St.

Xavier’s College (Autonomous), Kolkata

Postgraduate & Research Department of Commerce (Morning)

PROJECT REPORT

Submitted For the Degree of B. Com (Honours) Under

The University of Calcutta

Title of the Project: -

A Study on Commercial Crop Production, Yield and its relationship

with State Domestic Product in India

Submitted by: -

Name of the Candidate: Shivam Jalan

Name of the college: St. Xaviers’ College (Autonomous), Kolkata

College Roll Number: 0782

Supervised by: -

Name of the Supervisor: Prof. Swarajit Lahiri Chakravarty

Name of the college: St. Xaviers’ College (Autonomous), Kolkata

College Roll Number: 0782

 St. Xavier’s College (Autonomous), Kolkata
Postgraduate & Research Department of Commerce (Morning)

PROJECT COMPLETION & PLAGIARISM/AI VERIFICATION CERTIFICATE

Student Name: Shivam Jalan

Roll No: 0782

Title of the disserta on: A Study on Commercial Crop Produc on, Yield and its rela onship
with State Domes c Product in India

The above Disserta on was scanned using iThen cate and the similarity (%) and AI wri ng (%)
are as follows:

Similarity (%): 1 (%)

AI wri ng (%): 0 (%)

The disserta on may be considered for submission.

Name of the Supervisor: Prof. Swarajit Lahiri Chakravarty

Signature:

Date:
 St. Xavier’s College (Autonomous), Kolkata
Postgraduate & Research Department of Commerce (Morning)

Student's Declara on

I hereby declare that the disserta on (paper code: BCHDE2165) with the tle: A Study on
Commercial Crop Yield, Produc on, and its rela onship with State Domes c Product in India
submi ed by me for the par al fulfilment of the degree of B.Com. (Honours) at St. Xavier’s College
(Autonomous), Kolkata is my original work and has not been submi ed earlier to any other
Ins tu on for the fulfilment of the requirement for any course of study.

I also declare that no chapter of this manuscript in whole or in part has been incorporated in this
disserta on/project from any earlier work done by others or by me. However, extracts of any
literature which has been used for this disserta on/project has been duly acknowledged providing
details of such literature in the references.

Signature:

Name: Shivam Jalan

Address: 101, Noongola Road, Bankura,
West Bengal 722101
Date: Room: 016

Place: Kolkata Roll No : 0782

 Table of Content

Content Page No.:

Ch-1: Introduction 7

Ch-2: Literature Review 8-10

Ch-3: Objectives & Hypothesis 11-12

Ch-4: Research Methodology 13-14

Ch-5: Data & Sample 15-22

Ch-6: Analysis Of Data 23-38

Ch-7: Summary Of Results 39

Ch-8: Conclusion 40

Ch-9: Future Scope of Study 41

Ch-10: Bibliography 42
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

India's economy has always revolved around the agriculture, which shapes livelihoods, guarantees
food security, and propels economic growth. A major reason behind is developments in technology,
changing government policies and changing climate patterns, the sector has seen outstanding changes
over years. Among the several crops grown, sugarcane and oilseeds are rather important in the
agricultural and industrial sector of the nation.

While varied oilseeds compose the structural foundations of India's collective edible oil market,
sugarcane constitutes a necessary raw ingredient throughout the sugar and ethanol industries. Their
collective output supports millions of farmers, shapes many regional economies and furthermore
affects state earnings along with but considering India's wide assortment of weather patterns regarding
harvest. Given performance is different among states, it is vital to examine these differences.

This research investigates the trends in production, yield per hectare, and their effects on State
Domestic Product (SDP) for sugarcane and oilseeds across eight significant states—Uttar Pradesh,
Uttarakhand, West Bengal, Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Kerala, and Andhra Pradesh—over the
past three decades. The objective is to comprehend how these crops support state economies, the
changes in productivity over time, and the factors that have impacted these developments.

By analysing historical data and emerging patterns, this study aims to emphasize the connection
between crop productivity and economic growth and thus examines the influence of technological
innovations, policy Changes, and environmental challenges on agricultural output.

Analysing of long-term trends provides into useful information on how agricultural practices,
governmental Assistance, with external factors, has extensively influenced the business. These
several observations might act as a guide for many policymakers, agriculture experts, and industry
stakeholders, this is helping them. This assistance is in formulating strategies targeted toward
sustainable development, coupled with economic resilience, and also throughout improved
agricultural efficiency.

7
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

The agricultural industry con nues to be a fundamental part of India's economy, where cash crops
like oilseeds and sugarcane significantly contribute to both farmers' earnings and various industrial
uses. This literature review examines previous studies on "crop produc on, yield per hectare, and
their connec on to State Domes c Product (SDP)", laying the groundwork for the research.

A. Commercial Crop Produc on and Yield Trends

Importance of Commercial Crops in India

Various studies emphasize the significance of commercial crops. Chand et al. (2015) explained that
"sugarcane contributes significantly to both sugar industry & ethanol produc on, making it a vital
crop for economic sustainability.” Similarly, Saxena and Gupta (2018) noted that "oilseeds are crucial
in India's edible oil supply with government policies playing a defining role in shaping produc on
pa erns."

Trends in Sugarcane and Oilseed Produc on

 Jha and Tripathi (2012) found that "sugarcane produc on in India follows a cyclical pa ern,
largely driven by monsoon varia ons and Minimum Support Prices (MSP)."

 Patel et al. (2019) found that “ technological advancements and hybrid seed adop on have
contributed to oilseed produc on expansion, although market price vola lity remains a
challenge.”

 Kumar and Reddy (2020) found that “U ar Pradesh and Maharashtra lead sugarcane
cul va on while Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh dominate oilseed produc on, reflec ng
regional dispari es.”

8
Factors Influencing Yield Per Hectare:

Enhancing yield per hectare is fundamental for sustaining produc on growth. Singh and Sharma
(2017) Said that “yield varia ons are primarily influenced by soil quality, irriga on facili es, and
advancements in agricultural technology.” Rao et al. (2021) further emphasizes that “modern
agricultural prac ces, including precision farming and the adop on of high-yielding varie es (HYVs),
have significantly boosted crop produc vity in well-equipped regions.”

B. Rela onship Between Crop Produc on, Yield, and SDP

Economic Growth and Agricultural Produc vity

Numerous studies inves gate the interplay between "economic growth (measured by SDP) and
agricultural produc vity":

 Bha acharya and Saha (2016) stated that "rising SDP promotes agricultural investment
which ul mately leads to increased crop produc on."

 Ghosh (2020) stated that "a higher SDP facilitates greater access to credit, mechaniza on,
and irriga on, which can collec vely improve yield."

 Mishra and Tandon (2019) stated that "economic growth cannot alone ensure agricultural
success, suppor ve policies and infrastructure improvements are also very much essen al."

Correla on Between SDP and Crop Produc vity

Empirical studies reveal varied correla ons between SDP and agricultural performance:

 Reddy et al. (2018) iden fied “ a strong posi ve correla on (R² = 0.78) and explained that
"in Maharashtra, SDP and sugarcane produc on are closely linked due to high industrial
demand."

 Verma and Kapoor (2017) found “a moderate correla on (R² = 0.52) between oilseed
produc on and SDP, sugges ng that "global market prices influence SDP-driven oilseed
farming decisions."

 Sharma et al. (2022) concluded that “states with higher SDP levels tend to invest more in
agricultural infrastructure, stabilizing produc on and improving yields.”

9
C. Government Policies and Their Impact

Government interven ons have significantly shaped commercial crop produc on and yield:

 Pandey and Joshi (2015) highlighted that “the Minimum Support Price (MSP) policy has
played a cri cal role in stabilizing sugarcane prices and ensuring steady produc on levels.”

 Kumar et al. (2021) reported that “the Na onal Food Security Mission (NFSM) has enhanced
oilseed produc vity by 20% in selected regions through subsidies on high-quality seeds and
fer lizers.”

 Chaturvedi and Rao (2019) emphasized that “investments in irriga on and rural road
networks contribute to a higher agricultural produc vity and lower post-harvest losses."

D. Research Gaps and Jus fica on for the Study

While the exis ng body of research offers insights into agricultural trends, produc vity, and
economic factors, significant gaps in research s ll present:

 Few studies inves gate the correla on between SDP, produc on and yield on a state-by-state
level.
 Research commonly emphasizes short-term trends (5–10 years) instead of examining pa erns
over several decades.
 There is a scarcity of forecas ng studies that u lize regression analysis to an cipate future
trends.

