RA 00048.pdf - OAR@ICRISAT

T a b l e 3 . E x p e n d i t u r e a l a s t i c i t i e s f o r " o t h e r c e r e a l s ' a n d m e a t , f i s h , e g g s , a n d m i l k i n I n d i a .
Rural
U r b a n
L e v e l o f t o t a l
real m o n t h l y
O t h e r M e a t , f i s h M i l k a n d milk O t h e r M e a t , f i s h , M i l k a n d m i l k
e x p e n d i t u r e * c e r e a l s b a n d e g g s p r o d u c t s cereals b a n d e g g s p r o d u c t s
(Rs/capita)
0 - 1 8 . 0 0 . 8 8 1 0 . 7 4 2 2 . 5 3 3 1.041 0 . 6 1 2 1.200
1 8 . 1 - 2 8 . 0 0 . 5 5 7 1.170 3 . 0 3 3 0.871 0 . 8 1 5 1.945
2 8 . 1 - 4 3 . 0 0 . 5 1 1 0.977 1.065 0 . 9 6 2 0 . 9 7 2 1.690
4 3 . 1 - 7 5 . 0 0 . 1 8 6 0 . 8 2 7 1.399 0 . 3 6 3 1.025 1.183
> 7 5 . 0 0 . 1 7 2 0 . 5 0 3 0 . 5 8 5 - 0 . 4 5 0 0 . 7 4 3 0 . 7 5 7
S o u r c e : R a d h a k r i s h n a a n d M u r t y ( 1 9 8 0 . p . SO).
a . I n c o n s t a n t 1 9 6 9 - 7 0 p r i c e s .
b . I n c l u d e s s o r g h u m , p e a r l m i l l e t , m a i z e , b a r l e y , s m a l l m i l l e t s , f i n g e r m i l l e t s , c h i c k p e a , a n d t h e i r p r o d u c t s .
T a b l e 4 .
A d o p t i o n o f r e c o m m e n d e d t e c h n o l o g y f o r s o r g h u m i n r a i n f e d p r o j e c t a c r e a s I n I n d i a , 1 9 7 6 / 7 7 t o
1 9 7 9 / 8 0 .
T e c h n o l o g y
c o m p o n e n t s
Rainy s e a s o n P o s t r a i n y s e a s o n
U n i t s
(%) M e a n R a n g e a M e a n R a n g e a
A d o p t i o n o f i m p r o v e d s e e d f a r m e r s 2 2 0 - 1 0 0 87 b 6 2 - 9 5 b
A d o p t i o n o f i m p r o v e d s e e d area 16 na 77 b na
U s e o f fertilizers f a r m e r s 2 5 1 - 7 9 4 1 1 4 - 7 9
U s e o f fertilizers area 2 2 0 - 8 0 1 8 9 - 3 4
U s e o f r e c o m m e n d e d l e v e l s o f n i t r o g e n f a r m e r s u s i n g 5 7 1 0 - 8 5 4 5 2 0 - 4 7
fertilizer > 5 0 % r e c o m m e n d a t i o n
U s e o f p l a n t p r o t e c t i o n m e a s u r e s f a r m e r s 2 5 3 - 4 7 2 7 0 - 5 0
U s e o f p l a n t p r o t e c t i o n m e a s u r e s area 10 2 - 2 1 11 1 - 3 0
U s e o f i n t e r c u l t u r e a n d w e e d i n g f a r m e r s 9 6 8 6 - 1 0 0 9 5 9 3 - 1 0 0
S o u r c e : R a s t o g i a n d A n n a m a l a i ( 1 9 8 1 ) .
a . T h e r a n g e s r e f e r t o d a t a o v e r t h e 4 y e a r s f o r t h e f i v e c e n t e r s i n t h e c a s e o f t h e r a i n y s e a s o n a n d f o u r c e n t e r s i n t h e c a s e o f t h e
p o s t r e i n y s e a s o n .
b . i t i s l i k e f y t h a t t h e H Y V s i n t h i s c a s e a r e b a s e d o n t h e M a l d a n d i ( M - 3 5 - 1 ) l o c a l l y i m p r o v e d c u l t i v a r r e l e a s e d i n t h e 1 9 3 0 s . T h i s c o u l d
e x p l a i n t h e h i g h l e v e l s o f a d o p t i o n .
n a = n o t a v a i l a b l e .
m e r e correctly perceived t h e differential p e r f o r m ­
ance of hybrids a n d local varieties u n d e r d r o u g h t
stresses in t h e various regions studied. T h e
objective probabilities of d r o u g h t generally' s u p -
p o r t e d t h e beliefs of f a r m e r s . N o n a d o p t e r s believed
that drought w a s m o r e intense i n their
village a n d that local varieties w e r e superior to
hybrids in w i t h s t a n d i n g or escaping drought.
In a linear risk p r o g r a m m i n g s t u d y in Northeast
Brazil. G o o d w i n et al. (1980) s h o w e d that e v e n
w i t h high levels o f risk aversion, n e w s o r g h u m
t e c h n o l o g y should be a d o p t e d by f a r m e r s e v e n if
risks are perceived by farmers to be higher t h a n
t h e y are. Reducing risk aversion to nil f r o m
m o d e r a t e levels only increased f a r m i n c o m e s
4 6 % b y e m p l o y i n g o p t i m u m changes i n enterprise
a n d t e c h n i q u e choices, w h e r e a s r e m o v i n g
risk m i s p e r c e p t i o n s to nil increased i n c o m e s by
6 3 % . I f risk m i s p e r c e p t i o n s w e r e absent, t h e n
p r e s e n t levels o f f a r m e r risk aversion w e r e s h o w n
7 0 4