Noah Seelam/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
虽然印度耕地面积略高于中国，但中国稻米和小麦产量比印度高出40%。
21
世纪的第二个十年将是印度农业的一道分水岭。印度政府认为，农业国内生产总值实现4%的增长速度，对于实现印度9%的总体增长目标，对于减少贫困人口，都是必不可少的。要在印度这样的贫穷国家减少贫困，最有效的办法是提高农业收入，因为印度70%左右的人口都是农村人，略高于50%的劳动力从事农业生产。但数据显示，从1980年以来，以1999年至2000年价格为基准的农业产值的五年移动平均值从未超过4%的增速。只是在最近两年，其增长速度才脱离了90年代早期以来一种相当稳定的下降趋势。
这是为什么？
相关报道
虽然总体数字惊人，但印度农业生产率不高。平均来讲，从1970-1979年到2000-2009年，中国水田耕作面积下降了600万公顷，印度在同一时期增加了460万公顷。事实上从1960年以来，印度的水田耕作面积每年都高于中国。但中国的产量却大大高于印度。虽然随着时间的推移，产量的差异已经下降，但中国水田的产量仍旧明显高于印度。
在小麦方面，中国在1960年到2000年期间的种植面积高于印度。但在过去10年，形势发生逆转。中国粮食种植面积下降的一个重要原因在于，随着中国变得更加富裕，其国内粮食需求已经下降。另一个原因是向玉米等高附加值作物的转移。60年代和70年代早期，印度小麦收成高于中国。但在70年代中期过后，中国产量开始超过印度，产量差距在最近这个十年达到最大。甚至在印度已经取得长足进步的棉花生产方面，中国的原棉产量也比印度高出40%，中国的棉花产量约为印度的2.5倍。
收成是一个函数，其自变量包括种子质量、化肥使用、水、种植面积和机械化程度等。生长于灌溉农地的作物不依赖于天气的瞬息万变。在过去40年里，印度水田收成中接受灌溉的比例稳步提高，现在占到57%左右。水田收成过半接受灌溉的邦，产量比那些不到一半接受灌溉的邦高出50%。
小麦获得了更大好处，目前约90%的小麦都是在灌溉土地上种植的。尽管如此，逾85%小麦接受灌溉的州，其产量要比这个比例不足85%的州高出80%。中国的小麦也是在接受灌溉的土地上种植，但中国的产量比印度高出60%。另一方面，美国的小麦种植于贫瘠的、不受灌溉的土地上。但美国小麦产量和印度小麦产量相当。
印度低产一个可能的原因是，无论是小麦、大米还是其他农作物，个人占有农场的规模都较小。2001年的普查显示，80%农场的规模都不足2公顷，62%的规模平均都小于0.5公顷。只有1%属于大规模（10公顷以上），平均为17.1公顷。农场整体平均规模仅为1.33公顷。
最近的一份政府报告指出，小型农场的规模变得更小了，85%的农民缺乏获得农业投入品和信贷的渠道。这不足为奇，因为农村人口增加了，但可用的农场面积却没有。不过，中国农场的平均规模更小，平均仅为0.6公顷。
在中国和印度，农场规模小都对机械化有抑制作用。但化肥的使用在中国比印度多得多。此外，中国在农业研发方面的投入也比印度多得多，用以生产高产和生长更快的农作物品种。另外中国拥有更良好的灌溉条件，并实施一年两季甚至三季的更为集约化的耕种。这些是中国高产的主要原因。
在印度，过去十年来包括小米等粗粮、大麦以及豆类的粮食总产量有所增长，但却赶不上人口增长的速度。考虑到产量、损耗量、出口和进口以及储备的变化等因素，1990年至1999年间人均粮食净占有量平均为174公斤，2000年至2009年间为163公斤。
这种情况令人担忧，因为可用农业用地的面积过去30年来一直未变。这就意味着必须增加产量生产更多粮食。大米和小麦的产量增加了，粮食的整体产量也有所提高。但产量的增幅却在缓和。
除非投入因素发生巨变，特别是水，否则前景似乎堪忧。如果没有可靠的水供应，通过种植两季来提高产量是不可能的。50%以上的耕地都依赖雨水。
依赖雨水耕地的产量比灌溉耕地的产量低得多，这点不足为奇。农民主要靠挖掘井水作为雨水的补充水源。虽然使用地下水一直是印度农业快速增长的主要因素，但水资源匮乏和浪费开始成为明显的问题。许多地区的地下水位遭到侵蚀，要求井挖得越来越深。
此外，中国政府十一五规划中一份水资源管理报告发现，水资源的使用往往都效率低下。加上大量耕地退化（至少有三分之一）的这个事实，因此有必要采用滴灌等水资源管理技术，既节水又能提高产量。十一五规划将于2012年到期。
但这种灌溉系统成本高，大多数农民都用不起。即便是在印度产量最高的旁遮普省，大米和小麦的产量也仅仅和中国全国最近的平均水平相当。
印度十一五规划的目标是将粮食年产量增加2,000万吨，从2.31亿吨增加到2.51亿吨。在截至2010年3月31日的这一年，严重的干旱天气实际上导致粮食产量减少至2.18亿吨。但在截至今年3月31日的这一年，产量有所回升，达到2.41亿吨的创纪录水平。因此，从这一罕见的令人振奋的迹象来看，这个目标至少看起来是可行的。
Lakshman Krishnamurthi / Sugandha Khandelwal
（编者注：本文作者Lakshman Krishnamurthi是西北大学凯洛格商学院市场营销学教授; Sugandha Khandelwal是西北大学凯洛格商学院前研究员）
（本文版权归道琼斯公司所有，未经许可不得翻译或转载。）
The decade to 2020 will be a watershed for Indian agriculture. The Indian government believes 4% growth in agricultural gross domestic product is necessary not only to achieve the nation＊s overall target 9% growth but also to reduce poverty.
The most effective way of reducing poverty in a poorer country like India is by raising farm incomes because about 70% of the population is rural and slightly over 50% of the workforce is engaged in agriculture. Yet the data show that at no time since 1980 has a five-year moving average of agricultural production at constant 1999-2000 prices exceeded 4%. It is only in the most recent two years that the growth rate has moved up from a rather steady decline since the early 90s.
