Author Name
Prof. Ramesh Chand, Pavithra S
Choose Report Type
Publication Date
Report Upload
Download
(280.06 KB)
Publisher Name
Economic and Political Weekly
PDF Text
SPECIAL ARTICLE
OCTOBER 31, 2015 vol l no 44 EPW Economic & Political Weekly98
Fertiliser Use and Imbalance in India
Analysis of States
Ramesh Chand, Pavithra S
Ramesh Chand (rc@ncap.res.in) is member, NITI Aayog, and Director
Indian Council of Agricultural Research, National Institute of
Agricultural Economics and Policy Research, New Delhi.
Pavithra S (vgpavithra@gmail.com) is scientist at ICAR National
Institute of Agricultural Economics and Policy Research, New Delhi.
The common and strongly-held view in India is that
balanced fertiliser use requires three major plant
nutrients, namely, nitrogen, phosphorous and
potassium, to be used in the ratio of 4:2:1, and any
deviation in fertiliser use from this norm would constrain
growth in crop productivity. This officially-accepted
perception, a product of 1950
s experiments, has led to
wrong policies on fertilisers. Estimating actual and
normative quantity of
N, P and K for each state of India
corresponding to the current cropping pattern, it is
found that contrary to the notion that there is excess use
of nitrogen in India, 12 major states were found using
less than the required level. India, in fact, faces large
deficits in use of
P and K. It calls for curtailing the use
of
N in one-third of the states and raising it in the
remaining two-thirds.
1 Introduction
F
ertiliser use has seen a tremendous increase in India and
in other parts of the world with the spread of Green
Revolution technology. Fertiliser was identifi ed as one
of the three most important factors, along with seed and
irrigation, for raising agricultural production and sustaining
food self-suffi ciency in India. Empirical evidence shows that
growth in total agricultural output, and output of various
crops in India has moved up and down depending upon the
growth in use of fertiliser (Chand and Pandey 2009). It is felt
that fertiliser will continue to play a key role in meeting the
future requirements of food, feed and fi bre. Fertiliser can
drive increases in productivity, as the scope for raising produc-
tion through the expansion of cultivable land is almost ruled
out. Therefore, it is very important from an output–growth
point of view to ascertain whether fertiliser is used judiciously
and optimally.
The total fertiliser use, comprising nitrogenous (N),
pho sphatic (P) and potassic (K) fertilisers, in India increased
from 2.65 million tonnes (mt) of NPK in 1971–72 to 28.12 mt in
2010–11. This increase corresponds to an annual compound
growth rate of over 6%. However, the rate of increase differed
signifi cantly for the three types of plant nutrients, namely,
nitrogen, phosphorous and potash in different periods.
Till the mid-1990
s use of N increased at a faster rate as
compared to the growth rate in use on P and K. The growth
rate in use of N was almost double the growth rate in use of K
during 1971–72 to 1996–97. In the early 1970
s Indian farmers
applied N, P and K in the ratio of 6.0:1.9:1.0, which increased
to 9.5:3.2:1 in 1992. The ratio worsened further to 10:2.9:1
in 1996.
After 1996–97, application of phosphatic and potassic
fertilisers witnessed much higher increases compared to ni-
trogenous fertilisers. Despite this, fertiliser use remained
highly skewed towards N. In 2012–13, the ratio of NPK use in
India reached 8.2:3.2:1, which is more imbalanced compared
to the early 1970
s when the ratio was 6:1.9:1. It is strongly
believed in India that the desired ratio of N, P and K, to main-
tain nutrient balance is 4:2:1, and any deviation from this
ideal ratio is considered to have adverse effects on crop pro-
ductivity as well as soil (Tiwari 2001; NAAS 2009; Mujeri et al
2012; Sharma 2012). This imbalance was recognised quite
early on, and offi cial documents as well as researchers have
expressed repeated concerns on the need to address the rising
imbalance (G
oI 1994, 2014; Gulati and Sharma 1995). Such SPECIAL ARTICLE
Economic & Political Weekly EPW OCTOBER 31, 2015 vol l no 4499
concerns have been the main reason for the recent shift in
fertiliser policy towards the nutrient-based subsidy. This
paper traces the empirical basis of what is considered the opti-
mal mix or norm for share of N, P and K in total fertiliser use
and examines its relevance.
The literature on balanced use of N, P and K shows that the
so-called 4:2:1 norm, considered sacrosanct for India, lacks
sound scientifi c ground and the norm is not relevant for the
present agricultural situations. The norm was developed and
recommended in the early 1960
s and is presumed to corre-
spond to the crop pattern, yield levels and other conditions
prevailing at that time. The crop pattern, yield levels and soil
conditions, which determine level of fertiliser application,
have undergone a sea change since the 1960
s and accordingly,
the requirement of fertiliser has also undergone signifi cant
changes. The policy on fertiliser use and pricing cannot be
based on such an outdated norm which is also not supported
by empirical evidence.
This paper makes an attempt to estimate the optimal ratio
of N, P and K for the prevalent cropping pattern in India based
on crops and state-specifi c recommendations for fertiliser
application prepared by various state agricultural universities
(SAU
s) and crop directorates of Indian Council of Agricultural
Rese arch (ICAR). Further, as the requirement of N, P and K
varies from crop to crop and from one type of soil to another
type, the norm for N, P and K ratio is bound to be different for
different regions representing different cropping patterns,
soil types, and their nutrient status at a given point of time.
Against this backdrop, the present paper estimates state-wise
norms for application and composition of N, P and K, which
are then aggregated to arrive at the all-India norm. The study
estimates recommended quantities of N, P and K for each
state and compares it with actual use. These estimates are
used to work out excess or defi cit in the use of the three plant
nutrients at the state level. The paper also demonstrates
that the concerns related to imbalance in use of N, P and K
are totally misleading and policy measures to correct the
imbalance are uncalled for unless the nature of imbalance
is clearly determined. It identifi es the situations where the
imbalance actually matters and where it does not. These
fi ndings are important to formulate policies on fertiliser use
and pricing.
The remainder of the paper is organised as follows.
Section 1 traces the genesis of what is described as the
optimal ratio of N, P and K for Indian agriculture and dis-
cusses its relevance to the current situation. Section 2 pre-
sents the methodology used in estimating the requirement
of N, P and K, imba lance, and defi cit or excess of application
of various types of fertilisers in various states. Section 3
discusses trends in the use of N, P and K. Section 4 presents
estimates of optimum quantity of N, P and K and compares
the optimum and actual quantity used in various states.
Sections 5 works out state-wise normative ratio of fertiliser
use at state level and for the whole country. The severity and
consequences of the imbalance in fertiliser use is presented
in Section 6. The last section presents the conclusions
and discusses implications of the study for future use of N, P
and K.
1 Genesis of 4:2:1 Ratio for NPK
In general, the N, P, K ratio of 4:2:1 is considered to be
optimum for India. It is hard to trace the origin of this ratio.
However, it is believed that the ratio originated from fi eld
trials conducted during the 1950
s, that is, in the pre-Green
Revolution period (NAAS 2009). According to Prasad and
Pathak (the editors of NAAS 2009), the probable reason for the
higher emphasis on nitrogenous fertilisers was the higher
response of crops, especially of irrigated wheat, to applied
nitrogen as compared to phosphorus and potassium. It was
later recognised that this ratio ignored two important factors.
First, that during the Green Revolution period farmers applied
farm yard manure and the native soils were rich in phosphorus
and potassium content. Second, the response to applied
phosphorus and potassium fertilisers was much higher on red
and lateritic soils, which clearly indicate that the ratio of NPK
would vary for different soil types (NAAS 2009). Further, the
fertiliser norm for a state or country depends upon the crop-
ping pattern, yield levels, crop variety and soil-specifi c charac-
teristics which have undergone a sea change over the years.
The farm trials conducted in the post-Green Revolution period
confi rmed that the response of rice crop to the applied phos-
phorus was as good as to that of nitrogen, and in fact it was
higher in the case of improved varieties of wheat. This fi nding
along with the popularisation of improved wheat varieties
encouraged the use of phosphatic fertilisers during the post-
Green Revolution period (NAAS 2009). However, the use of
fertiliser in India remained skewed towards N.
In the early 1990
s, the government expressed concern over
the worsening ratio of NPK and it was stated that to increase
the crop yields, it was essential to maintain the ideal NPK ratio
of 4:2:1 (G
oI 1994, 1995). In the subsequent years there has
been an increasing emphasis on the balanced use of nutrients
and redefi ning the optimal ratio of NPK use under different
crop- and soil-specifi c conditions (Prasad 2009, 2012). But
surprisingly no study was done to fi nd out or establish the op-
timal mix of NPK in the country and we have been sticking to
a norm of 4:2:1 that was suggested more than 50 years ago
based on only two crops. Therefore, it is pertinent to examine
the relevance of the existing 4:2:1 norm in the current
agricultural scenario.
2 Methodology
Though the all-India trend in the level and composition of
fertiliser use is important for formulating fertiliser policy,
balanced use of fertilisers has signifi cance at the disaggregate
level. The reason for this is that the cropping pattern varies
from state to state. The required level and ratio of NPK differs
invariably across crops. Therefore, the national-level composi-
tion of N, P and K does not reveal the true picture of distortions
in the use of N, P and K, which is better revealed by disaggre-
gated data such as state and agro-region level. Therefore, we
are now shifting the focus of the paper to the state level. SPECIAL ARTICLE
OCTOBER 31, 2015 vol l no 44 EPW Economic & Political Weekly100
The required or normative quantity of fertiliser use for a state
was estimated based on area under various crops and the recom-
mended dose of NPK for the respective crops, as per the Package of
Practices published by the SAU
s and ICAR institutes as under:
• Dns = ∑
C
i=1
(Ais_w* Rns_w) + ∑
C
i=1
(Ais_r * Rns_r)
• Dps = ∑
C
i=1
(Ais_w* Rps_w) + ∑
C
i=1
(Ais
r
* Rps_r)
• Dks = ∑
C
i=1
(Ais_w* Rks_w) + ∑
C
i=1
(Ais_r*Rks_r)
where Dns, Dps and Dks are desired levels of N, P and K in sth
state respectively, “w” and “r” are irrigated and rain-fed areas
respectively, “
A” is the area under crop “i,” in state “s,” and “R”
indicates recommended dose of nutrient. In some states disag-
gregation was extended to agroclimatic region.
