
t nc = not cultivated.


Egg production
70001


Maize production
r 2000










In the traditional maize growing areas, most farmers still
grow local maize varieties during the rainy season (Table
7 and Figure 7), and seed replacement is very low.
Composite varieties are also spreading, but their
adoption is sporadic and limited to 25% of the maize
area. Because of the high risk of surface waterlogging,
hybrids are not very popular in the study domain during
the rainy season, except in Bulandsahar district in Uttar
Pradesh. Meanwhile, during the winter season, hybrids
followed by composite varieties are widely cultivated in
all the selected districts of Bihar, Banswara district in
Rajasthan, and Behraich district in Uttar Pradesh (Figure
8). Winter maize is gaining importance because the crop
is invariably grown with less risk under assured
irrigation and complemented by best management
practices, giving higher yields and more income than
rainy season maize. In Bihar, for example, winter maize
yield levels were much higher (2.6 t/ha) than rainy
season yields of only 960 kg/ha. Thus farmers often use
hybrids or composites during the winter season, and
farm-saved local variety seed during the rainy season.
Hybrids of Pioneer, Cargill, Ganga-Kaveri, and Bioseeds
are popular during the winter season in Bihar. A
complete list of popular cultivars in the study sites is
given in Appendix 1.

In Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh, most
farmers are not aware of available improved cultivars,
and/or believe that improved cultivars may not suit their
cropping system. For example, farmers prefer short-
duration cultivars of about 70 days over hybrids
maturing in 80-85 days because: (1) the high probability
of terminal drought, which adversely affects crop yields,
and (2) the high watch-and-ward requirement to
protect the crop from bird damage, for which collective
action by all maize producers is needed.


2.2.2 Crop rotation and calendar
Important crop rotations that include maize are listed
in Appendix 2. Maize is most commonly grown in
rotation with wheat in traditional areas and with
chickpea in non-traditional areas. The most popular
rotations are rice-wheat in Bihar, rice-wheat or pearl
millet-wheat in Uttar Pradesh, soybean-wheat in
Madhya Pradesh, pearl millet-wheat or groundnut-
wheat in Rajasthan, and pearl millet-chickpea in Andhra
Pradesh and Karnataka. Intercropping of maize with
black gram, green gram, or vegetables is also common
during the rainy season. In the most harsh, fragile, and
rainfed environments maize-fallow is customarily
practiced, as was evident in the Jhabua district of
Madhya Pradesh.

Since maize is largely grown under rainfed conditions
during the rainy season, the crop is sown after the
onset of the monsoon. Sowing time ranges from the
first fortnight of June to the first fortnight of July,
depending upon the onset of the monsoon (Appendix
3). The crop is invariably harvested before the first
fortnight in September. During the winter season,
maize is sown in favorable and irrigated environments,
usually in the month of November. In Uttar Pradesh,
planting is sometimes delayed until the first fortnight in
December, when the crop is rotated with short-cycle
potato. Winter maize is harvested in the month of
March, the exact date depending on the maturity of
the selected cultivars.


Area (%)


Rajasthan Madhya Uttar
Pradesh Pradesh


D Hybrid

[ Composite

Local


Bihar Andhra Karnataka
Pradesh


Figure 7. Area under different maize cultivars during the
rainy season.


D Hybrid

[ Composite
SLocal


Rajasthan Bihar Uttar Madhya
Pradesh Pradesh
Figure 8. Area under different maize cultivars during the
winter season.











2.2.3 Land and crop management
practices

Most maize cultivation operations in India are
performed in a traditional mode (Table 8), but some are
gradually being modified. For example, line-sowing is
gradually becoming more widespread than the
traditional broadcasting method in most study sites,
and bullocks and tractors are mostly used for land
preparation. Also, improved soil conservation practices
are being promoted by state governments and adopted
by farmers. In contrast, in Chindwara, Madhya Pradesh,
and Bhilwara, Rajasthan, farmers were applying only
age-old traditional soil conservation methods such as
raised bunds around the fields. Farmers in Munger and
Begusarai in Bihar, Bulandshar in Uttar Pradesh,
Chitradurga in Karnataka, and Nizamabad in Andhra
Pradesh have replaced animals with tractors for land
preparation. In other areas where the size of
landholdings is declining, the small farmers now also
hire tractors for land preparation. Evidence showed that
the share of machines is gradually growing and that of
bullocks declining. The Comprehensive Cost of
Cultivation Scheme (Government of India 2000) report
revealed that for rainy season maize production, the
share of machinery use in operational costs increased
marginally, from 2.6% in 1990/91 to 4% in 1996/97 in
Madhya Pradesh and from 5% to 9% in Uttar Pradesh
during the same periods (Table 9). In Andhra Pradesh,
about 7% of total operational costs were due to
machine use in 1996/97. In Rajasthan, this value
reached just 2% in 1996/97, from a negligible share in
1990/91. The share of animal power in operational
costs was 27% in Madhya Pradesh, 16% in Rajasthan,
8% in Uttar Pradesh, and 11% in Andhra Pradesh.


Weeding and other crop care/management practices
are considered to be the most important factors
affecting maize production. Weeds are ranked as the
worst production constraint and can devastate the crop
if not properly managed. Weeding and other crop
management operations are performed twice. No
chemicals are currently used for weed control, nor are
they likely to be, given prevailing wage rates and
existing unemployment in rural areas. Alternative
innovative agronomic practices for weed management
could be quickly adopted. Family labor, particularly
women, performs most crop management operations.
The opportunity cost of women and other farm laborers
is extremely low. With some exceptions, not much
labor is hired for maize production. If the chemical
method of weed control were to be accepted, it would
probably be in Uttar Pradesh, where a large share of
labor is hired for different operations.

Harvesting is also done manually by both men and
women, although women participate more than men at
this stage. Shelling is generally performed manually,
mostly by men, although mechanical sellers are also
used in Munger, Begusarai, and Bahraich. Before
shelling, ears are generally sorted for seed, home
consumption, animal feed, and marketing. Thickly filled
and long ears are separated for next year's seed.
Women are largely responsible for storing the seed. The
participation of women in maize pr oduction was found
to be quite high. Although women do not have a key
role in decision-making processes, they contribute
significantly to raising maize production levels. Their
contribution to sowing (particularly line-sowing),
weeding, harvesting, and storing seed is enormous.


Table 8. Existing cultural practices for maize cultivation in selected states of India, 2001.
State District Land preparation method Sowing/planting method Soil conservation method Crop care operations
Traditional maize growing areas
Bihar Munger Machine Broadcasting, Line Traditional, Improved Manual
Siwan Animal, Machine Line Traditional, Improved Manual
Begusarai Machine Broadcasting, Line Traditional, Improved Manualt
Madhya Pradesh Chindwara Animal, Machine Broadcasting, Line Traditional Manual
Mandsaur Animal, Machine Broadcasting, Line Traditional, Improved Manual
Jhabua Animal, Machine Broadcasting, Line Traditional, Improved Manual
Uttar Pradesh Behraich Animal, Machine Broadcasting, Line Traditional, Improved Manual
Hardoi Animal, Machine Broadcasting, Line Traditional, Improved Manual
Bulandshar Machine Broadcasting, Line (minimal) Traditional, Improved Manual
Rajasthan Banswara Animal, Machine Broadcasting, Line Traditional, Improved Manual
Bhilwara Animal, Machine (minimal) Broadcasting, Line Traditional Manual
Udaipur Animal, Machine Broadcasting, Line Traditional, Improved Manual
Non-traditional maize growing areas
Andhra Pradesh Mahboobnagar Machine, Animal Line Traditional, Improved Manual
Karimnagar Machine, Animal Line, Broadcast Traditional, Improved Manual
Nizamabad Machine Line Traditional, Improved, Manual
Karnataka Chitradurga Machine, Animal Line Traditional, Improved Manual
Dharwad Machine, Animal Line Traditional, Improved Manual
Belgaum Animal, Machine Line Traditional, Improved Manual
Source: IFAD-CIMMYT-India RRA Surveys, 2001.
t Defoliation is also practiced in the winter season.











Table 9. Cost of maize production (Rs/hat) in selected states of
India, 1996/97.*
Traditional maize Non-traditional
growing area maize area
Madhya Uttar Andhra
Input Pradesh Rajasthan Pradesh Pradesh
Seed 136.13 172.70 111.00 476.96
(3.42) (2.66) (2.16) (5.73)
Fertilizer 263.43 611.32 435.94 1308.40
(6.61) (9.42) (8.47) (15.71)
Manure 101.83 481.09 99.23 329.84
(2.56) (7.42) (1.93) (3.96)
Insecticide 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.12
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.99)
Irrigation 0.63 15.17 104.86 159.12
(0.02) (0.23) (2.04) (1.92)
Human labor 2184.34 3952.13 3422.06 4294.22
(54.82) (60.93) (66.46) (51.57)
Animal power 1068.00 1042.42 422.81 924.57
(26.80) (16.07) (8.21) (11.10)
Machine 158.39 129.87 481.59 552.61
(3.98) (2.00) (9.35) (6.64)
Interest on working capital 71.66 81.83 71.33 198.48
(1.80) (1.26) (1.39) (2.38)
Total operational costs 3982.41 6486.53 5148.82 8327.39
(100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00)
All paid up costs (Cost A) (Rs/kg) 254.11 180.45 173.82 263.48
CostA + imputed value of family labor 410.19 278.67 330.39 425.64
and bullock labor (Cost B) (Rs/kg)
Cost B + imputed rental value of 571.14 499.32 523.29 495.96
owned land + cost of owned capital
(Cost C) (Rs/kg)
Source: Cost of Cultivation of Principal Crops, Government of India, 2000.
SUS$1.00 = Indian Rs.44.00 (May 2004).
t Figures in parentheses indicate % of total operational costs.


Table 10. Average seed use (kg/ha) of different maize cultivars by s
in selected states of India, 2001.
Rainy season Winter season
State District Local Composite Hybrids Local Composite Hy
Traditional maize growing states
Bihar Munger 8.0 8.0 10.0 8.0 9.0
Siwan 6.0 6.0 8.0 7.0 7.0
Begusarai 7.0 7.0 8.0 7.0 8.0
Madhya Pradesh Chindwara 7.5 7.5 8.5 8.0 8.0
Mandsaur 6.0 6.0 7.5 6.0 6.0
Jhabua 6.0 6.0 7.0 6.0 6.0
Uttar Pradesh Behraich 8.0 8.0 11.0 8.0 8.0
Hardoi 8.0 8.0 10.0 8.0 8.0
Bulandsahar 10.0 12.0 14.5 t
Rajasthan Banswara 8.0 9.0 12.0 9.0 10.0
Bhilwara 6.0 8.0 12.0 -
Udaipur 7.0 8.0 12.0 -
Non-traditional maize growing states
Andhra Pradesh Mahboobnagar -- 15.0
Karimnagar -- 15.0
Nizamabad 16.0 (sole crop) 10.0
Karnataka Chitradurga -- 15.0
Dharwad 12.5 -
Belgaum -- 12.5
Source: IFAD-CIMMYT-India RRA Surveys, 2001.
S_ = not cultivated.


2.2.4 Input use and levels

Resource use patterns in maize production in the
districts included in this study are presented in
Tables 10 to 12 and Tables 13a to 13c. Average
seed use levels are higher in winter season maize
than rainy season maize (Table 10). Hybrid seed
use was also higher than for local/traditional
varieties and composites. Local/traditional seed
use ranged from 6.0 to 10.0 kg/ha, while hybrid
seed use ranged from 7.0 to 14.5 kg/ha in
traditional maize growing areas in the rainy
season. In the non-traditional maize growing
areas, hybrid seed use ranged from 12.5 to 16.0
kg/ha, and local/traditional varieties and
composites were not cultivated. Seed use in the
winter season ranged from 8.0 to 10.0 kg/ha,
except in the Banswara district of Rajasthan, where
seed use was 14.0 kg/ha. The use of other inputs
(nutrients and organic manures) is higher in areas
where maize is grown as a commercial crop. For
example, input use levels (particularly nutrients,
organic manure, and pesticides) are relatively
higher in Bihar, Andhra Pradesh, and Karnataka
than in other regions (Table 11). All these districts
have a sizable marketed surplus, between 60 and
95%. On the other hand, input use is very low in
Jhabua district, where tribal populations
predominate and maize is grown for subsistence.
Application of nitrogenous and phosphate
fertilizers is negligible, and zinc and pesticide use
is uncommon. Farmers in this district also use
meager quantities of farmyard manure (FYM).

Survey results show that maize is a
eason labor-intensive crop. Labor accounts
for half the total cost of maize
cultivation and was as high as 70% in
ibrids Jhabua district for composite maize
(Table 12). Tribal populations are

10.0 predominant in the district, and
9.0 agriculture is completely at the
9.0 subsistence level. Farm operations
8.0 are most commonly carried out by
7.0 family members, though hired labor
11.0 is also used in weeding and
10.0 harvesting. In traditional maize
--
14.0 growing areas, production of local/
traditional maize varieties required
29-83 person-days/ha of family labor,
while that of hybrids required 24-69
person-days/ha. The involvement of
(intercrop) both family and hired labor was
higher in non-traditional hybrid maize
--
--











Table 11. Input use for maize production in selected states of India, 2001.
Seed Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium Zinc Farmyard Pesticide
State District (kg/ha) (kg/ha) (kg/ha) (kg/ha) (kg/ha) manure(qtl/ha) (kg/ha)
Traditional maize growing states
Bihar Munger 8.7 55.0 23.0 3.5 0.0 17.5 5.0
Siwan 7.7 33.4 13.8 2.1 10.0 13.5 2.5
Begusarai 7.3 76.6 32.2 4.2 6.0 15.5 6.5
Madhya Pradesh Chindwara 8.3 30.2 18.4 2.8 0.0 11.0 2.0
Mandsaur 6.7 41.7 18.4 0.0 0.0 13.5 2.5
Jhabua 6.3 16.0 11.5 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.0
Uttar Pradesh Behraich 10.7 33.0 11.5 0.0 0.0 7.5 2.0
Hardoi 11.3 44.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.5 0.0
Bulandshar 14.7 66.0 27.6 0.0 0.0 9.0 2.0
Rajasthan Banswara 10.0 65.0 30.0 4.0 0.0 9.0 2.0
Bhilwara 8.5 40.0 19.0 0.3 0.0 3.5 0.0
Udaipur 9.0 45.0 20.0 0.5 0.0 4.5 0.0
Non-traditional maize growing states
Andhra Pradesh Mahboobnagar 12.5 110.0 40.0 5.0 0.0 12.5 3.0
Karimnagar 12.0 100.0 40.0 5.0 0.0 15.0 2.0
Nizamabad 14.0 150.0 50.0 10.0 0.0 20.0 4.5
Karnataka Chitradurga 14.0 75.0 28.0 5.0 0.0 20.0 2.0
Dharwad 12.5 50.0 25.0 3.0 0.0 15.0 1.5
Belgaum 13.0 60.0 25.0 3.0 0.0 15.0 1.5
Source: IFAD-CIMMYT-India RRA Surveys, 2001.


Table 12. Use of family and hired labor (person-days/ha) in maize production by type of cultivar in selected states of
India, 2001. t


Local varieties Composites Hybrids
District Family Hired Total Family Hired Total Family Hired Total


State


Traditional maize growing states
Bihar Munger 46.51 36.17 82.69 46.44 39.06 85.50 38.71 30.17 68.94
(27.90) (21.70) (49.60) (29.00) (24.40) (53.40) (27.20) (21.20) (48.44)
Siwan 29.50 54.48 83.98 29.56 54.48 84.04 24.63 45.42 70.00
(16.30) (30.10) (46.40) (17.20) (31.70) (48.90) (16.00) (29.50) (45.47)
Begusarai 64.76 66.01 130.77 64.70 65.89 130.83 53.87 54.96 108.96
(25.90) (26.40) (52.30) (27.20) (27.70) (55.00) (24.80) (25.30) (50.16)
Madhya Pradesh Jhabua 68.50 0.00 68.51 68.50 0.00 68.50 57.08 0.00 57.08
(69.10) (0.00) (69.10) (69.90) (0.00) (69.90) (67.90) (0.00) (67.91)
Mandsaur 83.29 26.56 109.86 82.95 26.55 109.50 69.15 22.13 91.25
(43.90) (14.00) (57.90) (45.30) (14.50) (59.80) (42.80) (13.70) (56.48)
Chindwara 70.09 46.00 116.11 69.91 46.06 115.96 58.36 38.28 96.65
(32.30) (21.20) (53.60) (34.00) (22.40) (56.40) (31.10) (20.40) (51.51)
Rajasthan Banswara 64.65 66.06 130.73 64.67 66.01 130.67 54.01 55.06 108.96
(27.50) (28.10) (55.60) (28.90) (29.50) (58.40) (25.70) (26.20) (51.85)
Bhilwara 46.51 36.17 82.85 46.47 36.26 82.73 38.74 30.27 68.96
(29.70) (23.10) (52.90) (31.40) (24.50) (55.90) (28.80) (22.50) (51.26)
Udaipur 74.42 46.40 121.05 74.42 46.48 121.10 61.99 38.84 100.82
(34.80) (21.70) (56.60) (36.50) (22.80) (59.40) (33.20) (20.80) (54.00)
Uttar Pradesh Behraich 76.06 58.40 134.47 76.08 58.40 134.48 63.39 48.78 112.09
(31.00) (23.80) (54.80) (32.70) (25.10) (57.80) (29.50) (22.70) (52.16)
Hardoi 74.49 46.58 121.07 74.42 46.48 121.10 61.99 38.84 100.82
(34.70) (21.70) (56.40) (36.50) (22.80) (59.40) (33.20) (20.80) (54.00)
Bulandshar 52.11 78.93 131.05 51.91 79.06 130.96 43.27 65.80 109.22
(20.60) (31.20) (51.80) (21.80) (33.20) (55.00) (19.40) (29.50) (49.00)


Non-traditional maize growing states
Andhra Pradesh Nizamabad -

Karimnagar

Mahboobnagar

Karnataka Chitradurga

Dharwad

Belgaum --

Source: IFAD-CIMMYT-India RRA Surveys, 2001.