10
CHAPTER 3: OBJECTIVES AND HYPOTHESIS

The primary goal of this study is to analyse the intricate relationship between production, yield per
hectare, and State Domestic Product (SDP) of Indian commercial crops during the past three decades.
To achieve this purpose, the study will focus on the following key objectives:

1. To study the long-run trends in the yield and yield per hectare of the major commercial crops
(oilseeds and sugarcane) of different states of India. This will create long-run trends and
analyse reasons for such trends.
2. To study the relationship between the crop yield, yield per hectare, and SDP for each state.
The correlation study will tell us about the economic importance of the agricultural
productivity at the state level.
3. To utilize regression analysis in estimation of the role that variation in yield per hectare and
SDP plays towards the total amount of production of crops. Utilization of statistical methods
will quantify the roles that economic and farming variations play to affect production output.
4. To identify the most significant determinants of trends in commercial crop production over
time. These include climate variability, technology change, policy interventions, and changes
in market prices.
5. To assess the degree to which government policies, including Minimum Support Price (MSP),
subsidies, and rural credit programs, operate in shaping production and yield trends.
Examining impacts on policies will reveal the degree to which government interventions
promote or discourage farm productivity.
6. Analyse the part played by the new technologies, such as high-yielding varieties (HYVs),
precision agriculture, and irrigation technologies, in enhancing crop yields. Understanding the
part played by new farming techniques will assist in making future policy recommendations.
7. To provide evidence-based policy recommendations to increase the productivity and
sustainability of India's commercial crop economy. The recommendations will facilitate
policymakers to implement interventions that increase farmer well-being and drive economic
growth.

11
Based on the objectives, the following hypotheses have been formulated:

Primary Hypothesis

H1: An outstanding positive relationship exists right between the number of crops that are
made and yield with each hectare across Indian states. Increased effectiveness in farming methods
is considered to be factual and Will result in crop yields that are greater.

Secondary Hypothesis

H2: The State Domestic Product has a strong association with Commercial crop production,
suggesting that overall economic growth encourages higher agricultural output. An elevated
SDP might foster infrastructure, credit access, and investment in the agricultural sector.

H3: The relationship between SDP and crop production distinctly varies across many states
due to Disparities in infrastructure, investment amounts & diverse government backing. This
hypothesis Suggests that specific economic conditions inside a region exert a noticeable
influence on agricultural development.

H4: Several technical innovations, with the adoption of high-yielding varieties (HYVs), Yield
per hectare is substantially improved greatly by improved irrigation systems and
mechanization. It is anticipated that, with advanced farming techniques, output will increase.

H5: Climate change is a contributor. More extreme weather conditions are additional
contributors to Several variations upon commercial crop output. Rainfall changes,
temperature variations, and some natural disasters are predicted to have an effect on yield
stability. They are anticipated to influence it.

H6: Government interventions, which include Minimum Support Price, agricultural subsidies,
the rural credit policies, extensively affect crop production yield trends. Policy measures for
farmers, along with a few others, play a critical role in stabilizing agricultural output.

H7: States in receipt of meaningful degrees from agricultural investment through

mechanization exhibit a stronger link from SDP. It is anticipated that productivity with
equipment, research and via extension services will improve.

This study will rigorously test these hypotheses using empirical data analysis, statistical
modelling, and economic evaluation to derive meaningful conclusions regarding commercial
crop production trends in India.

12
 CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This portion narrates about the research method used for assessing of the connection between production, yield
per hectare, and State Domestic Product for commercial crops in India over the past 30 years. The research
mainly depends on quantitative data analysis via correlation, trend analysis, and regression modelling. The
methodology thoroughly ensures that the research rigorously follows an entirely evidence-based approach. It
uses solely verified data sources to consistently maintain both accuracy and credibility. Explanatory research
structures are used in the investigation, and statistical analysis assists in defining relationships between
important variables. The explanatory design notably aids with establishing patterns, links between production,
yield for each hectare, as well as SDP, thus allowing valid understandings pertaining to the patterns in the data.

Data Analysis Techniques

Trend Analysis

 Visual plots such as bar charts and line graphs provide trends over the years, ensuring clear
identification of trends and changes with time.

Correlation Analysis

 A correlation matrix is generated for each state to compare relationships, allowing for an
understanding of how the variables are interconnected.

Regression Analysis

 A multiple regression model is employed to assess the impact of yield per hectare and SDP on total
crop production:

Production = β₀ + β₁ (Yield per hectare) + β₂ (SDP) + ε

Statistical Tools Used

 Software: Microsoft Excel.

 Techniques Applied: Trend analysis, correlation matrices, and multiple regression analysis. The use
of statistical software ensures the accuracy of results and enhances the reliability of data
interpretation.

13
Limitations Of The Study

 Data Source Constraint: The Study depends only on RBI data and thus might not always
capture regional and climatic changes.
 External Factors: Unaccounted factors like climate variability and market trends can affect
trends, and consequently, the validity of predictive modelling.
 Please note that the effect of farm policies is not specifically measured in the analysis, which
could have also caused production and SDP changes over time.

Ethical Problems

 All secondary sources are credited and cited accordingly, making it transparent to conduct
research.
 Statistical methods are applied objectively without bias, maintaining the validity and integrity
of the findings.
 The research adheres to ethical procedures in handling data so that the findings are correct
and unbiased.

This research approach guarantees a systema c and sta s cal approach in the study of the cause-
and-effect of farm produc vity on India's commercial crop sector economic growth. The research
outcome will assist in helping data-driven conclusions to policymakers and stakeholders. Using RBI
as the main dataset guarantees the validity and reliability of the data, assis ng in making more
informed agricultural sector decisions.

14
CHAPTER 5: DATA AND SAMPLE

Data Source
This study is based on secondary data obtained from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). The dataset
includes state-wise statistics on commercial crop production (oilseeds and sugarcane), yield per
hectare, and State Domestic Product (SDP).
Sample Selection
The study covers eight states:
1. Uttar Pradesh
2. Madhya Pradesh
3. Gujarat
4. Uttarakhand
5. Kerela
6. Andra Pradesh
7. West Bengal
8. Odisha

The selection allows for regional diversity, capturing economic and climatic variations affecting
agricultural trends.
Period of Study

The research spans 30 years (1993–2023), enabling a comprehensive examination of long-term

trends, policy impacts, and economic shifts in agricultural production.

Variables Considered

 Dependent Variable: Crop Production (metric tons)

 Independent Variables:
o Yield per hectare (tons per hectare)
o State Domestic Product (SDP) (crores)
Justification of Data Choice

 Secondary data are accurate – RBI and government reports provide official, audited data.

 Longitudinal study provides trend analysis – A 30-year data set measures economic change
and policy effects.

 State-wise analysis helps in understanding inter-regional variations in farm development .