The desired level of N, P and K, which is recommended to be
applied to a crop is computed from the following expression
(Prasad 2012):
Nutrient to be applied = [{yield(t/ha) × nutrient uptake (kg/t)}
— {nutrient available in soil (kg/ha)}] × 100/NUE.
For example, for a crop of rice yielding 6 t/ha of grain and
removing 20 kg N/t on a soil having 60 kg available N/ha and
NUE 40%, the amount of N to be applied will be:
= [(6 × 20) – (60)] × 100/40
= 150 kg N/ha
Dns, Dps and Dks were compared with actual consumption
of N, P and K in each state to fi nd out the imbalance in fertiliser
use as well as the gap between optimum and actual use
of fertilisers.
3 Trends and Composition of Fertiliser Use in India
During 1971–72 total consumption of fertiliser in India was
2.65 mt consisting of 1.79 mt of N, 0.56 mt P and 0.30 mt of K. It
gradually increased to 28.1 mt by 2010–11 and witnessed a
small decline in the last three years. The share of N, P and K in
total fertilisers since 1971–72 is presented in Table 1. The norm
of 4:2:1, which has been offi cially recognised as optimal, im-
plies that nitrogen should constitute 57.2% and P and K should
constitute 28.6% and 14.2%, respectively, of total NPK use in the
country. During early 1970
s two-thirds of total fertiliser was ni-
trogenous while phosphatic and potassic categories accounted
for 21% and 11% share respectively (Table 1). In most of the
years, share of nitrogen in total fertiliser use hovered around
65% which is 8 percentage points higher than the offi cially ac-
cepted norm of 4:2:1.
The change in the composition of fertiliser in terms of N, P
and K during the last four decades is characterised by three
major episodes. The fi rst one refers to 1974–75 when the share
of nitrogen in total fertiliser use increased to 68.64% during
1974–75, and further to 74.3% by 1975–76. These were the years of
oil shock, when global fertiliser prices, in nominal dollars went
up by two to four times in a single year. The increase in price
was much higher in nitrogenous fertilisers (urea) as compared
to potassic and phosphatic fertilisers. However, the effect was
felt more on the use of P and K than on N. After this, the share
of N in total fertiliser use gradually declined and reached
63.2% level in 1991–92, that was lowest in the period till then.
During 1992, the government noted the need to reduce the
imbalance in fertiliser use
and to rationalise fertiliser
subsidies (G
oI 1993). The
explicit purpose of reduc-
ing imbalance was to raise
share of P and K, and thus
reduce share of N in total
fertiliser use.
Accordingly, the prices,
movement and distribution
of phosphatic and pot assic
fertilisers were decontrolled
with effect from 25 August
1992. No signifi cant change
was introduced in urea,
which is a dominant nitro-
genous fertiliser in India,
and its price was reduced
after some experimentation
with dual pricing. This
change in fertiliser policy
in the middle 1992 r sulted
in a jump in prices of P and
K in absolute terms and
also relative to price of N
in the year 1992–93. This
policy-induced cha nge in
relative prices of N, P and K
led to reversal of the trend
tow ards reduction in share
of N in total fertiliser.
The share of N in total
fertiliser use which was
fall ing since the mid-1970
s,
suddenly increased after
1991–92. This clearly shows
that an increase in share
of N and decline in shares
of P and K, in other words
the imbalance in fertiliser
use was policy-induced.
After this policy distortion,
share of N again star ted
falling post 1996–97 and
reached 58.8% by 2009–10.
This share was only slightly higher than the offi cially accepted
norm of 57.2%. The share of P and K were also very close to the
offi cially accepted norm at the national level, though there
were signifi cant variations in the share across states. On 1 April
2010, the government introduced the nutrient-based subsidy
(NBS) policy, with the aim of ensuring balanced application of
fertilisers. The NBS policy was made effe ctive in P and K but
not in urea, which is a principal nitrogenous fertiliser. This
again distorted the prices in favour of N and, like earlier trends
seen during the mid-1990
s, the composition of fertiliser at the
national level started moving in favour of N. Just in two years
Table 1: Trend in Fertiliser Use and Its
Composition
Year Total Use of NPK, Share Share Share
‘000 Tonne N % P % K %
1971–72 2,657 67.67 21.00 11.33
1972–73 2,768 66.44 20.99 12.57
1973–74 2,839 64.42 22.90 12.68
1974–75 2,573 68.64 18.34 13.06
1975–76 2,894 74.26 16.14 9.61
1976–77 3,411 72.03 18.62 9.35
1977–78 4,286 67.97 20.23 11.81
1978–79 5,117 66.84 21.61 11.55
1979–80 5,255 66.57 21.90 11.53
1980–81 5,516 66.68 22.01 11.31
1981–82 6,067 67.07 21.79 11.14
1982–83 6,401 66.27 22.39 11.34
1983–84 7,710 67.50 22.44 10.05
1984–85 8,211 66.81 22.97 10.21
1985–86 8,474 66.80 23.66 9.54
1986–87 8,645 66.12 24.05 9.83
1987–88 8,784 65.08 24.90 10.02
1988–89 11,040 65.68 24.65 9.67
1989–90 11,568 63.85 26.05 10.10
1990–91 12,546 63.74 25.67 10.59
1991–92 12,728 63.21 26.09 10.69
1992–93 12,155 69.33 23.40 7.27
1993–94 12,366 71.07 21.58 7.35
1994–95 13,563 70.10 21.62 8.29
1995–96 13,876 70.79 20.88 8.33
1996–97 14,308 72.00 20.81 7.20
1997–98 16,195 67.34 24.19 8.48
1998–99 16,773 68.36 23.85 7.78
1999–00 18,070 64.16 26.55 9.29
2000–01 16,631 65.31 25.33 9.36
2001–02 17,360 65.15 25.24 9.60
2002–03 16,094 65.08 24.97 9.95
2003–04 16,631 66.60 24.80 9.60
2004–05 18,399 63.67 25.13 11.20
2005–06 20,340 62.55 25.58 11.86
2006–07 2,1651 63.61 25.60 10.78
2007–08 22,570 63.89 24.44 11.68
2008–09 24,909 60.58 26.12 13.30
2009–10 26,486 58.82 27.46 13.71
2010–11 28,122 58.88 28.62 12.50
2011–12 27,790 62.25 28.48 9.27
2012–13 25,804 69.86 23.07 7.02
2013–14 23,959 68.97 22.70 8.24
Source: Annual Reports, Department of
Fertilisers, Ministry of Fertilisers and Chemicals,
Government of India, various issues. SPECIAL ARTICLE
Economic & Political Weekly EPW OCTOBER 31, 2015 vol l no 44101
after introduction of NBS the share of N increased by 11 per-
centage points—from 58.8% to 69.8%. This shows that the
gain achieved in reducing the imbalance in use of N, P and K
has been completely wiped out.
It is concluded from the changes observed in the composition
of fertiliser during the last four decades that corres ponding to
a given fertiliser price regime, farmers tended to reduce the
imbalance in fertiliser use. However, the outside shock and
changes in fertiliser policy each time triggered a sharp rise in
the share of nitrogenous fertilisers and fall in the shares of P
and K in total fertiliser use. The policy reforms in fertiliser
prices, which purportedly aimed at reducing the imbalance in
use of N, P and K, have delivered exactly the opposite result.
4 Actual and Normative Use at State Level
The actual level of fertiliser use in a state and optimum quan-
tity estimated by multiplying area under different crops with
doses of N, P and K recommended by the agricultural research
institutes in various states during the triennium 2009–10 to
2011–12 are presented in Table 2. It shows that the actual use
of nitrogenous fertiliser was higher than the normative level,
based on the recommended dose, in the states of Andhra
Pradesh, Assam, Punjab, Bihar, Haryana and Jharkhand
while the use of nitrogenous fertilisers in Odisha was near
optimal. In all the other states the current level of nitrogen
use remained below the recommended norms. This indicates
that there exists an imbalance in the use of N both in terms of
surplus as well as defi cit. For instance, in Andhra Pradesh, the
normative quantity of N was esti mated at 1,138 thousand
tonnes, while the actual use was 1,884 thousand tonnes
recording an excess use of 746 thousand tonnes.
On the other hand, the normative levels of nitrogen fertilisers
in West Bengal and Kerala were 1,412 thousand tonnes and 227
thousand tonnes respectively, while the actual use was 753
thousand tonnes and 116 thousand tonnes—this is only half of
the requirement for the existing cropping pattern in these
states. The total normative level of nitrogen for India as a
whole was about 17 mt, which was not signifi cantly different
than the actual use of N.
The normative level of phosphorus use for the whole country
was about 9.46 mt whereas the actual use was about 7.65 mt.
Our estimates indicate that use of P in the case of Madhya Pradesh,
Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal was far lower than what was
recommended for the prevailing cropping pattern in these states.
However, in states like Gujarat, Karnataka, Punjab and Tamil
Nadu actual use of P was much higher than the desired level.
Use of K for the country as a whole was 3.26 mt. According
to our estimate, the optimum requirement of K in India was
6.6 mt. Except in Tamil Nadu and Assam, the use of K was
lower than what was optimum in all states.
4.1 Extent of Excess and Deficit Use
At the national level, there was a defi cit in use of all the three
types of plant nutrients but the defi cit in the case of N was very
small (Table 3). The extent of defi ciency varies from 3.3% for N
to 51% for K. There were wide vari ations across states. Out of
the 20 major states, three states, namely, Andhra Pra desh, Har-
yana and Punjab, applied total fertilisers far in excess of what
was required. Des pite excess use of total fertilisers, these states
were defi cit in the use of K.