62.74 63.02 125.73
(22.40) (22.50) (44.89)
70.40 46.66 117.08
(34.10) (22.60) (56.71)
63.32 45.01 108.33
(33.20) (23.60) (56.80)
68.78 60.00 128.76
(27.40) (23.90) (51.29)
61.75 45.28 106.88
(28.50) (20.90) (49.33)
52.36 56.33 115.36
(30.55) (21.20) (51.70)
S Figures in parentheses indicate % of total operational costs. = not cultivated.











growing areas due to better commercial orientation. Tables 13a to 13c provide resource use patterns for
Wage rates and availability of family labor determined local/traditional, composite, and hybrid maize
the extent of involvement of hired labor for different production in India. Levels of machine power (tractors)
farming operations. and animal power (bullock) use are similar across the


Table 13a. Resource use pattern in maize production (local varieties) in selected traditional maize growing states of India,
2001.T


Labor(person- Bullock
days/ (pair-days/ Tractor Seed Fertilizer
State District ha) ha) (hrs/ha) (kg/ha) (kg/ha)
Bihar Munger 82.69 1.50 15.60 13.33 131.71
(49.60) (2.70) (11.20) (1.60) (7.90)
Siwan 83.98 1.50 18.70 12.67 132.13
(46.40) (2.50) (12.40) (1.40) (7.30)
Begusarai 130.77 2.00 24.20 13.75 187.53
(52.30) (2.40) (11.60) (1.10) (7.50)
Madhya Pradesh Jhabua 68.51 3.00 0.00 5.95 0.00
(69.10) (9.10) (0.00) (1.20) (0.00)
Mandsaur 109.86 3.98 10.30 13.28 75.89
(57.90) (6.30) (6.50) (1.40) (4.00)
Chindwara 116.11 2.96 13.70 15.16 158.13
(53.60) (4.10) (7.60) (1.40) (7.30)
Rajasthan Banswara 130.73 3.68 19.90 10.58 188.09
(55.60) (4.70) (10.20) (0.90) (8.00)
Bhilwara 82.85 2.14 13.90 10.18 131.56
(52.90) (4.10) (10.70) (1.30) (8.40)
Udaipur 121.05 3.63 14.90 9.62 160.39
(56.60) (5.10) (8.40) (0.90) (7.50)
Uttar Pradesh Behraich 134.47 3.18 19.20 12.27 203.66
(54.80) (3.90) (9.40) (1.00) (8.30)
Hardoi 121.07 3.65 15.00 13.95 161.01
(56.40) (5.10) (8.40) (1.30) (7.50)
Bulandshar 131.05 0.00 26.40 15.18 237.82
(51.80) (0.00) (12.50) (1.20) (9.40)
Source: IFAD-CIMMYT-India RRA Surveys, 2001. t Figures in parentheses indicate % of total operational costs.


Farmyard Interest Rental value
manure Irrigation on capital of owned
(t/ha) (hrs/ha) (16% p.a) land(Rs/ha)
2.17 8.16 208.4 1,000.32
(3.90) (4.90) (2.50) (12.00)
2.66 9.05 253.4 1,312.25
(4.40) (5.00) (2.80) (14.50)
0.50 11.50 287.55 1,500.24
(0.60) (4.60) (2.30) (12.00)
3.17 0.00 0.00 437.21
(9.60) (0.00) (0.00) (8.82)
3.86 5.69 123.33 1,005.62
(6.10) (3.00) (1.30) (10.60)
4.04 14.93 249.11 855.65
(5.60) (6.90) (2.30) (7.90)
2.98 11.52 282.14 793.53
(3.80) (4.90) (2.40) (6.75)
2.14 8.3 211.44 532.51
(4.10) (5.30) (2.70) (6.80)
2.99 10.49 224.55 793.42
(4.20) (4.90) (2.10) (7.42)
3.35 12.02 282.18 911.58
(4.10) (4.90) (2.30) (7.43)
3.00 10.51 225.42 793.24
(4.20) (4.90) (2.10) (7.39)
3.96 14.93 278.3 1,186.57
(4.70) (5.90) (2.20) (9.38)


Table 13b. Resource use patterns in maize production (composite maize) in selected traditional maize growing states of
India, 2001.


Labor(person- Bullock
days/ (pair-days/ Tractor Seed Fertilizer
State District ha) ha) (hrs/ha) (kg/ha) (kg/ha)
Bihar Munger 85.50 1.49 15.61 8.40 65.64
(53.40) (2.80) (11.70) (2.10) (4.10)
Siwan 84.04 1.48 18.76 7.73 67.03
(48.90) (2.60) (13.10) (1.80) (3.90)
Begusarai 130.83 1.98 24.18 12.48 92.77
(55.00) (2.50) (12.20) (2.10) (3.90)
Madhya Pradesh Jhabua 68.50 3.00 0.00 7.59 0.00
(69.90) (9.20) (0.00) (3.10) (0.00)
Mandsaur 109.50 4.02 10.37 8.69 38.45
(59.80) (6.60) (6.80) (1.90) (2.10)
Chindwara 115.96 3.01 13.70 11.30 80.19
(56.40) (4.40) (8.00) (2.20) (3.90)
Rajasthan Banswara 130.67 3.65 19.95 17.34 93.97
(58.40) (4.90) (10.70) (3.10) (4.20)
Bhilwara 82.73 2.17 13.93 18.87 66.60
(55.90) (4.40) (11.30) (5.10) (4.50)
Udaipur 121.10 3.66 14.95 16.31 79.51
(59.40) (5.40) (8.80) (3.20) (3.90)
Uttar Pradesh Behraich 134.48 3.17 19.19 18.61 102.37
(57.80) (4.10) (9.90) (3.20) (4.40)
Hardoi 121.10 3.66 14.95 15.29 79.51
(59.40) (5.40) (8.80) (3.00) (3.90)
Bulandshar 130.96 0.00 26.19 18.45 119.06
(55.00) (0.00) (13.20) (3.10) (5.00)
Source: IFAD-CIMMYT-India RRA Surveys, 2001. t Figures in parentheses indicate % of total operational costs.


Farmyard Interest Rental value
manure Irrigation on capital of owned
(t/ha) (hrs/ha) (16% p.a) land(Rs/ha)
2.19 8.32 216.16 999.94
(4.10) (5.20) (2.70) (12.49)
2.69 8.94 249.22 1,312.30
(4.70) (5.20) (2.90) (15.27)
3.01 11.42 285.45 1,499.83
(3.80) (4.80) (2.40) (12.61)
3.17 0.00 0.00 437.57
(9.70) (0.00) (0.00) (8.93)
3.84 5.69 128.18 999.83
(6.30) (3.10) (1.40) (10.92)
3.98 15.01 246.74 844.07
(5.80) (7.30) (2.40) (8.21)
2.98 11.41 290.88 793.22
(4.00) (5.10) (2.60) (7.09)
2.17 6.29 214.60 531.32
(4.40) (5.60) (2.90) (7.18)
2.99 10.61 224.26 793.09
(4.40) (5.20) (2.20) (7.78)
3.34 12.09 290.85 912.10
(4.30) (5.20) (2.50) (7.84)
2.99 10.60 224.26 794.11
(4.40) (5.20) (2.20) (7.79)
3.97 15.00 273.83 1,187.02
(5.00) (6.30) (2.30) (9.97)











different types of maize varieties grown. However, grown only for subsistence. Across the surveyed
maize production in some areas, such as Jhabua and districts/states, fertilizer use in maize production ranged
Mandsaur in Madhya Pradesh, Hardoi in Uttar Pradesh, from 38.4 kg/ha in Hardoi, Uttar Pradesh, to 329.4 kg/
and Udaipur and Bhilwara in Rajasthan, was much less ha in Nizamabad, Andhra Pradesh. Maize farmers also
mechanized as compared to the Bulandshar district of commonly applied farmyard manure, varying from 500
Uttar Pradesh, where average tractor power use was kg/ha for local/traditional varieties in Begusarai, Bihar,
26.4 machine-hours/ha, and animal power use was to 5.7 t/ha for hybrid production in Nizamabad, Andhra
negligible. In terms of the share of total operational Pradesh. The use of fertilizers and FYM was higher in the
costs, that of machine power ranged from 7% (10.3 non-traditional hybrid maize growing areas. The
machine-hours/ha) to 13% (26.2 machine-hours/ha). availability and use of FYM varied from one household
to another, depending mainly on the number of farm
Overall, current input use in Indian maize production is animals reared at home. Since most farmers continue to
far below recommended levels. Inorganic fertilizers are grow local/traditional cultivars under rainfed conditions,
applied with the use of improved cultivars and the use of other material inputs is also low. As such,
irrigation. In the Jhabua district of Madhya Pradesh, there is enough scope for raising nutrient use across all
where farmers are very poor, maize is grown in maize types in all study sites, to increase maize
marginal rainfed environments, not fertilized at all, and production levels in India.



Table 13c. Resource use pattern in maize production (hybrid varieties) in selected traditional and non-traditional maize
growing states of India, 2001 .
Labor(person- Bullock Farmyard Interest Rental value
days/ (pair-days/ Tractor Seed Fertilizer manure Irrigation on capital of owned
State District ha) ha) (hrs/ha) (kg/ha) (kg/ha) (t/ha) (hrs/ha) (16% p.a) land(Rs/ha)
Traditional maize-growing areas
Bihar Munger 68.94 1.48 15.65 6.83 133.22 2.16 8.20 213.50 1,000.03
(48.44) (2.60) (11.00) (4.00) (7.80) (3.80) (4.80) (2.50) (11.71)
Siwan 70.00 1.47 18.78 6.28 133.02 2.65 9.05 249.42 1,312.72
(45.47) (2.40) (12.20) (3.40) (7.20) (4.30) (4.90) (2.70) (14.21)
Begusarai 108.96 1.99 24.11 13.55 187.68 3.04 11.40 286.74 1,500.21
(50.16) (2.30) (11.10) (5.20) (7.20) (3.50) (4.40) (2.20) (11.51)
Madhya Pradesh Jhabua 57.08 2.99 0.00 2.92 0.00 3.16 0.00 0.00 437.31
(67.91) (8.90) (0.00) (2.90) (0.00) (9.40) (0.00) (0.00) (8.67)
Mandsaur 91.25 4.00 10.34 6.78 77.55 3.81 5.80 126.02 1,000.42
(56.48) (6.20) (6.40) (3.50) (4.00) (5.90) (3.00) (1.30) (10.32)
Chindwara 96.65 3.00 13.69 9.00 159.87 3.98 15.10 247.69 968.27
(51.51) (4.00) (7.30) (4.00) (7.10) (5.30) (6.70) (2.20) (8.60)
Rajasthan Banswara 108.96 3.69 19.96 19.16 186.61 3.03 11.60 290.00 793.10
(51.85) (4.40) (9.50) (7.60) (7.40) (3.60) (4.60) (2.30) (6.29)
Bhilwara 68.96 2.15 13.99 6.78 132.38 2.15 8.23 209.87 531.13
(51.26) (4.00) (10.40) (4.20) (8.20) (4.00) (5.10) (2.60) (6.58)
Udaipur 100.82 3.65 14.93 12.09 159.08 2.99 10.53 224.06 793.17
(54.00) (4.90) (8.00) (5.40) (7.10) (4.00) (4.70) (2.00) (7.08)
Uttar Pradesh Behraich 112.09 3.18 19.12 14.95 203.72 3.35 12.12 283.66 911.60
(52.16) (3.70) (8.90) (5.80) (7.90) (3.90) (4.70) (2.20) (7.07)
Hardoi 100.82 3.65 14.93 12.09 159.08 2.99 10.53 224.06 793.17
(54.00) (4.90) (8.00) (5.40) (7.10) (4.00) (4.70) (2.00) (7.08)
Bulandshar 109.22 0.00 26.30 17.38 238.07 4.01 14.98 280.87 1,187.70
(49.00) (0.00) (11.80) (6.50) (8.90) (4.50) (5.60) (2.10) (8.88)
Non-traditional maize-growing areas
Andhra Pradesh Nizamabad 125.73 0.00 28.85 24.87 329.39 5.71 22.18 420.15 1,749.50
(44.89) (0.00) (10.30) (7.40) (9.80) (5.10) (6.60) (2.50) (10.41)
Karimnagar 117.08 1.65 15.89 16.35 141.22 3.79 6.44 235.37 1,186.77
(56.71) (2.00) (7.70) (6.60) (5.70) (4.60) (2.60) (1.90) (9.58)
Mahbobnagar 108.33 1.83 10.49 16.93 119.01 2.98 8.93 366.20 937.26
(56.80) (2.40) (5.50) (7.40) (5.20) (3.90) (3.90) (3.20) (8.19)
Karnataka Chitradurga 128.76 0.00 23.34 23.19 247.03 5.32 21.99 316.32 905.28
(51.29) (0.00) (9.30) (7.70) (8.20) (5.30) (7.30) (2.10) (6.01)
Dharwad 106.88 2.86 16.68 15.60 215.80 4.59 13.92 234.00 1,313.00
(49.33) (3.30) (7.70) (6.00) (8.30) (5.30) (5.20) (1.80) (10.10)
Belgaum 98.35 2.33 18.56 20.36 220.65 3.87 16.52 201.36 1,300.12
(51.70) (3.60) (6.70) (6.30) (9.30) (4.50) (4.10) (2.30) (7.85)
Source: IFAD-CIMMYT-India RRA Surveys, 2001. t Figures in parentheses indicate % of total operational costs.











2.2.5 Yield levels


Hybrid yields are substantially higher than yields of
composites and local/traditional cultivars. On average,
hybrid yield levels were 2 to 3 times higher than those
of local varieties and 1.5 times higher than those of
composites. In the 1999/2000 rainy season, average
yields of local varieties ranged from 1.5 to 2.0 t/ha in
Bihar, 1.0 to 1.5 t/ha in Madhya Pradesh, 0.9 to 1.4 t/ha
in Rajasthan, and 1.4 to 1.8 t/ha in Uttar Pradesh (Table
14). In the case of composite varieties, average yields
ranged from 2.4 to 3.0 t/ha in Bihar, 1.2 to 1.8 t/ha in
Madhya Pradesh, 1.2 to 1.8 t/ha in Rajasthan, and 1.8
to 2.2 t/ha in Uttar Pradesh. These levels are
comparable to national average yields, but are lower
than the global average of 4.86 t/ha. Clearly, hybrids
could potentially increase maize production in India.
Hybrid maize yields during the rainy season in Andhra
Pradesh and Karnataka (3.2-3.8 t/ha) were lower than
those in Bihar (5.0-6.5 t/ha).

Maize yields during the winter season were higher than
yields during the rainy season. On average, the
difference was up to 1.0 t/ha for hybrids and 0.5 t/ha
for local varieties. Bihar, where about 32% of total maize
area is planted to hybrids, achieved considerably higher
yields from hybrids during the winter season, ranging
between 5.5 and 6.5 t/ha in Munger district, 6.0 to 7.0
t/ha in Siwan district, and 6.0 to 9.0 t/ha in Begusarai
district (Table 14). During winter, maize enjoys a



Table 14. Yield (t/ha) of different types of maize cultivars in sel
states of India, 2001.
Rainy season Winter seas
State District Local Composite Hybrids Local Composit
Traditional maize growing states
Bihar Munger 1.50 2.40 5.00 2.00 2.85
Siwan 1.60 2.50 5.50 2.25 3.20
Begusarai 2.00 3.00 6.50 3.00 3.50
Madhya Pradesh Chindwara 1.20 1.60 2.50 1.40 1.85
Mandsaur 1.50 1.80 3.00 1.75 2.00
Jhabua 1.00 1.20 2.00 1.25 1.65
Uttar Pradesh Behraich 1.80 2.20 3.60 2.00 2.40
Hardoi 1.40 1.80 2.50 1.60 2.20
Bulandsahar 1.57 2.07 3.00 t
Rajasthan Banswara 1.40 1.80 2.80 1.60 2.00
Bhilwara 0.90 1.20 1.60 -
Udaipur 1.20 1.40 2.00 -
Non-traditional maize growing states
Andhra Pradesh Mahboobnagar -- -- 3.75 -
Karimnagar -- -- 3.50 -
Nizamabad 6.50 -
(60-70,000
green ears)
Karnataka Chitradurga 3.80 -
Dharwad 3.50 -
Belgaum 3.25 -
Source: IFAD-CIMMYT-India RRA Surveys, 2001.
t -- = not cultivated.


favorable environment of cooler temperatures and
higher solar radiation, is less affected by insects pests,
and thereby yields better.

In Bihar, winter maize is generally cultivated on diara
lands, which are river flood plains considered most
fertile. These lands are used for cultivation only during
the winter season, after the river water has receded.
Yield levels on diara lands are comparable to those in
the principal maize growing countries, namely China
(4.7 t/ha) and the USA (8.6 t/ha). It was also observed
that hybrids (mainly from the private sector) outperform
composites in selected sites. Farmers in the study sites
reported that local and composite cultivars tend to yield
below their potential because of: (1) low seed
replacement, (2) poor seed quality, and (3) non-
effectiveness of the recommended package of
practices. A well-established and effective seed sector
would help farmers to access new hybrids and thereby
increase maize production.



2.2.6 Economics of maize production

The economics of maize production for local varieties,
composites, and hybrids is presented in Tables 15a,
15b, and 15c, respectively. As expected, the cost of
producing hybrid maize was higher than for local
varieties and composites (Table 15a). On average, the
cost of hybrid maize production was approximately 7%
higher than that of local varieties, and 12%
higher than that of composites. The net
ected profit over the sum of all paid up costs,
plus the imputed value of family labor and
family bullock labor, plus the imputed rental
ion
value of owned land and the cost of owned
e Hybrids
SHy s capital (cost C) was much higher for hybrids
than for local varieties and composites
6.00
6.50 (Table 15b). In all districts of the traditional
7.50 maize growing BIMARU states, except in
3.00 Jhabua, Madhya Pradesh, and Bhilwara in
3.25 Rajasthan, farmers were incurring losses by
2.50
4.50 growing local maize varieties. Returns over
3.60 all paid costs (cost A) were positive in all
S districts, except for production of local
3.60 varieties in Chindwara, Madhya Pradesh,
Banswara in Rajasthan, and Hardoi and
Bulandshar in Uttar Pradesh.

S The unit cost of production shows the
S efficiency of production. It was noted that
the unit cost of hybrid production, due to
significantly higher yield levels, was much












lower than that of composites and local varieties (Table of family labor and family bullock labor are considered.
15c). The most efficient hybrid producing districts were The unit cost of production was higher in traditional
Munger and Siwan in Bihar. Jhabua, which grows maize maize growing areas, except in Bihar, where the
for subsistence, has the lowest unit cost of hybrid moisture regime and climatic conditions favor wide
production, when all paid up costs and imputed value adoption of improved cultivars and higher maize yields.



Table 15a. Cost of cultivation (Rs/hat) of various maize cultivars in selected states of India, 2001.