How did we get to this point?
India has the second largest amount of arable land of any country after the U.S. Although the total land area of the country is only slightly more than one third of China＊s, India＊s arable land is marginally bigger than China＊s. Yet India is the second largest producer of rice and wheat after China, with China producing about 40% more rice and wheat than India. India is also the second largest producer of fruits and vegetables in the world after China, but China＊s fruit production is three times India＊s production. India is first, however, in the production of mangoes and bananas. When it comes to spices, India is number one in production, consumption and exports.
Although the overall numbers are impressive, the productivity of Indian agriculture is low. On average, acreage devoted to paddy cultivation declined by 6 million hectares between 1970-1979 and 2000-2009 in China while it increased by 4.6 million hectares over the same period in India. In fact, India has had more land under paddy cultivation than China every year since 1960. Yet, China out-produces India by a wide margin. Although the production disparity has decreased over time, paddy yield continues to be significantly higher in China than in India.
In the case of wheat, China had more acreage harvested than India between 1960 and 2000. Over the last 10 years, however, the situation has reversed. An important reason for the decline in grain acreage in China is lower domestic demand for grains as China has become wealthier as well as a shift to higher value-added crops such as corn. In the 60s and early 70s, India＊s wheat yield was higher than China＊s. But after the mid-70s, China＊s yield started to outpace India＊s and the disparity is the highest in the most recent decade. Even in cotton production, where India has made impressive strides, Chinese production of raw cotton is more than 40% higher than in India, and China＊s cotton yield is about 2.5 times higher than India＊s.
Yield is a function of controlled inputs such as seed quality, fertilizer usage, water, acreage under harvest and mechanization. Crops grown on irrigated land are not dependent on the vagaries of the weather. Steadily, over the last four decades, the amount of paddy crop under irrigation in India has increased and is now about 57%. States in which more than half the paddy crop is irrigated have 50% higher yield than states in which less than half the paddy crop is irrigated.
Wheat has realized a bigger benefit, with about 90% of wheat now grown on irrigated land. Even so, states with more than 85% of their wheat crop irrigated have 80% higher yield than states with less than 85% of the wheat crop irrigated! Wheat is similarly grown on irrigated land in China but the Chinese yield is 60% higher than the Indian yield. On the other hand, wheat is grown in the U.S. on marginal, non-irrigated land. Still, U.S. wheat yield is the same as India＊s wheat yield.