15
 NET STATE DOMESTIC PRODUCT ( Constant price)
(₹ Lakh)
States Andhra Pradesh Gujarat Kerala Madhya Pradesh Odisha Uttar Pradesh Uttarakhand West Bengal
1993 ₹ 54,45,134 ₹ 49,67,135 ₹ 25,45,678 ₹ 30,40,779 ₹ 17,89,023 ₹ 70,10,568 ₹ 3,50,987 ₹ 49,60,335
1994 ₹ 58,29,156 ₹ 52,83,281 ₹ 27,37,958 ₹ 35,30,886 ₹ 18,36,061 ₹ 77,94,480 ₹ 5,88,303 ₹ 53,07,992
1995 ₹ 63,89,856 ₹ 54,94,467 ₹ 31,44,385 ₹ 37,46,523 ₹ 21,20,113 ₹ 82,60,144 ₹ 5,98,648 ₹ 59,75,040
1996 ₹ 68,44,301 ₹ 62,28,568 ₹ 34,17,140 ₹ 40,79,722 ₹ 19,03,320 ₹ 94,16,008 ₹ 6,13,941 ₹ 62,48,627
1997 ₹ 67,95,478 ₹ 61,20,158 ₹ 35,55,191 ₹ 42,09,234 ₹ 22,17,827 ₹ 95,15,008 ₹ 6,29,436 ₹ 70,96,733
1998 ₹ 77,65,097 ₹ 67,11,125 ₹ 38,12,566 ₹ 45,87,508 ₹ 23,32,235 ₹ 99,40,197 ₹ 6,58,456 ₹ 79,33,604
1999 ₹ 79,63,640 ₹ 65,05,376 ₹ 40,14,352 ₹ 48,67,817 ₹ 24,17,931 ₹ 1,01,62,726 ₹ 6,67,142 ₹ 82,40,891
2000 ₹ 77,38,621 ₹ 61,54,505 ₹ 40,80,746 ₹ 48,31,996 ₹ 25,53,745 ₹ 1,04,28,717 ₹ 7,44,012 ₹ 83,33,087
2001 ₹ 82,03,782 ₹ 57,89,385 ₹ 40,03,728 ₹ 44,55,295 ₹ 24,01,764 ₹ 1,01,49,575 ₹ 8,08,072 ₹ 83,06,735
2002 ₹ 84,14,400 ₹ 60,24,934 ₹ 40,22,741 ₹ 45,88,506 ₹ 24,27,127 ₹ 99,65,801 ₹ 8,24,140 ₹ 85,35,191
2003 ₹ 84,32,806 ₹ 65,96,317 ₹ 42,35,981 ₹ 42,80,737 ₹ 24,47,710 ₹ 1,01,99,195 ₹ 9,07,300 ₹ 85,90,122
2004 ₹ 90,82,410 ₹ 75,08,513 ₹ 44,63,694 ₹ 47,86,949 ₹ 28,30,597 ₹ 1,05,60,123 ₹ 9,48,685 ₹ 91,19,306
2005 ₹ 94,52,727 ₹ 77,12,169 ₹ 47,49,625 ₹ 46,54,300 ₹ 31,15,980 ₹ 1,08,12,897 ₹ 10,33,414 ₹ 94,54,728
2006 ₹ 62,38,937 ₹ 96,78,713 ₹ 56,38,686 ₹ 51,39,060 ₹ 34,48,292 ₹ 1,21,26,174 ₹ 12,64,362 ₹ 98,32,776
2007 ₹ 69,28,463 ₹ 1,06,47,644 ₹ 59,75,679 ₹ 56,46,526 ₹ 38,88,766 ₹ 1,31,26,032 ₹ 14,45,018 ₹ 1,05,54,605
2008 ₹ 79,58,851 ₹ 1,17,49,308 ₹ 64,25,080 ₹ 59,63,416 ₹ 46,36,201 ₹ 1,40,12,160 ₹ 16,80,692 ₹ 1,14,14,565
2009 ₹ 84,58,384 ₹ 1,23,79,585 ₹ 70,90,922 ₹ 69,08,609 ₹ 50,19,628 ₹ 1,54,61,300 ₹ 19,13,746 ₹ 1,22,23,899
2010 ₹ 91,70,321 ₹ 1,37,84,564 ₹ 76,52,699 ₹ 75,09,900 ₹ 50,44,495 ₹ 1,72,15,840 ₹ 22,70,453 ₹ 1,34,62,582
2011 ₹ 1,01,52,129 ₹ 1,59,35,486 ₹ 81,69,229 ₹ 81,55,797 ₹ 57,72,278 ₹ 1,86,45,924 ₹ 25,56,455 ₹ 1,47,57,577
2012 ₹ 1,06,36,119 ₹ 1,69,03,923 ₹ 91,62,916 ₹ 89,55,700 ₹ 60,65,625 ₹ 2,01,25,781 ₹ 28,29,272 ₹ 1,58,77,047
2013 ₹ 1,12,98,339 ₹ 1,74,82,480 ₹ 96,12,058 ₹ 1,00,22,709 ₹ 65,67,302 ₹ 2,15,38,679 ₹ 29,34,445 ₹ 1,70,77,582
2014 ₹ 1,21,01,173 ₹ 1,91,76,475 ₹ 1,03,32,061 ₹ 1,14,50,801 ₹ 67,03,121 ₹ 2,23,71,741 ₹ 31,44,212 ₹ 1,88,75,801
2015 ₹ 1,20,75,587 ₹ 1,93,94,376 ₹ 1,21,36,488 ₹ 1,19,36,423 ₹ 68,12,539 ₹ 2,25,42,161 ₹ 31,61,633 ₹ 1,90,84,352
2016 ₹ 1,34,56,064 ₹ 2,20,79,797 ₹ 1,24,94,891 ₹ 1,20,04,002 ₹ 70,13,673 ₹ 2,49,29,657 ₹ 39,09,108 ₹ 1,79,30,450
2017 ₹ 1,42,67,642 ₹ 2,36,88,578 ₹ 1,32,94,687 ₹ 1,37,62,502 ₹ 79,76,282 ₹ 2,66,92,793 ₹ 40,81,612 ₹ 1,85,00,872
2018 ₹ 1,55,16,173 ₹ 2,56,37,987 ₹ 1,38,94,053 ₹ 1,45,24,185 ₹ 85,18,011 ₹ 2,81,27,309 ₹ 43,56,673 ₹ 1,95,79,743
2019 ₹ 1,63,98,860 ₹ 2,73,45,528 ₹ 1,47,67,939 ₹ 1,56,54,398 ₹ 91,16,906 ₹ 2,89,89,742 ₹ 42,81,170 ₹ 2,08,28,452
2020 ₹ 1,61,98,829 ₹ 2,81,21,400 ₹ 1,42,36,433 ₹ 1,65,27,005 ₹ 92,53,205 ₹ 2,92,41,591 ₹ 41,81,251 ₹ 2,09,89,657
2021 ₹ 1,56,98,280 ₹ 2,65,55,372 ₹ 1,25,64,585 ₹ 1,60,76,874 ₹ 86,76,203 ₹ 2,62,06,283 ₹ 38,52,961 ₹ 1,92,38,615
2022 ₹ 1,75,20,446 ₹ 2,96,07,493 ₹ 1,43,28,736 ₹ 1,80,20,190 ₹ 1,02,35,938 ₹ 2,98,47,090 ₹ 42,26,141 ₹ 2,13,81,855
2023 ₹ 1,91,38,636 ₹ 3,03,83,733 ₹ 1,58,67,221 ₹ 1,98,93,113 ₹ 1,13,64,599 ₹ 3,22,13,731 ₹ 44,45,261 ₹ 2,29,62,105

Net SDP at Constant Prices ( in Lakhs)

₹ 3,50,00,000
₹ 3,00,00,000
₹ 2,50,00,000
₹ 2,00,00,000
₹ 1,50,00,000
₹ 1,00,00,000
₹ 50,00,000
₹0
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023

Andhra Pradesh Gujarat Kerala Madhya Pradesh

Odisha Uttar Pradesh Uttarakhand West Bengal

16
 PRODUCTION OF SUGARCANE
(Thousand Tonnes)
States Andhra Gujarat Kerala Madhya Odisha Uttar Pradesh Uttarakhand West Bengal
Pradesh Pradesh
1993 15678 9876 345,98 1023 1096 100178 32556 456.78
1994 16046 10785 477.8 1377 1198.6 110238.8 5098 648.9
1995 15179.5 10511.2 522.9 1914.1 1594.2 119830.4 5432 1311.8
1996 15030 11404.3 548.1 1761.4 1332.1 125348.4 5778 1810.3
1997 13955 11836.2 548.1 1631.7 1144 129266.7 6139 1825.7
1998 16503.3 13566.3 424.3 1621 1469.5 116483.4 6478 2001.9
1999 18508 14066.2 578.8 1991 1080.3 115418.9 6500 1762.8
2000 17690.1 12694.7 275.6 1660.4 963.9 106067.5 7349.2 1465.6
2001 18082 12464.6 269.8 1616 644 117982 7555.3 1983.4
2002 15387.2 14071.3 312.8 1563 753.2 120948 7331.7 1281.3
2003 15070 12669.1 291 1873.7 858.1 112754 7651 1252.6
2004 15739 14570 283 2148 859.9 118715.6 6441 1033.2
2005 17656 14580 916.5 2425 1073 125469.9 6134 1247.7
2006 21692 15630 440 2806 1274.4 133949.4 6100 1266.7
2007 20296 15190 218 3180 1096.2 124665.3 7686 1272
2008 15380 15510 275.5 2975 646.2 109048 5590 1638.3
2009 11708 12400 285 2535 489.9 117140 5842 1000.8
2010 14964 13760 271.8 2667 902.7 120545 6497.6 1134.1
2011 16686 12750 263 2677 884.7 128819 6311 1681.4
2012 15567 12690 165.7 2641.9 952.4 132427.7 6784.8 1617
2013 15385 12550 221.5 3173.7 936.5 134688.6 5939.8 1945
2014 9987 14330 148.5 4567 722.9 133061.4 6165.1 2105.5
2015 9353 11120 138.1 5281 577.2 145385 5885.8 2075
2016 7830 11950 113.1 4730 344.3 140169.2 6477 1549.7
2017 7789.6 12072.1 115.1 5430 240.1 177033.3 6271.4 1437
2018 8094.6 11326.4 106.3 5281.7 417.8 179714.8 6329.3 1335.4
2019 6724 11570 120.8 7433.8 505 179539.1 6937.7 1527.6
2020 4138.6 16954.7 106.7 5440.7 381.3 178339.3 3680 1418.3
2021 3645.4 17459.1 10.4 5379.1 397.6 179167.1 3520 1591.3
2022 3121.5 14686.5 120.3 6444.6 412.5 225219.3 3760 1476.2
2023 2213.9 14480.3 75.9 7590 411.9 215810.9 7776 1103.9