Local maize varieties Composite maize varieties Hybrid maize varieties
District Cost C Cost B Cost A Cost C Cost B Cost A Cost C Cost B Cost A


Traditional maize growing states
Bihar Munger 8,336 6,011 5,011 8,006 5,852 4,852 8,540
Siwan 9,050 7,575 6,262 8,594 7,275 5,963 9,238
Begusarai 12,502 9,265 7,765 11,894 8,906 7,406 13,034
Madhya Pradesh Jhabua 4,957 1,532 1,095 4,900 1,625 1,188 5,044
Mandsaur 9,487 5,337 4,337 9,156 5,178 4,178 9,694
Chindwara 10,831 7,331 6,487 10,281 7,008 6,164 11,259
Rajasthan Banswara 11,756 8,519 7,725 11,188 8,300 7,506 12,609
Bhilwara 7,831 5,506 4,975 7,400 5,450 4,919 8,072
Udaipur 10,693 6,969 6,175 10,194 6,794 6,000 11,203
Uttar Pradesh Behraich 12,269 8,469 7,556 11,634 8,209 7,297 12,894
Hardoi 10,734 7,009 6,215 10,194 6,773 5,980 11,203
Bulandshar 12,650 10,050 8,862 11,906 9,681 8,494 13,375
Non-traditional maize growing states
Andhra Pradesh Nizamabad -t -- -- 16,806
Karimnagar 12,388


Mahboobnagar
Karnataka Chitradurga
Dharwad
Belgaum


11,444
15,063
13,000
14,520


6,003 5,215
7,512 6,450
9,510 8,297
1,819 1,181
5,419 4,544
7,509 6,790
9,084 8,578
5,534 5,215
7,253 6,684
8,806 8,181
7,253 6,684
10,500 9,587

12,619 11,294
7,925 6,975
7,281 6,706
10,625 10,031
9,062 7,987
9,142 8,500


Source: IFAD-CIMMYT-lndia RRA Surveys, 2001.
SUS$ 1.00 = Indian Rs. 44.00 (May 2004).
= not cultivated.
Note: Farm gate prices were used to compute the data. Cost A: All paid up costs; Cost B: Cost A+ imputed value of family labor and family bullock labor; Cost C: Cost B+ imputed
rental value of owned land + cost of owned capital.


Table 15b. Net returns over cost (Rs/hat) of various maize cultivars in selected states of India, 2001.


Local maize varieties Composite maize varieties Hybrid maize varieties
District Cost C Cost B Cost A Cost C Cost B Cost A Cost C Cost B Cost A


State


Traditional maize growing states
Bihar Munger 114 2,439 3,439 3,369 5,523 6,523 7,385 9,920 10,710
Siwan -290 1,185 2,488 4,181 5,500 6,812 7,553 9,278 10,340
Begusarai -3152 85 1,585 6 2,994 4,494 5,326 8,851 10,063
Madhya Pradesh Jhabua 1088 4,513 4,950 4,000 7,675 8,113 6,116 9,541 9,979
Mandsaur -2817 1,332 2,332 44 4,022 5,022 5,946 10,221 11,096
Chindwara -5738 -2,238 -1,395 -2,036 1,237 2,081 866 4,616 5,334
Rajasthan Banswara -5381 -2,144 -1,350 -2,688 200 994 3,966 7,491 7,997
Bhilwara 1594 3,919 4,450 4,850 6,800 7,331 6,778 9,316 9,634
Udaipur -494 3,231 4,025 1,450 4,850 5,644 4,522 8,472 9,041
Uttar Pradesh Behraich -4684 -884 29 -3,024 401 1,313 5,966 10,054 10,679
Hardoi -5554 -1,848 -1,055 -2,454 967 1,760 -883 3,067 3,636
Bulandshar -6500 -3,900 -2,712 -2,066 159 1,346 1,385 4,260 5,173
Non-traditional maize growing areas
Andhra Pradesh Nizamabad -t -- -- 9,319 13,506 14,831


Karimnagar
Mahboobnagar
Karnataka Chitradurga
Dharwad
Belgaum


12,788 17,250 18,200
11,356 15,519 16,084
10,113 14,550 15,144
10,750 14,688 15,763
10,268 15,366 15,361


State


Source: IFAD-CIMMYT-lndia RRA Surveys, 2001.
SUS$ 1.00 = Indian Rs. 44.00 (May 2004).
= not cultivated.
Note: Farm gate prices were used to compute the data. Cost A: All paid up costs; Cost B: Cost A+ imputed value of family labor and family bullock labor; Cost C: Cost B+ imputed
rental value of owned land + cost of owned capital.












Efficient maize producing zones were delineated based efficiency. The remaining districts were efficient maize
on the unit cost of production (Figure 9). It was noted producers. Introduction of hybrids changed the scenario.
that all selected maize growing districts in Uttar Only Chindwara in Madhya Pradesh and Hardoi in Uttar
Pradesh, Chindwara and Mandsaur in Madhya Pradesh, Pradesh were inefficient (Figure 10). Therefore, strong
and Banswara in Rajasthan were inefficient when seed sector and technology dissemination mechanisms
cultivating local varieties because of poor yield levels, need to be developed to achieve widespread use of
Maize production in Begusarai in Bihar and Bhilwara and improved technologies and hybrids.
Udaipur in Rajasthan was borderline in terms of



Table 15c. Unit cost of production (Rs/kgt) of various cultivars in selected states of India, 2001.
Local maize varieties Composite maize varieties Hybrid maize varieties
State District Cost C Cost B Cost A Cost C Cost B Cost A Cost C Cost B Cost A


Traditional maize growing states
Bihar Munger 3.21 2.31 1.93 2.16 1.58 1.31 1.74
Siwan 3.93 3.29 2.72 2.69 2.27 1.86 2.00
Begusarai 4.57 3.39 2.84 3.21 2.41 2.00 2.41
Madhya Pradesh Jhabua 3.54 1.09 0.78 2.45 0.81 0.59 2.10
Mandsaur 6.90 3.90 3.20 4.58 2.59 2.09 2.85
Chindwara 10.40 7.10 6.30 6.05 4.12 3.63 4.50
Rajasthan Banswara 7.84 5.68 5.15 5.59 4.15 3.75 3.23
Bhilwara 3.70 2.60 2.30 2.64 1.95 1.76 2.45
Udaipur 4.45 2.90 2.57 3.77 2.51 2.22 3.03
Uttar Pradesh Behraich 7.00 5.00 4.00 5.54 3.90 3.47 2.80
Hardoi 8.95 5.84 5.18 5.66 3.76 3.32 4.67
Bulandshar 9.04 7.18 6.33 4.91 4.03 3.54 3.71
Non-traditional maize growing areas
Andhra Pradesh Nizamabad -t -- -- 3.06


Karimnagar
Mahboobnagar
Karnataka Chitradurga
Dharwad
Belgaum


1.23 1.06
1.63 1.40
1.76 1.54
0.67 0.49
1.59 1.34
3.00 2.72
2.33 2.20
1.68 1.58
1.96 1.81
1.91 1.78
3.02 2.78
2.92 2.66


2.29 2.05


2.34 1.49 1.32
2.38 1.52 1.39
2.84 2.00 1.89
2.60 1.81 1.60
2.71 1.83 1.26


Source: IFAD-CIMMYT-India RRA Surveys, 2001.
t US$1.00 = Indian Rs. 44.00 (May 2004).
S- = not cultivated.
Note: Farm gate prices were used to compute the data. Cost A: All paid up costs; Cost B: Cost A+ imputed value of family labor and family bullock labor; Cost C: Cost B+ imputed
rental value of owned land + cost of owned capital.


SEfficient zone
SBorder zone
SInefficient zone


Figure 9. Delineation of maize
production systems according to
cost of production-combined.


M [3 Efficient zone
L I Border zone
Inefficient zone



Figure 10. Delineation of maize
production systems according to
cost of production-hybrids.


LL
I' --

U-











Regions were grouped into four categories based on
yield levels and unit cost of production: (1) low-yield
and high-cost, (2) high-yield and high-cost, (3) low-
yield and low-cost, and (4) high-yield and low-cost
(Table 16). The most favorable region combines high-
yield and low-cost, while low-yield and high-cost
identify the most undesirable regions. It should be
noted that about one-third of the maize area is
characterized as high-yield and low-cost. Most non-
traditional maize growing areas and, to some extent,
Bihar fall into this category. Another extreme situation,
low-yield and low-cost, is found in Jhabua district in
Madhya Pradesh, where yields are very low and the
unit cost of production is also low.

Technology and policy solutions to maize productivity
constraints would not be the same for different
categories within the table. While new research
frontiers to raise yield levels would be the possible
strategy in the high-yield and low-cost group, strong
technology dissemination programs would be the
prerequisite for low-yield and low-cost areas (Table 16).
Low-yield and high-cost regions call for alleviating
biotic and abiotic constraints. Low yields may be due to
biotic and abiotic constraints, and farmers may incur
costs while trying to minimize their losses. The fourth


area, characterized as high-yield and high-cost, needs
resource-saving technologies to reduce costs and
enhance input use efficiency.



2.2.7 Post-harvest practices and product/
by-product utilization patterns

The important post-production/post-harvest operations
for maize are drying, grain (and seed) storage, shelling,
and milling. Despite technological advances, solar
drying, not mechanical drying, is commonly practiced
across the study areas. With large proportions of
production aimed for the market, all surveyed states
(except Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and the Hardoi
district of Uttar Pradesh) have improved storage
facilities that prevent grain damage from ground- or
rainwater, insect pests, and excessive heat. These
facilities consist of bins with thatched roofs or brick
roofs, and ferro-cement bins. Conventional storage
methods include cribs, and open and closed mud-
plastered baskets. In Rajasthan, maize is stored in
thatched-roof cribs. In general, the type of storage
structure depends largely on the farmer's financial
status. The introduction of high-yielding hybrids called
for modern, improved storage facilities. Local maize
varieties, which have several husk layers tightly


Table 16. Maize area (%) and possible strategies for improving production efficiency,
by yield and production cost category, India, 2001.
Maize yield level
Low (less than 3 t/ha) High (more than 4 t/ha)
Attribute Rainy season Winter season Rainy season Winter season
Production cost High Chindwara Chindwara Munger Munger
Mandsaur Mandsaur Siwan Siwan
Jhabua Jhabua Karimnagar
Mehboobnaga
Dharwad
Alleviation of abiotic Resource saving
and biotic constraints (41%) strategies (22%)
Low Hardoi Hardoi Begusarai Begusarai
Banswara Banswara Behraich Behraich
Bhilwara Bulandshar
Udaipur Nizamabad
Belgaum Chitradurga
Technology dissemination New yield
strategies (4%) frontiers (33%)
SFigures in parentheses are the estimated proportions of maize area in each category.


covering the ear, have some
protection against common
insects. Hybrids, with shorter,
loose husks, do not have the
same protection.

In general, shelling is still done
conventionally in the field or in
home backyards. In
conventional shelling, grains
are removed from the cobs
either by beating them on the
ground or having animals walk
over them. Milling, on the
other hand, is done
mechanically in all study areas,
except Jhabua, Madhya
Pradesh, where it is still done
conventionally, i.e., flour is
milled from maize grains using
a hand-held stone mill, which
virtually all households in the
village own.











With few exceptions, more than 50% of all maize
produced in both traditional and non-traditional maize
growing areas is marketed (Table 17). Traditional maize
growing areas marketed up to 80% of their produce,
while the marketed surplus in non-traditional areas was
as high as 96%. In contrast, the marketable surplus is a
mere 33% in Jhabua, Madhya Pradesh, and 35% in
Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

Farmers in non-traditional maize growing areas, as well
as in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, grow maize for
commercial purposes, i.e., a large portion is sold on the
market. In contrast, the crop is important for household
food security in traditional maize growing areas, where
a significant portion is consumed as food, especially in
poorer districts. Maize consumption as food, however,
has gradually declined over time, due to the availability
of cheaper rice and wheat in fair price shops. Also, 2-5%
of all maize produced is eaten as green ears, particularly
in Nizamabad, Andhra Pradesh. Green ears have
become popular in urban areas and fetch high prices. A
quick maize crop for green ears earns high profits,
provides green fodder for animals, and clears land for
subsequent crops. These advantages can be realized
provided there is a good market close to the village.
Unfortunately, the maize production environment has a


poor network of markets and very low levels of
urbanization. Contract farming prevails in states where
maize and allied industries have flourished in the past,
especially in southern India. Such arrangements may
also help ensure better returns to maize growers in
other states/regions.

Dry, shelled cobs are used as fuel. Green leaves and
stems, from thinning the maize crop, are used as
animal fodder. Maize grain is often fed to dairy cattle,
whose milk yield is reported to increase by 20-25% if
fed maize grain. Maize gives higher conversion of dry
substance to milk, meat, and eggs as compared to
other cereals. Maize grain is either fed directly to
animals or is dried, milled, and mixed with other
ingredients.

Farmers are unaware of other uses of maize and its
products. Nor are they familiar with specialty maize
types and products such as baby corn, sweet corn,
popcorn, corn oil, and corn syrup. If these alternative
maize types and products could be introduced in
conjunction with assured markets and agro-processing
industries, this would go a long way towards improving
livelihoods of poor maize producers.


Table 17. Maize utilization and marketing (% of total maize production) in selected states of India, 2001.
Retained for home utilization
State District Grain consumption Green ear Animal feed Wastage Marketed surplus
Traditional maize growing states
Bihar Munger 10 2 5 3 80
Siwan 10 2 10 3 75
Begusarai 20 5 10 5 60
Madhya Pradesh Chindwara 40 3 5 5 47
Mandsaur 30 2 5 5 52
Jhabua 55 5 2 5 33
Uttar Pradesh Behraich 19 2 5 2 74
Hardoi 20 2 5 3 70
Bulandsahar 30 3 5 2 60
Rajasthan Banswara 30 2 5 3 60
Bhilwara 60 2 1 2 35
Udaipur 45 2 1 2 50
Non-traditional maize growing states
Andhra Pradesh Mahboobnagar 0 2 3 1 94
Karimnagar 0 2 2 2 94
Nizamabad 0 1 2 1 94+2 (green ear)
Karnataka Chitradurga 0 2 1 1 96
Dharwad 1 2 1 1 95
Belgaum 1 2 1 1 95
Source: IFAD-CIMMYT-India RRA Surveys, 2001.












3. Maize Production Constraints


3.1 Biotic and Abiotic Constraints

Compared to most cereals, maize faces fewer biotic and
abiotic constraints to production. Weeds are the major
problem during the rainy season. Farmers reported that,
in the absence of appropriate crop management
practices, weed damage to the maize crop may be as
high as 50-75%. Most farmers control weeds and
perform almost all crop management operations twice.
Cynodon dactylon and Echinocloa are important weeds
in all study sites. Amaranthus and Achyranthes aspera
are also found in Madhya Pradesh and Cyprus rotendrus
in Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka (Table 18).

Among the insect pests, caterpillars (Amsacta moorei),
stem borers (Chilo partellus), and termites
(Odontotermes obesus) seriously affect plant growth
and maize production in all the study sites. Rats also
severely damage maize ears in all the areas. Weevils
(Cylas formicaricus) and cutworms (Agrotis ipsilon) are
found in Bihar; jassids (Amrasca biguttula), aphids


(Rhopalosiphum maidis), moths (Plutella maculipennis)
and white grubs (Lachnosterna consanguinea) in
Madhya Pradesh; grasshoppers (Hieroglyphus
nigrorepletus) and white grubs (Lachnosterna
consanguinea) in Rajasthan; and pink borers (Chilo
zonellus) and termites (Odontotermes obesus) in
Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. Among diseases, rust
(Puccinia sorghi) is common in all the sites.
Xanthomonas spp. is reported in Bihar and downy
mildew (Sclerospora philippinensis) in Madhya Pradesh.
Post-flowering stalk rot (PFSR) is a common disease in
Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. Though not insects,
nematodes reduce maize production in Andhra
Pradesh, Karnataka, and Rajasthan.

Farmers reported that drought in the rainfed regions
and waterlogging in times of excess rainfall are the
most important abiotic constraints to maize production
in India (Table 19). In central Uttar Pradesh, surface
waterlogging was reported to occur twice in every five
years during normal planting times, causing 60-80%


Table 18. Important biotic constraints affecting maize production in selected states of India, 2001.
State District Insects and nematodes Diseases Weeds
Traditional maize growing states
Bihar Munger Caterpillar, stem borer, termites, weevil, rats Rust leaf blight Cynodon dactylon, Echinocloa
Siwan Caterpillar, stem borer, termites, cutworm, weevil, rats Rust leaf blight C. dactylon, Echinocloa Cucurbitaceae family
Begusarai Caterpillar, stem borer, termites, weevil, rats Rust leaf blight, stalk rot C. dactylon, Echinocloa Cucurbitaceae family
Madhya Pradesh Chindwara Caterpillar, stem borer, termites, aphids,jassids, rats Rust downy mildew C. dactylon, Echinocloa, Amaranthus
Mandsaur Caterpillar, stem borer, termites, aphids,jassids, Rust downy mildew C. dactylon, Echinocloa, Amaranthus,
maydis, grubs, moths, rats Cynodon bengalensis
Jhabua Caterpillar, stem borer, termites, jassids, maydis, rats Rust, downy mildew Echinocloa, Amaranthus, C. bengalensis,
Achyranthes aspera
Uttar Pradesh Bahraich Termites, stem borer, caterpillar, cutworm, leaf roller Rusts, brown spot, seed and seedling blight C. dactylon, Echinocloa, Trianthema
monogyna,wild rice
Hardoi Termites, stem borer, caterpillar, cutworm, leaf roller Rusts, brown spot, seed and seedling blight C. dactylon, Motha, T. monogyna
Bulandsahar Termites, stem borer, caterpillar, cutworm Brown spot, seed and seedling blight C. dactylon, Motha, T. monogyna
Rajasthan Banswara Grasshopper, stem borer, termites, nematodes, white grub Downy mildew, leaf spot Echinocloa, Amaranthus
Bhilwara Grasshopper, stem borer, termites, nematodes, white grub Downy mildew, leaf spot Echinocloa, Amaranthus
Udaipur Grasshopper, stem borer, termites, nematodes, white grub Downy mildew, leaf spot Echinocloa, Amaranthus
Non-traditional maize growing states
Andhra Pradesh Mahboobnagar Stem borer; pink borer, termite Post-flowering sheath rot, leaf blight Cyprus rotendrus, C. dactylon, Echinocloa
Karimnagar Stem borer; termites, nematodes Post-flowering sheath rot, leaf blight C. rotendrus, C. dactylon, Echinocloa
Nizamabad Stem borer; termites, nematodes Post-flowering sheath rot, leaf blight C. rotendrus, C. dactylon, Echinocloa
Karnataka Chitradurga Stem borer; shoot fly, termites Post-flowering sheath rot, leaf blight C. rotendrus, C. dactylon, Echinocloa
Dharwad Stem borer; termites, nematodes, grubs Post-flowering sheath rot, rust, leaf blight C. rotendrus, C. dactylon, Echinocloa, Amaranthus
Belgaum Stem borer; termites, nematodes, grubs Post-flowering sheath rot, leaf blight, rust C. rotendrus, C. dactylon, Echinocloa, Amaranthus
Source: IFAD-CIMMYT-India RRA Surveys, 2001.











crop damage. Excessive soil moisture when rainy
season maize is being sown makes farmers delay
planting, which in turn impedes plant growth and
adversely affects production. Surface waterlogging
and excessive soil moisture are causing maize to be
gradually replaced by rice. Zinc deficiency is common,
but very few farmers apply zinc to their maize crop
because they cannot afford it, and because they are
not aware of its uses.