Table 3: State-wise Excess/Deficit of NPK %: (Normative–Actual)/Normative
State N P K Total
Andhra Pradesh 65.52 44.83 -8.73 44.02
Assam 12.81 -41.70 2.97 -6.85
Bihar 33.88 -28.09 -44.61 1.57
Chhattisgarh -35.09 -44.05 -70.52 -45.09
Gujarat -3.94 7.38 -61.90 -13.85
Haryana 23.32 3.36 -74.83 3.58
Himachal Pradesh -60.30 -74.12 -67.19 -65.48
Jharkhand 15.95 -11.74 -67.91 -11.98
Jammu and Kashmir -23.06 -43.73 -59.33 -35.41
Karnataka -1.43 1.94 -39.27 -10.98
Kerala -48.72 -63.60 -73.91 -63.90
Madhya Pradesh -10.51 -43.52 -75.78 -35.70
Maharashtra -7.96 -9.25 -14.43 -9.57
Odisha 0.69 -11.56 -52.70 -16.66
Punjab 44.86 12.15 -72.31 19.38
Rajasthan -37.68 -50.04 -74.42 -43.99
Tamil Nadu -4.44 4.82 -0.06 -1.38
Uttarakhand -27.95 -59.96 -77.66 -45.08
Uttar Pradesh -6.63 -27.31 -75.21 -24.80
West Bengal -46.68 -35.59 -50.20 -44.72
Others -73.96 -84.65 -89.91 -81.56
All India -3.31 -19.14 -51.09 -17.44
Source: Authors’ estimates.
It is a common perception that far mers in India apply ex-
cess nitrogen. This is true only in six states, namely, And hra
Pradesh, Ass am, Bihar, Haryana, Jh a r khand and Pun jab. In
Karnataka and Odisha, actual use of N did not differ signifi cantly
Table 2: Normative and Actual Use of N, P and K, Triennium Ending 2011–12
State Normative Use: Thousand Tonne Actual Use: Thousand Tonne
N P K Total N P K Total
Andhra Pradesh 1,138 679 474 2,291 1,884 984 433 3,300
Assam 124 90 70 284 140 52 72 265
Bihar 688 368 245 1,301 921 265 136 1,322
Chhattisgarh 498 298 208 1,005 323 167 61 552
Gujarat 1,247 450 456 2,153 1,198 483 174 1,855
Haryana 807 339 202 1,348 996 350 51 1,397
Himachal Pradesh 82 43 33 158 33 11 11 54
Jharkhand 84 51 42 177 97 45 14 156
Jammu and Kashmir 95 57 29 181 73 32 12 117
Karnataka 1,043 655 651 2,349 1,028 668 395 2,091
Kerala 227 164 349 740 116 60 91 267
Madhya Pradesh 1,080 1,181 449 2,710 967 667 109 1,742
Maharashtra 1,745 1,176 654 3,575 1,606 1,067 560 3,233
Odisha 313 177 176 666 316 156 83 555
Punjab 951 375 235 1,561 1,377 421 65 1,863
Rajasthan 1,335 742 130 2,206 832 371 33 1,235
Tamil Nadu 673 270 298 1,241 643 283 298 1,224
Uttarakhand 162 75 51 288 117 30 11 158
Uttar Pradesh 3,210 1,436 1,085 5,731 2,997 1,044 269 4,310
West Bengal 1,412 762 764 2,938 753 491 381 1,624
Others 114 82 73 270 30 13 7 50
All India 17,030 9,469 6,675 33,174 16,466 76,578 3,264 27,387
Source: Normative use is based on the authors’ estimates. Actual use taken from Fertiliser
Statistics, The Fertiliser Association of India, New Delhi. various issues. SPECIAL ARTICLE
OCTOBER 31, 2015 vol l no 44 EPW Economic & Political Weekly102
from the recommended level. In 12 states, the use of N was lower
than what was optimum according to recommendations of
SAU
s and ICAR institutes. The degree of defi ciency varied from
4.4% to 60%. And hra farmers used 45% more P than what is
optimum. Use of P exceeded the desired level by 3.4% in Har-
yana, 4.8% in Tamil Nadu, 7.4% in Gujarat and 12% in Punjab.
In the remaining states, the use of P was lower than the rec-
ommended dose for the states to the extent of 9% to 64%. As
already mentioned, farmers in Assam used 3% more K than
desired, while there was no signifi cant difference between the
actual and desired levels of use in Tamil Nadu. All other states
show defi ciency in the use of K to the extent of 8.7% to 78%.
States like Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Uttarakhand,
Uttar Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Haryana did not use even
30% of required doses of K. It is concluded from this table that
the all-India picture of use of NPK does not adequately capture
the state-level variations.
Less than one-third of the states used excess of N, whereas
two-thirds used less than the optimal level of N. One-fi fth of
the states used excess of P. Area under cultivation that suffers
from defi ciency in use of nitrogen is much larger than the area
where nitrogen is used in excess. Thus, as a policy, there is a
need to reduce the use of N in six states and promote its use in
all other states.
The estimates of defi cit and surplus assumes that entire sale
of fertiliser in a state is used for agriculture purposes, that is,
for crop production. However, small quantity of some fertiliser,
particularly urea, may have been used for non-agricultural pur-
poses. If such non-agricultural use is taken into conside ration,
then the surplus will get reduced and the defi cit will increase.
5 State-wise Normative Ratio of Fertiliser Use
As discussed in the beginning, considering the origin of the
norm for the NPK mix and considering the sea change in crop-
ping patterns and agricultural practices, it is pertinent to
revisit this norm in the context of the current agricultural situ-
ation India. It is also emphasised that the norm 4:2:1 needs to
be deb ated and redefi ned (G
oI 2001; Prasad 2012). Sec ond, the
norm at the nati onal level repres ents agg re gate situation whi ch
may be totally out of alignment with state-level picture. He n ce,
this paper estimates normative ratio of fertiliser use for the states
based on the state-specifi c and crop-specifi c fertiliser recommen-
dations and the current cropping pattern. The results related to
normative ratio and ratio based on actual use of N, P and K across
the states are presented in Table 4. The paper uses three years
average as there are fl uctuations in actual ratios from year to year.
The aggregate of the states show that optimum ratio or norm
for balanced use of N, P and K for India should be 2.6:1.4:1. This
norm based is on the current cropping pattern, and recommended
doses of fertilisers by SAU
s is quite different than the norm in
vogue. The current norm implies that nitrogen should com-
prise 52% of total fertiliser applied in India and P and K should
account for 28% and 20% of the total fertiliser respectively.
These shares are quite different than the share based on the
ratio of 4:2:1, which implies that N should constitute 57.8% and
P and K should constitute 28.6% and 14% share respectively.
State-level norm for NPK estimated in this study shows that
the existing norm of 4:2:1 was close to estimated norm only in
traditional Green Revolution belt of north-west India. This is
not surprising as the existing norm was based on the agronomic
trials in this region, and for wheat and paddy crops which
dominate the cropping pattern in this region. The optimum
mix of NPK in other states except Rajasthan implies a lower
share of N and higher share of P and K than what is implied by
the ratio of 4:2:1.
A comparison of actual and normative ratios shows the
deviations of NPK use in the states. The worst deviation or
imbalance was observed in the case of Rajasthan followed by
Punjab and Haryana, though it was severe even in other states
like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand and Madhya Pradesh.
Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu were the only states where
actual and normative ratios of NPK was almost the same.
West Bengal shows a very small departure from the optimum
ratio. It is also interesting to point out that optimal share of
nitrogen works out to be lower than the share of potash in
Kerala. Rajasthan turns out to be an outlier in terms of
requirement of N relative to K. The optimum NPK ratio for
Rajasthan works out to be 10.3:5.7:1.
The normative ratio presented in Table 4 highlights the fact
that state-level norms for the optimum mix of NPK are far away
from the all-India average. Fertiliser promotion and policy
should be state-specifi c and it should strive to attain state-
specifi c optimum mix and use of NPK.
6 Imbalance in Fertiliser Use and Its Implications
The imbalance in the composition of fertiliser use is adverse
only if one or more nutrients are used in excess of the pre-
scribed norm. Whereas, in situations where all the nutrients
Table 4: State-wise Actual and Normative Ratio of NPK Use (2009–11)
State Actual Ratio Normative Ratio
N P K N P K
Andhra Pradesh 4.41 2.28 1.00 2.40 1.43 1.00
Assam 1.94 0.73 1.00 1.77 1.28 1.00
Bihar 6.79 1.95 1.00 2.81 1.50 1.00
Chhattisgarh 5.27 2.72 1.00 2.39 1.43 1.00
Gujarat 6.89 2.78 1.00 2.73 0.99 1.00
Haryana 19.55 6.87 1.00 3.99 1.67 1.00
Himachal Pradesh 3.00 1.02 1.00 2.48 1.29 1.00
Jharkhand 7.20 3.31 1.00 1.99 1.20 1.00
Jammu and Kashmir 6.16 2.72 1.00 3.26 1.96 1.00
Karnataka 2.60 1.69 1.00 1.60 1.01 1.00
Kerala 1.28 0.66 1.00 0.65 0.47 1.00
Madhya Pradesh 8.90 6.14 1.00 2.41 2.63 1.00
Maharashtra 2.87 1.91 1.00 2.67 1.80 1.00
Odisha 3.79 1.88 1.00 1.78 1.01 1.00
Punjab 21.20 6.48 1.00 4.05 1.60 1.00
Rajasthan 25.08 11.18 1.00 10.30 5.72 1.00
Tamil Nadu 2.16 0.95 1.00 2.26 0.91 1.00
Uttarakhand 10.24 2.63 1.00 3.18 1.47 1.00
Uttar Pradesh 11.14 3.88 1.00 2.96 1.32 1.00
West Bengal 1.98 1.29 1.00 1.85 1.00 1.00
Others 4.01 1.70 1.00 1.55 1.12 1.00
All India 5.04 2.35 1.00 2.55 1.42 1.00
Source: Authors’ computations. SPECIAL ARTICLE
Economic & Political Weekly EPW OCTOBER 31, 2015 vol l no 44103
are used below their normative levels, the imbalance in NPK
does not matter or cause any adverse effect on productivity or
the soil. This is elaborated thro ugh a hypothetical illustration
of imbalance presented below. In situation A all three plant
nutrients are used at suboptimal levels. The ratio of actual use
of N deviates 6.6 times from the norm. In situation B the ratio of
actual use deviates from the norm fi ve times but N is used in
excess. Thus, situation B warrants curtailment of use of the
plant nutrient used in excess, as it causes three adverse
effects—wastage of expenditure due to the additional cost
incurred on fertilisers with no inc rements in the output,
adverse effect on productivity due to excess doses on soil
health, and negative implications on environment. It also
warrants incre ases in the use of a nutrient, which is the used
at suboptimal levels. Situation A warrants more use of any of
the plant nutrients, including N, as long as the actual use is
below the optimum level, even if it aggravates the already
existing imbalance.