One possible reason for India＊s low productivity, whether wheat or rice or any crop, is the small size of individual farm holdings. The 2001 census found that 80% of farm holdings were less than 2 hectares in size, with 62% averaging less than half a hectare. Just 1% of the holdings were classified as large (over 10 hectares) and averaged 17.1 hectares. The overall average size of all holdings was only 1.33 hectares.
A more recent government report noted that small farms have gotten even smaller, and that 85% of farmers lack access to farm inputs and credit. This is not surprising as the rural population has grown but the available farm acreage has not. However, the average Chinese farm holdings are even smaller, averaging just 0.6 hectares.
Both in China and India, small farm sizes inhibit mechanization. But fertilizer usage is much higher in China than India. In addition, China invests significantly more in agricultural research and development compared to India to produce high-yield and quicker-growing crop varieties. This, along with better irrigation and more intensive cultivation of the land by double or even triple cropping, are the primary reasons for China＊s superior yields.
In India, total grain production 岸 which includes coarse grains like millet and barley as well as gram and pulses 岸 has increased over the past decade but has barely kept up with population growth. Per capita net availability of food grains, which factors in production, wastage, exports and imports and change in stocks, averaged 174 kilograms per capita from 1990-1999 compared with 163 kg per capita from 2000-2009.
This is of concern because agricultural land availability has remained about the same over three decades. This means that yields have to improve to produce more. Yields for rice and wheat have increased, as they have for food grains as a whole. But the growth rate in yields are moderating.
Unless input factors, in particular water, change dramatically, the future looks daunting. Double cropping to increase yield is not possible without reliable access to water supply. More than 50% of the cultivated land for all crops depends on rainfall.
Not surprisingly, the yield from rainfall-dependent land is much lower compared to the yield from irrigated land. To supplement rainfall, farmers mostly depend on water from wells dug on farmland. Although use of ground water has been a major factor in the rapid growth of Indian agriculture, water depletion and wastage have become significant problems. The water table in many areas has eroded, requiring deeper and deeper wells.
In addition, a water management report in the government＊s 11th Five-Year Plan, that runs to 2012, finds that water use is often inefficient. Coupled with the fact that a significant amount at a minimum one third 岸 of farm land is degraded, it is imperative that water management techniques such as drip irrigation be employed, which both conserves water and improves yield.
But such systems are costly and beyond the reach of most farmers. Even in Punjab, the most productive state in India, rice and wheat yields only match the recent average for all of China.
The goal in the current five-year plan was to increase annual food production by 20 million tons to 251 million from 231 million. A severe drought actually decreased food grain production to 218 million tons in the year ended March 31, 2010. But production rebounded and reached a record 241 million tons in the year ended March 31. So, in a rare heartening sign, this goal at least appears feasible.
Lakshman Krishnamurthi / Sugandha Khandelwal
Lakshman Krishnamurthi is professor of marketing at the Kellogg School at Northwestern University; Sugandha Khandelwal is a former research associate at the Kellogg School.
The most effective way of reducing poverty in a poorer country like India is by raising farm incomes because about 70% of the population is rural and slightly over 50% of the workforce is engaged in agriculture. Yet the data show that at no time since 1980 has a five-year moving average of agricultural production at constant 1999-2000 prices exceeded 4%. It is only in the most recent two years that the growth rate has moved up from a rather steady decline since the early 90s.
How did we get to this point?
India has the second largest amount of arable land of any country after the U.S. Although the total land area of the country is only slightly more than one third of China＊s, India＊s arable land is marginally bigger than China＊s. Yet India is the second largest producer of rice and wheat after China, with China producing about 40% more rice and wheat than India. India is also the second largest producer of fruits and vegetables in the world after China, but China＊s fruit production is three times India＊s production. India is first, however, in the production of mangoes and bananas. When it comes to spices, India is number one in production, consumption and exports.
Although the overall numbers are impressive, the productivity of Indian agriculture is low. On average, acreage devoted to paddy cultivation declined by 6 million hectares between 1970-1979 and 2000-2009 in China while it increased by 4.6 million hectares over the same period in India. In fact, India has had more land under paddy cultivation than China every year since 1960. Yet, China out-produces India by a wide margin. Although the production disparity has decreased over time, paddy yield continues to be significantly higher in China than in India.