3.2 Institutional
and Economic
Constraints

3.2.1 Output prices

During 2000/01, the
Government of India fixed the
minimum support price for
maize grain at Rs. 4.40/kg
(US$ 0.10/kg), which was
about 7.2% higher than in the
previous year. The RRA
surveys found that farmers
tend to sell their produce for
less than this minimum
support price. Farmers in Bihar
were affected more severely
than farmers in Madhya
Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh
(Table 20). In 1999/2000, the
minimum support price was
Rs. 4.15/kg (US$ 0.09/kg),
and most farmers in all
locations received 8-15%
higher prices for their produce
on the open market (Table 21).

In 2000/01, farm gate prices
of most food grains in India
declined and that of maize
grain declined by 25-30%
compared to the previous
year's price. These low prices
were due mainly to huge
buffer stocks of food grains
maintained by the
government and a very


lukewarm response of the government machinery for
procurement. The 4% increase in maize production, as
compared to that in 1999/2000, as well as the import
of 235,000 metric tons of maize in 1999 (after
continuous exports from 1992 to 1998) also pulled
maize prices down during 2000/01. At the global level,
maize prices also show a declining trend. Production
efficiency will have to improve to step-up yield levels
and compensate for the decline in prices if maize
producers are to be protected from imports.


Table 19. Important abiotic constraints affecting maize production in selected states
of India, 2001.
State Agro-ecological region District Abiotic stresses
Traditional maize growing states
Bihar South Bihar Alluvial Plain Munger Water stress, zinc deficiency, late planting, flooding, wilting
North West Alluvial Plain Siwan Water stress, zinc deficiency, late planting
North West Alluvial Plain Begusarai Water stress, zinc deficiency, late planting, flooding, wilting
Madhya Pradesh Satpura Plateau Chindwara Water stress, zinc deficiency, late planting
Malwa Plateau Mandsaur Water stress, zinc deficiency, late planting
Jhabua Jhabua Water stress, zinc deficiency, late planting
Uttar Pradesh North Eastern Plain Behraich Water stress, waterlogging, late planting
Central Plain Hardoi Water stress, waterlogging, late planting
Western Plain Bulandshar Water stress, late planting
Rajasthan Humid South Plain Banswara Late planting
Sub-humid Southern Plain Bhilwara Acute water stress, late planting
Sub-humid Southern Plain Udaipur Acute water stress, late planting
Non-traditional maize growing states
Andhra Pradesh Northern Telangana Mahboobnagar Water stress, late planting, zinc deficiency
Northern Telangana Karimnagar Water stress, late planting, zinc deficiency
Scarce rainfall zone Nizamabad Water stress, late planting
Karnataka Central dry zone Chitradurga Water stress, late planting, wilting
Northern dry zone Dharwad Water stress, late planting, zinc deficiency
Northern dry zone Belgaum Water stress, late planting, zinc deficiency
Source: IFAD-CIMMYT-India RRA Surveys, 2001.


Table 20. Prices of winter season harvested maize (Rs/kgt) in selected
states of India, 2001.
Farm gate prices Nearest market prices
State District Local Composite Hybrids Local Composite Hybrids
Traditional maize growing states
Bihar Munger 3.00 3.25 3.00 3.25 3.50 3.25
Siwan 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.65 3.65 3.65
Begusarai 3.25 3.40 3.25 3.40 3.55 3.40
Madhya Pradesh Chindwara 3.90 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.10 4.10
Mandsaur 4.00 4.20 4.00 4.10 4.30 4.30
Jhabua 3.75 4.00 3.90 3.90 4.10 4.10
Uttar Pradesh Behraich 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.65 4.65 4.65
Hardoi 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.60 4.60 4.60
Bulandsahar -- -
Rajasthan Banswara 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.15 4.15 4.15
Bhilwara 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.75 3.75 3.75
Udaipur 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.90 3.90 3.90
Non-traditional maize growing states
Andhra Pradesh Mahboobnagar -- -
Karimnagar -- -
Nizamabad -- -
Karnataka Chitradurga -- -
Dharwad -- -
Belgaum -- -
Source: IFAD-CIMMYT-India RRA Sunreys, 2001. t US$1.00= Indian Rs. 44.00 (May 2004). --= not cultivated.











3.2.2 Markets


As in other developing countries, markets and road
networks in the maize growing regions of India are not
well developed. Roads in most maize growing regions
are much poorer than the national average, and even
feeder roads are not well laid out.

Markets for food grains in general, and maize in
particular, are very thinly spread throughout the maize
growing regions. Most maize production is sold in
local village markets, where grain prices are 2-8%
lower than those in the nearest regulated market (see
earlier discussion). Grain prices in the latter markets are
still lower than the government-established minimum
support price. Farmers continue to sell their produce in
the local village market because: (1) when grains are
sold outside the village, transportation costs tend to be
higher than marginal returns due to price difference,
and (2) farmers tend to sell to local traders, especially if
they need to pay back any loan they may have taken
out to purchase inputs and for consumption purposes.
Farmers were of the opinion that there is no other
reliable way to sell their produce, as the volume is
often very low. A collective effort for transportation and
marketing would minimize transportation costs, allow
quick product disposal, and fetch higher output prices.



Table 21. Prices of rainy season harvested maize (Rs/kg) in se
states of India, 2001.
Farm gate prices Nearest market
State District Local Composite Hybrid Local Composit
Tr rliti l i i ct tn e


3.2.3 Technological know-how

The technology transfer process (through the public
extension system) in the study area was observed to be
very weak. The private sector has a visible presence,
particularly in areas where hybrids have been adopted.
Important private seed companies in the region include
Pioneer, Cargill, Ganga-Kaveri, and Bioseed. These
companies were present mainly in Andhra Pradesh,
Karnataka, and Bihar, where maize is cultivated as a
commercial crop in relatively more favorable areas.
Private seed companies promote their hybrids through
local seed merchants.

The study found that far mers were not familiar with
other improved maize technologies (e.g., herbicides,
pesticides, and post-harvest management). Most
reported they had no contact with village extension
workers and obtained agricultural information from
local seed and agro-input merchants and/or the radio.
Access to television is very limited. There is a need to
increase contacts between farmers and scientists to
disseminate new information and allow higher returns
to investment from agricultural research. Innovative
attempts have been initiated in this direction by the
Chandra Sekhar Azad University of Agriculture and
Technology, Kanpur, through a help-line service.
Farmers can call the help-line during a
given time period and get the solution
to their problems directly from experts
elected at the university. There is a need to
popularize such initiatives among
prices farmers, to disseminate first-hand
e Hybrid information, and to replicate the
approach in other locations.


Bihar Munger 4.50 4.60 4.50 4.65 4.75 4.65
Siwan 4.70 4.70 4.60 4.85 4.85 4.75
Begusarai 4.50 4.50 4.40 4.65 4.65 4.55
Madhya Pradesh Chindwara 4.80 4.80 4.70 4.85 4.85 4.80
Mandsaur 4.75 4.75 4.65 4.85 4.80 4.85
Jhabua 4.75 4.75 4.65 4.85 4.80 4.75
Uttar Pradesh Behraich 5.50 5.50 5.40 5.60 5.60 5.60
Hardoi 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.90 4.90 4.90
Bulandsahar 5.25 5.25 5.25 5.35 5.35 5.35
Rajasthan Banswara 4.50 4.25 4.25 4.60 4.35 4.35
Bhilwara 4.25 4.15 4.15 4.35 4.25 4.25
Udaipur 4.25 4.15 4.15 4.35 4.25 4.25
Non-traditional maize growing states
Andhra Pradesh Mahboobnagar -- -- 3.50 4.45
Karimnagar 3.60 4.50
Nizamabad 4.00 4.75
Karnataka Chitradurga 4.25 4.50
Dharwad 4.00 4.50
Belgaum 4.00 4.50
Source: IFAD-CIMMYT-India RRA Surveys, 2001.
SUS$ 1.00 = Indian Rs. 44.00 (May 2004).
-- = not cultivated.
Note: In the 1999/2000 crop season, the government announced a minimum support price of Rs. 4.15/kg, which is 7.2%
higher than in the previous year











4. Priority Constraints for Research


To develop a demand-driven maize R&D plan, it is
important to systematically prioritize the abiotic, biotic,
and socio-economic constraints discussed earlier. An
objective and analytically driven R&D program is
expected to improve research efficiency. This chapter is
devoted to assessing and prioritizing constraints to
maize production, particularly in the upland areas of
India.



4.1 Methodology

Earlier, Widawsky and O'Toole (1996), Ramasamy et al.
(1997), and Roy and Datta (2000) prioritized production
constraints based on the yield gap concept. These
studies assumed that the gap between yields produced
in on-farm demonstrations and in farmers' fields was
due to abiotic, biotic, and socio-economic constraints,
and sub-divided the causes of the yield gap into several
prevailing constraints. These authors argue that the
technology is already available, and that the yield gap
was essentially due to lack of information or non-
availability of the necessary inputs. In the present study,
we have not used the yield gap concept; instead, we
estimated the damage due to prevailing constraints.


4.1.1 Abiotic and biotic constraints
To estimate the damage caused by prevailing abiotic
and biotic constraints, the RRA survey asked farmers to
estimate or assess three parameters. The first parameter
was the maize yield losses caused by specific abiotic
and biotic constraints that farmers were unable to
control due to poor access to technology information or
lack of resources to apply available technologies. The
second parameter was the extent of maize area
affected by a specific constraint; the third parameter
was the probability of occurrence of the constraints,
which gave the frequency of occurrence of the
constraints and how much yields were adversely
affected by them. These three parameters have
significant impact on prioritizing production constraints.


Total expected damage due to a specific abiotic or
biotic constraint was computed as follows:

Di = ((YL, Ai p) TMA} P.

where Di is total expected damage (in Indian rupees)
due to the i" constraint; YL is maize yield loss (kg/ha)
due to the th constraint; A, is the proportion of total
maize area adversely affected by the ith constraint; p, is
the probability of occurrence of the ith constraint; TMA
is the total maize area (hectares) in the target domain;
and Pm is the price of maize (mpees/kg).

An attempt was also made to prioritize socio-
economic constraints by computing the expected
losses incurred as a consequence of the constraint.
Farmers reported four major socio-economic
constraints: (1) low prices, (2) lack of markets, (3) non-
availability of improved seed, and (4) lack of technical
know-how. The following steps were taken to assess
the losses due to the first three constraints.


4.1.2 Low prices
Due to a glut of food grains, particularly rice and
wheat, in most target locations, farmers complained
about receiving prices for maize that were lower than
the minimum support price announced by the
government. The income loss due to these lower
prices was computed as follows:

Lp = (MSP. -PRM) MP,

where L is the income loss (in rupees) due to
receiving lower prices of maize; MSPm is the minimum
support price (in mpees/kg) announced by the
government; PRMm is the price (rupees/kg) received
by farmers in the nearest market; and MPt is the
quantity of maize (kg) marketed/sold in the tth target
domain.











4.1.3 Lack of markets


Due to inadequately developed markets for maize,
farmers usually received lower prices in village markets
than in organized markets located some distance away.
The loss due to non-existence of maize markets in a
village is computed as follows:

L. = ((PRMm- PR ) TC,v MQV

where Lm is the income loss (in rupees) due to lack of
markets in the village, PRMm is the price received by
farmers in the nearest market (rupees/kg); PRMv is the
price received by farmers in the village (rupees/kg);
TCm, is the transportation cost (in rupees/kg) between
the organized market and the village; and MQV is the
amount of maize (in kg) sold in the village.



4.1.4 Non-availability of improved
cultivars

Due to a weak seed sector, farmers lacked access to
higher-yielding maize varieties, especially hybrids.
Losses due to non-availability of improved cultivars,
particularly hybrids, is computed as follows:

L, = {(Y Yc) A + (Yh Y,) (1-s) A, ) P.

where Ls is the income loss (in rupees) due to non-
availability of hybrid maize seed; Y, is the yield of
hybrid maize (in kg/ha); Ye is the yield of composite
maize (in kg/ha); Y1 is the yield of local maize (in kg/
ha); A, is the area under composite maize (hectares); A,
is the area under local maize (hectares); s is the share
(%) of maize farmers' preference for local maize; (1-s) is
the share (%) of maize farmers' preference for hybrid
maize; and P, is the price of maize (in rupees/kg).

The value of damage became the criterion for ranking
farmer-identified maize productivity constraints in
India. The higher the value of the damage, the higher
the constraint ranked as a research priority. All
production constraints were ranked according to their
share in production losses.



SAp the area under local maize, has been multiplied by (1-s)
on the assumption that farmers sow local maize due to
non-availability of hybrids; thus if hybrids were made
available, the current area under local varieties would
switch over to hybrids. "Preferences" here refer to
cultivating in a broad sense.


4.2 Prioritization of Maize
Production Constraints

4.2.1 Abiotic and biotic constraints

Thirty-two abiotic and biotic production constraints
were identified and prioritized based on the damage
caused to maize production (Appendices 4, 5, and 6).
The estimated total annual income lost as a result of
these constraints was about Rs. 17,541 million (US$
399 million) in BIMARU states and about Rs. 14,800
million (US$ 397 million) in KAP states.

In the traditional maize growing BIMARU states, more
than 95% of the production damage was caused by 13
abiotic and biotic constraints (Table 22a). Fifty-two
percent of the damage to maize production was
attributed to four constraints: Echinocloa, Cynodon
dactylon, rats, and termites. Caterpillars, water stress,
stem borers, and weevils accounted for about 30% of
the damage to total maize production in the selected
states and were ranked as the next priority at the
national level. Next in the priority ranking were zinc
deficiency, rust, seed/seedling blight, cutworms, and
leaf blight, which together are responsible for about
13% of total damage to maize production. The
remaining 19 constraints contributed less than 5% to
production losses and have low priority at the national
level.



Table 22a. Prioritization of major constraints to maize
production in traditional maize growing areas (BIMARU
states), India, 2001.
Estimated damage
Yield Area Probability In % total
Production loss affected of millions production
constraint (%) (%) occurrence of Rs.t loss
Echinocloa 15-25 90-100 1.0 3,430 19.55
Cynodon dactylon 9-15 75-100 0.6-1.0 2,265 12.91
Rats 7.5-15 100 0.8-1.0 1,895 10.80
Termites 15-25 50-80 0.6-1.0 1,478 8.43
Caterpillars 8-10 80-100 1.0 1,525 8.69
Water stress 10-17.5 50-100 0.2-1.0 1,155 6.58
Stem borers 7.5 80-100 1.0 1,350 7.69
Weevils 6-10 100 1.0 1,256 7.16
Zinc deficiency 7.5-12.5 75-100 0.8-1.0 761 4.34
Rusts 3.5-12.5 50-75 0.5-0.7 323 1.84
Seed &seedling 15 75-80 0.5-0.8 669 3.82
blight
Cutworms 3.5-12.5 25-60 0.4-0.6 298 1.70
Leaf blight 3.5-12.5 50-75 0.25-0.7 176 1.03
Miscellaneous 1,050 5.03
Total production 17,541 100.00
losses
Source: IFAD-CIMMYT-lndia RRA Surveys, 2001.
t US$ 1.00 = Indian Rs. 44.00 (May 2004).
Note: Estimated damage computed using: D,= {(YL, A,* p,) TMA} Pm











In the non-traditional maize growing KAP states, more
than 97% of production losses was reportedly due to
the top 10 abiotic and biotic constraints (Table 22b).
The top four constraints (Echinocloa, C. dactylon,
termites, and caterpillars) already accounted for about
56% of production losses. Water stress and stem
borers accounted for about 27% of the losses, while
three constraints, namely weevils, zinc deficiency, and
rust, caused 14% of production losses.



4.2.2 Socio-economic constraints

Farmers reported four key socio-economic constraints,
and an attempt was made to prioritize them. In all the
states included in this study, the highest income loss
was due to non-availability of quality seed and lack of




Table 22b. Prioritization of major constraints to maize
production in non-traditional maize growing areas (KAP
states), India, 2001.
Estimated damage
Yield Area Probability In % total
Production loss affected of millions production
constraint (%) (%) occurrence of Rs.t loss
Cyprusrotendrus 12.5-20 90-100 0.75-1.00 3,691.75 24.94
Leaf blight 10-15 75-100 0.50-1.00 2,299.71 15.54
Water stress 10-15 75-100 0.25-1.00 2,278.23 15.39
Stem borers 10-20 50-90 0.50-0.80 1,701.19 11.49
Cynodon dactylon 10-15 50-75 0.50-0.75 1,272.95 8.62
Echinocloa 7.5-10 75 0.50-0.75 1,032.72 6.98
Post-flowering
stalk rot 10-15 50-75 0.25-0.75 719.36 4.86
Zinc deficiency 10 10-75 0.10-0.80 498.96 3.37
Termites 10-15 25-60 0.25-0.80 432.30 2.92
Late planting 10-15 25-50 0.25-0.50 418.75 2.82
Cylesia 10-15 0.25 0.50 189.77 1.28
Rusts 10 0.50 0.25 126.51 0.85
Shoot fly 10 50 0.50 64.74 0.43
Nematodes 5-10 10-25 0.25 32.66 0.22
Grubs 10 0.25 0.10 25.30 0.17
Wilting 25 10 0.20 12.95 0.08
Total production
losses 14,797.85 100.00
Source: IFAD-CIMMYT-India RRA Surveys, 2001.
t US$1.00= Indian Rs. 44.00 (May 2004).
Note: Estimated damage computed using: D= {(YL* A, p) TMA} Pm


knowledge of suitable technologies (Table 23 and
Appendix 7). These two constraints accounted for
about 97% of the total estimated losses due to all four
socio-economic constraints. Low prices and lack of
markets appeared not to be of much significance.
These results suggest that more emphasis should be
given to strengthening the seed sector and
implementing innovative technology dissemination
methods in maize growing areas.

Rats and termites accounted for about 20% of total
production losses. Since technological options for
controlling these biotic constraints are already
available, non-adoption appears to be the main
constraint. Lack of appropriate input markets,
inadequate information about improved technologies,
and failure of collective action constrains the adoption
of available rat- and termite-control technologies.



Table 23. Prioritization of socio-economic constraints to
maize production in selected traditional and non-traditional
maize growing states of India, 2001.
Constraints State Losses (Rs. 000t) Rank
Lack of remunerative prices Bihar 484.76 2
Madhya Pradesh 139.87 3
Rajasthan 622.17 1
Andhra Pradesh 119.68 4
Karnataka 56.14 5
Total 1,422.62
Lack of quality seed Bihar 10,082.72 3
Madhya Pradesh 7,124.00 4
Uttar Pradesh 17,272.29 1
Rajasthan 17,134.82 2
Total 51,613.85
Lack of market Bihar 406.41 2
Madhya Pradesh 90.11 5
Rajasthan 485.78 1
Andhra Pradesh 358.74 3
Karnataka 224.55 4
Total 1,665.59
Lack of knowledge Bihar 6,326.02 5
Madhya Pradesh 5,521.73 6
Uttar Pradesh 11,959.97 4
Rajasthan 12,673.54 3
Andhra Pradesh 18,933.50 2
Karnataka 20,602.32 1
Total 76,017.08
Total loss due to socio-economic constraints: Rs. 130,719,100
Source: IFAD-CIMMYT-India RRA Surveys, 2001.
t US$ 1.00 = Indian Rs. 44.00 (May 2004).
Note: Lack of knowledge is a qualitative parameter whose influence is implicit in previous
estimations.