Particular Situation A Situation B
N P K N P K
NPK use/hectare (kg) 80 20 4 150 50 10
Optimum dose 120 80 40 120 80 40
Ratio: Actual 20 5 1 15 5 1
Ratio: Norm 3 2 1 3 2 1
Apparent Imbalance Very High High
Implication Immaterial. More N desirable Adverse. Less N desirable
of imbalance even if it raises imbalance
Based on this logic, states can be classifi ed in two categories
(a) where imbalance is adverse and needs to be corrected, and
(b) where the imbalance is benign. The two situations have
strong implications in terms of promoting fertiliser use. The
estimates of fertiliser-use gaps presented in Table 3 show that
none of the states showed surplus use of all the three major
nutrients. Surplus use of two nutrients, that is nitrogen and
phosphorus, was noticed in Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Haryana,
and Punjab, and hence the nature of the imbalance in fertiliser
use in these states is harmful, therefore the need to direct
the states towards balanced use. Defi cit use of all nutrients
was noticed in Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal,
Raja s than, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Kerala, Jammu
Kashmir and Chhattisgarh. In these states, the imbalance in
fertiliser use is benign and policy measures need to focus on
promoting the use of all the three nutrients irrespective of the
existing imbalance.
7 Conclusions and Policy Implications
Fertiliser has to play a larger role in the growth of agricultural
output in the future as other resources like land and water are
facing serious stress. This requires a policy favourable for atta-
ining optimum application of plant nutrients. Over time, the
emphasis of fertiliser policy has been to reduce the share of N
and raise the shares of P and K in total use of fertiliser in India.
This has been based on the axiom that ideal combination or
composition of N, P and K is 4:2:1, and that any deviation from
this norm constrains growth in productivity. This norm also
causes adverse effects. This paper demonstrates that there is
no scientifi c rationale to support the NPK norm in the current
situation. Such norms are meaningful only at a disaggregated
level, and when plant nutrients are used in adequate quantity.
Thus, a shift in fertiliser policy towards balanced use of N, P
and K based on inadequate and outdated norms is leading to
wrong prescriptions. Second, the approach towards the use of
fertilisers based on one criteria for the country is totally irrel-
evant as the optimal ratio of N, P and K differs signifi cantly
across states according to the types of crops grown and soil
fertility status among other factors.
The paper found that farmers tended to reduce imbalance in
NPK, but external shock and policy distortions reversed the
trend towards balanced use of NPK. It is ironic, that the ferti-
liser policy reforms of 1992 and NBS scheme of 2010, though
aimed at reducing the share of N and raising share of P and K
in total fertiliser use, ended up encouraging imbalance by
favouring higher use of N relative to P and K.
The paper prepares estimates of required levels of applica-
tion of N, P and K for current cropping patterns at the state
level based on recommendations of SAU
s and ICAR institutes,
and compares these with actual use. It found that about
one-third of the major states apply excess N and two-thirds of
the states use less than the required levels of N. There is no
defi ciency in the use of N at the national level if the entire
sales of fertiliser is used for crop production. All that needs
to be done is a reallocation among states. Excess use of N in
six states, namely, Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Punjab, Bihar,
Haryana and Jhar khand is enough to meet the defi ciency in
the remaining 12 states. The paper concurs that it will be
wrong to discourage use of N in the country, but it certainly
needs to be curtailed in some states and promoted in most
other states.
Use of P was more than what was required in Gujarat,
Karnataka, Punjab and Tamil Nadu, while it was defi cient
in Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal. Use
of K was much below the required level in all the states
except Assam.
Judicious or optimal use of NPK implies an increase in the
use of P and K rather than the reduced use of N at the national
level. The authors are of the view that the issue of imbalance
in the country has been exaggerated and misunderstood.
According to our fi ndings, imbalance matters only when use of
a plant nutrient exceeds the optimum level. At below optimum
level of application, imbalance in terms of composition does
available at
Gyan Deep
Near Firayalal, H. B. Road
Ranchi 834 001
Jharkhand
Ph: 0651-2205640 SPECIAL ARTICLE OCTOBER 31, 2015 vol l no 44 EPW Economic & Political Weekly104
not have any adverse effect. Thus, the policy goal should be to
achieve optimum levels of application of N, P and K rather than
achieving a particular ratio in composition.
Another significant contribution of this paper is the estima-
tion of state-wise requirement of N, P and K, and an optimum
ratio based on that. The existing norm of 4:2:1 was found to be
skewed towards N. The ideal ratio for India based on current
crop pattern and recommendations of SAU
s and ICAR institutes
was found to be 2.6:1.4:1.0. This norm implies that N should
comprise 52% and P and K should constitute 28% and 20%,
respectively, of the total fertiliser applied in India. These
shares are quite different from the shares based on the ratio of 4:2:1, which implies that N should constitute 57.8%, and P and
K should constitute 28.6% and 14%, respectively.
State-level results show that the officially accepted norm of
4:2:1 was close to the required norm estimated by us only in
the traditional Green Revolution belt of north-west India. This is not surprising as the officially accepted norm was based on the agronomic trials in this region, and for wheat and paddy that dominate the cropping pattern in this region. The desired mix of NPK in other states, except Rajasthan, implies a lower
share of N and higher share of P and K than what is implied by
the ratio of 4:2:1. The study shows that optimum and balanced use of fertiliser in India requires higher use of N, P and K in
Chhattisgarh, Jammu and Kashmir, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh,
Maharashtra, Uttarakhand, West Bengal; higher use of P and K
in Bihar, Haryana, Jharkhand and Odisha; higher use of P in
Assam, and higher use of K in all the states except Assam.
OptimN in Punjab,
Haryana, Bihar, Jharkhand, Andhra Pradesh and Assam, and
a rP in Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Punjab
and Tamil Nadu.
References
Chand, Ramesh and L M Pandey (2009): “Fertiliser
Use, Nutrient Imbalances and Subsidies:
Trends and Implications,” Margin-The Journal
of Applied Economic Research, Vol 3, No 4,
pp 409–32.
Gulati, Ashok and Anil Sharma (1995): “Subsidy
Syndrome In Indian Agriculture,” Economic &
Political Weekly, Vol 30, No 39, pp A-92–102.
GoI (1993): Economic Survey 1992–93, Ministry of
Finance, Government of India.
— ( Economic Survey 1993–94, Ministry of
Finance, Government of India.
— ( Economic Survey 1994–95, Ministry of
Finance, Government of India.
— (2001): Economic Survey 2000–01 , Ministry of
Finance, Government of India.
— (2014): Economic Survey 2013–14, Ministry of
Finance, Government of India.
Mujeri, K M, Shahana S, Chowdhury T T and
T K Haider (2012): “Improving the Effective-
ness, Efficiency and Sustainability of Fertiliser
Use in South Asia,” Global Development Net-
work, Policy Research Paper 8.
NAAS (2009): “Crop Response and Nutrient Ratio,”
Policy Paper 42, New Delhi: National Academy
of Agricultural Sciences.
Prasad, R (2009): “Efficient Fertiliser Use: The Key
to Food Security and Better Environment,”
Journal of Tropical Agriculture, Vol 47, No 1–2,
pp 1–17.
— (Current Sci-
ence, Vol 102, No 6, pp 394–98.
Sharma, V P (2012): “Dismantling Fertiliser Subsi-
dies in India: Some Issues and Concerns for Farm Sector Growth,” Working Paper No-2012-09-01, Ahmedabad: Indian Institute of
Management.
Tiwari, K N (2001): “The Changing Face of Bal-
anced Fertiliser Use in India,” Better Crops
International, Vol 15, No 2, pp 24–27.
Women and Work
Edited by
Padmini Swaminathan
The notion of ‘work and employment’ for women is complex. In India, fewer women participate in employment compared
to men. While economic factors determine men’s participation in employment, women’s participation depends on
diverse reasons and is often rooted in a complex interplay of economic, cultural, social and personal factors.
The introduction talks of the oppression faced by wage-earning women due to patriarchal norms and capitalist relations
of production, while demonstrating how policies and programmes based on national income accounts and labour force
surveys seriously disadvantage women.
This volume analyses the concept of ‘work’, the economic contribution of women, and the consequences of gendering
of work, while focusing on women engaged in varied work in different parts of India, living and working in dismal
conditions, and earning paltry incomes.
Authors:
Maithreyi Krishnaraj • Maria Mies • Bina Agarwal • Prem Chowdhry • Ujvala Rajadhyaksha, Swati Smita • Joan P Mencher, K Saradamoni • Devaki
Jain • Indira Hirway • Deepita Chakravarty, Ishita Chakravarty • Uma Kothari • J Jeyaranjan, Padmini Swaminathan • Meena Gopal • Millie Nihila •
Forum against Oppression of Women • Srilatha Batliwala • Miriam Sharma, Urmila Vanjani • J Jeyaranjan
Pp xii + 394 ISBN 978-81-250-4777-3 2012 Rs 645
Orient Blackswan Pvt Ltd
www.orientblackswan.com
Mumbai • Chennai • New Delhi • Kolkata • Bangalore • Bhubaneshwar • Ernakulam • Guwahati • Jaipur • Lucknow • Patna • Chandigarh • Hyderabad
Contact: info@orientblackswan.com
OCTOBER 31, 2015 vol l no 44 EPW Economic & Political Weekly98
Fertiliser Use and Imbalance in India
Analysis of States
Ramesh Chand, Pavithra S
Ramesh Chand (rc@ncap.res.in) is member, NITI Aayog, and Director
Indian Council of Agricultural Research, National Institute of
Agricultural Economics and Policy Research, New Delhi.
