It is customary to talk of the crisis of fodder. As a representative see the editorial by Sunita Narain. A search on “fodder crisis in India” will throw up thousands of links, virtually all of them echoing the same litany. The impression they convey is one of widespread and persistent shortage of fodder. How grounded in reality are these assertions?
A perusal will suggest that such claims are usually anecdotal in nature, based on field trips and restricted to specific regions of the country. Virtually no data is ever presented. There are some studies and estimates which assert that availability of fodder is less than the requirement. What does that mean? If there are fodder deficits should it not reflect somewhere – prices, population numbers or reduced production?
If indeed there are shortages - how does one measure them? An economist would reply – look at prices. It would be a good way to start if we have time-series data for the country and individual regions of the country. I could not find them.
However, if fodder shortages have been persistent (for decades) as has been argued, we should see it being reflected in the number of livestock. The table, below, gives some figures.
A perusal will suggest that such claims are usually anecdotal in nature, based on field trips and restricted to specific regions of the country. Virtually no data is ever presented. There are some studies and estimates which assert that availability of fodder is less than the requirement. What does that mean? If there are fodder deficits should it not reflect somewhere – prices, population numbers or reduced production?
If indeed there are shortages - how does one measure them? An economist would reply – look at prices. It would be a good way to start if we have time-series data for the country and individual regions of the country. I could not find them.
However, if fodder shortages have been persistent (for decades) as has been argued, we should see it being reflected in the number of livestock. The table, below, gives some figures.
| (Million Numbers) | ||||||
| Species | 1951 | 1961 | 1972 | 1982 | 1992 | 2003 |
| Cattle | 155 | 176 | 178 | 192 | 205 | 185 |
| AF Cattle | 54 | 51 | 53 | 59 | 64 | 65 |
| Buffalo | 43 | 51 | 57 | 70 | 84 | 98 |
| AF Buffalo | 21 | 24 | 29 | 33 | 44 | 51 |
| Total Bovins | 199 | 227 | 236 | 262 | 289 | 283 |
| Sheep | 39 | 40 | 40 | 49 | 51 | 62 |
| Goats | 47 | 61 | 68 | 95 | 115 | 124 |
| Others | 8 | 9 | 10 | 13 | 16 | 16 |
| Total | 293 | 335 | 354 | 420 | 471 | 485 |
(Extracted from here. See the link for more details including notes and data for intervening years)
A few noteworthy features:
- Total livestock has increased by 60 % during the period – an annual compound rate of approximately 1 per cent.
- Among bovins the rate of increase is much higher among buffaloes especially adult female than cows. This is interesting since buffaloes are heavier, eat more and yield more milk with higher fat content.
- Goats have increased faster than the total but not much more than buffaloes. It is cattle which have lagged the overall rate. In fact, total numbers have actually declined in the last 15 years.
The increase in livestock numbers doesn’t suggest any fodder shortages far less a crisis.
It may be argued that the high increase in the population of goats may be a reflection of fodder crisis. Goats are hardier and able to survive on resources out of bounds for and unpalatable to other animals. This is unlikely for though goats have increased faster than average the rate is not very different from that of adult female buffaloes. Further, all populations have increased – goats being the fastest. So it is not as if goats are substituting other animals. Others too have increased. So overall goats may not be replacing other animals.
The evidence about numbers is not conclusive as it may be argued that the fodder crisis does not reflect in reduced numbers of animals but makes them less healthy and less productive,
So let us examine production of livestock products. The most important product and for which the most reliable statistics are available is milk.
| Year | Million Tonnes |
| 1950-51 | 17 |
| 1960-61 | 20 |
| 1970-71 | 22 |
| 1980-81 | 32 |
| 1990-91 | 54 |
| 2000-01 | 81 |
| 2005-06 | 98 |
For details on wool and meat look here and here.
The figures hardly deserve any elaboration. They speak very loudly. It is interesting that the rate of growth of milk production accelerates after the 1980s when one would have expected fodder shortages to hurt more. Over the past 55 years while livestock population has grown at 1 % per annum milk production has grown by 3.3 %. In other words while livestock numbers are up 60 % milk production is up almost 500 %. Livestock numbers have not only increased, but livestock has become more productive.
This put a serious doubt on the theory of fodder crisis.
So where could the fodder to meet increased population and production have come from? Undoubtedly agriculture would have played a big part. Overall all crops have grown at 2.5 % per annum since the early 1950s and fodder availability would have increased concomitantly - both from residues and direct production. Note that crop output has risen faster than livestock numbers and milk production even faster. Animals are eating quite well. There was also reduction in requirements as mechanisation took hold in several animal-using operations. This probably explains the decline in overall cattle numbers. In the past two decades tractors have spread to non-traditional states. What about common pastures and forests? We can’t be sure as information on fodder availability from these lands is sorely lacking.
Suffice it to say there never was nor is a fodder crisis in the country. State-level data suggests a similar picture.
Nevertheless it is probably true that some regions face periodic shortages, maybe a few even chronic ones. And certain groups such as pastoralists especially nomadic ones may have lost permanent access to pastures and thence to fodder.
But a crisis for the country as a whole? Definitely not.
The figures hardly deserve any elaboration. They speak very loudly. It is interesting that the rate of growth of milk production accelerates after the 1980s when one would have expected fodder shortages to hurt more. Over the past 55 years while livestock population has grown at 1 % per annum milk production has grown by 3.3 %. In other words while livestock numbers are up 60 % milk production is up almost 500 %. Livestock numbers have not only increased, but livestock has become more productive.
This put a serious doubt on the theory of fodder crisis.
So where could the fodder to meet increased population and production have come from? Undoubtedly agriculture would have played a big part. Overall all crops have grown at 2.5 % per annum since the early 1950s and fodder availability would have increased concomitantly - both from residues and direct production. Note that crop output has risen faster than livestock numbers and milk production even faster. Animals are eating quite well. There was also reduction in requirements as mechanisation took hold in several animal-using operations. This probably explains the decline in overall cattle numbers. In the past two decades tractors have spread to non-traditional states. What about common pastures and forests? We can’t be sure as information on fodder availability from these lands is sorely lacking.
Suffice it to say there never was nor is a fodder crisis in the country. State-level data suggests a similar picture.
Nevertheless it is probably true that some regions face periodic shortages, maybe a few even chronic ones. And certain groups such as pastoralists especially nomadic ones may have lost permanent access to pastures and thence to fodder.
But a crisis for the country as a whole? Definitely not.
No comments:
Post a Comment