In the case of wheat, China had more acreage harvested than India between 1960 and 2000. Over the last 10 years, however, the situation has reversed. An important reason for the decline in grain acreage in China is lower domestic demand for grains as China has become wealthier as well as a shift to higher value-added crops such as corn. In the 60s and early 70s, India＊s wheat yield was higher than China＊s. But after the mid-70s, China＊s yield started to outpace India＊s and the disparity is the highest in the most recent decade. Even in cotton production, where India has made impressive strides, Chinese production of raw cotton is more than 40% higher than in India, and China＊s cotton yield is about 2.5 times higher than India＊s.
Yield is a function of controlled inputs such as seed quality, fertilizer usage, water, acreage under harvest and mechanization. Crops grown on irrigated land are not dependent on the vagaries of the weather. Steadily, over the last four decades, the amount of paddy crop under irrigation in India has increased and is now about 57%. States in which more than half the paddy crop is irrigated have 50% higher yield than states in which less than half the paddy crop is irrigated.
Wheat has realized a bigger benefit, with about 90% of wheat now grown on irrigated land. Even so, states with more than 85% of their wheat crop irrigated have 80% higher yield than states with less than 85% of the wheat crop irrigated! Wheat is similarly grown on irrigated land in China but the Chinese yield is 60% higher than the Indian yield. On the other hand, wheat is grown in the U.S. on marginal, non-irrigated land. Still, U.S. wheat yield is the same as India＊s wheat yield.
One possible reason for India＊s low productivity, whether wheat or rice or any crop, is the small size of individual farm holdings. The 2001 census found that 80% of farm holdings were less than 2 hectares in size, with 62% averaging less than half a hectare. Just 1% of the holdings were classified as large (over 10 hectares) and averaged 17.1 hectares. The overall average size of all holdings was only 1.33 hectares.
A more recent government report noted that small farms have gotten even smaller, and that 85% of farmers lack access to farm inputs and credit. This is not surprising as the rural population has grown but the available farm acreage has not. However, the average Chinese farm holdings are even smaller, averaging just 0.6 hectares.
Both in China and India, small farm sizes inhibit mechanization. But fertilizer usage is much higher in China than India. In addition, China invests significantly more in agricultural research and development compared to India to produce high-yield and quicker-growing crop varieties. This, along with better irrigation and more intensive cultivation of the land by double or even triple cropping, are the primary reasons for China＊s superior yields.
In India, total grain production 岸 which includes coarse grains like millet and barley as well as gram and pulses 岸 has increased over the past decade but has barely kept up with population growth. Per capita net availability of food grains, which factors in production, wastage, exports and imports and change in stocks, averaged 174 kilograms per capita from 1990-1999 compared with 163 kg per capita from 2000-2009.
This is of concern because agricultural land availability has remained about the same over three decades. This means that yields have to improve to produce more. Yields for rice and wheat have increased, as they have for food grains as a whole. But the growth rate in yields are moderating.
Unless input factors, in particular water, change dramatically, the future looks daunting. Double cropping to increase yield is not possible without reliable access to water supply. More than 50% of the cultivated land for all crops depends on rainfall.
Not surprisingly, the yield from rainfall-dependent land is much lower compared to the yield from irrigated land. To supplement rainfall, farmers mostly depend on water from wells dug on farmland. Although use of ground water has been a major factor in the rapid growth of Indian agriculture, water depletion and wastage have become significant problems. The water table in many areas has eroded, requiring deeper and deeper wells.
In addition, a water management report in the government＊s 11th Five-Year Plan, that runs to 2012, finds that water use is often inefficient. Coupled with the fact that a significant amount at a minimum one third 岸 of farm land is degraded, it is imperative that water management techniques such as drip irrigation be employed, which both conserves water and improves yield.
But such systems are costly and beyond the reach of most farmers. Even in Punjab, the most productive state in India, rice and wheat yields only match the recent average for all of China.
The goal in the current five-year plan was to increase annual food production by 20 million tons to 251 million from 231 million. A severe drought actually decreased food grain production to 218 million tons in the year ended March 31, 2010. But production rebounded and reached a record 241 million tons in the year ended March 31. So, in a rare heartening sign, this goal at least appears feasible.
Lakshman Krishnamurthi / Sugandha Khandelwal
Lakshman Krishnamurthi is professor of marketing at the Kellogg School at Northwestern University; Sugandha Khandelwal is a former research associate at the Kellogg School.
没有评论:
发表评论