Pavithra S (vgpavithra@gmail.com) is scientist at ICAR National
Institute of Agricultural Economics and Policy Research, New Delhi.
The common and strongly-held view in India is that
balanced fertiliser use requires three major plant
nutrients, namely, nitrogen, phosphorous and
potassium, to be used in the ratio of 4:2:1, and any
deviation in fertiliser use from this norm would constrain
growth in crop productivity. This officially-accepted
perception, a product of 1950
s experiments, has led to
wrong policies on fertilisers. Estimating actual and
normative quantity of
N, P and K for each state of India
corresponding to the current cropping pattern, it is
found that contrary to the notion that there is excess use
of nitrogen in India, 12 major states were found using
less than the required level. India, in fact, faces large
deficits in use of
P and K. It calls for curtailing the use
of
N in one-third of the states and raising it in the
remaining two-thirds.
1 Introduction
F
ertiliser use has seen a tremendous increase in India and
in other parts of the world with the spread of Green
Revolution technology. Fertiliser was identifi ed as one
of the three most important factors, along with seed and
irrigation, for raising agricultural production and sustaining
food self-suffi ciency in India. Empirical evidence shows that
growth in total agricultural output, and output of various
crops in India has moved up and down depending upon the
growth in use of fertiliser (Chand and Pandey 2009). It is felt
that fertiliser will continue to play a key role in meeting the
future requirements of food, feed and fi bre. Fertiliser can
drive increases in productivity, as the scope for raising produc-
tion through the expansion of cultivable land is almost ruled
out. Therefore, it is very important from an output–growth
point of view to ascertain whether fertiliser is used judiciously
and optimally.
The total fertiliser use, comprising nitrogenous (N),
pho sphatic (P) and potassic (K) fertilisers, in India increased
from 2.65 million tonnes (mt) of NPK in 1971–72 to 28.12 mt in
2010–11. This increase corresponds to an annual compound
growth rate of over 6%. However, the rate of increase differed
signifi cantly for the three types of plant nutrients, namely,
nitrogen, phosphorous and potash in different periods.
Till the mid-1990
s use of N increased at a faster rate as
compared to the growth rate in use on P and K. The growth
rate in use of N was almost double the growth rate in use of K
during 1971–72 to 1996–97. In the early 1970
s Indian farmers
applied N, P and K in the ratio of 6.0:1.9:1.0, which increased
to 9.5:3.2:1 in 1992. The ratio worsened further to 10:2.9:1
in 1996.
After 1996–97, application of phosphatic and potassic
fertilisers witnessed much higher increases compared to ni-
trogenous fertilisers. Despite this, fertiliser use remained
highly skewed towards N. In 2012–13, the ratio of NPK use in
India reached 8.2:3.2:1, which is more imbalanced compared
to the early 1970
s when the ratio was 6:1.9:1. It is strongly
believed in India that the desired ratio of N, P and K, to main-
tain nutrient balance is 4:2:1, and any deviation from this
ideal ratio is considered to have adverse effects on crop pro-
ductivity as well as soil (Tiwari 2001; NAAS 2009; Mujeri et al
2012; Sharma 2012). This imbalance was recognised quite
early on, and offi cial documents as well as researchers have
expressed repeated concerns on the need to address the rising
imbalance (G
oI 1994, 2014; Gulati and Sharma 1995). Such SPECIAL ARTICLE
Economic & Political Weekly EPW OCTOBER 31, 2015 vol l no 4499
concerns have been the main reason for the recent shift in
fertiliser policy towards the nutrient-based subsidy. This
paper traces the empirical basis of what is considered the opti-
mal mix or norm for share of N, P and K in total fertiliser use
and examines its relevance.
The literature on balanced use of N, P and K shows that the
so-called 4:2:1 norm, considered sacrosanct for India, lacks
sound scientifi c ground and the norm is not relevant for the
present agricultural situations. The norm was developed and
recommended in the early 1960
s and is presumed to corre-
spond to the crop pattern, yield levels and other conditions
prevailing at that time. The crop pattern, yield levels and soil
conditions, which determine level of fertiliser application,
have undergone a sea change since the 1960
s and accordingly,
the requirement of fertiliser has also undergone signifi cant
changes. The policy on fertiliser use and pricing cannot be
based on such an outdated norm which is also not supported
by empirical evidence.
This paper makes an attempt to estimate the optimal ratio
of N, P and K for the prevalent cropping pattern in India based
on crops and state-specifi c recommendations for fertiliser
application prepared by various state agricultural universities
(SAU
s) and crop directorates of Indian Council of Agricultural
Rese arch (ICAR). Further, as the requirement of N, P and K
varies from crop to crop and from one type of soil to another
type, the norm for N, P and K ratio is bound to be different for
different regions representing different cropping patterns,
soil types, and their nutrient status at a given point of time.
Against this backdrop, the present paper estimates state-wise
norms for application and composition of N, P and K, which
are then aggregated to arrive at the all-India norm. The study
estimates recommended quantities of N, P and K for each
state and compares it with actual use. These estimates are
used to work out excess or defi cit in the use of the three plant
nutrients at the state level. The paper also demonstrates
that the concerns related to imbalance in use of N, P and K
are totally misleading and policy measures to correct the
imbalance are uncalled for unless the nature of imbalance
is clearly determined. It identifi es the situations where the
imbalance actually matters and where it does not. These
fi ndings are important to formulate policies on fertiliser use
and pricing.
The remainder of the paper is organised as follows.
Section 1 traces the genesis of what is described as the
optimal ratio of N, P and K for Indian agriculture and dis-
cusses its relevance to the current situation. Section 2 pre-
sents the methodology used in estimating the requirement
of N, P and K, imba lance, and defi cit or excess of application
of various types of fertilisers in various states. Section 3
discusses trends in the use of N, P and K. Section 4 presents
estimates of optimum quantity of N, P and K and compares
the optimum and actual quantity used in various states.
Sections 5 works out state-wise normative ratio of fertiliser
use at state level and for the whole country. The severity and
consequences of the imbalance in fertiliser use is presented
in Section 6. The last section presents the conclusions
and discusses implications of the study for future use of N, P
and K.
1 Genesis of 4:2:1 Ratio for NPK
In general, the N, P, K ratio of 4:2:1 is considered to be
optimum for India. It is hard to trace the origin of this ratio.
However, it is believed that the ratio originated from fi eld
trials conducted during the 1950
s, that is, in the pre-Green
Revolution period (NAAS 2009). According to Prasad and
Pathak (the editors of NAAS 2009), the probable reason for the
higher emphasis on nitrogenous fertilisers was the higher
response of crops, especially of irrigated wheat, to applied
nitrogen as compared to phosphorus and potassium. It was
later recognised that this ratio ignored two important factors.
First, that during the Green Revolution period farmers applied
farm yard manure and the native soils were rich in phosphorus
and potassium content. Second, the response to applied
phosphorus and potassium fertilisers was much higher on red
and lateritic soils, which clearly indicate that the ratio of NPK
would vary for different soil types (NAAS 2009). Further, the
fertiliser norm for a state or country depends upon the crop-
ping pattern, yield levels, crop variety and soil-specifi c charac-
teristics which have undergone a sea change over the years.
The farm trials conducted in the post-Green Revolution period
confi rmed that the response of rice crop to the applied phos-
phorus was as good as to that of nitrogen, and in fact it was
higher in the case of improved varieties of wheat. This fi nding
along with the popularisation of improved wheat varieties
encouraged the use of phosphatic fertilisers during the post-
Green Revolution period (NAAS 2009). However, the use of
fertiliser in India remained skewed towards N.
In the early 1990
s, the government expressed concern over
the worsening ratio of NPK and it was stated that to increase
the crop yields, it was essential to maintain the ideal NPK ratio
of 4:2:1 (G
oI 1994, 1995). In the subsequent years there has
been an increasing emphasis on the balanced use of nutrients
and redefi ning the optimal ratio of NPK use under different
crop- and soil-specifi c conditions (Prasad 2009, 2012). But
surprisingly no study was done to fi nd out or establish the op-
timal mix of NPK in the country and we have been sticking to
a norm of 4:2:1 that was suggested more than 50 years ago
based on only two crops. Therefore, it is pertinent to examine
the relevance of the existing 4:2:1 norm in the current
agricultural scenario.
2 Methodology
Though the all-India trend in the level and composition of
fertiliser use is important for formulating fertiliser policy,
balanced use of fertilisers has signifi cance at the disaggregate
level. The reason for this is that the cropping pattern varies
from state to state. The required level and ratio of NPK differs
invariably across crops. Therefore, the national-level composi-
tion of N, P and K does not reveal the true picture of distortions
in the use of N, P and K, which is better revealed by disaggre-
gated data such as state and agro-region level. Therefore, we
are now shifting the focus of the paper to the state level. SPECIAL ARTICLE
OCTOBER 31, 2015 vol l no 44 EPW Economic & Political Weekly100
The required or normative quantity of fertiliser use for a state
was estimated based on area under various crops and the recom-
mended dose of NPK for the respective crops, as per the Package of
Practices published by the SAU
s and ICAR institutes as under:
• Dns = ∑
C
i=1
(Ais_w* Rns_w) + ∑
C
i=1
(Ais_r * Rns_r)
• Dps = ∑
C
i=1
(Ais_w* Rps_w) + ∑
C
i=1
(Ais
r
* Rps_r)
• Dks = ∑
C
i=1
(Ais_w* Rks_w) + ∑
C
i=1
(Ais_r*Rks_r)
where Dns, Dps and Dks are desired levels of N, P and K in sth
state respectively, “w” and “r” are irrigated and rain-fed areas
respectively, “
A” is the area under crop “i,” in state “s,” and “R”
indicates recommended dose of nutrient. In some states disag-
gregation was extended to agroclimatic region.