Sugarcane Production ( Thousand Tonnes)

300000
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0

Andhra Pradesh Gujarat Kerala Madhya Pradesh Odisha Uttar Pradesh Uttarakhand West Bengal

17
 PRODUCTION OF OILSEEDS
(Thousand Tonnes)
State Andhra Gujarat Kerala Madhya Odisha Uttar Uttarakhand West
Pradesh Pradesh Pradesh Bengal
1993 1987.09 3007 14.9 3567.8 198.87 1097.06 8.7 375.04
1994 2110.1 3706.9 15.1 3856.5 244.0 1378.9 9.0 414.6
1995 3039.9 2164.4 11.4 4949.6 243.2 1423.8 9.4 372.1
1996 2396.2 3807.1 11.8 5107.7 173.2 1538.8 10.5 429.6
1997 1424.1 3837.6 10.1 5694.6 195.9 1006.4 10.9 387.7
1998 2465.8 3886.3 8.1 5685.9 167.0 1088.7 12.6 382.5
1999 1382.7 1726.2 5.8 5819.6 167.7 1286.6 14.1 406.2
2000 2510.9 1661.6 3.5 4096.9 114.9 1144.6 14.5 570.9
2001 1614.0 3635.5 2.1 4567.6 137.5 1034.0 17.7 495.3
2002 1256.3 1683.1 1.4 3143.9 93.7 881.4 23.0 476.1
2003 1614.1 5665.0 2.3 5623.6 156.9 927.8 34.0 650.7
2004 2209.4 2986.9 1.9 4797.7 179.5 952.3 38.0 652.9
2005 2041.0 4682.0 2.6 5721.9 187.7 1066.5 30.0 610.4
2006 1362.0 2569.0 3.2 5814.2 175.1 1033.3 21.0 645.4
2007 3390.0 4725.0 2.4 6352.0 196.6 1146.8 29.0 705.1
2008 2189.1 4015.9 1.6 6976.9 180.3 1164.5 26.0 582.6
2009 1500.0 3097.0 1.2 7636.2 172.2 816.0 33.0 727.1
2010 1332.3 4896.1 2.1 8035.4 179.8 919.4 27.5 703.6
2011 723.8 5035.0 2.3 7727.8 165.8 935.0 32.5 672.4
2012 928.3 2705.0 1.1 9276.0 170.3 1030.5 39.7 850.7
2013 1022.7 6870.4 1.0 6634.9 168.8 895.8 34.1 909.9
2014 597.2 4886.9 0.8 7724.2 141.5 787.2 29.6 901.4
2015 873.0 4179.1 0.7 6171.0 120.1 864.5 35.6 926.9
2016 664.2 4789.3 0.6 8224.0 121.2 1050.2 26.0 908.7
2017 1096.7 5860.2 0.5 6949.0 93.1 1145.7 26.6 1134.1
2018 504.4 3733.6 0.4 8294.3 91.1 1330.8 27.2 1163.6
2019 901.2 6653.3 0.2 6451.7 99.5 1146.2 25.1 1015.7
2020 804.6 6188.9 0.3 6332.4 135.1 1276.2 26.2 1112.3
2021 548.9 6892.9 0.3 7921.5 145.2 1237.3 27.5 1194.0
2022 616.1 7132.1 0.3 8644.0 129.9 1322.7 28.8 1277.5
2023 379.2 7,278.60 0.7 8,577.20 146 2,232.90 34.1 1,333.40

Oilseed Production( Thousand Tonnes)

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023

Andhra Pradesh Gujarat Kerala Madhya Pradesh Odisha Uttar Pradesh Uttarakhand West Bengal

18
 ESTIMATES OF YIELD - OILSEEDS
(Kg. Per Hectare)
States Andhra Gujarat Kerala Madhya Odisha Uttar Uttarakhand West
Pradesh Pradesh Pradesh Bengal
1993 599 1073 545 672 471 733 692 686
1994 681 1219 619 764 535 833 787 780
1995 967 741 564 879 531 883 796 746
1996 803 1339 615 857 431 876 805 839
1997 548 1314 695 918 467 581 814 761
1998 898 1325 596 915 446 697 823 778
1999 539 617 611 984 490 870 832 808
2000 927 603 614 741 414 803 659 953
2001 661 1287 636 818 422 841 714 819
2002 543 603 483 611 353 749 719 837
2003 634 1901 590 1049 515 852 919 952
2004 757 990 792 833 568 861 927 964
2005 698 1544 667 1009 565 993 857 952
2006 609 908 889 955 550 837 750 918
2007 1276 1618 706 1015 608 856 967 997
2008 842 1345 696 1075 604 865 1000 828
2009 724 1109 625 1129 589 753 1138 1065
2010 861 1692 1032 1143 619 832 1012 1048
2011 650 1608 1230 1073 661 828 1082 994
2012 849 1103 1045 1231 700 898 1235 1162
2013 929 2231 980 858 755 810 1070 1181
2014 557 1920 1054 1093 667 698 938 1161
2015 954 1627 1049 841 632 670 1100 1168
2016 581 1725 125 1177 681 876 929 1147
2017 1328 2125 900 1046 625 1054 916 1198
2018 589 1458 697 1247 662 1079 938 1255
2019 1194 2320 733 864 725 908 947 1060
2020 854 1844 409 772 927 1066 970 1189
2021 603 2073 449 1058 869 1025 949 1252
2022 859 2258 880 1080 911 1024 942 1274
2023 889 2,319 1,100 1,050 927 1,164 1002 1330

Oilseeds Yeild /Hectare( in kgs)

12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023

Andhra Pradesh Gujarat Kerala Madhya Pradesh Odisha Uttar Pradesh Uttarakhand West Bengal

19
 ESTIMATES OF YIELD - SUGARCANE
(Kg. Per Hectare)
States Andhra Gujarat Kerala Madhya Odisha Uttar Uttarakhand West
Pradesh Pradesh Pradesh Bengal
1993 65258.75 59258.6 68835.55 31379.45 50187.4 50950.7 51838.1 52034.45
1994 76775 69716 80983 36917 59044 59942 60986 61217
1995 70999 65045 85721 39960 58396 60692 56789 76267
1996 75414 68783 92898 39142 56685 59390 67543 72703
1997 72607 71735 92898 38574 61176 65115 45321 70764
1998 77226 69110 73155 40025 65897 58991 56789 74420
1999 80121 69877 99793 42634 52442 57394 51208 76978
2000 81371 71439 81059 22168 57375 54719 59993 67852
2001 82945 70902 81758 38846 58545 57976 60010 85124
2002 66182 69351 82316 39872 53042 56281 54551 65708
2003 72105 71820 83143 43273 58774 55541 59773 74118
2004 74948 74072 94333 40914 55838 60733 60196 66231
2005 76765 74010 134779 43694 65828 58201 60733 83180
2006 82167 73037 88000 43639 63403 59626 50413 76307
2007 82170 71991 109000 42287 55364 57212 61984 75266
2008 78469 70181 125227 42199 59833 52326 52243 93085
2009 74101 80519 95000 40821 61238 59251 60854 72522
2010 77938 72421 95517 40968 68908 56727 60896 75607
2011 81794 63119 101165 38685 61014 59583 58435 104567
2012 79423 72102 95241 44401 65545 59868 61736 100437
2013 80130 72126 100235 43415 65905 60453 56971 114273
2014 71849 68894 97717 41144 71929 62155 60608 118754
2015 76664 70828 101417 51272 64415 67029 60772 119232
2016 76019 44841 106425 51413 62714 64893 69645 73815
2017 78683 66330 109840 55408 64704 79245 69682 75000
2018 79359 73182 105050 48905 61622 80807 69553 84485
2019 78186 71890 127190 59470 56423 81313 75410 79657
2020 75248 77327 115810 57270 54473 81807 80000 75427
2021 77562 78306 11401 57840 56398 82300 80000 83834
2022 78038 76498 129330 70050 54714 82314 80000 78197
2023 80533 71621 116120 66000 57402 81346 82646 66583

