(a) What is the need for agricultural price policy? Write its objectives. Discuss the criteria for deciding minimum support price…

(a) Agricultural price policy and the criteria for minimum support price

Need. Farm prices are volatile because supply depends on weather and biological lags and demand is inelastic, so bumper crops crash prices (cobweb cycles), farmers sell at distress prices, and input and technology use suffers. A price policy also balances the interest of consumers, supports food security and steers land use.

Objectives (from the Jha Committee, 1964 onwards): protect producers from price collapse with a remunerative floor; give incentives for adopting technology and higher output; stabilise prices and incomes; assure consumers reasonable prices; guide allocation of resources among crops (for example towards pulses and oilseeds); and support public procurement and the public distribution system.

MSP criteria. The Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP, set up 1965 as the Agricultural Prices Commission, renamed 1985) recommends MSP and the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs decides. It considers: cost of production (A2+FL and C2); changes in input prices; input–output price parity; trends in market prices, demand and supply; inter-crop price parity; effect on the cost structure of industry and on the general price level and cost of living; international prices; and the terms of trade between agriculture and other sectors. Since Budget 2018–19, the government fixes MSP at a minimum of 1.5 times A2+FL cost, whereas the Swaminathan Commission had recommended C2 plus 50%. Procurement is effective mainly for wheat and rice.

(b) Evaluation of extension programmes: need, types and steps

Need. Evaluation shows whether objectives are met, guides improvement and redesign, justifies spending and ensures accountability, helps to decide whether to continue, scale up or stop, checks whether methods suit farmers, and feeds farmers' views back to research and administration.

Types. By timing: formative (during planning and implementation, to improve), concurrent or process (monitoring how activities run) and summative (at the end, to judge results). By object: input, output, outcome and impact evaluation, for example adoption and income change from frontline demonstrations. By evaluator: internal or self-evaluation, external and participatory evaluation. By time of comparison: ex-ante (before), mid-term and ex-post.

Steps. (1) State the objectives and the evaluation questions. (2) Fix indicators and the design, including a baseline and, where possible, a control group. (3) Prepare tools such as schedules and checklists and pre-test them. (4) Select the sample and collect data. (5) Analyse the data against objectives and baseline. (6) Interpret findings and prepare the report. (7) Use the findings: feedback to planners, farmers and funders, and revise the programme.

(c) Causes of waterlogging and its effects on crop production

Waterlogging is a condition in which the soil is saturated and the water table is within the root zone.

Causes: seepage from unlined canals and distributaries, over-irrigation and flood irrigation, poor surface and subsurface drainage, flat topography or impeded drainage through hardpan or clay layers, obstruction of natural drainage by roads and embankments, heavy rainfall and floods, and rising groundwater after canal irrigation, as in the canal commands of Punjab, Haryana (south-west districts) and Rajasthan's Indira Gandhi Canal.

Effects: oxygen falls and roots suffer hypoxia, reducing respiration and nutrient uptake; ethylene builds up; anaerobic soil causes denitrification, and toxic Fe²⁺, Mn²⁺ and H₂S; poor germination and stand; yellowing, stunted growth and death of non-tolerant crops; disease pressure; and, through capillary rise, secondary salinisation. Remedies include drainage, bio-drainage with eucalyptus and conjunctive use of groundwater.