Impact evaluation of seed replacement on pulse productivity in India

Abstract views: 267 / PDF downloads: 62


  • SHIVASWAMY G P ICAR-Indian Agricultural Statistics Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012, India
  • AVINASH KISHORE ICAR-Indian Agricultural Statistics Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012, India
  • KUHU JOSHI ICAR-Indian Agricultural Statistics Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012, India
  • ANUJA A R ICAR-Indian Agricultural Statistics Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012, India
  • K N SINGH ICAR-Indian Agricultural Statistics Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012, India


Chickpea, NFSM-pulses, Pigeonpea, Productivity, Seed replacement


Pulses are traditionally an essential part of the Indian diet and primary protein source for the poorer and the vegetarian population in the country. Pulse productivity has been stagnant in India due to the widespread use of low-quality farm-saved seeds and low seed replacement rates. The present study was carried out during 2019–20 to assess the drivers of seed replacement and its ex-post impact on yields of chickpea and pigeonpea in India. The study is based on the data on 1764 chickpea and 944 pigeonpea farmers from the nationally representative Situation Assessment Survey of Agricultural Households conducted during 2013. A probit model was used to study the drivers of seed replacement, and coarsened exact matching technique used to assess the impact on yields causally. We found that access to irrigation and institutional credit can increase seed replacement and result in increased chickpea productivity. Chickpea farmers in districts under the National Food Security Mission on pulses (NFSM-pulses) are more likely to be replacing seeds. In pigeonpea, access to irrigation alone is the key driver. Further, using coarsened exact matching estimation, we found that seed replacement is indeed beneficial for chickpea farmers and would lead to increased chickpea productivity in India.


Download data is not yet available.


Ali M and Gupta S. 2012. Carrying capacity of Indian agriculture: Pulse crops. Current Science 102: 874–81.

Anuja A R, Kumar A, Saroj S and Singh K N. 2020. The impact of crop diversification towards high-value crops on economic welfare of agricultural households in eastern India. Current Science 118: 1575–82.

Bezu S, Kassie G T, Shiferaw B and Ricker-Gilbert J. 2014. Impact of improved maize adoption on welfare of farm households in Malawi: A panel data analysis. World Development 59: 120–31.

Datta N. 2015 Evaluating impacts of watershed development program on agricultural productivity, income, and livelihood in Bhalki watershed of Bardhaman district, West Bengal. World Development 66: 443–56.

Dixon J, Nalley L, Kosina P, LaRovere R, Hellin J and Aquino P. 2006. Adoption and economic impact of improved wheat varieties in the developing world. Journal of Agricultural Science 144: 489–502.

GoI. 2016. Districts covered under National Food Security Mission, Accessed in August 2017, DistrictName2016.pdf.

GoI. 2020. Latest APY state data. Directorate of Economics and Statistics. Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers welfare, New Delhi.

Holmesheoran M E, Mula M G, Kumar C V S, Mula R P and Saxena K B. 2012. Tropical legumes 2 pigeonpea seed system in India: An analysis. Journal of Food Legumes 254: 334–39.

Iacus S M, King G and Porro G. 2009. cem: Software for coarsened exact matching. Journal of Statistical Software 309: 1–27.

Iacus S M, King G and Porro G. 2011a. Multivariate matching methods that are monotonic imbalance bounding. Journal of the American Statistical Association-Theory and Methods 106493: 345–61.

Iacus S M, King G and Porro G. 2011b. Causal inference without balance checking: Coarsened exact matching. Political Analysis 20: 1–24.

Joshi P K, Kishore A and Roy D. 2017. Making pulses affordable again: Policy options from the farm to retail in India. Economic and Political Weekly 521: 37–44.

Kassie M, Shiferaw B and Muricho G. 2011. Agricultural technology, crop income, and poverty alleviation in Uganda. World Development 3910: 1784–95.

Krishna V, Spielman D J and Veettil P C. 2016. Exploring the supply and demand factors of varietal turnover in Indian wheat. Journal of Agricultural Science 154: 258–72.

Nagaraj N, Basavaraj G, Parthasarathy R P, Bantilan C and Haldar S. 2010. Sorghum and pearl millet economy of India: Future outlook and options. Economic and Political Weekly 52: 74–81.

National Sample Survey Office. 2014. Situation assessment survey of agricultural households: Unit level data of NSS 70th round, Ministry of statistics and programme implementation, Government of India, New Delhi.

Pingali P L. 2012. Green revolution: impact, limits and the path ahead. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109: 12302–08.

Reddy R, Tonapi V A, Bezkorowajnyj P G, Navi S S and Seetharama N. 2007. Seed system innovations in the semi-arid tropics of Andhra Pradesh. Monograph. ICRISAT, Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India.

Saxena K B, Choudhary A K, Saxena R K and Varshney R K. 2018. Breeding pigeonpea cultivars for intercropping: Synthesis and strategies. Breeding Science 68: 159–67.

Shiferaw B A, Kebede T A and You L. 2008. Technology adoption under seed access constraints and the economic impacts of improved pigeonpea varieties in Tanzania. Agricultural Economics 39: 309–23.

Smith J C, Ghosh A and Hijmans R J. 2019. Agricultural intensification was associated with crop diversification in India (1947-2014). PLoS ONE 14: 1–17

Verkaart S, Munyua B, Mausch K and Michler J. 2017. Welfare impacts of improved chickpea adoption: A pathway for rural development in Ethiopia? Food Policy 66: 50–61.









How to Cite

P, S. G., KISHORE, A., JOSHI, K., R, A. A., & SINGH, K. N. (2022). Impact evaluation of seed replacement on pulse productivity in India. The Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 92(1), 90-94.