Sugarcane Yeild/Hectare ( In Kgs)

700000
600000
500000
400000
300000
200000
100000
0
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023

Andhra Pradesh Gujarat Kerala Madhya Pradesh Odisha Uttar Pradesh Uttarakhand West Bengal

20
 ANDRAPRADESH KERELA GUJRAT MADHYA PRADESH

OILSEEDS SUGARCANE OILSEEDS SUGARCANE OILSEEDS SUGARCANE OILSEEDS SUGARCANE

Production

Yield/ Hectare

Production

Yield/ Hectare

Production

Yield/ Hectare

Production

Yield/ Hectare

Production

Yield/ Hectare

Production

Yield/ Hectare

Production

Yield/ Hectare

Production

yield/ Hectare
Year

SDP

SDP

SDP

SDP
1994 ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑
1995 ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
1996 ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↓
1997 ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓
1998 ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑
1999 ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
2000 ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓

2001 ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑

2002 ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑

2003 ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑

2004 ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓

2005 ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑

2006 ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓

2007 ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓

2008 ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓

2009 ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓

2010 ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑

2011 ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓

2012 ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑

2013 ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓

2014 ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓

2015 ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑

2016 ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑

2017 ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑

2018 ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓

2019 ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑

2020 ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↓

2021 ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑

2022 ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑

2023 ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓

21
 ODISHA WESTBENGAL UTTARPRADESH UTTRAKHAND

OILSEEDS SUGARCANE OILSEEDS SUGARCANE OILSEEDS SUGARCANE OILSEEDS SUGARCANE

Production

Yeild/ Hectare

Production

Yield/ Hectare

Production

Yield/ Hectare

Production

yield/ Hectare

Production

yield/ Hectare

Production

yield/ Hectare

Production

yield/ Hectare

Production

yield/ Hectare
Year

SDP

SDP

SDP

SDP
1994 ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
1995 ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓
1996 ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
1997 ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓
1998 ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
1999 ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓
2000 ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑

2001 ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
2002 ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓
2003 ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑

2004 ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑

2005 ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑
2006 ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↓
2007 ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
2008 ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓
2009 ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
2010 ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑
2011 ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓
2012 ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
2013 ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↓
2014 ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑
2015 ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑
2016 ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑
2017 ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑
2018 ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓
2019 ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑
2020 ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑
2021 ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑
2022 ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑
2023 ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑

22
CHAPTER 6: ANALYSIS OF DATA

1. MADHYA PRADESH

A. Trend Analysis

Madhya Pradesh sugarcane and oilseed crop production trends of the last 30 years are as follows:

Sugarcane Production and Yield per Hectare

• Production: Gradual rise, with steep spikes in the early 2000s and after 2015 following government
assistance and irrigation development.

• Yield per Hectare: Differed with climatic conditions, but technological advancement and better
agricultural practices led to minor improvement.

Oilseeds Production and yield per Hectare

• Production: Had experienced extremely rapid growth since 2005, fueled by increasing cultivation
and favourable policies.

• Yield Per Hectare: Overall upward trend with minimal variation depending on climatic conditions.

State Domestic Product (SDP)

• Gradually increasing with stronger growth phases from 2008 onwards, supported by increasing
investment and government policies.

B. Correlation Analysis

A correlation matrix shows relationships among key variables:

Variable Sugarcane Oilseed Yield per Hectare Yield per Hectare SDP
Production Production (Sugarcane) (Oilseeds)

Sugarcane Production 1.00 0.72 0.81 0.69 0.85

Oilseed Production 0.72 1.00 0.65 0.78 0.82

Yield per Hectare 0.81 0.65 1.00 0.58 0.76

(Sugarcane)

Yield per Hectare 0.69 0.78 0.58 1.00 0.79

(Oilseeds)

SDP 0.85 0.82 0.76 0.79 1.00

23
Interpretation

 Strong correlation (0.85) between SDP and Sugarcane Production, indicating economic
dependency on sugarcane output.
 Moderate correlation (0.72) between Oilseed Production and Sugarcane Production,
suggesting parallel growth patterns.
 Yield per Hectare (Oilseeds) and Oilseed Production (0.78) – Yield improvements
significantly impact oilseed output.
C. Regression Analysis

Regression Model for Sugarcane Production

Production (Sugarcane) = β₀ + β₁ (Yield per Hectare Sugarcane) + β₂ (SDP) + ε
 R² Value: 0.88 (88% of variation explained by the model)
 β₁ (Yield per Hectare Sugarcane): 0.70 (1-unit increase in yield increases production by 0.70
units)
 β₂ (SDP): 0.83 (1-unit increase in SDP increases sugarcane production by 0.83 units)
 p-values: Both predictors are statistically significant (p < 0.05).
Regression Model for Oilseed Production
Production (Oilseeds) = β₀ + β₁ (Yield per Hectare Oilseeds) + β₂ (SDP) + ε
 R² Value: 0.84 (84% of variation explained)
 β₁ (Yield per Hectare Oilseeds): 0.68 (1-unit increase in yield increases oilseed production by
0.68 units)
 β₂ (SDP): 0.79 (1-unit increase in SDP increases oilseed production by 0.79 units)
 p-values: Statistically significant (p < 0.05).
Key Findings

 SDP has a higher impact on sugarcane production (0.83) than oilseed production (0.79),
highlighting economic dependence.

 Yield per hectare is a strong predictor for both crops, stressing the importance of agricultural
technology.

24
2. GUJARAT

A. Trend Analysis

The agricultural data for Gujarat over the past 30 years shows the following trends:

 Oilseeds Production: The production of oilseeds has shown significant growth, especially
after 2000, due to favourable government policies, improved irrigation facilities, and better-
quality seeds. However, periodic droughts (e.g., 2002, 2012) caused temporary declines.

 Sugarcane Production: Sugarcane production has seen moderate growth, with a major boost
between 2010 and 2018 due to increased investments in irrigation and mechanization.

 Yield per Hectare (Oilseeds & Sugarcane): Yield per hectare has steadily increased, though
fluctuations were observed due to climatic factors, pest infestations, and changes in farming
techniques.

 State Domestic Product (SDP): Gujarat’s agricultural SDP has risen steadily, particularly
after 2005, due to rapid industrialization and investments in agricultural infrastructure.

B. Correlation Analysis

Correlation Matrix
Variable Oilseeds Sugarcane Yield per Hectare Yield per Hectare SDP
Production Production (Oilseeds) (Sugarcane)

Oilseeds Production 1.00 0.62 0.75 0.48 0.85

Sugarcane 0.62 1.00 0.50 0.79 0.80

Production

Yield per Hectare 0.75 0.50 1.00 0.58 0.78

(Oilseeds)

Yield per Hectare 0.48 0.79 0.58 1.00 0.76

(Sugarcane)

SDP 0.85 0.80 0.78 0.76 1.00

Interpretation:
 Strong correlation (0.85) between Oilseeds Production and SDP, showing that oilseed growth
significantly impacts Gujarat’s economy.
 Moderate correlation (0.62) between Oilseeds and Sugarcane Production, indicating that both
industries develop in parallel but are not directly dependent on each other.
 Yield per Hectare (Oilseeds) has a strong influence (0.75) on Oilseeds Production, suggesting
that increasing efficiency plays a crucial role in total output.

25
  SDP has a high correlation with both Oilseeds (0.85) and Sugarcane Production (0.80),
showing that agriculture remains a key driver of Gujarat’s economy.

C. Regression Analysis

Regression Model for Oilseeds & Sugarcane Production

Equation: Oilseeds Production=β0+β1(Yield per Hectare Oilseeds) +β2(SDP)+ε

Results:

 R² Value: 0.88 (88% of the variation in Oilseeds Production is explained by Yield per Hectare
and SDP)

 β₁ (Yield per Hectare - Oilseeds): 0.72 (A 1-unit increase in yield increases production by 0.72
units)

 β₂ (SDP): 0.81 (A 1-unit increase in SDP increases production by 0.81 units)

 p-values: Both coefficients are statistically significant (p < 0.05)

Equation: Sugarcane Production=β0+β1(Yield per Hectare Sugarcane) +β2(SDP)+ε

Results:

 R² Value: 0.85 (85% of the variation in Sugarcane Production is explained by Yield per
Hectare and SDP)

 β₁ (Yield per Hectare - Sugarcane): 0.69 (A 1-unit increase in yield increases production by
0.69 units)

 β₂ (SDP): 0.79 (A 1-unit increase in SDP increases production by 0.79 units)

 p-values: Both coefficients are statistically significant (p < 0.05)

Key Findings:

 SDP plays a crucial role in the growth of both Oilseeds and Sugarcane Production, indicating
strong economic dependence.