The desired level of N, P and K, which is recommended to be
applied to a crop is computed from the following expression
(Prasad 2012):
Nutrient to be applied = [{yield(t/ha) × nutrient uptake (kg/t)}
— {nutrient available in soil (kg/ha)}] × 100/NUE.
For example, for a crop of rice yielding 6 t/ha of grain and
removing 20 kg N/t on a soil having 60 kg available N/ha and
NUE 40%, the amount of N to be applied will be:
= [(6 × 20) – (60)] × 100/40
= 150 kg N/ha
Dns, Dps and Dks were compared with actual consumption
of N, P and K in each state to fi nd out the imbalance in fertiliser
use as well as the gap between optimum and actual use
of fertilisers.
3 Trends and Composition of Fertiliser Use in India
During 1971–72 total consumption of fertiliser in India was
2.65 mt consisting of 1.79 mt of N, 0.56 mt P and 0.30 mt of K. It
gradually increased to 28.1 mt by 2010–11 and witnessed a
small decline in the last three years. The share of N, P and K in
total fertilisers since 1971–72 is presented in Table 1. The norm
of 4:2:1, which has been offi cially recognised as optimal, im-
plies that nitrogen should constitute 57.2% and P and K should
constitute 28.6% and 14.2%, respectively, of total NPK use in the
country. During early 1970
s two-thirds of total fertiliser was ni-
trogenous while phosphatic and potassic categories accounted
for 21% and 11% share respectively (Table 1). In most of the
years, share of nitrogen in total fertiliser use hovered around
65% which is 8 percentage points higher than the offi cially ac-
cepted norm of 4:2:1.
The change in the composition of fertiliser in terms of N, P
and K during the last four decades is characterised by three
major episodes. The fi rst one refers to 1974–75 when the share
of nitrogen in total fertiliser use increased to 68.64% during
1974–75, and further to 74.3% by 1975–76. These were the years of
oil shock, when global fertiliser prices, in nominal dollars went
up by two to four times in a single year. The increase in price
was much higher in nitrogenous fertilisers (urea) as compared
to potassic and phosphatic fertilisers. However, the effect was
felt more on the use of P and K than on N. After this, the share
of N in total fertiliser use gradually declined and reached
63.2% level in 1991–92, that was lowest in the period till then.
During 1992, the government noted the need to reduce the
imbalance in fertiliser use
and to rationalise fertiliser
subsidies (G
oI 1993). The
explicit purpose of reduc-
ing imbalance was to raise
share of P and K, and thus
reduce share of N in total
fertiliser use.
Accordingly, the prices,
movement and distribution
of phosphatic and pot assic
fertilisers were decontrolled
with effect from 25 August
1992. No signifi cant change
was introduced in urea,
which is a dominant nitro-
genous fertiliser in India,
and its price was reduced
after some experimentation
with dual pricing. This
change in fertiliser policy
in the middle 1992 r sulted
in a jump in prices of P and
K in absolute terms and
also relative to price of N
in the year 1992–93. This
policy-induced cha nge in
relative prices of N, P and K
led to reversal of the trend
tow ards reduction in share
of N in total fertiliser.
The share of N in total
fertiliser use which was
fall ing since the mid-1970
s,
suddenly increased after
1991–92. This clearly shows
that an increase in share
of N and decline in shares
of P and K, in other words
the imbalance in fertiliser
use was policy-induced.
After this policy distortion,
share of N again star ted
falling post 1996–97 and
reached 58.8% by 2009–10.
This share was only slightly higher than the offi cially accepted
norm of 57.2%. The share of P and K were also very close to the
offi cially accepted norm at the national level, though there
were signifi cant variations in the share across states. On 1 April
2010, the government introduced the nutrient-based subsidy
(NBS) policy, with the aim of ensuring balanced application of
fertilisers. The NBS policy was made effe ctive in P and K but
not in urea, which is a principal nitrogenous fertiliser. This
again distorted the prices in favour of N and, like earlier trends
seen during the mid-1990
s, the composition of fertiliser at the
national level started moving in favour of N. Just in two years
Table 1: Trend in Fertiliser Use and Its
Composition
Year Total Use of NPK, Share Share Share
‘000 Tonne N % P % K %
1971–72 2,657 67.67 21.00 11.33
1972–73 2,768 66.44 20.99 12.57
1973–74 2,839 64.42 22.90 12.68
1974–75 2,573 68.64 18.34 13.06
1975–76 2,894 74.26 16.14 9.61
1976–77 3,411 72.03 18.62 9.35
1977–78 4,286 67.97 20.23 11.81
1978–79 5,117 66.84 21.61 11.55
1979–80 5,255 66.57 21.90 11.53
1980–81 5,516 66.68 22.01 11.31
1981–82 6,067 67.07 21.79 11.14
1982–83 6,401 66.27 22.39 11.34
1983–84 7,710 67.50 22.44 10.05
1984–85 8,211 66.81 22.97 10.21
1985–86 8,474 66.80 23.66 9.54
1986–87 8,645 66.12 24.05 9.83
1987–88 8,784 65.08 24.90 10.02
1988–89 11,040 65.68 24.65 9.67
1989–90 11,568 63.85 26.05 10.10
1990–91 12,546 63.74 25.67 10.59
1991–92 12,728 63.21 26.09 10.69
1992–93 12,155 69.33 23.40 7.27
1993–94 12,366 71.07 21.58 7.35
1994–95 13,563 70.10 21.62 8.29
1995–96 13,876 70.79 20.88 8.33
1996–97 14,308 72.00 20.81 7.20
1997–98 16,195 67.34 24.19 8.48
1998–99 16,773 68.36 23.85 7.78
1999–00 18,070 64.16 26.55 9.29
2000–01 16,631 65.31 25.33 9.36
2001–02 17,360 65.15 25.24 9.60
2002–03 16,094 65.08 24.97 9.95
2003–04 16,631 66.60 24.80 9.60
2004–05 18,399 63.67 25.13 11.20
2005–06 20,340 62.55 25.58 11.86
2006–07 2,1651 63.61 25.60 10.78
2007–08 22,570 63.89 24.44 11.68
2008–09 24,909 60.58 26.12 13.30
2009–10 26,486 58.82 27.46 13.71
2010–11 28,122 58.88 28.62 12.50
2011–12 27,790 62.25 28.48 9.27
2012–13 25,804 69.86 23.07 7.02
2013–14 23,959 68.97 22.70 8.24
Source: Annual Reports, Department of
Fertilisers, Ministry of Fertilisers and Chemicals,
Government of India, various issues. SPECIAL ARTICLE
Economic & Political Weekly EPW OCTOBER 31, 2015 vol l no 44101
after introduction of NBS the share of N increased by 11 per-
centage points—from 58.8% to 69.8%. This shows that the
gain achieved in reducing the imbalance in use of N, P and K
has been completely wiped out.
It is concluded from the changes observed in the composition
of fertiliser during the last four decades that corres ponding to
a given fertiliser price regime, farmers tended to reduce the
imbalance in fertiliser use. However, the outside shock and
changes in fertiliser policy each time triggered a sharp rise in
the share of nitrogenous fertilisers and fall in the shares of P
and K in total fertiliser use. The policy reforms in fertiliser
prices, which purportedly aimed at reducing the imbalance in
use of N, P and K, have delivered exactly the opposite result.
4 Actual and Normative Use at State Level
The actual level of fertiliser use in a state and optimum quan-
tity estimated by multiplying area under different crops with
doses of N, P and K recommended by the agricultural research
institutes in various states during the triennium 2009–10 to
2011–12 are presented in Table 2. It shows that the actual use
of nitrogenous fertiliser was higher than the normative level,
based on the recommended dose, in the states of Andhra
Pradesh, Assam, Punjab, Bihar, Haryana and Jharkhand
while the use of nitrogenous fertilisers in Odisha was near
optimal. In all the other states the current level of nitrogen
use remained below the recommended norms. This indicates
that there exists an imbalance in the use of N both in terms of
surplus as well as defi cit. For instance, in Andhra Pradesh, the
normative quantity of N was esti mated at 1,138 thousand
tonnes, while the actual use was 1,884 thousand tonnes
recording an excess use of 746 thousand tonnes.
On the other hand, the normative levels of nitrogen fertilisers
in West Bengal and Kerala were 1,412 thousand tonnes and 227
thousand tonnes respectively, while the actual use was 753
thousand tonnes and 116 thousand tonnes—this is only half of
the requirement for the existing cropping pattern in these
states. The total normative level of nitrogen for India as a
whole was about 17 mt, which was not signifi cantly different
than the actual use of N.
The normative level of phosphorus use for the whole country
was about 9.46 mt whereas the actual use was about 7.65 mt.
Our estimates indicate that use of P in the case of Madhya Pradesh,
Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal was far lower than what was
recommended for the prevailing cropping pattern in these states.
However, in states like Gujarat, Karnataka, Punjab and Tamil
Nadu actual use of P was much higher than the desired level.
Use of K for the country as a whole was 3.26 mt. According
to our estimate, the optimum requirement of K in India was
6.6 mt. Except in Tamil Nadu and Assam, the use of K was
lower than what was optimum in all states.
4.1 Extent of Excess and Deficit Use
At the national level, there was a defi cit in use of all the three
types of plant nutrients but the defi cit in the case of N was very
small (Table 3). The extent of defi ciency varies from 3.3% for N
to 51% for K. There were wide vari ations across states. Out of
the 20 major states, three states, namely, Andhra Pra desh, Har-
yana and Punjab, applied total fertilisers far in excess of what
was required. Des pite excess use of total fertilisers, these states
were defi cit in the use of K.