5. Agenda for Maize Research and

Development in India


Maize R&D is considered important in India. An
independent All India Coordinated Research
Improvement Project on maize was established in
1957, which has made significant contributions and was
elevated to the Directorate of Maize Research in 1994.
The private seed sector also participates in maize
breeding research and seed production, carrying out
more than 50% of maize R&D in India. There have been
several research outputs during the last two decades.
Between 1988 and 1999, the public and private sectors
released 41 improved cultivars, which included 24 full-
season hybrids, 5 medium-duration hybrids, 7 early-
duration hybrids, and 5 composites (Directorate of
Maize Research 1999). Public sector research was more
focused on developing composites, while the private
sector devoted more research efforts to developing
hybrids. Since hybrids have higher yield potential, the
private sector was successful in disseminating their
products in more favorable regions. The public sector
should also attach higher priority to developing hybrids
with high yield potential and early maturity. Improved
management practices were also developed to manage
weeds, water stress, and insect pests. Yet the benefits
for maize improvement were not realized to the same
extent as they were for rice and wheat. Why the
benefits of R&D efforts did not reach maize producers is
an issue of concern. A fragile maize seed sector and
ineffectual extension mechanisms in the study domain
were commonly cited as factors hindering the adoption
of improved cultivars and management practices.
Hence there is a need to document analytically-based
reasons for low farmer adoption of improved maize
technologies.

In this study, maize research priorities were developed
in consultation with both public- and private-sector
maize scientists. The list of constraints elicited during
the RRA surveys in different regions was presented to
the scientists for developing alternative research
strategies. Three criteria were used to prioritize farmer-
identified production constraints and develop the R&D
plan for maize in India: (1) research efficiency, (2)
poverty in the target domain, and (3) marginality of the


environment. The prevailing opinion was that highly
efficient research on production constraints in acute
poverty-ridden and marginal environments should
receive the highest research priority.

Research efficiency was computed using the following
parameters:

* estimated yield loss due to a specific constraint,

* expected benefit (yield gain) as a result of developing
and adopting improved technologies for alleviating
the constraint,

* probability of success in developing the desired
technologies, and

* expected farmer adoption in the target domain.

The latter two parameters were estimated based on
historical trends in different target domains. Information
on people living below the poverty line, drawn from
the National Sample Survey Organization, Government
of India, was used as a criterion for prioritizing the R&D
agenda. An indicator of marginality of the production
environment was used to give due priority to fragile
and harsh environments. The inverse of maize yield was
used as a proxy for this variable, such that lower maize
yields would indicate more marginal production
environments.



5.1 Regional Priorities

Each region has specific climate, production
environment, and resource endowment; therefore,
problems vary across regions. This section describes
how research agendas for different regions and
production environments were prioritized. Based on
the indicators used for prioritization, production
constraints for winter season irrigated maize in the
eastern region ranked as the most important, followed
by constraints in the southern region with high and
medium rainfall, and then by those in the central and










western regions. Alleviating production constraints for
spring and rainy season maize in the eastern region
had the lowest priority. Research and development
agendas by region are described below and presented
in Table 24.



5.1.1 Central and western region
The central and western region is characterized as a
low yielding maize environment, where mostly local/
traditional varieties are cultivated mainly for household
food security. Based on average annual rainfall, the
region was divided into two sub-regions: (1) the low
rainfall (less than 500 mm per year) sub-region
covering most of Rajasthan; and (2) the medium- to-
high-rainfall (500-900 mm per year) sub-region
covering the whole of Madhya Pradesh and parts of
central and western Uttar Pradesh. In the low-rainfall
sub-region, moisture stress was the key constraint to
maize production, and aggressive breeding efforts to
overcome the drought problem are needed, as they
are thought to be more relevant than water-saving or
water management technologies. The use of
biotechnology to develop transgenic maize for drought
management would benefit poor and resource-scarce
farming communities in the low rainfall sub-region.
Other key research priorities in this sub-region are
inadequate availability of quality seed, lack of early
maturing varieties (needed for drought management),
and broadleaf and grassy weeds.

In the medium-to-high rainfall sub-region, key research
priorities are similar to those in the low rainfall region:
inadequate availability of quality seed, moisture stress,
unbalanced fertilizer use, lack of early maturing
varieties, and broadleaf and grassy weeds.

Public and private seed sectors are weak in both sub-
regions. Most farmers in these sub-regions are
resource poor and cannot afford to buy improved
seed, even if available. Under such a scenario, the
agricultural research institutions and state agricultural
universities based in the sub-regions may initiate seed
multiplication programs and sell at reasonable prices,
and hence pass on the benefits of research to farmers
confronted with poverty and water scarcity.

Given the poverty level and low yields, the region
needs to prioritize maize research. The research
environment is difficult, however, and may require
higher research outlays than are needed in favorable
environments. The research lag may be high with a
low probability of success because the production
environment is risky, fragile, and under stress. A
focused and completely revamped research strategy to


address the key research priorities could generate
technologies suited to farmers' resources and production
environments.



5.1.2 Eastern Uttar Pradesh and Bihar

In this region, maize production is gradually shifting
from the rainy to the winter season, when the crop is
grown mainly under irrigation, so that yield levels are
higher and unit costs are lower. Lack of quality seed,
inappropriate crop establishment, and a lack of balanced
use of nutrients during the winter season were the top
three researchable issues in this region. A strong policy
research analysis, assessing the reasons for non-
availability of improved seed and developing
appropriate strategies to overcome this constraint,
would allow further expansion of the area under winter
maize. Similarly, diagnostic surveys to understand the
reasons for inappropriate crop establishment and lack of
balanced use of nutrients would provide deeper insights
for undertaking in-depth research programs. Other
problems in the eastern region for winter and irrigated
maize (minimization of post-harvest losses, management
of Turcicum leaf blight, and post-flowering stalk rot)
would also benefit from research efforts. Inter-cropping
with maize and transplanting maize under late sown
conditions are other high-priority research issues for
which public and private sector research is in progress.

In the high and medium rainfall regions of Eastern Uttar
Pradesh and Bihar, the priority constraints are related to
appropriate variety development. The development of
medium- and full-season cultivars for high rainfall
regions and of extra-early or early cultivars for medium
rainfall regions are the highest priority. Researchable
issues are more or less the same within the eastern
region but their ranking varies depending on the
location's rainfall regime. For example, weeds have a
higher priority in high rainfall regions than in the medium
rainfall areas. Development of drought-escape varieties
along with appropriate management practices may be
the best research strategy.



5.1.3 Southern region
This non-traditional maize growing region encompasses
Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, and is characterized as
high yielding. Maize is grown for commercial purposes,
mainly to meet the growing demand for poultry feed. It
is grown in varying rainfall regimes (or sub-regions) in
this region: low (<500 mm), medium (500-750 mm),
and high (>750 mm). Among the three rainfall regimes,
the high rainfall area is the most important, and the low
rainfall sub-region is the least important for maize
production.












Table 24. Top 10 priority constraints for maize research by region and rainfall regime, India, 2001.

Traditional maize growing areas (Northern India) Non-traditional maize growing
areas (Southern India)
Rainfall Central and Western Uttar Pradesh,
regime Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan Eastern Uttar Pradesh and Bihar Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh
Low Moisture stress (drought) Drought
Inadequate availability of quality seed Lack of quality seed
Lack of early maturing varieties Post-flowering stalk rot
Unbalanced/improper use of fertilizers Stem borers
Broadleaf and grassy weeds Turcicum leaf blight
Post-flowering stalk rot Improper nutrient management
Chilo partellus (stem borers) Zinc deficiency
Brown stripe downy mildew (BSDM) Storage pests
Termites
Improper maize-based intercropping system
Medium Lack of extra early & early varieties with quality seed Turcicum leaf blight
Occasional drought Post-flowering stalk rot
Inadequate crop establishment method Lack of quality seed
Post-harvest losses Stem borers
Inadequate use of fertilizers (low N) Water management (irrigated environment)
Weed problems Waterlogging (irrigated environment)
Stem borers Micronutrient deficiency
Maydis leaf blight Weed management
Bacterial stalk rot Storage pests
Mixed cropping Early maturing hybrids (irrigated environment)

Medium Inadequate availability of quality seed
to high Moisture stress (drought)
Unbalanced/improper use of fertilizers
Lack of early maturing varieties
Broadleaf and grassy weeds
Chilo partellus (stem borers)
Post-flowering stalk rot
Lack of location-specific transfer of technology for
rainfed conditions, especially for farm women
Maydis leaf blight
Banded leaf and sheath blight (BLSB)
High Lack of appropriate medium, full-season seed Drought (AP)
Inadequate crop establishment method Lack of quality seed
Inadequate use of fertilizers Post-flowering stalk rot
Weed problems Brown stripe downy mildew (KAR-Kharif)
Stem borers Turcicum leaf blight
Excess water (waterlogging) Stem borers
Postharvest losses Banded leaf and sheath blight
Maydis leaf blight Weed management
Bacterial stalk rot Storage pests
Mixed cropping

Spring Lack of quality seed of early maturing varieties for spring season
Stem borers
Inappropriate crop establishment
Unbalanced fertilizer use
Post-harvest losses
Maydis leaf blight
Promotion of intercropping

Winter Lack of quality seed
(irrigated) Inappropriate crop establishment
Unbalanced fertilizer use
Post-harvest losses
Turcicum leaf blight
Post-flowering stalk rot
Promotion of intercropping
Transplanting maize under late sown conditions
Source: IFAD-CIMMYT-India RRA Surveys, 2001.










Drought, non-availability of good quality seed, and
post-flowering stalk rot are the top research priorities
in both the low and high rainfall sub-regions. Research
strategies for drought would differ depending on the
rainfall regime. In the low rainfall sub-region, persistent
drought during crop growth is a serious problem. In
contrast, it is terminal drought that affects production
in the high rainfall sub-region. Breeding efforts along
with in-situ moisture conservation could alleviate the
drought problem. Non-availability of good quality seed
is another problem limiting maize production. Though
there are many private and public seed companies in
the region, it appears that availability of unadulterated
seed is still a problem. Policy research to critically
diagnose the problem and assess impediments for
acquiring good quality seed is a prerequisite to
prescribing the solutions. Simultaneously, strict
enforcement of quality control standards should be
aggressively initiated in the region to overcome the
problem of farmer exploitation by seed companies.

In the medium rainfall region, Turcicum leaf blight
(TLB), post-flowering stalk rot, and non-availability of
good quality seed are the key priority constraints and
research issues. Strong breeding efforts are required to
address the problem of TLB. A combination of breeding
efforts with plant protection and crop management
research is required to manage post-flowering stalk rot.
The seed sector needs to be strengthened through
policy research and institutional support to solve these
problems.


5.1.4 Anticipatory research
Maize is gradually spreading to non-traditional maize
growing areas (to meet increasing household and feed
industry demands), and its uses are also changing.
Though the majority of the rural population is still using
maize as a staple food, the higher-income stratum
prefers it for soup and vegetable purposes and
increasingly uses maize oil. The broiler industry
requires better protein convertibility and low-cost feed
materials to improve competitiveness. Therefore, it is
important to incorporate end-users' needs into the on-
going research program, and the research focus may
need to be shifted to address new challenges. In this
context, the priority research topics identified included
quality protein maize, baby corn, popcorn, sweet corn,
high oil content, wax starch, and dual-purpose maize
(food and fodder). In addition, a research focus aimed
at developing innovative institutional arrangements to
strengthen production-marketing-processing linkages


would benefit producers, consumers, and the emerging
poultry industry, because market access also poses a
major obstacle in traditional maize growing areas.



5.2 National Research Priorities

At the national level, the Directorate of Maize Research
develops the research agenda for frontier areas and
coordinates research of common interest in different
locations.

Results of the research prioritization exercise in this
study show that research priorities across the selected
maize growing regions in India may vary depending on
research targets/objectives: efficiency, poverty, and
marginality of environment (see Table 25). When
efficiency is the main focus of research, the top
priorities may be confined to new niches, such as the
non-traditional areas of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka
or in eastern Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, where maize has
emerged as a new winter season crop. The private
sector is also active in these new niche areas. If poverty
alleviation is the main objective for maize research,
alleviating constraints in poverty-ridden Eastern Uttar
Pradesh and Bihar, followed by Kamataka and Andhra
Pradesh, and the Central and Western Regions of Uttar
Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Madhya Pradesh, has high
priority. If marginality of the production environment is
the focus of research, alleviating maize production
constraints in Eastern Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, and the
Central and Western regions is important.

There is, however, a trade-off when one moves from
one objective to another, i.e, between research
efficiency, poverty alleviation, and marginality. The
trade-off means that, using a given efficiency criterion,
research efforts would address the yield-maximizing
and cost-reducing objective with an overall increase in
employment opportunities and farmers' income. When
poverty alleviation comes to the forefront, however,
efficiency is sacrificed to some extent. Similarly, when
marginality of the environment, which can cover a
larger area, is emphasized, research efficiency would
have to be sacrificed. For example, if poverty alleviation
becomes the primary research objective, the loss in
terms of research efficiency is about 5%, but it covers
17% more poor people. Similarly, if marginality is
considered an objective, there would be a reduction of
approximately 33% in research efficiency, but a larger
maize area (roughly 25%) in marginal environments
would be included for research.












If all research objectives (efficiency, poverty alleviation,
and marginality of the production environment) are
combined, the key national priorities are as listed in
Table 25. Based on these priorities, seven problems
common across all regions were identified, and the
following key research areas are suggested:

* Policy research
Lack of quality seed
Unbalanced nutrient use
* Drought, moisture stress, and water management
* Poor crop establishment


At the national level, these research issues need to be
addressed through efficient networks. Under the All
India Coordinated Research Project on Maize (AICRIP),
research projects focusing on improvement of
promising cultivars, advanced agronomic practices,
nutrient management, and diseases and pests are being
carried out for the overall development of the country's
maize sector. Recently, efforts are also being geared up
for minimizing post-harvest losses and exploring
alternative uses of maize, especially for mal- and under-
nourished segments of society.


* Turcicum leaf blight
* Post-flowering stalk rot
* Stem borers
* Post-harvest losses


Table 25. Overall research prioritization for maize in India, 2001.


Ranking by priority index used


Rainfall regime
Winter (irrigated)
High
High
Winter (irrigated)
Winter (irrigated)
Winter (irrigated)
High
Winter (irrigated)
High
Winter (irrigated)
High
Winter (irrigated)
High
High
Winter (irrigated)
High
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium to high
Medium
Medium to high
Medium
Medium to high
Medium
Medium to high
Spring
Medium to high
High (kharif)
Medium (kharif)
Medium to high
High (kharif)
Medium (kharif)


Production constraint
Lack of quality seed
Drought (AP)
Quality seed
Inappropriate crop establishment
Unbalanced fertilizer use
Post-harvest losses
Post-flowering stalk rot
Turcicum leaf blight
Brown stripe downy mildew (BSDM) (KAR-Kharif))
Post-flowering stalk rot
Turcicum leaf blight
Promotion of intercropping
Stem borers
Banded leaf and sheath blight
Transplanting maize under late sown conditions
Weed management
Storage pests
Turcicum leaf blight
Post-flowering stalk rot
Quality seed
Stem borers
Water management (irrigated environment)
Waterlogging (irrigated environment)
Micronutrient deficiency
Inadequate availability of quality seed
Weed management
Moisture stress (drought)
Storage pests
Unbalanced/improper fertilizer use
Early maturing hybrids (irrigated environment)
Lack of early maturing varieties
Lack of quality seed of early maturity for spring season
Broadleaf and grassy weeds
Lack of appropriate medium, full-season seed
Lack of extra early & early varieties with quality seed
Stem borers
Inadequate crop establishment method
Occasional drought


Efficiency
2
1
3
4
5
7
6
10
8
11
9
14
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
25
27
28
30
29
31
32
33
36
35
34
39
38


Poverty
1
9
10
2
3
4
11
5
12
6
13
7
14
15
8
16
17
33
34
38
41
44
47
54
18
56
19
60
20
64
21
22
25
23
24
26
27
28


Marginality
1
9
10
2
3
4
11
5
12
6
13
7
14
15
8
16
19
28
29
30
32
34
37
45
17
49
18
54
20
58
21
31
22
35
35
23
39
39


Weighted rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
34
36
37
37


State group
EUP & Bihar
KAP
KAP
EUP & Bihar
EUP & Bihar
EUP & Bihar
KAP
EUP & Bihar
KAP
EUP & Bihar
KAP
EUP & Bihar
KAP
KAP
EUP & Bihar
KAP
KAP
KAP
KAP
KAP
KAP
KAP
KAP
KAP
C&W UP, MP, Raj
KAP
C&W UP, MP, Raj
KAP
C&W UP, MP, Raj
KAP
C&W UP, MP, Raj
EUP & Bihar
C&W UP, MP, Raj
EUP & Bihar
EUP & Bihar
C&W UP, MP, Raj
EUP & Bihar
EUP & Bihar


Source: IFAD-CIMMYT-India RRA Surveys, 2001.
t TOT = Transfer of technology
Note: C&W Central and Western region; UP: Uttar Pradesh; MP: Madhya Pradesh; KAP: Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh; KAR: Karnataka; Raj: Rajasthan; EUP: Eastern Uttar Pradesh; AP: Andhra Pradesh.