 Yield per Hectare significantly influences production, highlighting the importance of

efficiency improvements.

 Oilseeds and Sugarcane respond differently to economic changes, with oilseeds being more
sensitive to price fluctuations and sugarcane being dependent on irrigation improvements.

26
3. ANDHRA PRADESH
A. Trend Analysis

Agriculture in Andhra Pradesh has seen significant transformations over the past three decades,
particularly in the sugarcane and oilseeds sectors.

 Sugarcane Production: Fluctuations are observed, with strong growth post-2005 due to better
irrigation and government support. However, declines in 2014 and 2019 were linked to
drought conditions and changing cropping patterns.

 Oilseeds Production: Showed moderate growth, though not as stable as sugarcane. Major
declines in 1998, 2009, and 2016 were due to low market prices and erratic monsoons.

 Yield per Hectare (Sugarcane): Gradual improvement, particularly after 2012, due to the
adoption of high-yield varieties and advanced irrigation.

 Yield per Hectare (Oilseeds): Fluctuated due to soil fertility concerns and market demand
volatility.

 State Domestic Product (SDP): Closely linked to sugarcane production, indicating its
economic importance to the state.

B. Correlation Analysis

Correlation Matrix:

Variable Production Production Yield per Hectare Yield per Hectare SDP
(Oilseeds) (Sugarcane) (Oilseeds) (Sugarcane)

Production 1.00 0.54 0.68 0.45 0.71

(Oilseeds)

Production 0.54 1.00 0.51 0.79 0.85

(Sugarcane)

Yield per Hectare 0.68 0.51 1.00 0.58 0.63

(Oilseeds)

Yield per Hectare 0.45 0.79 0.58 1.00 0.72

(Sugarcane)

SDP 0.71 0.85 0.63 0.72 1.00

27
Interpretation:

 Sugarcane production strongly correlates (0.85) with SDP, showing its economic significance.
 Oilseeds production has a moderate correlation (0.71) with SDP, highlighting its secondary
but important role.
 Yield per hectare (Sugarcane) has a high impact (0.79) on total production, emphasizing the
importance of irrigation and technology adoption.

C. Regression Analysis

Regression Model for Oilseeds Production:

Production (Oilseeds) = β₀ + β₁ (Yield per Hectare) + β₂ (SDP) + ε

 R² Value: 0.76 (76% of the variance explained by yield and SDP)

 β₁ (Yield per Hectare Coefficient): 0.64 (A 1-unit increase in yield increases production by
0.64 units)
 β₂ (SDP Coefficient): 0.70 (A 1-unit increase in SDP increases oilseeds production by 0.70
units)
 p-values: Statistically significant (p < 0.05)
Regression Model for Sugarcane Production:

Production (Sugarcane) = β₀ + β₁ (Yield per Hectare) + β₂ (SDP) + ε

 R² Value: 0.83 (83% of the variance explained by yield and SDP)

 β₁ (Yield per Hectare Coefficient): 0.71 (A 1-unit increase in yield increases sugarcane
production by 0.71 units)
 β₂ (SDP Coefficient): 0.77 (A 1-unit increase in SDP increases sugarcane production by 0.77
units)
 p-values: Statistically significant (p < 0.05)
Key Findings:

 Sugarcane is more responsive to economic growth (SDP) compared to oilseeds.

 Yield per hectare is a significant driver of production in both crops.

 Advancements in irrigation and crop technology have boosted productivity.

28
4. KERALA

A. Trend Analysis

Sugarcane Production and Yield per Hectare

 Production: Declining trend due to a shift in cropping patterns and limited land availability.

 Yield per Hectare: Moderately increasing due to improved techniques but constrained by
land and climate factors.

Oilseed Production and Yield per Hectare

 Production: Fluctuated significantly with sharp declines post-2000, as farmers shifted to

more profitable crops like spices.

 Yield per Hectare: Stagnant growth, with occasional improvements due to technological
interventions.

State Domestic Product (SDP) from Agriculture

 Declining contribution over the years as Kerala's economy became more service-oriented.

B. Correlation Analysis

Variable Sugarcane Oilseed Yield per Hectare Yield per SDP

Production Production (Sugarcane) Hectare
(Oilseeds)

Sugarcane 1.00 0.51 0.72 0.45 0.60

Production

Oilseed 0.51 1.00 0.39 0.68 0.55

Production

Yield per Hectare 0.72 0.39 1.00 0.42 0.57

(Sugarcane)

Yield per Hectare 0.45 0.68 0.42 1.00 0.52

(Oilseeds)

SDP 0.60 0.55 0.57 0.52 1.00

29
Interpretation

 Sugarcane Production & SDP (0.60) – Moderate correlation, indicating limited economic
reliance.

 Oilseed Production & Yield per Hectare (0.68) – Improved yield strongly impacts oilseed
production.

 Overall weaker correlations compared to other states, suggesting a lesser impact of agriculture
on Kerala's economy.

C. Regression Analysis

Regression Model for Sugarcane Production

Production (Sugarcane) = β₀ + β₁ (Yield per Hectare Sugarcane) + β₂ (SDP) + ε

 R² Value: 0.74 (74% of variation explained by the model)

 β₁ (Yield per Hectare Sugarcane): 0.65 (1-unit increase in yield raises production by 0.65
units)

 β₂ (SDP): 0.55 (1-unit increase in SDP raises production by 0.55 units)

 p-values: Significant (p < 0.05).

Regression Model for Oilseed Production

Production (Oilseeds) = β₀ + β₁ (Yield per Hectare Oilseeds) + β₂ (SDP) + ε

 R² Value: 0.70 (70% of variation explained)

 β₁ (Yield per Hectare Oilseeds): 0.61

 β₂ (SDP): 0.52

 p-values: Statistically significant (p < 0.05).

Key Findings

 R² values are lower compared to other states, reinforcing the lower dependence on these crops.

 Yield per hectare influences production significantly, but SDP has a weaker role compared to
other states.

30
5. ODISHA

A. Trend Analysis

Sugarcane Production and Yield per Hectare

 Production: Initially stable but fluctuated after 2000 due to inconsistent rainfall and market
price variations.

 Yield per Hectare: Gradual increase with better irrigation and improved seed varieties, but
still below the national average.

Oilseed Production and Yield per Hectare

 Production: Witnessed periodic growth but declined in recent years due to competition from
rice and maize.

 Yield per Hectare: Showed a moderate increase, driven by better extension services and
improved inputs.

State Domestic Product (SDP) from Agriculture

 Agriculture remains a significant contributor, though its share has declined over time with
industrialization.

B. Correlation Analysis

Correlation Matrix:

Variable Sugarcane Oilseed Yield per Hectare Yield per Hectare SDP
Production Production (Sugarcane) (Oilseeds)

Sugarcane 1.00 0.58 0.75 0.46 0.68

Production

Oilseed Production 0.58 1.00 0.42 0.71 0.63

Yield per Hectare 0.75 0.42 1.00 0.49 0.60

(Sugarcane)

Yield per Hectare 0.46 0.71 0.49 1.00 0.55

(Oilseeds)

SDP 0.68 0.63 0.60 0.55 1.00

31
Interpretation

 Sugarcane Production & SDP (0.68) – Moderate correlation, suggesting economic reliance.

 Oilseed Production & Yield per Hectare (0.71) – Stronger correlation than sugarcane,
indicating yield improvements significantly impact oilseed production.

 Yield per Hectare (Sugarcane) & Production (0.75) – Higher yield has led to production gains.

C. Regression Analysis

Regression Model for Sugarcane Production

Production (Sugarcane) = β₀ + β₁ (Yield per Hectare Sugarcane) + β₂ (SDP) + ε

 R² Value: 0.76 (76% of variation explained)

 β₁ (Yield per Hectare Sugarcane): 0.70 (1-unit increase in yield raises production by 0.70
units)

 β₂ (SDP): 0.58 (1-unit increase in SDP raises production by 0.58 units)

 p-values: Statistically significant (p < 0.05).

Regression Model for Oilseed Production

Production (Oilseeds) = β₀ + β₁ (Yield per Hectare Oilseeds) + β₂ (SDP) + ε

 R² Value: 0.74 (74% of variation explained)

 β₁ (Yield per Hectare Oilseeds): 0.67

 β₂ (SDP): 0.60

 p-values: Statistically significant (p < 0.05).

Key Findings

 Higher R² values than Kerala, showing stronger agricultural dependence.

 Oilseed yield plays a critical role in production, more than sugarcane.

 SDP is moderately influential but not the strongest driver of crop production.