Table 3: State-wise Excess/Deficit of NPK %: (Normative–Actual)/Normative
State N P K Total
Andhra Pradesh 65.52 44.83 -8.73 44.02
Assam 12.81 -41.70 2.97 -6.85
Bihar 33.88 -28.09 -44.61 1.57
Chhattisgarh -35.09 -44.05 -70.52 -45.09
Gujarat -3.94 7.38 -61.90 -13.85
Haryana 23.32 3.36 -74.83 3.58
Himachal Pradesh -60.30 -74.12 -67.19 -65.48
Jharkhand 15.95 -11.74 -67.91 -11.98
Jammu and Kashmir -23.06 -43.73 -59.33 -35.41
Karnataka -1.43 1.94 -39.27 -10.98
Kerala -48.72 -63.60 -73.91 -63.90
Madhya Pradesh -10.51 -43.52 -75.78 -35.70
Maharashtra -7.96 -9.25 -14.43 -9.57
Odisha 0.69 -11.56 -52.70 -16.66
Punjab 44.86 12.15 -72.31 19.38
Rajasthan -37.68 -50.04 -74.42 -43.99
Tamil Nadu -4.44 4.82 -0.06 -1.38
Uttarakhand -27.95 -59.96 -77.66 -45.08
Uttar Pradesh -6.63 -27.31 -75.21 -24.80
West Bengal -46.68 -35.59 -50.20 -44.72
Others -73.96 -84.65 -89.91 -81.56
All India -3.31 -19.14 -51.09 -17.44
Source: Authors’ estimates.
It is a common perception that far mers in India apply ex-
cess nitrogen. This is true only in six states, namely, And hra
Pradesh, Ass am, Bihar, Haryana, Jh a r khand and Pun jab. In
Karnataka and Odisha, actual use of N did not differ signifi cantly
Table 2: Normative and Actual Use of N, P and K, Triennium Ending 2011–12
State Normative Use: Thousand Tonne Actual Use: Thousand Tonne
N P K Total N P K Total
Andhra Pradesh 1,138 679 474 2,291 1,884 984 433 3,300
Assam 124 90 70 284 140 52 72 265
Bihar 688 368 245 1,301 921 265 136 1,322
Chhattisgarh 498 298 208 1,005 323 167 61 552
Gujarat 1,247 450 456 2,153 1,198 483 174 1,855
Haryana 807 339 202 1,348 996 350 51 1,397
Himachal Pradesh 82 43 33 158 33 11 11 54
Jharkhand 84 51 42 177 97 45 14 156
Jammu and Kashmir 95 57 29 181 73 32 12 117
Karnataka 1,043 655 651 2,349 1,028 668 395 2,091
Kerala 227 164 349 740 116 60 91 267
Madhya Pradesh 1,080 1,181 449 2,710 967 667 109 1,742
Maharashtra 1,745 1,176 654 3,575 1,606 1,067 560 3,233
Odisha 313 177 176 666 316 156 83 555
Punjab 951 375 235 1,561 1,377 421 65 1,863
Rajasthan 1,335 742 130 2,206 832 371 33 1,235
Tamil Nadu 673 270 298 1,241 643 283 298 1,224
Uttarakhand 162 75 51 288 117 30 11 158
Uttar Pradesh 3,210 1,436 1,085 5,731 2,997 1,044 269 4,310
West Bengal 1,412 762 764 2,938 753 491 381 1,624
Others 114 82 73 270 30 13 7 50
All India 17,030 9,469 6,675 33,174 16,466 76,578 3,264 27,387
Source: Normative use is based on the authors’ estimates. Actual use taken from Fertiliser
Statistics, The Fertiliser Association of India, New Delhi. various issues. SPECIAL ARTICLE
OCTOBER 31, 2015 vol l no 44 EPW Economic & Political Weekly102
from the recommended level. In 12 states, the use of N was lower
than what was optimum according to recommendations of
SAU
s and ICAR institutes. The degree of defi ciency varied from
4.4% to 60%. And hra farmers used 45% more P than what is
optimum. Use of P exceeded the desired level by 3.4% in Har-
yana, 4.8% in Tamil Nadu, 7.4% in Gujarat and 12% in Punjab.
In the remaining states, the use of P was lower than the rec-
ommended dose for the states to the extent of 9% to 64%. As
already mentioned, farmers in Assam used 3% more K than
desired, while there was no signifi cant difference between the
actual and desired levels of use in Tamil Nadu. All other states
show defi ciency in the use of K to the extent of 8.7% to 78%.
States like Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Uttarakhand,
Uttar Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Haryana did not use even
30% of required doses of K. It is concluded from this table that
the all-India picture of use of NPK does not adequately capture
the state-level variations.
Less than one-third of the states used excess of N, whereas
two-thirds used less than the optimal level of N. One-fi fth of
the states used excess of P. Area under cultivation that suffers
from defi ciency in use of nitrogen is much larger than the area
where nitrogen is used in excess. Thus, as a policy, there is a
need to reduce the use of N in six states and promote its use in
all other states.
The estimates of defi cit and surplus assumes that entire sale
of fertiliser in a state is used for agriculture purposes, that is,
for crop production. However, small quantity of some fertiliser,
particularly urea, may have been used for non-agricultural pur-
poses. If such non-agricultural use is taken into conside ration,
then the surplus will get reduced and the defi cit will increase.
5 State-wise Normative Ratio of Fertiliser Use
As discussed in the beginning, considering the origin of the
norm for the NPK mix and considering the sea change in crop-
ping patterns and agricultural practices, it is pertinent to
revisit this norm in the context of the current agricultural situ-
ation India. It is also emphasised that the norm 4:2:1 needs to
be deb ated and redefi ned (G
oI 2001; Prasad 2012). Sec ond, the
norm at the nati onal level repres ents agg re gate situation whi ch
may be totally out of alignment with state-level picture. He n ce,
this paper estimates normative ratio of fertiliser use for the states
based on the state-specifi c and crop-specifi c fertiliser recommen-
dations and the current cropping pattern. The results related to
normative ratio and ratio based on actual use of N, P and K across
the states are presented in Table 4. The paper uses three years
average as there are fl uctuations in actual ratios from year to year.
The aggregate of the states show that optimum ratio or norm
for balanced use of N, P and K for India should be 2.6:1.4:1. This
norm based is on the current cropping pattern, and recommended
doses of fertilisers by SAU
s is quite different than the norm in
vogue. The current norm implies that nitrogen should com-
prise 52% of total fertiliser applied in India and P and K should
account for 28% and 20% of the total fertiliser respectively.
These shares are quite different than the share based on the
ratio of 4:2:1, which implies that N should constitute 57.8% and
P and K should constitute 28.6% and 14% share respectively.
State-level norm for NPK estimated in this study shows that
the existing norm of 4:2:1 was close to estimated norm only in
traditional Green Revolution belt of north-west India. This is
not surprising as the existing norm was based on the agronomic
trials in this region, and for wheat and paddy crops which
dominate the cropping pattern in this region. The optimum
mix of NPK in other states except Rajasthan implies a lower
share of N and higher share of P and K than what is implied by
the ratio of 4:2:1.
A comparison of actual and normative ratios shows the
deviations of NPK use in the states. The worst deviation or
imbalance was observed in the case of Rajasthan followed by
Punjab and Haryana, though it was severe even in other states
like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand and Madhya Pradesh.
Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu were the only states where
actual and normative ratios of NPK was almost the same.
West Bengal shows a very small departure from the optimum
ratio. It is also interesting to point out that optimal share of
nitrogen works out to be lower than the share of potash in
Kerala. Rajasthan turns out to be an outlier in terms of
requirement of N relative to K. The optimum NPK ratio for
Rajasthan works out to be 10.3:5.7:1.
The normative ratio presented in Table 4 highlights the fact
that state-level norms for the optimum mix of NPK are far away
from the all-India average. Fertiliser promotion and policy
should be state-specifi c and it should strive to attain state-
specifi c optimum mix and use of NPK.
6 Imbalance in Fertiliser Use and Its Implications
The imbalance in the composition of fertiliser use is adverse
only if one or more nutrients are used in excess of the pre-
scribed norm. Whereas, in situations where all the nutrients
Table 4: State-wise Actual and Normative Ratio of NPK Use (2009–11)
State Actual Ratio Normative Ratio
N P K N P K
Andhra Pradesh 4.41 2.28 1.00 2.40 1.43 1.00
Assam 1.94 0.73 1.00 1.77 1.28 1.00
Bihar 6.79 1.95 1.00 2.81 1.50 1.00
Chhattisgarh 5.27 2.72 1.00 2.39 1.43 1.00
Gujarat 6.89 2.78 1.00 2.73 0.99 1.00
Haryana 19.55 6.87 1.00 3.99 1.67 1.00
Himachal Pradesh 3.00 1.02 1.00 2.48 1.29 1.00
Jharkhand 7.20 3.31 1.00 1.99 1.20 1.00
Jammu and Kashmir 6.16 2.72 1.00 3.26 1.96 1.00
Karnataka 2.60 1.69 1.00 1.60 1.01 1.00
Kerala 1.28 0.66 1.00 0.65 0.47 1.00
Madhya Pradesh 8.90 6.14 1.00 2.41 2.63 1.00
Maharashtra 2.87 1.91 1.00 2.67 1.80 1.00
Odisha 3.79 1.88 1.00 1.78 1.01 1.00
Punjab 21.20 6.48 1.00 4.05 1.60 1.00
Rajasthan 25.08 11.18 1.00 10.30 5.72 1.00
Tamil Nadu 2.16 0.95 1.00 2.26 0.91 1.00
Uttarakhand 10.24 2.63 1.00 3.18 1.47 1.00
Uttar Pradesh 11.14 3.88 1.00 2.96 1.32 1.00
West Bengal 1.98 1.29 1.00 1.85 1.00 1.00
Others 4.01 1.70 1.00 1.55 1.12 1.00
All India 5.04 2.35 1.00 2.55 1.42 1.00
Source: Authors’ computations. SPECIAL ARTICLE
Economic & Political Weekly EPW OCTOBER 31, 2015 vol l no 44103
are used below their normative levels, the imbalance in NPK
does not matter or cause any adverse effect on productivity or
the soil. This is elaborated thro ugh a hypothetical illustration
of imbalance presented below. In situation A all three plant
nutrients are used at suboptimal levels. The ratio of actual use
of N deviates 6.6 times from the norm. In situation B the ratio of
actual use deviates from the norm fi ve times but N is used in
excess. Thus, situation B warrants curtailment of use of the
plant nutrient used in excess, as it causes three adverse
effects—wastage of expenditure due to the additional cost
incurred on fertilisers with no inc rements in the output,
adverse effect on productivity due to excess doses on soil
health, and negative implications on environment. It also
warrants incre ases in the use of a nutrient, which is the used
at suboptimal levels. Situation A warrants more use of any of
the plant nutrients, including N, as long as the actual use is
below the optimum level, even if it aggravates the already
existing imbalance.