Table 25. Overall research ...cont'd.
Ranking by priority index used
State group Rainfall regime Production constraint Efficiency Poverty Marginality Weighted rank
C&W UP, MP, Raj Medium to high Post-flowering stalk rot 37 32 24 39
EUP & Bihar Spring Stem borers 40 29 41 40
EUP & Bihar High (kharif) Inadequate fertilizer use 42 30 42 41
EUP & Bihar Medium (kharif) Inadequate crop establishment method 41 31 42 41
EUP & Bihar Spring Inappropriate crop establishment 43 35 46 43
EUP & Bihar High (kharif) Weed problems 45 36 47 44
EUP & Bihar Medium (kharif) Post-harvest losses 44 37 47 44
C&W UP, MP, Raj Medium to high Lack of location-specific TOT' for rainfed conditions, 46 42 25 46
especially for farm women
C&W UP, MP, Raj Medium to high Maydis leaf blight 47 43 26 47
EUP & Bihar Spring Unbalanced fertilizer use 48 39 50 48
EUP & Bihar High (kharif) Stem borers 49 40 51 49
EUP & Bihar Medium (kharif) Inadequate fertilizer use (low N) 51 45 52 50
EUP & Bihar Spring Post-harvest losses 50 46 52 50
C&W UP, MP, Raj Medium to high Banded leaf and sheath blight (BLSB) 52 50 27 52
EUP & Bihar High (kharif) Excess water (waterlogging) 54 48 56 53
EUP & Bihar Medium (kharif) Weed problems 53 49 56 53
EUP & Bihar Spring Maydis leaf blight 55 51 59 55
EUP & Bihar High (kharif) Post-harvest losses 57 52 60 56
EUP & Bihar Medium (kharif) Stem borers 56 53 60 56
EUP & Bihar Spring Promotion of intercropping 59 55 62 58
C&W UP, MP, Raj Medium to high Termites 58 57 33 59
EUP & Bihar High (kharif) Maydis leaf blight 61 58 64 60
EUP & Bihar Medium (kharif) Maydis leaf blight 60 59 64 60
C&W UP, MP, Raj Medium to high Brown stripe downy mildew (BSDM) 62 63 38 62
EUP & Bihar High (kharif) Bacterial stalk rot 64 61 66 63
EUP & Bihar Medium (kharif) Bacterial stalk rot 63 62 66 63
C&W UP, MP, Raj Medium to high Improper maize-based intercropping system 65 67 44 65
EUP & Bihar High (kharif) Mixed cropping 67 65 69 66
EUP & Bihar Medium (kharif) Mixed cropping 66 66 69 66
C&W UP, MP, Raj Medium to high Rats 68 68 55 68
C&W UP, MP, Raj Medium to high Weevils during storage 69 69 63 69
C&W UP, MP, Raj Medium to high Cob borer (Helicoverpa armigera) 70 70 68 70
C&W UP, MP, Raj Medium to high Nematodes 71 71 71 71
KAP Low Drought 72 76 86 72
KAP Low Quality seed 73 78 87 73
KAP Low Post-flowering stalk rot 74 81 89 74
KAP Low Stem borers 75 83 90 75
KAP Low Turcicum leaf blight 76 84 92 76
KAP Low Improper nutrient management 77 87 93 77
C&W UP, MP, Raj Low Moisture stress (drought) 79 72 72 78
KAP Low Zinc deficiency 78 89 94 79
C&W UP, MP, Raj Low Inadequate availability of quality seed 81 73 73 80
KAP Low Storage pests 80 90 96 81
C&W UP, MP, Raj Low Lack of early maturing varieties 82 74 74 82
C&W UP, MP, Raj Low Unbalanced/improper fertilizer use 83 75 75 83
C&W UP, MP, Raj Low Broadleaf and grassy weeds 84 77 76 84
C&W UP, MP, Raj Low Post-flowering stalk rot 85 79 77 85
C&W UP, MP, Raj Low Stem borers 86 80 78 86
C&W UP, MP, Raj Low Brown stripe downy mildew (BSDM) 87 82 79 87
C&W UP, MP, Raj Low Termites 88 85 80 88
C&W UP, MP, Raj Low Improper maize-based intercropping system 89 86 81 89
C&W UP, MP, Raj Low Lack of location-specific TOT' for rainfed conditions, 90 88 82 90
especially for farm women
C&W UP, MP, Raj Low Maydis leaf blight 91 91 83 91
C&W UP, MP, Raj Low Lack of package for sloping & eroded lands 92 92 84 92
C&W UP, MP, Raj Low Nematodes 93 93 85 93
C&W UP, MP, Raj Low Weevils during storage 94 94 88 94
C&W UP, MP, Raj Low Cob borer (Helicoverpa armigera) 95 95 91 95
C&W UP, MP, Raj Low Rats 96 96 95 96
Source: IFAD-CIMMYT-India RRA Surveys, 2001.
t TOT = Transfer of technology
Note: C&W Central and Western region; UP: Uttar Pradesh; MP: Madhya Pradesh; KAP: Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh; KAR: Karnataka; Raj: Rajasthan; EUP: Eastern Uttar Pradesh; AP: Andhra Pradesh.











6. Summary and Conclusions


During the last three decades, maize production in
India has markedly increased, largely driven by the
growing demand from the feed industry. This study
diagnosed the performance of maize in two distinct
production environments, identified production
constraints, and developed R&D priorities at the
national and regional levels.

Maize is grown in two distinct production
environments: (1) traditional areas, which are mostly
marginal and rainfed, and (2) non-traditional maize-
growing areas, which are mostly commercial and more
favorable production environments. In traditional areas,
a large share of maize output is retained to meet
household food grain requirements, while in non-
traditional areas, most maize production is supplied
and sold to the feed industry. Yields in non-traditional
areas are much higher than the national average.
Production in these areas has rapidly increased as a
result of area expansion, crop substitution, and yield
improvements due to adoption of modern maize
varieties.

Rainy season maize yield levels in the traditional areas
(particularly Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh,
and Bihar) are lower than both the national and global
averages. Winter maize is emerging as a new crop in
Eastern Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. Maize has also gained
importance in the non-traditional maize growing areas
of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. Across India, less
area is planted to winter maize than rainy-season
maize, but yield levels during the winter season are
considerably higher and comparable to global averages
and yields in many developed countries. Similarly,
general maize yields in Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka
are much higher than the national average. Maize
production in these non-traditional environments,
however, suffers from lack of irrigation facilities, which
are essential, especially for winter maize.

Adoption of improved cultivars was common in non-
traditional areas and seasons but low in traditional
areas. Hybrids outperform local and composite cultivars


both in terms of yield and profitability. Hybrids are
popular mostly in Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka,
where the seed sector is strong. In other production
environments, there is only a limited area under
hybrids. Lack of short-duration hybrids, unsuitable
environment, and absence of a strong seed sector
impose major obstacles to adoption of hybrids in
traditional maize growing areas.

Farmers' maize production problems were documented
in this study. Weeds, mainly Echinocloa and Cynodon
dactylon, are the major constraints to maize production,
followed by rats and termites. These four constraints
appear to be common across production environments
and across all crops being grown in the region.
Caterpillars, water stress, stem borers, and weevils also
reduce maize production and must receive priority.
Other constraints were related to zinc deficiency, rust,
seed/seedling blight, cutworm, and leaf blight.

Non-availability of hybrids and poor information
dissemination were found to be the principal socio-
economic constraints. A strong seed sector and an
effective extension network would go a long way
towards augmenting income from maize.

Based on the existing constraints and research
opportunities, an R&D agenda was developed for
different regions. Three criteria were used for
prioritizing the research agendas: efficiency, poverty
alleviation, and marginality of the environment. Among
regions, the eastern region (the winter season under
irrigated conditions) should receive the highest
research priority, followed by the southern region, the
central and western regions, and the eastern region
(the high rainfall season). One of the most important
constraints common to all regions was non-availability
of good quality seed. Other researchable issues were
drought (terminal or occasional), moisture stress, and
water management. Among biotic constraints, Turcicum
leaf blight, post-flowering stalk rot, and stem borers
were most important at the national level.










The study observed that maize has potential for product
diversification under a new economic regime. Demand
for maize is shifting from food to feed for livestock and
poultry. For foods, new types of maize-based products
(soups, vegetables, edible oils) are in demand among
people in the higher-income strata. New opportunities
need to be tapped by providing appropriate
technologies to farming communities.

Future maize production will largely depend on how
markets are developed. Except in the southern non-
traditional maize growing region, the production-
marketing linkages are extremely weak and need to be


strengthened. Linkages are stronger in southern
regions because innovative institutions for poultry
production, in the form of contract farming, have
emerged. The new arrangements are win-win
propositions for maize and poultry producers, the
hatchery and feed industry, and the consumers. The
new arrangements are responsible, to a great extent,
for the large-scale area expansion of maize into the
southern region. There is a need to develop
mechanisms for strengthening the production-
marketing-processing maize system in the northern
traditional maize growing areas, so that the poverty-
ridden maize producers can also benefit.












References


Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy. 2000. Economic
intelligence service profiles of districts Centre for Monitoring
Indian Economy Pvt. Ltd. (CMIE), New Delhi.
Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy. 2000. Economic
intelligence service agriculture. Centre for Monitoring Indian
Economy Pvt. Ltd. (CMIE), New Delhi.
Directorate of Maize Research. 1999. Annual Report 1997 99.
Directorate of Maize Research, New Delhi.
Ghosh, S.P 1991. Agro-climatic zone specific research. Indian
Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi.
Government of India. 2000. Cost of cultivation of principal crops
in India. Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of
Agriculture, New Delhi.
Paroda, R.S., and P. Kumar. 2000. Food production and demand
in South Asia. Agricultural Economics Research Review
13(1):1-25.


Ramasamy, C., T.R. Shanmugam, and D. Suresh Kumar. 1997.
Priority setting for rice research in southern India an ex ante
approach. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics
52(1):101-113.
Roy, B.C., and K.K. Datta. 2000. Rice-wheat system in Haryana:
prioritizing production constraints and implications for future
research. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics
55(4):671-683.
Widawsky, D.A., and J.C. O'Toole. 1996. Prioritizing the rice
research agenda for eastern India. In: R.E. Evension, R.W.
Herdt, and M. Hossain (eds.). Rice Research in Asia:
Progress and Priorities. CAB International Wallingford, Oxon,
UK. Pp. 109-130.












Appendix 1. Important maize cultivars in selected traditional maize growing states of India, 2001.
Kharif (Wet) Rabi (Dry)
State District Local OPVs Hybrids Local OPVs Hybrids
Biha Munger Tulbuliya Shweta, Kanchan, Vijay, laxmi Cargill, Bioseed Viay, Devki Pioneer, Cargill
Siwan Tulbuliya, Tinpakhiya Shweta, Mashina Pant Makka Cargill Vijay Pioneer
Begusarai Tulbuliya, Tinpakhiya Pant Makka Cargill Viay, Pant Makka Pioneer, Cargill
Madhya Pradesh Chindwara Sathi, Mogar Chandan, Jawahar-8, NLD Cargill Sathi Chandan, Jawahar, NLD Ganga-2
Mandsaur Sathi, Mogar Chandan, Jawahar-8, NLD Ganga-2 Sathi Chandan, NLD Ganga-5
Jhabua Sathi Chandan, Jawahar-8, Jawahar-12, NLD Ganga-5 Sathi Chandan, Jawahar-8 -
Uttar Pradesh Behraich Jaunpuri Shweta, Kanchan Deccan-103 Jaunpuri Shweta, Kisan Proagro-4212,
Hardoi Jaunpuri Shweta, Kanchan, Azad Uttam Pioneer, Ganga-5 Jaunpuri Shweta, Kanchan, Azad Uttam Ganga Kaveri
Bulandshar Meerut Shweta, Kanchan, Azad Uttam Ganga-5 -Ganga-5
Rajasthan Banswara Sathi Navjot Mahi Kanchan, Mahi Dhawal Pioneer, Ganga-5 Sathi Navjot, Mahi Kanchan -
Bhilwara Negadi, Sathi Navjot Mahi Kanchan, Ganga-2, Ganga-11, Negadi, Mahi Kanchan Deccan103,
Mahi Dhawal Deccan-103 Sathi
Udaipur Negadi, Sathi Navjot Mahi Kanchan, Mahi Dhawal Ganga-2,Ganga-11, Sathi Navjot Mahi Kanchan Ganga-11, Cargill
Deccan-103 Ganga-11
Ganga-11, Deccan-103



Appendix 2. Important cropping systems in maize growing states of India, 2001.

Area under maize (%)
State Agro-eco regions District Common crop rotations Rainy season Winter season
Bihar South Bihar alluvial plain Munger maize/millets/kulthi (pulse)-fallow, maize-linseed, maize+cowpea/early arhar-cowpea/ 30 40
oilseeds, maize/millets-barley/arhar/lentil/urd/gram/oilseeds, paddy-wheat, maize+
bottlegourd/bittergourd/melons
Northwest alluvial plain Siwan paddy-wheat maize-wheat, maize+sunflower-pulse (gram, arhar, pea, beans)- 15 25
sugarcane/tobacco/chilis/oilseeds/potato
Northeast alluvial plain Begusarai paddy-wheat/maize, maize-jute/tobacco/ginger/gourd/turmeric/vegetables brinjall, 10 40
tomato, pea)
Madhya Satpura plateau Chindwara maize/soybean/pulses/urd/paddy-wheat/maize/gram/vegetables, maize-wheat 20 30
Pradesh Malwa plateau Mandsaur maize/soybean/pulses/urd-groundnut/oilseeds/sorghum-maize-fallow, maize/ 15 25
soybean/urd-groundnut/oilseeds/sorghum
Jhabua hills Jhabua paddy/maize/cotton/soybean/pulses(arhar+ (mustard/potato)/oilseeds, 20 40
groundnut/kodo-wheat
Uttar Northeast plain zone Behraich paddy/maize-wheat maize-rapeseed-sugarcane, maize+gourd-wheat, maize+urd/ 30 15
Pradesh moong-wheat, paddy-wheat-maize
Central plain Hardoi maize-wheat/sugarcane, paddy/maize-wheat maize, potato-wheat, maize-potato+ 25 10
coriander-vegetables, maize-mustard-onion, maize-potato-cucumber, maize-chilis
Western plain Bulandshar paddy/maize-wheat maize-wheat-sugarcane, maize-potato-sugarcane, maize-mustard- 35
urd/moong, maize-potato-cucurbits, maize+urd/moong-wheat maize/sorghum-wheat
Rajasthan Humid south plain Banswara maize/paddy/cotton/sorghum/groundnut/sesame-fallow, maize-wheat/gram/barley, 35 40
maize-wheat-sugarcane, maize-wheat-greengram
Sub-humid south plain Bhilwara maize/sorghum/pearl millet-fallow/maize-wheat/oilseeds 30
Sub-humid south plain Udaipur maize/sorghum/barley/pearl millet-wheat/fallow 25
Andhra North Telangana Nizamabad maize-wheat/sugarcane, paddy/maize-wheat, maize, potato-wheat maize-potato+ 25
Pradesh coriander-vegetables, maize-mustard-onion, maize-potato-cucumber, maize-chillies
North Telangana Karimnagar paddy/maize-wheat maize-rapeseed-sugarcane, maize+ gourd- wheat, maize+urd/ 30
moong-wheat, paddy-wheat-maize
Scarce Rainfall Zone Mehboobnagar paddy/maize-wheat maize-wheat-sugarcane, maize-potato-sugarcane, maize-mustard- 35
urd/moong, maize-potato-cucurbits, maize+urd/moong-wheat maize/sorghum-wheat
Karnataka Central Dry Zone Chitradurga maize/paddy/cotton/sorghum/groundnut/sesamum-fallow, maize-wheat/gram/ 35
barley, maize-wheat-sugarcane, maize-wheat-greengram
North Dry Zone Dharwad maize/sorghum/pearl millet-fallow, maize-wheat/oilseeds 30
North Dry Zone Belgaum maize/sorghum/barley/pearl millet-wheat/fallow 25
Source: IFAD-CIMMYT-India RRA Surveys, 2001.
S = not cultivated.












Appendix 1. Important maize cultivars in selected traditional maize growing states of India, 2001.
Kharif (Wet) Rabi (Dry)
State District Local OPVs Hybrids Local OPVs Hybrids
Biha Munger Tulbuliya Shweta, Kanchan, Vijay, laxmi Cargill, Bioseed Viay, Devki Pioneer, Cargill
Siwan Tulbuliya, Tinpakhiya Shweta, Mashina Pant Makka Cargill Vijay Pioneer
Begusarai Tulbuliya, Tinpakhiya Pant Makka Cargill Viay, Pant Makka Pioneer, Cargill
Madhya Pradesh Chindwara Sathi, Mogar Chandan, Jawahar-8, NLD Cargill Sathi Chandan, Jawahar, NLD Ganga-2
Mandsaur Sathi, Mogar Chandan, Jawahar-8, NLD Ganga-2 Sathi Chandan, NLD Ganga-5
Jhabua Sathi Chandan, Jawahar-8, Jawahar-12, NLD Ganga-5 Sathi Chandan, Jawahar-8 -
Uttar Pradesh Behraich Jaunpuri Shweta, Kanchan Deccan-103 Jaunpuri Shweta, Kisan Proagro-4212,
Hardoi Jaunpuri Shweta, Kanchan, Azad Uttam Pioneer, Ganga-5 Jaunpuri Shweta, Kanchan, Azad Uttam Ganga Kaveri
Bulandshar Meerut Shweta, Kanchan, Azad Uttam Ganga-5 -Ganga-5
Rajasthan Banswara Sathi Navjot Mahi Kanchan, Mahi Dhawal Pioneer, Ganga-5 Sathi Navjot, Mahi Kanchan -
Bhilwara Negadi, Sathi Navjot Mahi Kanchan, Ganga-2, Ganga-11, Negadi, Mahi Kanchan Deccan103,
Mahi Dhawal Deccan-103 Sathi
Udaipur Negadi, Sathi Navjot Mahi Kanchan, Mahi Dhawal Ganga-2,Ganga-11, Sathi Navjot Mahi Kanchan Ganga-11, Cargill
Deccan-103 Ganga-11
Ganga-11, Deccan-103



Appendix 2. Important cropping systems in maize growing states of India, 2001.

Area under maize (%)
State Agro-eco regions District Common crop rotations Rainy season Winter season
Bihar South Bihar alluvial plain Munger maize/millets/kulthi (pulse)-fallow, maize-linseed, maize+cowpea/early arhar-cowpea/ 30 40
oilseeds, maize/millets-barley/arhar/lentil/urd/gram/oilseeds, paddy-wheat, maize+
bottlegourd/bittergourd/melons
Northwest alluvial plain Siwan paddy-wheat maize-wheat, maize+sunflower-pulse (gram, arhar, pea, beans)- 15 25
sugarcane/tobacco/chilis/oilseeds/potato
Northeast alluvial plain Begusarai paddy-wheat/maize, maize-jute/tobacco/ginger/gourd/turmeric/vegetables brinjall, 10 40
tomato, pea)
Madhya Satpura plateau Chindwara maize/soybean/pulses/urd/paddy-wheat/maize/gram/vegetables, maize-wheat 20 30
Pradesh Malwa plateau Mandsaur maize/soybean/pulses/urd-groundnut/oilseeds/sorghum-maize-fallow, maize/ 15 25
soybean/urd-groundnut/oilseeds/sorghum
Jhabua hills Jhabua paddy/maize/cotton/soybean/pulses(arhar+ (mustard/potato)/oilseeds, 20 40
groundnut/kodo-wheat
Uttar Northeast plain zone Behraich paddy/maize-wheat maize-rapeseed-sugarcane, maize+gourd-wheat, maize+urd/ 30 15
Pradesh moong-wheat, paddy-wheat-maize
Central plain Hardoi maize-wheat/sugarcane, paddy/maize-wheat maize, potato-wheat, maize-potato+ 25 10
coriander-vegetables, maize-mustard-onion, maize-potato-cucumber, maize-chilis
Western plain Bulandshar paddy/maize-wheat maize-wheat-sugarcane, maize-potato-sugarcane, maize-mustard- 35
urd/moong, maize-potato-cucurbits, maize+urd/moong-wheat maize/sorghum-wheat
Rajasthan Humid south plain Banswara maize/paddy/cotton/sorghum/groundnut/sesame-fallow, maize-wheat/gram/barley, 35 40
maize-wheat-sugarcane, maize-wheat-greengram
Sub-humid south plain Bhilwara maize/sorghum/pearl millet-fallow/maize-wheat/oilseeds 30
Sub-humid south plain Udaipur maize/sorghum/barley/pearl millet-wheat/fallow 25
Andhra North Telangana Nizamabad maize-wheat/sugarcane, paddy/maize-wheat, maize, potato-wheat maize-potato+ 25
Pradesh coriander-vegetables, maize-mustard-onion, maize-potato-cucumber, maize-chillies
North Telangana Karimnagar paddy/maize-wheat maize-rapeseed-sugarcane, maize+ gourd- wheat, maize+urd/ 30
moong-wheat, paddy-wheat-maize
Scarce Rainfall Zone Mehboobnagar paddy/maize-wheat maize-wheat-sugarcane, maize-potato-sugarcane, maize-mustard- 35
urd/moong, maize-potato-cucurbits, maize+urd/moong-wheat maize/sorghum-wheat
Karnataka Central Dry Zone Chitradurga maize/paddy/cotton/sorghum/groundnut/sesamum-fallow, maize-wheat/gram/ 35
barley, maize-wheat-sugarcane, maize-wheat-greengram
North Dry Zone Dharwad maize/sorghum/pearl millet-fallow, maize-wheat/oilseeds 30
North Dry Zone Belgaum maize/sorghum/barley/pearl millet-wheat/fallow 25
Source: IFAD-CIMMYT-India RRA Surveys, 2001.
S = not cultivated.












