Diversifying beyond rice to cut losses and improve alternative cereal yields

A growing body of research is now looking at how changes in harvested areas, along with the impacts of climate change, can influence productivity. In a study published earlier this year, researchers from the U.S., India and Italy find that market price variation for crops influences how farmers allocate land for rice and alternative cereals in India. Despite climate-related losses and price fluctuations, farmers continue to dedicate large areas of their farmland to rice. The study also showed that spatial redistribution of crops, within their croplands, can achieve better production and economic gains for farmers.

The study led by Dongyang Wei, examined how price fluctuations caused variations in harvested areas across districts in the country. The researchers studied the impacts of price on kharif crops (sown in the monsoon season), such as pearl and finger millets, maize, sorghum and rice by combining harvested area and deflated price data (price adjusted for inflation) from 1966 to 2011. This information was used to predict how reallocating farmland in favour of less climate-sensitive, and more profitable crops, can improve cereal production and farmer incomes, while maintaining cropland area and calorie production.

While yields, measured as kilograms or tons per hectare, reveal the amount of crop produced per unit area of land, harvested areas, expressed in hectares, are a measure of the amount of land from which a crop is harvested, thus giving insights into farmers’ cropping decisions.

Data gathered during the study, over a decade from 2002-2011, showed that rice occupies 55% of the rainfed harvested area in India and contributes to 51% of net profits. However, the crop also accounts for the largest chunk of climate-related production losses. Using modelling data, the researchers found that when harvested areas were allowed to vary by 30% from the current allocated land, national production losses could be reduced by 11%. Further, this spatial redistribution of crop areas could also increase profits by 11% without causing any changes to overall cropland.

In short, the study shows that careful consideration and optimisation of harvested areas can aid in achieving both crop stability and profits. However, as the authors and other experts note, such changes will only be possible through policy support for alternative cereals while incentivising the process for farmers.

Why studying harvested areas is important

In an earlier research article, published in 2022, scientists from China examined global changes in cropland areas and grain yields, revealing that the correlation between the two was poor. Satellite data found that between 1992 and 2004, global croplands almost doubled, but grain yields increased by only 29%. However, post 2004, while croplands decreased by almost 5%, grain yields increased by more than 70%. The yield changes were better explained by examining harvested areas, which decreased before 2004 and increased by 7,720 km2 after, thus increasing the average annual grain yields by 2.6 times compared to the previous study period.

The researchers explain that the changes after 2004 can be attributed to more mechanisation, fertiliser inputs, better agricultural techniques, as well as improved grain varieties. They posit that harvested areas are more accurate indicators of food security and highlight the importance of optimising the layout for grain production and more supervision of existing croplands.

Beyond food security, harvested areas reveal a greater understanding of the underlying socio-economic, biophysical, political and environmental factors that influence agricultural outcomes, explains a 2024 study that examined harvested areas and yields over three decades for major crops like maize, soybean, wheat and rice in China.

In April 2025, the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) released the findings of the pilot implementation of its Comprehensive Remote Sensing Observation on Crop Progress (CROP) programme, which enables real-time monitoring of sown and harvested areas using satellite data. While the programme is being refined for accuracy, the analysis of wheat sown and harvested areas between December 2024 and April 2025 revealed how crops fared through rainfall deficits and high temperatures during the growing season. The methodology also estimated that across major wheat growing states in India, the production stands at more than 122 million tonnes as of March 31, 2025. Maps highlighting crop health and harvest area progress were also shared. With more accuracy, the programme can aid in informed agricultural planning for better food security, the report said.

Understanding cropping decisions using the right data

While harvested areas provide deeper insights about cropping decisions, the analysis in comparison with price reveals that the outcomes are often not that straightforward. The study by Wei and team found that price variations have no impact on rice cultivation, but for cereals like sorghum, maize, finger millet and pearl millet, price increases have a negative impact on the harvested area changes. With sorghum, for example, a 1% increase in price led to a 0.05% decrease in harvested area. Similar inverse correlations were also observed for pearl millet, maize and finger millet.

