RA 00048.pdf - OAR@ICRISAT

t h e share in t h e total potential d e m a n d is l o w
indicating that t h e r e c o m m e n d e d dosages also
are l o w as c o m p a r e d w i t h other crops.
Cropwise estimates of effective d e m a n d for
1 9 7 7 / 7 8 and 1 9 8 6 / 8 7 have been m a d e b y t h e
NCAER. The effective d e m a n d s for s o r g h u m for
1 9 7 7 / 7 8 and 1 9 8 6 / 8 7 have b e e n e s t i m a t e d t o b e
55 100 and 1 1 1 0 0 0 t o n n e s of NPK w h i c h is
1.50% and 1.42% of the total d e m a n d for t h e
concerned years. The percent share of t h e all-
India d e m a n d is 1.56 and 1.72 for N, 1.18 and 1.00
for P and 1.63 and 1.09 for K for 1 9 7 7 / 7 8 and
1 9 8 6 / 8 7 , respectively. Potential d e m a n d for total
NPK for s o r g h u m is e s t i m a t e d to be 155 0 0 0 and
3 1 5 600 t o n n e s .
It is but natural to expect such a situation
because t h e area under irrigated s o r g h u m is
e s t i m a t e d to be 2.2 million/ha in 1 9 8 6 / 8 7 out of
t h e total projected area under s o r g h u m of about
18.2 million ha, although t h e area receiving
adequate rainfall is indicated as 9.3 m i l l i o n / h a
leaving about 7 million ha in l o w rainfall zones
(NCAER 1979).
There are several constraints to using fertilizers
in India. The study has brought out that less than
half of the f a r m i n g households in India (45%)
actually used fertilizers in t h e middle of t h e 1970s.
Percentages vary f r o m about 92 in Punjab to 6.5 in
A s s a m . The entire area o w n e d by users w a s also
not fertilized. Only 3 0 % o f t h e areas w a s fertilized
although it w a s as high as 76 and 7 2 % in Punjab
and Kerala, respectively, and as l o w as 3 to 4% in
A s s a m . T h e m a i n reason g i v e n by t h e n o n u s e r s is
n o n a v a i l a b i l i t y o f irrigation facilities ( 4 8 % ) .
A n o t h e r reason is stated to be nonavailability of
credit (17.5%). It is h o w e v e r gratifying to note that
only 1 0 . 8 % of t h e nonusers have stated that t h e y
are not a w a r e of fertilizers and another 1 0 % have
considered fertilizers to be harmful to soil. The
remaining 1 3 . 8 % have given s o m e other reasons.
A n o t h e r important finding is that t h e majority of
nonusers have been small holders having less
than.1 ha (46.3%). 1 - 2 ha (25.3%), and 2 - 4 ha
(16.4%).
This s t u d y has clearly s h o w n that fertilizer
c o n s u m p t i o n is, to a very great extent, limited to
irrigated areas and that small holders are not using
fertilizers mainly because of t h e nonavailability of
credit. It can be inferred f r o m t h e s e conclusions
w h y t h e use of fertilizers is not popular w i t h
s o r g h u m g r o w e r s . It is because s o r g h u m is
mainly a rainfed crop and another probable reason
is t h e nonavailability of credit.
Cost Benefit Ratio
The cost-benefit ratio is an index of t h e e c o n o m i c
feasibility of a proposition. The physical returns
and gross financial returns f r o m s o r g h u m as
c o m p a r e d w i t h paddy and w h e a t (FAI 1980),
w o r k e d out on the basis of fertilizer prices in J u n e
1980, are given in Table 7. The ratio is o b s e r v e d to
be less favorable in the case of s o r g h u m . It is only
in t h e case of potash that the gross financial
return on every rupee spent on fertilizer is m o r e
favorable than in t h e case of w h e a t and paddy.
There are m a n y other factors w h i c h affect fertilizer
use levels. The important o n e is that of risks
involved in using fertilizers. The risks involved are
greater in t h e case of s o r g h u m as it is m o s t l y a
rainfed crop and it is also prone to a n u m b e r of
diseases and pests, especially w h e n t h e crop is
s o w n out of season.
The nonavailability of fertilizers and credit ,on
t i m e w e i g h heavily against the use of fertilizers on
s o r g h u m . In dry areas, fertilizer distribution c e n ­
ters are f e w e r and financing institutions are also
f e w e r and weaker. Corrective m e a s u r e s required
to be t a k e n are t h o s e concerning t h e timely
supply of fertilizers by opening m o r e distribution
centers and t h e easy and t i m e l y availability of
credit. In addition, technology is required to be
i m p r o v e d further to get a better response to
fertilizers by bringing about i m p r o v e m e n t in t h e
t i m e and m e t h o d of application, and w i t h regard to
soil and w a t e r conservation m e a s u r e s . Timely
availability can be i m p r o v e d greatly by appointing
a f e w farmers as part-time distributors in every
village and by stocking fertilizers nearer to t h e
c o n s u m i n g c e n t e r s . R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s have
b e e n m a d e in this regard on a n u m b e r of
occasions during t h e last 20 years. Even t h e n
attention paid to t h e s e aspects cannot be said to
be sufficient.
There is considerable scope for i m p r o v i n g
fertilizer use efficiency by using appropriate implem
e n t s to place t h e fertilizers. Simple i m p l e m e n t s
have b e e n d e s i g n e d and r e c o m m e n d e d . T h e
i m p l e m e n t s are not easily available either for
purchase or on hire. M a k i n g t h e s e i m p l e m e n t s
available on a hire basis will go a long w a y t o w a r d s
encouraging farmers to use t h e s e s i m p l e devises
for obtaining better returns.
Extension Efforts
As projected by the NCAER, only about 2 million
684