Appendix 3. Maize cultivation calendar by season, in selected maize growing
states of India, 2001.
Fortnight and month
State Operation Rainy season Winter season Labor performing task

Bihar Land preparation II, May 1, II, Oct; I, Nov Male
Planting I, June 1, II, Nov Male, Female
Fertilizer application I, II, June 1, II, Nov Male, Female
Weeding II, July II, Nov; I, II Dec Female, Male
Harvesting 1,11, Sep; I, Oct II, Mar Male, Female
Madhya Pradesh Land preparation 1,11, May 1, II, Oct; I, II, Nov Male
Planting II, May; I, June 1, II, Nov Male, Female
Fertilizer application I, June 1, II, Nov, Dec Male, Female
Weeding I, II, July II, Dec; I Jan Female, Male
Harvesting II, Aug; I, II, Sep II, Feb; I, II, Mar Male, Female
Uttar Pradesh Land preparation I, II June II Oct, I, II Nov Male
Planting II June, I July II Nov, I Dec Male, Female
Fertilizer application II July, I Aug II Nov, I Dec Male, Female
Weeding II July, I Aug II Dec, I Jan Female, Male
Harvesting II Sept, I Oct I, II Mar Male, Female
Rajasthan Land preparation I, II May II, Oct; I, II, Nov Male
Planting I, II June I, II, Nov Male, Female
Fertilizer application I, II June I, II, Nov, Dec Male, Female
Weeding II June, I, II July, II, Dec; I Jan Female, Male
Harvesting II, Aug; I, II, Sep 1, II, Mar Male, Female
Andhra Pradesh Land preparation I, II June -Male
Planting I June, II June -Male, Female
Fertilizer application I July, II July Male, Female
Weeding II July, I Aug Female, Male
Harvesting I Sept., II Sept Male, Female
Karnataka Land preparation I, II May Male
Planting I, II June -Male, Female
Fertilizer application I, II June, I July Male, Female
Weeding II June, I, II July Female, Male
Harvesting II Aug, I, II Sep Male, Female
Source: IFAD-CIMMYT-India RRA Surveys, 2001.
I first fortnight.
II second fortnight.












Appendix 4. Production constraints and their impact on maize production, BIMARU states, India, 2001.

Constraint Agroecological Yield loss to due Area affected Probability of occurrence Estimated damage
and state zone to constraint (%) by constraint (%) of constraint (Rs. milliont)
Echinocloa
Uttar Pradesh Wstern plain 25.0 90 1.0 955.83
Bihar North western alluvial plain 15.0 100 1.0 663.93
Uttar Pradesh Central plain 25.0 100 1.0 561.11
Bihar North east alluvial plain 12.5 100 1.0 403.98
Uttar Pradesh North eastern plain 20.0 100 1.0 325.00
Madhya Pradesh Malwa 15.0 100 1.0 187.00
Bihar South Bihar alluvial plain 15.0 100 1.0 181.00
Madhya Pradesh Jhabua 15.0 100 1.0 76.00
Madhya Pradesh Satpura 15.0 100 1.0 74.00
Total 3,430.00
Cynodon dactylon
Bihar North western alluvial plain 15.0 100 1.0 663.00
Bihar North east alluvial plain 12.5 100 1.0 404.00
Uttar Pradesh stern 9.0 100 1.0 382.00
Uttar Pradesh Central plain 9.0 100 1.0 202.00
Madhya Pradesh Malwa 15.0 100 1.0 187.00
Bihar South Bihar alluvial plain 15.0 100 1.0 182.00
Uttar Pradesh North eastern plain 9.0 100 1.0 146.00
Madhya Pradesh Satpura 15.0 100 1.0 74.00
Madhya Pradesh Jhabua 10.0 75 0.6 23.00
Total 2,265.00
Rats
Bihar North western alluvial plain 12.5 100 1.0 553.00
Bihar North east alluvial plain 12.5 100 1.0 403.00
Uttar Pradesh stern 7.5 100 0.8 255.00
Madhya Pradesh Malwa 15.0 100 1.0 187.00
Uttar Pradesh Central plain 7.5 100 0.9 151.00
Bihar South Bihar alluvial plain 10.0 100 1.0 121.00
Uttar Pradesh North eastern plain 7.5 100 0.9 109.00
Madhya Pradesh Jhabua 15.0 100 1.0 76.00
Madhya Pradesh Satpura 7.5 100 1.0 37.00
Total 1,895.00
Termites
Bihar North western alluvial plain 15.0 80 0.8 424.00
Uttar Pradesh Central plain 25.0 75 0.8 336.00
Uttar Pradesh North eastern plain 25.0 75 0.6 183.00
Bihar North east alluvial plain 15.0 50 0.7 169.00
Uttar Pradesh stern plain 20.0 75 1.0 57.00
Madhya Pradesh Malwa 17.5 75 0.8 131.00
Bihar South Bihar alluvial plain 15.0 80 0.8 116.00
Madhya Pradesh Jhabua 17.5 50 0.8 36.00
Madhya Pradesh Satpura 17.5 50 0.6 26.00
Total 1,478.00
Caterpillars
Uttar Pradesh stern plain 8.0 100 1.0 339.00
Bihar North western alluvial plain 7.5 90 1.0 298.00
Uttar Pradesh Central plain 10.0 100 1.0 224.00
Bihar North east alluvial plain 7.5 80 1.0 194.00
Uttar Pradesh North eastern plain 10.0 100 1.0 162.00
Madhya Pradesh Malwa 10.0 100 1.0 125.00
Bihar South Bihar alluvial plain 7.5 90 1.0 82.00
Madhya Pradesh Jhabua 10.0 100 1.0 51.00
Madhya Pradesh Satpura 10.0 100 1.0 50.00
Total 1,525.00
Water stress
Bihar North western alluvial plain 10.0 100 1.0 442.00
Madhya Pradesh Malwa 17.5 90 0.8 157.00
Uttar Pradesh Central plain 15.0 75 0.6 151.00
Madhya Pradesh Jhabua 17.5 100 1.0 89.00
Uttar Pradesh stern 15.0 60 0.2 76.00
Uttar Pradesh North eastern plain 15.0 50 0.6 73.00
Madhya Pradesh Satpura 17.5 90 0.9 70.00
Bihar North east alluvial plain 10.0 50 0.3 48.00
Bihar South Bihar alluvial plain 10.0 75 0.5 45.00
Total 1,155.00
Source: IFAD-CIMMYT-India RRA Surveys, 2001. US$1.00 = Indian Rs. 44.00 (May 2004).












Appendix 4. Production constraints and their...cont'd.

Constraint Agroecological Yield loss to due Area affected Probability of occurrence Estimated damage
and state zone to constraint (%) by constraint (%) of constraint (Rs. milliont)
Stem borer
Uttar Pradesh Wstern plain 7.5 100 1.0 318.00
Bihar North western alluvial plain 7.5 90 1.0 298.00
Bihar North east alluvial plain 7.5 80 1.0 194.00
Uttar Pradesh Central plain 7.5 100 1.0 168.00
Uttar Pradesh North eastern plain 7.5 100 1.0 122.00
Madhya Pradesh Malwa 7.5 100 1.0 93.00
Bihar South Bihar alluvial plain 7.5 90 1.0 82.00
Madhya Pradesh Jhabua 7.5 100 1.0 38.00
Madhya Pradesh Satpura 7.5 100 1.0 37.00
Total 1,350.00
Weevils
Uttar Pradesh Wstern plain 8.0 100 1.0 339.00
Bihar North Western alluvial plain 6.0 100 1.0 265.00
Uttar Pradesh Central plain 10.0 100 1.0 224.00
Bihar North East alluvial plain 6.0 100 1.0 194.00
Uttar Pradesh North eastern plain 10.0 100 1.0 162.00
Bihar South Bihar alluvial plain 6.0 100 1.0 72.00
Total 1,256.00
Zinc deficiency
Bihar North western alluvial plain 7.5 100 1.0 331.00
Bihar North east alluvial plain 7.5 75 0.8 145.00
Madhya Pradesh Malwa 12.5 100 0.8 124.00
Bihar South Bihar alluvial plain 7.5 100 0.8 73.00
Madhya Pradesh Jhabua 12.5 90 0.8 46.00
Madhya Pradesh Satpura 12.5 75 0.9 42.00
Total 761.00
Rusts
Bihar North east alluvial plain 12.5 75 0.7 212.00
Bihar North western alluvial plain 3.5 50 0.5 38.00
Madhya Pradesh Malwa 5.5 75 0.6 31.00
Bihar South Bihar alluvial plain 3.5 75 0.6 19.00
Madhya Pradesh Satpura 7.5 75 0.6 16.00
Madhya Pradesh Jhabua 6.0 50 0.5 7.00
Total 323.00
Seed and seedling blight
Uttar Pradesh Wstern plain 15.0 80 0.8 407.00
Uttar Pradesh Central plain 15.0 75 0.6 151.00
Uttar Pradesh North eastern plain 15.0 75 0.6 109.00
Total 669.00
Cutworm
Bihar North western alluvial plain 12.5 50 0.5 138.00
Bihar North east alluvial plain 12.5 25 0.5 50.00
Uttar Pradesh North eastern plain 3.5 50 0.6 17.00
Uttar Pradesh Central plain 3.5 50 0.4 15.00
Uttar Pradesh Wstern plain 5.0 60 0.6 76.00
Total 298.00
Leaf blight
Bihar North western alluvial plain 7.5 50 0.5 83.00
Bihar North east alluvial plain 3.5 75 0.7 59.00
Bihar South Bihar alluvial plain 7.5 75 0.5 34.00
Total 176.00
Late planting
Bihar North western alluvial plain 7.5 50 0.3 42.00
Madhya Pradesh Jhabua 17.5 50 0.6 26.00
Bihar South Bihar alluvial plain 7.5 50 0.5 22.00
Uttar Pradesh North eastern plain 7.5 25 0.5 15.00
Bihar North east alluvial plain 7.5 25 0.3 15.00
Madhya Pradesh Malwa 12.5 25 0.3 11.00
Madhya Pradesh Satpura 12.5 25 0.5 8.00
Total 140.00
Brown spot
Uttar Pradesh Wstern plain 6.0 75 0.8 152.00
Uttar Pradesh Central plain 6.0 75 0.6 60.00
Uttar Pradesh North eastern plain 6.0 75 0.6 44.00
Total 256.00
Source: IFAD-CIMMYT-India RRA Surveys, 2001. US$1.00 = Indian Rs. 44.00 (May 2004).












Appendix 4. Production constraints and their...cont'd.

Constraint Agroecological Yield loss to due Area affected Probability of occurrence Estimated damage
and state zone to constraint (%) by constraint (%) of constraint (Rs. milliont)

Flooding
Bihar North east alluvial plain 25.0 25 0.3 50.00
Bihar South Bihar alluvial plain 25.0 25 0.3 22.00
Total 73.00
Wilting
Bihar North east alluvial plain 25.0 25 0.3 50.00
Bihar South Bihar alluvial plain 25.0 25 0.3 22.00
Total 73.00
Waterlogging
Uttar Pradesh North eastern plain 35.0 25 0.3 42.00
Uttar Pradesh Central plain 25.0 25 0.2 28.00
Uttar Pradesh stern plain 10.0 10 0.2 8.00
Total 79.00
Downy mildew
Madhya Pradesh Malwa 7.5 75 0.6 42.00
Madhya Pradesh Satpura 7.5 50 0.6 11.00
Madhya Pradesh Jhabua 7.5 50 0.5 9.00
Total 62.00
Madhya Pradesh Jhabua 15.0 100 0.8 61.00
Total 61.00
Uttar Pradesh North eastern plain 7.5 50 0.4 24.00
Uttar Pradesh Central plain 7.5 25 0.4 17.00
Uttar Pradesh stern plain 7.5 25 0.2 16.00
Total 57.00
Cucurbitaceae family
Bihar North east alluvial plain 7.5 50 0.3 36.00
Total 36.00
Stalk rot
Bihar North east alluvial plain 7.5 25 0.6 36.00
Total 36.00
Fianthema monogyna
Uttar Pradesh stern plain 7.5 15 0.5 24.00
Uttar Pradesh North eastern plain 7.5 50 0.3 18.00
Uttar Pradesh Central plain 7.5 25 0.4 17.00
Total 59.00
C. bengalensis
Madhya Pradesh Malwa 10.0 25 0.4 13.00
Madhya Pradesh Jhabua 3.5 100 0.6 10.00
Total 23.00
Maydis
Madhya Pradesh Malwa 7.5 50 0.4 18.00
Madhya Pradesh Jhabua 7.5 50 0.2 4.00
Total 22.00
Leaf roller
Uttar Pradesh stern plain 3.5 50 0.5 38.00
Uttar Pradesh North eastern plain 3.5 50 0.3 8.00
Uttar Pradesh Central plain 3.5 25 0.4 7.00
Total 53.00
Amaranthus
Madhya Pradesh Jhabua 3.5 75 0.5 6.00
Madhya Pradesh Malwa 3.5 25 0.2 2.00
Madhya Pradesh Satpura 3.5 25 0.2 1.00
Total 9.00
Jassids
Madhya Pradesh Malwa 3.5 25 0.3 3.00
Madhya Pradesh Satpura 3.5 25 0.2 1.00
Madhya Pradesh Jhabua 3.5 10 0.2 1.00
Total 5.00
Aphids
Madhya Pradesh Malwa 3.5 25 0.3 3.00
Madhya Pradesh Satpura 3.5 25 0.2 1.00
Total 4.00
Grubs
Madhya Pradesh Malwa 7.5 10 0.2 2.00
Total 2.00
Moths
Madhya Pradesh Malwa 3.5 10 0.2 1.00
Total 1.00
Source: IFAD-CIMMYT-India RRA Surveys, 2001. t US$1.00 = Indian Rs. 44.00 (May 2004).











Appendix 5. Production constraints and their impact on maize production, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh
states, India, 2001.
Constraint Agroecological Yield loss to due Area affected Probability of occurrence Estimated damage
and state zone to constraint (%) by constraint (%) of constraint (Rs. million)
Cyprus rotendrus
Karnataka North Dry Zone (Dharwad) 20 100 1 1,050.0
Andhra Pradesh North Telangana (Nizamabad) 18 100 1 885.5
Andhra Pradesh North Telangana (Karimnagar) 15 90 1 637.6
Karnataka North Dry Zone (Belgaum) 15 100 0.8 548.2
Andhra Pradesh Scarce Rainfall Zone (Mehboobnagar) 13 100 1 182.3
3,303.0
Leaf blight
Andhra Pradesh North Telangana (Nizamabad) 15 100 0.8 569.3
Karnataka North Dry Zone (Dharwad) 15 80 0.8 472.3
Andhra Pradesh North Telangana (Karimnagar) 15 80 0.8 453.4
Karnataka North Dry Zone (Belgaum) 15 75 0.8 411.1
Karnataka Central Dry Zone (Chitradurga) 15 75 0.8 218.4
Andhra Pradesh Scarce Rainfall Zone (Mehboobnagar) 15 80 1 175.0
2,300.0
Stem borer
Karnataka North Dry Zone (Dharwad) 18 60 0.8 413.2
Andhra Pradesh North Telangana (Nizamabad) 13 80 0.8 404.8
Andhra Pradesh North Telangana (Karimnagar) 10 90 0.8 318.8
Karnataka North Dry Zone (Belgaum) 20 50 0.5 243.6
Karnataka Central Dry Zone (Chitradurga) 15 75 0.8 233.0
Andhra Pradesh Scarce Rainfall Zone (Mehboobnagar) 10 80 0.8 87.5
1,701.0
Water stress
Andhra Pradesh North Telangana (Nizamabad) 15 90 1 683.1
Andhra Pradesh North Telangana (Karimnagar) 13 90 1 531.3
Karnataka North Dry Zone (Dharwad) 10 80 1 419.8
Andhra Pradesh Central Dry Zone (Chitradurga) 13 90 1 164.0
Karnataka North Dry Zone (Belgaum) 10 75 0.3 91.3
1,205.4
Cynodon dactylon
Karnataka North Dry Zone (Dharwad) 15 50 0.8 295.2
Karnataka North Dry Zone (Belgaum) 15 50 0.8 274.1
Andhra Pradesh North Telangana (Nizamabad) 15 60 0.6 273.2
Andhra Pradesh North Telangana (Karimnagar) 15 50 0.6 212.5
Andhra Pradesh Scarce Rainfall Zone (Mehboobnagar) 10 75 0.5 54.6
1,110.0
Echinocloa
Andhra Pradesh North Telangana (Karimnagar) 9 75 0.8 239.1
Andhra Pradesh North Telangana (Nizamabad) 10 75 0.6 227.7
Karnataka North Dry Zone (Dharwad) 7.5 75 0.8 221.4
Karnataka North Dry Zone (Belgaum) 10 75 0.5 182.7
Andhra Pradesh Scarce Rainfall Zone (Mehboobnagar) 8 75 0.6 52.5
923.4
Post-flowering stalk rot
Andhra Pradesh North Telangana (Nizamabad) 15 75 0.5 284.6
Andhra Pradesh North Telangana (Karimnagar) 10 60 0.5 141.7
Karnataka North Dry Zone (Dharwad) 10 75 0.3 98.4
Karnataka North Dry Zone (Belgaum) 10 75 0.3 91.3
Andhra Pradesh Scarce Rainfall Zone (Mehboobnagar) 10 50 0.8 54.6
Karnataka Central Dry Zone (Chitradurga) 10 75 0.3 48.5
719.1
Zinc deficiency
Andhra Pradesh North Telangana (Nizamabad) 10 75 0.8 303.6
Andhra Pradesh North Telangana (Karimnagar) 10 60 0.6 170.0
Karnataka North Dry Zone (Dharwad) 10 10 0.3 13.12
Karnataka North Dry Zone (Belgaum) 10 25 0.1 12.1
498.8
Source: IFAD-CIMMYT-India RRA Surveys, 2001. t US$1.00 = Indian Rs. 44.00 (May 2004).