“A possible explanation for the inverse correlation in the case of sorghum price and area, for example, is that farmers may only want to cultivate a certain amount of that crop and maximise the amount of land allocated to rice (which has a guaranteed price and set procurement). Further, even if the government sets a high procurement price for sorghum, but does not establish substantial procurement amounts, it will essentially impact the amount of crop purchased,” explains Kyle Davis, a co-author of the study and an associate professor and the Graduate Director at the Department of Geography and Spatial Sciences, University of Delaware, USA.

Davis’s concerns have been echoed by other reports that highlight the challenges that farmers face while selling millets despite having minimum support prices in place. A 2023 article by scientists at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) reveals that the procurement of sorghum and pearl millet is about 1-3% of the total domestic production [Ma1], while it is 45-70% for wheat and rice. A report by the Tata-Cornell Institute also highlights that replacing 1 kg of rice by 1 kg of millets for a quarter of the public distribution system (PDS) recipients would provide environmental and economic benefits worth $770 million.

“The argument that millet yields are lower than rice yields and any swapping of rice for millets will decrease agricultural productivity is a very dangerous idea. We are always thinking about how to prevent climate change from impacting agricultural outcomes, and this will only exacerbate it. While sown areas are monitored and the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare publishes advance estimates of agricultural production, we propose that monitoring harvested areas would make it a lot easier to make these projections. It is a much more powerful tool to monitor agricultural production,” explains Ashwini Chhatre, an associate professor of Economics and Public Policy at Bharti Institute of Public Policy (BIPP), Hyderabad.

The bigger challenge

Cropping decisions involve multiple factors and the farmer’s willingness to shift crops is governed by the larger economics of the cultivation process explains Shrinivas Badiger, a Fellow at Water and Society at the Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE), Bengaluru. Badiger was not a part of the Wei’s study.

At ATREE, Badiger’s research team is working with rice farmers in Kerala and Tamil Nadu to understand farmers’ motivations to switch from the conventional flood-irrigated method to less-water intensive practices including AWD (Alternate Wet-Dry) and similar intermittent flooding practices such as SRI (system of rice intensification) techniques of growing rice. Compared to the flood-irrigation method, SRI involves maintaining optimal soil moisture without flooding the field, thus saving water and reducing associated greenhouse gas emissions. “We found that despite better yields and the overall low cost of production, timely labour requirement is a major constraint for SRI uptake in Kerala. Flooded rice fields do not require a lot of labour during cultivation as flooding suppresses weed growth and frequent irrigation. But when you have intermittent flooding and draining, as in the case of SRI, you do need labour assistance to remove weeds. We found that there is very little willingness to shift to such labour-intensive cultivation methods,” shares Badiger.

He adds that when it comes to switching from rice to less water-intensive and emissions-generating alternative cereals, the decision-making factors, including market demands, price realisations, cultural preferences and profitability, become more complex. “Incentive mechanisms play a key role in the decision process, and it is vital that farmers are compensated for marginal profits and market realisations,” says Badiger.

Dongyang Wei, lead author of the paper and a postdoctoral researcher at the Department of Ecosystem Science and Sustainability, Colorado State University, USA, adds to Badiger’s observations and says that apart from rebalancing crop subsidies and minimum support prices toward climate-resilient cereals, strengthening farmer education and extension programmes to promote sustainable production are also key policy measures to consider. “Complementary measures such as transition credit, insurance discounts, and investment in storage/processing could probably also lower adoption barriers and secure markets,” she adds.

While farmers’ cropping decisions are complex processes and profitability is an important parameter, understanding the human and environmental systems within which food production interact is also crucial, says Davis. “The efforts to encourage alternative cereal production must be done thoughtfully while avoiding unintended consequences for livelihoods, biodiversity loss, and environmental degradation to the greatest possible extent,” he adds.