Particular Situation A Situation B
N P K N P K
NPK use/hectare (kg) 80 20 4 150 50 10
Optimum dose 120 80 40 120 80 40
Ratio: Actual 20 5 1 15 5 1
Ratio: Norm 3 2 1 3 2 1
Apparent Imbalance Very High High
Implication Immaterial. More N desirable Adverse. Less N desirable
of imbalance even if it raises imbalance
Based on this logic, states can be classifi ed in two categories
(a) where imbalance is adverse and needs to be corrected, and
(b) where the imbalance is benign. The two situations have
strong implications in terms of promoting fertiliser use. The
estimates of fertiliser-use gaps presented in Table 3 show that
none of the states showed surplus use of all the three major
nutrients. Surplus use of two nutrients, that is nitrogen and
phosphorus, was noticed in Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Haryana,
and Punjab, and hence the nature of the imbalance in fertiliser
use in these states is harmful, therefore the need to direct
the states towards balanced use. Defi cit use of all nutrients
was noticed in Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal,
Raja s than, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Kerala, Jammu
Kashmir and Chhattisgarh. In these states, the imbalance in
fertiliser use is benign and policy measures need to focus on
promoting the use of all the three nutrients irrespective of the
existing imbalance.
7 Conclusions and Policy Implications
Fertiliser has to play a larger role in the growth of agricultural
output in the future as other resources like land and water are
facing serious stress. This requires a policy favourable for atta-
ining optimum application of plant nutrients. Over time, the
emphasis of fertiliser policy has been to reduce the share of N
and raise the shares of P and K in total use of fertiliser in India.
This has been based on the axiom that ideal combination or
composition of N, P and K is 4:2:1, and that any deviation from
this norm constrains growth in productivity. This norm also
causes adverse effects. This paper demonstrates that there is
no scientifi c rationale to support the NPK norm in the current
situation. Such norms are meaningful only at a disaggregated
level, and when plant nutrients are used in adequate quantity.
Thus, a shift in fertiliser policy towards balanced use of N, P
and K based on inadequate and outdated norms is leading to
wrong prescriptions. Second, the approach towards the use of
fertilisers based on one criteria for the country is totally irrel-
evant as the optimal ratio of N, P and K differs signifi cantly
across states according to the types of crops grown and soil
fertility status among other factors.
The paper found that farmers tended to reduce imbalance in
NPK, but external shock and policy distortions reversed the
trend towards balanced use of NPK. It is ironic, that the ferti-
liser policy reforms of 1992 and NBS scheme of 2010, though
aimed at reducing the share of N and raising share of P and K
in total fertiliser use, ended up encouraging imbalance by
favouring higher use of N relative to P and K.
The paper prepares estimates of required levels of applica-
tion of N, P and K for current cropping patterns at the state
level based on recommendations of SAU
s and ICAR institutes,
and compares these with actual use. It found that about
one-third of the major states apply excess N and two-thirds of
the states use less than the required levels of N. There is no
defi ciency in the use of N at the national level if the entire
sales of fertiliser is used for crop production. All that needs
to be done is a reallocation among states. Excess use of N in
six states, namely, Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Punjab, Bihar,
Haryana and Jhar khand is enough to meet the defi ciency in
the remaining 12 states. The paper concurs that it will be
wrong to discourage use of N in the country, but it certainly
needs to be curtailed in some states and promoted in most
other states.
Use of P was more than what was required in Gujarat,
Karnataka, Punjab and Tamil Nadu, while it was defi cient
in Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal. Use
of K was much below the required level in all the states
except Assam.
Judicious or optimal use of NPK implies an increase in the
use of P and K rather than the reduced use of N at the national
level. The authors are of the view that the issue of imbalance
in the country has been exaggerated and misunderstood.
According to our fi ndings, imbalance matters only when use of
a plant nutrient exceeds the optimum level. At below optimum
level of application, imbalance in terms of composition does
available at
Gyan Deep
Near Firayalal, H. B. Road
Ranchi 834 001
Jharkhand
Ph: 0651-2205640 SPECIAL ARTICLE OCTOBER 31, 2015 vol l no 44 EPW Economic & Political Weekly104
not have any adverse effect. Thus, the policy goal should be to
achieve optimum levels of application of N, P and K rather than
achieving a particular ratio in composition.
Another significant contribution of this paper is the estima-
tion of state-wise requirement of N, P and K, and an optimum
ratio based on that. The existing norm of 4:2:1 was found to be
skewed towards N. The ideal ratio for India based on current
crop pattern and recommendations of SAU
s and ICAR institutes
was found to be 2.6:1.4:1.0. This norm implies that N should
comprise 52% and P and K should constitute 28% and 20%,
respectively, of the total fertiliser applied in India. These
shares are quite different from the shares based on the ratio of 4:2:1, which implies that N should constitute 57.8%, and P and
K should constitute 28.6% and 14%, respectively.
State-level results show that the officially accepted norm of
4:2:1 was close to the required norm estimated by us only in
the traditional Green Revolution belt of north-west India. This is not surprising as the officially accepted norm was based on the agronomic trials in this region, and for wheat and paddy that dominate the cropping pattern in this region. The desired mix of NPK in other states, except Rajasthan, implies a lower
share of N and higher share of P and K than what is implied by
the ratio of 4:2:1. The study shows that optimum and balanced use of fertiliser in India requires higher use of N, P and K in
Chhattisgarh, Jammu and Kashmir, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh,
Maharashtra, Uttarakhand, West Bengal; higher use of P and K
in Bihar, Haryana, Jharkhand and Odisha; higher use of P in
Assam, and higher use of K in all the states except Assam.
OptimN in Punjab,
Haryana, Bihar, Jharkhand, Andhra Pradesh and Assam, and
a rP in Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Punjab
and Tamil Nadu.
References
Chand, Ramesh and L M Pandey (2009): “Fertiliser
Use, Nutrient Imbalances and Subsidies:
Trends and Implications,” Margin-The Journal
of Applied Economic Research, Vol 3, No 4,
pp 409–32.
Gulati, Ashok and Anil Sharma (1995): “Subsidy
Syndrome In Indian Agriculture,” Economic &
Political Weekly, Vol 30, No 39, pp A-92–102.
GoI (1993): Economic Survey 1992–93, Ministry of
Finance, Government of India.
— ( Economic Survey 1993–94, Ministry of
Finance, Government of India.
— ( Economic Survey 1994–95, Ministry of
Finance, Government of India.
— (2001): Economic Survey 2000–01 , Ministry of
Finance, Government of India.
— (2014): Economic Survey 2013–14, Ministry of
Finance, Government of India.
Mujeri, K M, Shahana S, Chowdhury T T and
T K Haider (2012): “Improving the Effective-
ness, Efficiency and Sustainability of Fertiliser
Use in South Asia,” Global Development Net-
work, Policy Research Paper 8.
NAAS (2009): “Crop Response and Nutrient Ratio,”
Policy Paper 42, New Delhi: National Academy
of Agricultural Sciences.
Prasad, R (2009): “Efficient Fertiliser Use: The Key
to Food Security and Better Environment,”
Journal of Tropical Agriculture, Vol 47, No 1–2,
pp 1–17.
— (Current Sci-
ence, Vol 102, No 6, pp 394–98.
Sharma, V P (2012): “Dismantling Fertiliser Subsi-
dies in India: Some Issues and Concerns for Farm Sector Growth,” Working Paper No-2012-09-01, Ahmedabad: Indian Institute of
Management.
Tiwari, K N (2001): “The Changing Face of Bal-
anced Fertiliser Use in India,” Better Crops
International, Vol 15, No 2, pp 24–27.
Women and Work
Edited by
Padmini Swaminathan
The notion of ‘work and employment’ for women is complex. In India, fewer women participate in employment compared
to men. While economic factors determine men’s participation in employment, women’s participation depends on
diverse reasons and is often rooted in a complex interplay of economic, cultural, social and personal factors.
The introduction talks of the oppression faced by wage-earning women due to patriarchal norms and capitalist relations
of production, while demonstrating how policies and programmes based on national income accounts and labour force
surveys seriously disadvantage women.
This volume analyses the concept of ‘work’, the economic contribution of women, and the consequences of gendering
of work, while focusing on women engaged in varied work in different parts of India, living and working in dismal
conditions, and earning paltry incomes.
Authors:
Maithreyi Krishnaraj • Maria Mies • Bina Agarwal • Prem Chowdhry • Ujvala Rajadhyaksha, Swati Smita • Joan P Mencher, K Saradamoni • Devaki
Jain • Indira Hirway • Deepita Chakravarty, Ishita Chakravarty • Uma Kothari • J Jeyaranjan, Padmini Swaminathan • Meena Gopal • Millie Nihila •
Forum against Oppression of Women • Srilatha Batliwala • Miriam Sharma, Urmila Vanjani • J Jeyaranjan
Pp xii + 394 ISBN 978-81-250-4777-3 2012 Rs 645
Orient Blackswan Pvt Ltd
www.orientblackswan.com
Mumbai • Chennai • New Delhi • Kolkata • Bangalore • Bhubaneshwar • Ernakulam • Guwahati • Jaipur • Lucknow • Patna • Chandigarh • Hyderabad
Contact: info@orientblackswan.com