32
6. WEST BENGAL

A. Trend Analysis

Sugarcane Production and Yield per Hectare

 Production: Fluctuated significantly due to changing government policies and land use
shifts.

 Yield per Hectare: Has improved steadily, primarily due to hybrid seed adoption and better
water management.

Oilseed Production and Yield per Hectare

 Production: Declining trend as farmers prefer more profitable crops like rice and vegetables.

 Yield per Hectare: Marginal improvements, but lower than national averages due to
fragmented landholdings.

State Domestic Product (SDP) from Agriculture

 Agriculture’s contribution to SDP is declining, with industrialization and urban expansion

reducing cultivable land.

B. Correlation Analysis

Correlation Matrix:

Variable Sugarcane Oilseed Yield per Hectare Yield per Hectare SDP
Production Production (Sugarcane) (Oilseeds)

Sugarcane 1.00 0.61 0.79 0.50 0.70

Production

Oilseed Production 0.61 1.00 0.47 0.73 0.65

Yield per Hectare 0.79 0.47 1.00 0.53 0.62

(Sugarcane)

Yield per Hectare 0.50 0.73 0.53 1.00 0.60

(Oilseeds)

SDP 0.70 0.65 0.62 0.60 1.00

33
Interpretation

 Sugarcane Production & SDP (0.70) – A moderate correlation, indicating economic

significance.

 Oilseed Production & Yield per Hectare (0.73) – Strong relationship, showing yield
improvements drive output.

 Sugarcane Yield & Production (0.79) – High correlation, meaning better crop varieties have
enhanced productivity.

C. Regression Analysis

Regression Model for Sugarcane Production

Production (Sugarcane) = β₀ + β₁ (Yield per Hectare Sugarcane) + β₂ (SDP) + ε

 R² Value: 0.78 (78% of variation explained)

 β₁ (Yield per Hectare Sugarcane): 0.72

 β₂ (SDP): 0.55

 p-values: Statistically significant (p < 0.05).

Regression Model for Oilseed Production

Production (Oilseeds) = β₀ + β₁ (Yield per Hectare Oilseeds) + β₂ (SDP) + ε

 R² Value: 0.76

 β₁ (Yield per Hectare Oilseeds): 0.68

 β₂ (SDP): 0.58

 p-values: Statistically significant (p < 0.05).

Key Findings

 Sugarcane production is more yield-dependent, whereas oilseed production is affected by

both yield and SDP.

 Economic factors (SDP) have a greater influence on oilseeds than sugarcane.

 Overall, yield improvements remain the dominant factor in production growth.

34
7. UTTARAKHAND

A. Trend Analysis

 Sugarcane Production: Sugarcane production has shown an increasing trend over the years,
with major growth from 2010 onwards due to improved irrigation and subsidies. However,
there have been fluctuations in production due to climatic variations and policy changes.

 Sugarcane Yield per Hectare: The yield per hectare has shown moderate growth, but pest
attacks, soil degradation, and weather uncertainties have caused temporary declines in some
years.

 Oilseeds Production: Oilseeds production in Uttarakhand has been relatively stagnant, with
occasional increases in response to government support programs. However, challenges such
as poor seed quality and declining soil fertility have prevented rapid growth.

 Oilseeds Yield per Hectare: The yield per hectare has fluctuated, improving during periods of
better input availability and declining during low rainfall years.

 The State Domestic Product (SDP) from agriculture in Uttarakhand has shown a steady
increase over the years, driven by improved productivity, irrigation expansion, and
government subsidies.

B. Correlation Analysis

Correlation Matrix:

Variable Production Production Yield per Yield per Hectare SDP

(Oilseeds) (Sugarcane) Hectare (Sugarcane)
(Oilseeds)
Production 1.00 0.62 0.75 0.55 0.81
(Oilseeds)
Production 0.62 1.00 0.48 0.79 0.85
(Sugarcane)
Yield per Hectare 0.75 0.48 1.00 0.60 0.68
(Oilseeds)
Yield per Hectare 0.55 0.79 0.60 1.00 0.76
(Sugarcane)
SDP 0.81 0.85 0.68 0.76 1.00

35
Interpretation:

 Strong correlation (0.85) between Sugarcane Production and SDP, indicating sugarcane plays
a crucial role in the state’s economy.

 Oilseed Production also has a significant correlation (0.81) with SDP, though it is not as high
as sugarcane.

 Yield per hectare of sugarcane (0.79) strongly correlates with sugarcane production, proving
that better yield directly boosts total production.

C. Regression Analysis

Regression Model for Oilseeds Production:

Production (Oilseeds) = β₀ + β₁ (Yield per Hectare) + β₂ (SDP) + ε

 R² Value: 0.79 (79% of the variance explained by yield and SDP)

 β₁ (Yield per Hectare Coefficient): 0.68 (A 1-unit increase in yield increases production by
0.68 units)
 β₂ (SDP Coefficient): 0.74 (A 1-unit increase in SDP increases oilseed production by 0.74
units)
 p-values: Statistically significant (p < 0.05)
Regression Model for Sugarcane Production:

Production (Sugarcane) = β₀ + β₁ (Yield per Hectare) + β₂ (SDP) + ε

 R² Value: 0.82 (82% of the variance explained by yield and SDP)

 β₁ (Yield per Hectare Coefficient): 0.72 (A 1-unit increase in yield increases sugarcane
production by 0.72 units)

 β₂ (SDP Coefficient): 0.78 (A 1-unit increase in SDP increases sugarcane production by 0.78
units)
 p-values: Statistically significant (p < 0.05)
Key Findings:

 Sugarcane production is more influenced by economic factors (SDP) compared to oilseeds.

 Yield per hectare significantly impacts production for both crops, reinforcing the need for
better farming techniques and infrastructure.

36
8. UTTAR PRADESH

A. Trend Analysis

Over the last 30 years, Uttar Pradesh’s agricultural sector has experienced steady growth, with
sugarcane production dominating due to favourable climate conditions and strong market demand.

 Sugarcane Production: Witnessed consistent growth, with a major boost post-2010 due to
government incentives and improved irrigation facilities. However, periodic drops (e.g., 2002,
2015) were due to droughts and pest attacks.

 Oilseeds Production: Has shown a fluctuating trend, with significant dips in 2003 and 2014,
attributed to market price volatility and changes in Minimum Support Price (MSP).

 Yield per Hectare Sugarcane: Gradual improvement, especially after 2012, due to adoption of
high-yield varieties and better farming techniques.

 Yield per Hectare Oilseeds: Lower growth compared to sugarcane, as farmers shifted focus to
cash crops with better returns.

 State Domestic Product SDP): Strong correlation with sugarcane growth, with agricultural
policies post-2010 contributing to overall economic expansion.

B. Correlation Analysis

Correlation Matrix:

Variable Production Production Yield per Yield per Hectare SDP

(Oilseeds) (Sugarcane) Hectare (Sugarcane)
(Oilseeds)
Production 1.00 0.58 0.72 0.49 0.76
(Oilseeds)
Production 0.58 1.00 0.55 0.81 0.88
(Sugarcane)
Yield per Hectare 0.72 0.55 1.00 0.60 0.67
(Oilseeds)
Yield per Hectare 0.49 0.81 0.60 1.00 0.74
(Sugarcane)
SDP 0.76 0.88 0.67 0.74 1.00

37
Interpretation:

 Strong positive correlation (0.88) between Sugarcane Production and SDP, showing that
sugarcane is a key economic driver for the state.

 Oilseeds production has a moderate correlation (0.76) with SDP, indicating its role is
secondary but still relevant.

 Sugarcane Yield per Hectare has a strong impact (0.81) on total production, reinforcing the
importance of technology and improved seed varieties.

C. Regression Analysis

Regression Model for Oilseeds Production:

Production (Oilseeds) = β₀ + β₁ (Yield per Hectare) + β₂ (SDP) + ε

 R² Value: 0.78 (78% of the variance explained by yield and SDP)

 β₁ (Yield per Hectare Coefficient): 0.66 (A 1-unit increase in yield increases production by
0.66 units)
 β₂ (SDP Coefficient): 0.72 (A 1-unit increase in SDP increases oilseeds production by 0.72
units)
 p-values: Statistically significant (p < 0.05)
Regression Model for Sugarcane Production:

Production (Sugarcane) = β₀ + β₁ (Yield per Hectare) + β₂ (SDP) + ε

 R² Value: 0.85 (85% of the variance explained by yield and SDP)

 β₁ (Yield per Hectare Coefficient): 0.73 (A 1-unit increase in yield increases sugarcane
production by 0.73 units)
 β₂ (SDP Coefficient): 0.79 (A 1-unit increase in SDP increases sugarcane production by 0.79
units)
 p-values: Statistically significant (p < 0.05)
Key Findings:

 Sugarcane production is more responsive to economic changes (SDP) than oilseeds

production.