Appendix 5. Production constraints ...cont'd.

Constraint Agroecological Yield loss to due Area affected Probability of occurrence Estimated damage
and state zone to constraint (%) by constraint (%) of constraint (Rs. milliont)
Termites
Andhra Pradesh North Telangana (Nizamabad) 10 60 0.5 121.4
Andhra Pradesh North Telangana (Karimnagar) 10 50 0.4 94.4
Andhra Pradesh Scarce Rainfall Zone (Mehboobnagar) 10 25 0.5 18.2
Karnataka Central Dry Zone (Chitradurga) 15 40 0.3 38.8
Karnataka North Dry Zone (Dharwad) 15 50 0.3 98.4
Karnataka North Dry Zone (Belgaum) 10 50 0.3 60.9
432.1
Late planting
Andhra Pradesh North Telangana (Nizamabad) 15 40 0.5 151.8
Andhra Pradesh North Telangana (Karimnagar) 15 40 0.3 70.8
Andhra Pradesh Scarce Rainfall Zone (Mehboobnagar) 10 50 0.5 36.4
Karnataka Central Dry Zone (Chitradurga) 20 25 0.5 64.7
Karnataka North Dry Zone (Dharwad) 15 25 0.3 49.2
Karnataka North Dry Zone (Belgaum) 15 25 0.3 45.6
418.5
Rusts
Karnataka North Dry Zone (Dharwad) 10 50 0.3 65.6
Karnataka North Dry Zone (Belgaum) 10 50 0.3 60.9
126.5
Cylesia
Karnataka North Dry Zone (Dharwad) 15 25 0.5 98.4
Karnataka North Dry Zone (Belgaum) 15 25 0.5 0.9
99.3
Shoot fly
Karnataka Central Dry Zone (Chitradurga) 10 50 0.5 64.7
64.7
Nematodes
Karnataka North Dry Zone (Dharwad) 10 25 0.1 13.12
Karnataka North Dry Zone (Belgaum) 10 25 0.1 12.10
Andhra Pradesh North Telangana (Karimnagar) 5 10 0.3 5.90
Andhra Pradesh Scarce Rainfall Zone (Mehboobnagar) 5 10 0.2 1.46
32.58
Grubs
Karnataka North Dry Zone (Dharwad) 10 25 0.1 13.12
Karnataka North Dry Zone (Belgaum) 10 25 0.1 12.10
25.22
Wilting
Karnataka Central Dry Zone (Chitradurga) 25 10 0.2 12.90
12.90
Source: IFAD-CIMMYT-India RRA Surveys, 2001. t US$1.00 = Indian Rs. 44.00 (May 2004).












Appendix 6. Prioritization of biotic and abiotic constraints to maize production in selected states and
agro-ecological regions of India, 2001.

Constraint Constraint
by state Yield loss Area Proba- Value of by state Yield loss Area Proba- Value of
and agro- due to affected by ability damage and agro- due to affected by ability damage
ecological constraint constraint of (Rs. Priority ecological constraint constraint of (Rs. Priority


(%) (%) occurrence million1) rank region


(%) (%) occurrence million) rank


BIHAR South Bihar alluvial plain
Echinocloa 15.0 100
Cynodon dactylon 15.0 100
Rats 10.0 100
Termites 15.0 80
Stem borer 7.5 90
Caterpillar 7.5 90
Weevil 6.0 100
Zinc deficiency 7.5 100
Water stress 10.0 75
Leaf blight 7.5 75
Late planting 7.5 50
Flooding 25.0 25
Wilting 25.0 25
Rusts 3.5 75

BIHAR Northwest alluvial plain
Echinocloa 15.0 100
C. dactylon 15.0 100
Rats 12.5 100
Water stress 10.0 100
Termites 15.0 80
Zinc deficiency 7.5 100
Stem borer 7.5 90
Caterpillar 7.5 90
Weevil 6.0 100
Cutworm 12.5 50
Leaf blight 7.5 50
Late planting 7.5 50
Rusts 3.5 50

BIHAR Northeastern alluvial plain
Rats 12.5 100
C. dactylon 12.5 100
Echinocloa 12.5 100
Rusts 12.5 75
Stem borer 7.5 80
Caterpillar 7.5 80
Weevil 6.0 100
Termites 15.0 50
Zinc deficiency 7.5 75
Leaf blight 3.5 75
Cutworm 12.5 25
Flooding 25.0 25
Wilting 25.0 25
Water stress 10.0 50
Post-flowering
stalk rot (PFSR) 7.5 25
Cucurbitaceae family 7.5 50
Late planting 7.5 25

MADHYA PRADESH Satpura plateau
Echinocloa 15.0 100
C. dactylon 15.0 100
Water stress 17.5 90
Caterpillar 10.0 100
Zinc deficiency 12.5 75
Stem borer 7.5 100
Rats 7.5 100
Termites 17.5 50
Rusts 7.5 75


Downy mildew 7.5 50
1.0 181.74 1 Late planting 12.5 25
1.0 181.74 2 Aphids 3.5 25
1.0 121.16 3 Jassids 3.5 25
0.8 116.31 4 Amaranthus 3.5 25
1.0 81.78 5
1.0 81.78 6 MADHYA PRADESH Malwa plateau
1.0 72.70 7 Rats 15.0 100
0.8 72.70 8 Echinocloa 15.0 100
0.5 45.44 9 C. dactylon 15.0 100
0.5 34.08 10 Water stress 17.5 90
0.5 22.72 11 Termites 17.5 75
0.3 22.72 12 Caterpillar 10.0 100
0.3 22.72 13 Zinc deficiency 12.5 100
0.6 19.08 14 Stem borer 7.5 100
Total 1,076.66 Downy mildew 7.5 75
Rusts 5.5 75
1.0 663.93 1 Maydis 7.5 50
1.0 663.93 2 Cynodon bengalensis 10.0 25
1.0 553.28 3 Late planting 12.5 25
1.0 442.62 4 Aphids 3.5 25
0.8 424.92 5 Jassids 3.5 25
1.0 331.97 6 Amaranthus 3.5 25
1.0 298.77 7 Grubs 7.5 10
1.0 298.77 8 Moths 3.5 10
1.0 265.57 9
0.5 138.32 10 MADHYA PRADESH Jhabua Hills
0.5 82.99 11 Water stress 17.5 100
0.3 41.50 12 Rats 15.0 100
0.5 38.73 13 Echinocloa 15.0 100
Total 4,245.31 Achyranthes aspera 15.0 100
Caterpillar 10.0 100
1.0 403.98 1 Zinc deficiency 12.5 90
1.0 403.98 2 Stem borer 7.5 100
1.0 403.98 3 Termites 17.5 50
0.7 212.09 4 Late planting 17.5 50
1.0 193.91 5 C. dactylon 10.0 75
1.0 193.91 6 C. bengalensis 3.5 100
1.0 193.91 7 Downy mildew 7.5 50
0.7 169.67 8 Rusts 6.0 50
0.8 145.43 9 Amaranthus 3.5 75
0.7 59.39 10 Maydis 7.5 50
0.5 50.50 11 Jassids 3.5 10
0.3 50.50 12
0.3 50.50 13 UTTAR PRADESH Northeastern plain
0.3 48.48 14 Echinocloa 20.0 100
Termites 25.0 75
0.6 36.36 15 Caterpillar 10.0 100
0.3 36.36 16 Weevil 10.0 100
0.3 15.15 17 C. dactylon 9.0 100
Total 2,668.11 Stem borer 7.5 100
Rats 7.5 100
1.0 74.87 1 Seed & seedling blight 15.0 75
1.0 74.87 2 Water stress 15.0 50
0.9 70.75 3 Brown spot 6.0 75
1.0 49.91 4 Waterlogging 35.0 25
0.9 42.11 5 Wild rice 7.5 50
1.0 37.44 6 Biskhapra (weed) 7.5 50
1.0 37.44 7 Cutworm 3.5 50
0.6 26.20 8 Late planting 7.5 25
0.6 16.85 9 Leaf roller 3.5 50


11.23 10
7.80 11
0.87 12
0.87 13
0.87 14
452.09

187.26 1
187.26 2
187.26 3
157.30 4
131.08 5
124.84 6
124.84 7
93.63 8
42.13 9
30.90 10
18.73 11
12.48 12
11.70 13
3.28 14
3.28 15
2.18 16
1.87 17
0.87 18
1,320.91

89.35 1
76.59 2
76.59 3
61.27 4
51.06 5
45.95 6
38.29 7
35.74 8
26.81 9
22.98 10
10.72 11
9.57 12
7.66 13
6.70 14
3.83 15
0.36 16
563.46


1.0 325.47 1
0.6 183.08 2
1.0 162.73 3
1.0 162.73 4
1.0 146.46 5
1.0 122.05 6
0.9 109.85 7
0.6 109.85 8
0.6 73.23 9
0.6 43.94 10
0.3 42.72 11
0.4 24.41 12
0.3 18.31 13
0.6 17.09 14
0.5 15.26 15
0.3 8.54 16
Total 1,565.71


Source: IFAD-CIMMYT-India RRA Surveys, 2001. t US$1.00 = Indian Rs. 44.00 (May 2004).


Source: IFAD-CIMMYT-India RRA Surveys, 2001. t US$ 1.00 = Indian Rs. 44.00 (May 2004).


region












Appendix 6. Prioritization of biotic and abiotic...cont'd.


Constraint
by state Yield loss Area Proba- Value of
and agro- due to affected by ability damage
ecological constraint constraint of (Rs. Priority


(%) (%) occurrence million1)


rank


Constraint
by state Yield loss Area Proba- Value of
and agro- due to affected by ability damage
ecological constraint constraint of (Rs. Priority


region


(%) (%) occurrence milliont) rank


UTTAR PRADESH Central plain
Echinocloa 25.0 100
Termites 25.0 75
Caterpillar 10.0 100
Weevil 10.0 100
C. dactylon 9.0 100
Stem borer 7.5 100
Rats 7.5 100
Seed & seedling blight 15.0 75
Water stress 15.0 75
Brown spot 6.0 75
Waterlogging 25.0 25
Biskhapra (weed) 7.5 25
Wild rice 7.5 25
Cutworm 3.5 50
Leaf roller 3.5 25

UTTAR PRADESH Western plain
Echinocloa 25.0 90
Termites 20.0 75
Seed & seedling blight 15.0 80
C. dactylon 9.0 100
Caterpillar 8.0 100
Weevil 8.0 100
Stem borer 7.5 100
Rats 7.5 100
Brown spot 6.0 75
Water stress 15.0 60
Cutworm 5.0 60
Leaf roller 3.5 50
Biskhapra (weed) 7.5 15
Wild rice 7.5 25
Waterlogging 10.0 10

ANDHRA PRADESH- North Telangana
Cyprus rotendrus 17.5 100
Water stress 15.0 90
Leaf blight 15.0 100
Stem borer 12.5 80
Zinc deficiency 10.0 75
PFSR 15.0 75
C. dactylon 15.0 60
Echinocloa 10.0 75
Late planting 15.0 40
Termites 10.0 60

ANDHRA PRADESH- North Telangana
C. rotendrus 15.0 90
Water stress 12.5 90
Leaf blight 15.0 80
Stem borer 10.0 90
Echinocloa 9.0 75
C. dactylon 15.0 50
Zinc deficiency 10.0 60
PFSR 10.0 60
Termites 10.0 50
Late planting 15.0 40
Nematodes 5.0 10


1.0 561.11
0.8 336.66
1.0 224.44
1.0 224.44
1.0 202.00
1.0 168.33
0.9 151.50
0.6 151.50
0.6 151.50
0.6 60.60
0.2 28.06
0.4 16.83
0.4 16.83
0.4 15.71
0.4 7.86
Total 2,317.37

1.0 1,012.36
1.0 674.91
0.8 431.94
1.0 404.94
1.0 359.95
1.0 359.95
1.0 337.45
0.8 269.96
0.8 161.98
0.2 80.99
0.6 80.99
0.5 39.37
0.5 25.31
0.2 16.87
0.2 9.00
Total 4,265.97

1.00 885.50
1.00 683.10
0.75 569.30
0.80 404.80
0.80 303.60
0.50 284.60
0.60 273.20
0.60 227.70
0.50 151.80
0.50 121.40
Total 3,905.40

1.00 637.60
1.00 531.30
0.80 453.40
0.75 318.80
0.75 239.10
0.60 212.50
0.60 170.00
0.50 141.70
0.40 94.40
0.25 70.80
0.25 5.90
Total 2,875.80


ANDHRA PRADESH- Scarce Rainfall
C. rotendrus 12.5 100
Leaf blight 15.0 80
Water stress 12.5 90
Stem borer 10.0 80
C. dactylon 10.0 75
PFSR 10.0 50
Echinocloa 8.0 75
Late planting 10.0 50
Termites 10.0 25
Nematodes 5.0 10

KARNIAAKA- Central Dry Zone
Stem borer 15.0 75
Leaf blight 15.0 75
Late planting 20.0 25
Shoot fly 10.0 50
PFSR 10.0 75
Termites 15.0 40
Wilting 25.0 10

KARNMAKA-North Dry Zone
C. rotendrus 20.0 100
Leaf blight 15.0 80
Water stress 10.0 80
Stem borer 17.5 60
C. dactylon 15.0 50
Echinocloa 7.5 75
Termite 15.0 50
PFSR 10.0 75
Cylesia 15.0 25
Rusts 10.0 50
Late planting 15.0 25
Nematodes 10.0 25
Grubs 10.0 25
Zinc deficiency 10.0 10

KARNMAKA- North Dry Zone
C. rotendrus 15.0 100
Leaf blight 15.0 75
C. dactylon 15.0 50
Stem borer 20.0 50
Echinocloa 10.0 75
Water stress 10.0 75
PFSR 10.0 75
Termites 10.0 50
Rusts 10.0 50
Late planting 15.0 25
Zinc deficiency 10.0 25
Nematodes 10.0 25
Grubs 10.0 25
Cylesia 15.0 25


Source: IFAD-CIMMYT-India RRA Surveys, 2001. t US$1.00 = Indian Rs. 44.00 (May 2004).


Source: IFAD-CIMMYT-India RRA Surveys, 2001. t US$1.00 = Indian Rs. 44.00 (May 2004).


region


1.00
1.00
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.75
0.60
0.50
0.50
0.20
Total

0.80
0.75
0.50
0.50
0.25
0.25
0.20
Total

1.00
0.75
1.00
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.25
0.25
0.50
0.25
0.25
0.10
0.10
0.25
Total

0.75
0.75
0.75
0.50
0.50
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.50
Total


182.30
175.00
164.00
87.50
54.60
54.60
52.50
36.40
18.20
1.46
826.90

233.00
218.40
64.70
64.70
48.50
38.80
12.90
681.30

1,049.50
472.30
419.80
413.20
295.20
221.40
98.40
98.40
98.40
65.60
49.20
13.12
13.12
13.12
3,320.95

548.20
411.10
274.10
243.60
182.70
91.30
91.30
60.90
60.90
45.60
12.10
12.10
12.10
0.90
2,047.60












Appendix 7. Value of damage due to socio-economic constraints to maize production in selected states and
agro-ecological regions of India, 2001.

State and agro- Socioeconomic constraints
ecological Lack of remunera- Lack of Lack of Lack of
region tive price market quality seeds technical knowledge Total
BIHAR
South Bihar alluvial plain
Damage (Rs 000) 106.32 86.14 1,688.09 1,040.72 2,921.27
% total damage 3.64 2.94 57.78 35.63
Northwest alluvial plain
Damage (Rs 000) 216.85 180.71 5,225.16 3,293.52 8,916.24
% total damage 2.43 2.03 58.60 36.94
Northeast alluvial plain
Damage (Rs 000) 161.59 139.56 3,169.47 1,991.78 5,462.40
% total damage 2.96 2.55 58.02 36.46
MADHYA PRADESH
Satpura plateau
Damage (Rs 000) 32.88 25.29 1,604.05 1,245.80 2,908.02
% total damage 1.13 0.87 55.16 42.82
Malwa plateau
Damage (Rs 000) 52.98 26.49 3,334.14 2,583.68 5,997.29
% total damage 0.88 0.44 55.60 43.08
Jhabua Hills
Damage (Rs 000) 54.01 38.33 2,185.81 1,692.25 3970.40
% total damage 1.36 0.96 55.06 42.63
UTIAR PRADESH
Northeastern plain
Damage (Rs 000) na na 2,285.02 1,414.79 3,699.81
% total damage 61.77 38.24
Central plain
Damage (Rs 000) na na 6,717.22 4,833.25 1,1550.47
% total damage 58.11 41.84
Stern plain
Damage (Rs 000) na na 8,270.07 5,711.93 13,982.00
% total damage 59.15 40.85
RAJASTHAN
Humid South plain (Banswara)
Damage (Rs 000) 45.56 28.47 546.32 1,701.58 2,321.93
% total damage 1.96 1.22 23.54 73.32
Sub-humid South plain (Bhilwara)
Damage (Rs 000) 318.13 258.48 8,294.25 5,485.98 14,356.84
% total damage 2.22 1.80 57.77 38.22
Sub-humid South plain (Udaipur)
Damage (Rs 000) 258.48 198.83 8,294.25 5,485.98 14,237.54
% total damage 1.81 1.39 58.25 38.53
ANDHRA PRADESH
Northern Telangana (Mehboobnagar)
Damage (Rs 000) 57.16 145.02 na 4,583.15 4,785.33
% total damage 0.65 3.03 95.77
Northern Telangana (Karimnagar)
Damage (Rs 000) 24.50 138.66 na 10,563.25 10,726.41
% total damage 0.22 1.29 98.47
Scarce Rainfall Zone
Damage (Rs 000) 37.50 75.10 na 3,787.10 3,899.70
% total damage 0.96 1.92 97.11
KARNATAKA
Central Dry zone
Damage (Rs 000) 16.29 24.90 na 8,140.00 8,181.19
% total damage 0.19 0.30 99.49
Northern Dry zone (Dharwad)
Damage (Rs 000) 24.46 111.15 na 4,210.24 4,345.85
% total damage 0.56 2.55 96.87
Northern Dry Zone (Belgaum)
Damage (Rs 000) 15.39 88.50 na 8,252.08 8,355.97
% total damage 0.18 1.05 98.75
Source: IFAD-CIMMYT-lndia RRA Surveys, 2001.
S US$ 1.00 = Indian Rs. 44.00 (May 2004).
na = not applicable.








..... ... .......
.... ... .i
.. .. .
..... .. ..

.. .. .
.. .. .. .. .. .
.. .. .



./ ......




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs