Master of Science - ETD | Electronic Theses and Dissertations of ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

IV. RESULTS The key focus of the present study is to analyse the impact of farm-ponds on cropping pattern, productivity, income etc. and also the financial feasibility of investment on farm-ponds adopted by the farmers in the identified watershed area. The primary information and the data collected from the sample farmers were examined using the various economic tools. The results obtained have been presented with respect to the objectives under the following heads. 4.1 Socio-economic characteristics of the sample farmers 4.2 Extent of use of RWHS in the selected micro-watersheds 4.3 Cost involved in various RWHS in the study area pertaining to sample farmers 4.4 Impact of farm-ponds on cropping pattern, cropping intensity, crop productivity, cost and returns profile, income and employment levels 4.5 Financial feasibility of investment in farm-ponds 4.6 Farmers perception and constraints towards RWHS 4.1 Socio-economic characteristics of the sample farmers The socio-economic features of the sample farmers of with and without farm-pond areas are presented below under the following sub-headings. 4.1.1 Age and education status of the sample farmers The details of the age and education status of the head of the family of the sample farmers are presented in Table 4.1. The average age of the head of the household was 53.44 and 50.11 years among with and without farm-pond sample farmers, respectively. Majority of the farmers (60 per cent) having with farm-pond area were belonged to old age group (Fig. 3) which was followed by middle age group constituting 26.7 per cent while more number of the farmers (44.5%) were belonged to middle aged group which was followed by old aged (42.2%) in case of without farm-pond area. Equal (13.3%) number of farmers were observed to the young aged group in both with and without farm-pond areas. The educational status of heads in the case of with farm-pond area was higher than the without farm-pond area. About 73 per cent of farmers in with farm-pond area were literates; where as only about 53 per cent of farmers in case of without farm-pond area were literates. It was found (Fig.4) that 66.66 per cent and 44.44 per cent of the farmers were educated up to primary level in case of with and without farm-pond areas respectively. However equal percentage (6.67%) of farmers were educated up to secondary school. Table also indicated only 2.22 per cent of the sample farmers were observed in without farm-pond area as educated up to college level while no sample farmers were observed in case of with farm-pond area. 4.1.2 Family type and size of sample farmers Majority (76 per cent and 82 per cent) of the sample farmers belonged to nuclear family type while, 24 per cent and 18 per cent of the farmers were belonged to joint family type in case of with and without farm-pond areas (Table 4.2) respectively. There were 362 family members in with farm-pond area and average family size worked out to 8.04, while corresponding figures for the without farm-pond area were 347 and 7.71. The percentage of adult male population to the total population was relatively higher in case of with farm-pond area (38.12%) compared to without farm-pond area (36.89%) while the percentage of adult female population was marginally higher in without farm-pond (33.72%) area over with farmpond (32.04%) area. However, the percentage of children to the total population was almost same in both with farm-pond area (29.84%) and without farm-pond area (29.39%). 4.1.3 Land holding and its classification among the sample farmers The land holdings were classified as marginal, small and large and were compared with and without farm-pond areas and presented under table 4.3 which indicates the average land holding was 1.73 ha and 1.77 ha in with and without farm-pond areas, respectively. Majority of the farmers were belonged to small farmers category with equal proportion (48.89%) both in with and without farm-pond areas.
Table 4.1. Age and education status of the sample farmers Sl. No. With farm-pond (n=45) Without farm-pond (n=45) Particulars Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage I Age i Young (50 yr) 27 60 19 42.2 Average age (years) 53.44 50.11 II Education i Illiterate (0) 12 26.67 21 46.67 ii Primary (1-7) 30 66.66 20 44.44 iii Secondary school (8- 10) 3 6.67 3 6.67 iv College (>10) 0 0 1 2.22 Total 45 100 45 100
Page 1 and 2: AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF RAIN WATER
Page 3 and 4: Chapter No. C O N T E N T S Title P
Page 5 and 6: Figure No. LIST OF FIGURES Title Be
Page 7 and 8: Appendi x No. LIST OF APPENDICES Ti
Page 9 and 10: agriculture. An improved crop produ
Page 11 and 12: Therefore, the results of the study
Page 13 and 14: Prasad (1994) opined that watershed
Page 15 and 16: vistas of productive and remunerati
Page 17 and 18: conservation measures on watershed
Page 19 and 20: III. METHODOLOGY The design of the
Page 21 and 22: Table 3.1 Land utilization pattern
Page 23 and 24: district canals are the major sourc
Page 25 and 26: Fig. 2. Showing districts covered u
Page 27 and 28: 3.3 Sampling design For the present
Page 29 and 30: If the benefit cost ratio of the wa
Page 31 and 32: 3.6.15 Seed Farm produced seed has
Page 33: Plate 4. Nala bunding Plate 5. Rese
Page 37 and 38: Table 4.2. Family type and size of
Page 39 and 40: Table 4.4. Extent of use of RWHS in
Page 41 and 42: Table 4.5. Investment on RWHS throu
Page 43 and 44: 4.4.3 Productivity of major crops T
Page 45 and 46: Area (ha) Yield (q/ha) 160 140 120
Page 47 and 48: Table 4.10. Cost and returns profil
Page 49 and 50: Table 4.12. Cost and returns profil
Page 51 and 52: Table 4.14. Employment levels in di
Page 53 and 54: V. DISCUSSION The results of the st
Page 55 and 56: A critical observation of cost and
Page 57 and 58: VI. SUMMARY AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Page 59 and 60: Farm-ponds were found to have posit
Page 61 and 62: HAZRA, C.R., 1997, Sustainable agri
Page 63 and 64: SHARMA, H.C. AND HOOJA, R., 1981, W
Page 65 and 66: IV. Important Crops, Area, Yield an
Page 67 and 68: Sl No Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 Education G
Page 69 and 70: Crop: __________ Variety: _________
Page 71 and 72: VIII. Constraints for non-adoption
Page 73 and 74: APPENDIX III Per ha cost of cultiva
Page 75 and 76: APPENDIX V Per ha cost of cultivati
Page 77: An economic analysis of rain water

Master of Science - ETD | Electronic Theses and Dissertations of ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?