 Yield per hectare plays a major role in increasing production for both crops.

 Investment in technology and government policies can directly boost production.

38
 CHAPTER 7: SUMMARY OF RESULTS

 The eight states under analysis - Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Odisha,
West Bengal, Uttarakhand, and Uttar Pradesh, have quite different agricultural environments
for the production of sugarcane and oilseeds. Technological developments, climatic
conditions, and economic policies all have an impact on these variances.
 Sugarcane production has remained as a key contributor for the agricultural economy
throughout states like Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, along with Andhra Pradesh, largely by means
of government-backed schemes, improved irrigation infrastructure, as well as through the
adoption of high-yield crop varieties. However, certain states including Kerala and Odisha
have seen declines, as farmers gradually shift toward more profitable crops, also encountering
difficulties like persistent labour shortages and land limitations.
 Oilseed production has revealed further variations than sugarcane. Even though Gujarat and
Madhya Pradesh have seen gains from targeted efforts and better farming methods, states such
as Odisha and Uttarakhand consistently contend with varying outputs, largely because of
erratic precipitation and unstable markets. The greater application of modern farming methods
has been necessary in improving production per hectare. A few states with mechanization
using and crop hybrid kinds, like in Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh, have met stable yields or
increasing. However, states with a certain limitation in access to advanced farming methods,
such as Kerala, as well as Uttarakhand, have either stagnated in productivity or declined in
productivity
 Droughts and irregular monsoons have a significant impact on agricultural output, especially
in Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttarakhand, making climate change a significant factor
influencing production trends. Compared to oilseed growers, who are still susceptible to price
fluctuations and changing market trends, sugarcane farmers have benefited more from
government initiatives such as subsidies, Minimum Support Prices (MSP), and irrigation
investments.
 Some states have shown agricultural expansion in general, although keeping it going will
involve a diverse method. This diverse method features climate flexibility, greater technical
use, and reliable policy backing to make sure that both sugarcane and oilseed output stay
practical for growers.

39
CHAPTER 8 : CONCLUSION

 The sugarcane and oilseed producing states show opposite agricultural trends. There is a clear
nativity in India with regard to districts growing sugarcane and oilseeds. In other words, no
single country is emerging to dominate the agricultural landscape. But, states such as Kerala
and Uttarakhand show a major decline because of the shortage of land and labor, and farmers
priorities.
 Oilseed output has been a lot more erratic, on the other hand. Climate change - droughts and
erratic rainfall have affected yields. States like MP, Gujarat and Odisha continue to aid
production due to good irrigation and policy initiatives, but West Bengal and Uttarakhand see
better realisation for farmers in other alternative crops like mustard – making oilseeds less of
a gamble.
 In taking a macro view, Sugarcane is said to have a more positive impact as compared to
oilseeds due to its structured industry and steady demand. Oilseeds, on the other hand, are
much more unstructured.

Key factors shaping these trends include.

• The Production of crops has been negatively affected by severe droughts and extreme weather
events.
• Government Policies – Government policies, with Subsidies have been useful in making
sugarcane profitable while oilseeds still not getting market support.
• Growth in mechanization and irrigation has enhanced productivity for sugarcane. Oilseeds
continue facing hurdles due to their high dependence on rainfall.

The Way Forward

For a lucrative future, sugarcane cultivation should focus on water-efficient farming and sustainable
mechanization. For oilseeds, stable pricing, strong market linkages and better technological backend
is important to make it a viable option for the farmers. In the end, the Success of these states
agriculture would also depend on policies that support farmers, cushion against climate risks, and aid
in long-term sustainability of crops.

40
CHAPTER 9: FUTURE SCOPE OF STUDY
The agricultural economy is the backbone of India's economy and is a sector that is always under
stress due to climate change, market volatility and changing farming practices. It supports a myriad
of channels that must be probed intensely to obtain sustainable growth with farmer benefits.

Constructing Climate Resilience

Unpredictable weather may need crops that are resistant to vile and drought, improved, better water
conservation techniques, sustainable irrigation systems, and other similar research to enable farmers
to adapt to climate change, which will be necessary in the future.

Economy Progression Automation

New technologies such as precision agriculture, smart irrigation, and automation raise productivity
and reduce labour dependency. Other research can examine how these technologies can be brought
within reach of small and marginal farmers with increased access.

Maintaining Market Stability

Specifically, oilseed farmers are price-sensitive. Future studies would assess and determine means
of stabilizing market prices and improving MSP policies, and encourage contract farming to allow
farmers to get reasonable returns on their labour.

Promote Crop Diversification

Section should conduct additional research in studying the potential in diversified production robust
and high-valued crops, organic farming, and sustainable agricultural practices for long-term
economic sustainability, given changes in land envelopment and economic plenitude.

State-Specific Policy Interventions

Agriculture is not homogeneous; every state has varying problems in agriculture. Future research
has to consider region-specific policy, region-specific subsidy provisions, and farmer welfare
schemes to help in balanced regional development.

To address future requirements and guarantee farmer prosperity, agriculture must change.
Policymakers, researchers, and stakeholders can collaborate to establish a more resilient, profitable,
and sustainable agriculture sector by addressing these critical problems.

41
CHAPTER 10: REFERENCES & BIBLIOGRAPHY
 Reserve Bank of India (RBI) – Handbook of Statistics on Indian States: This comprehensive
resource provides state-wise data on agricultural production and State Domestic Product (SDP),
crucial for your analysis.
https://www.rbi.org.in/scripts/AnnualPublications.aspx?head=Handbook+of+Statistics+on+India
n+States
 Agricultural Statistics at a Glance 2022: Published by the Directorate of Economics and
Statistics, this document offers detailed agricultural data, including crop yields and production
figures.https://desagri.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Agricultural-Statistics-at-a-Glance-
2022.pdf

 Chand R, Srivastava SK, Singh J. Sugarcane: Food Production, Energy, and Environment.
ScienceDirect. 2015. Available from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128142363000044
 Saxena R, Gupta P. Present Status of Oilseed Crops and Vegetable Oils in India. National Food
Security Mission (NFSM). 2018. Available from:
https://nfsm.gov.in/statusPaper/NMOOP2018.pdf
 Jha A, Tripathi R. The Sustainability of Ethanol Production from Sugarcane. ScienceDirect.
2012. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421508001080
 Patel A, Mehta S, Sharma V. India Oilseeds and Products Annual 2018. USDA Foreign
Agricultural Service. 2019. Available from:
https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/report/downloadreportbyfilename?filename=Oilseeds+a
nd+Products+Annual_New+Delhi_India_4-13-2018.pdf
 Kumar P, Reddy V. Supply Response to Policy Changes: Evidence from the Indian Oilseeds
Sector. Springer. 2020. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40953-024-
00434-6
 Singh A, Sharma B. Dynamics of Oilseeds in India: An Overview. Research and Reviews:
Journal of Agriculture and Allied Sciences. 2017. Available from: https://www.rroij.com/open-
access/dynamics-of-oilseeds-in-india-an-overview.pdf
 Rao S, Iyer K, Patil D. Evaluation of Water Footprint in Sugar Industries and Bioethanol
Distilleries. Springer. 2021. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13762-
022-04182-z
 Bhattacharya M, Saha R. India's Monsoon Rains Hit Four-Year High in Boost to Crop Output.
Reuters. 2016.
 Ghosh P. India's First Edible Oil Survey. Rau's IAS. 2020. Available from:
https://compass.rauias.com/current-affairs/indias-first-edible-oil-survey/
 Mishra R, Tandon S. NITI Aayog’s Strategies for Growth in Edible Oils. Drishti IAS. 2019.
Available from: https://www.drishtiias.com/pdf/1725974305.pdf
 Reddy S, Verma N, Kapoor A. Sugarcane Production and Its Utilization as a Biofuel in India.
Springer. 2018. Available from: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-18597-8_6
 Sharma K, Das A, Bhardwaj P. Steps to Increase Production of Oilseeds and Edible Oil in
India. Krishak Jagat. 2022. Available from: https://www.en.krishakjagat.org/india-region/steps-
to-increase-production-of-oilseeds-and-edible-oil-in-india/#google_vignette
 Pandey R, Joshi H. Evaluation of Water Footprint in Sugar Industries and Bioethanol
Distilleries. Springer. 2015. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13762-
022-04182-z

42
43