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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 4.17 Constraints for non-adoption of RWHS (n=45) Sl. No. Non-adoption of RWHS No. of respondents Percentage Constraints S MS NS S MS NS 1. Not aware of technology 4 19 22 8.89 42.22 48.89 2. Technology not suitable 2 16 27 4.44 35.56 60.00 3. Heavy investment 23 12 10 51.11 26.67 22.22 4. Lack of credit availability 29 12 4 64.44 26.67 8.89 5. Poor soil fertility 17 12 16 37.77 26.67 35.56 6. Fragmented land holdings 21 15 9 46.67 33.33 20.00 7. High labour rates 13 13 19 28.89 28.89 42.22 8. Improper extension service 14 13 18 31.11 28.89 40.00 9. Long gestation period 18 12 15 40.00 26.67 33.33 Note: S = Severe, MS = Moderately severe, NS = Not severe
V. DISCUSSION The results of the study presented in the previous chapter have been discussed in this chapter with cross references done under review of literature, to highlight the major trends observed and some of the reasons responsible for the findings have been discussed under the following headings. 5.1 Socio-economic characteristics of the sample farmers The impact assessment of farm-ponds will be easily facilitated if the socio-economic indicators of the selected sample farmers of with and without farm-pond areas are homogenous. If there is heterogeneity, the information on the differences that exists help in drawing meaningful interpretations from the results. With this view the socio-economic characteristics of the sample farmers are analysed and discussed here under with detailed perspectives. 5.1.1 Age and education status The average age of farmers of the both with and without farm-pond (Table 4.1) area was around fifty years (53.44 and 50.11 years, respectively). As regards to education level of sample farmers, the percentage of illiterates was lower in the case of with farm-pond area (26.61%) compared to without farm-pond area (46.67%). The primary education level was more in (Fig.4) with farm-pond (66.66%) area as compared to without farm-pond area (44.44%). The secondary school education was exactly of same proportion (6.67%) by farmers of with farm-pond and without farm-pond areas. Thus, it could be inferred that about 73 per cent of farmers in farm-pond area were literates, whereas only about 53 per cent of farmers in without farm-pond area. 5.1.2 Family type and size More than 75 per cent of the families were nuclear type families in both the cases of with and without farm-pond areas and hardly 24 per cent and 18 per cent of the farmers belonged to joint family type in case of with farm-pond and without farm-pond (Table 4.2) areas, respectively. The average family size was almost same between the areas (8.04 and 7.71), which were not confirmed to norms specified as ideal size of the family. 5.1.3 Land holding and its classification among the sample farmers Majority of the farmers belonged to (Table 4.3) small farmer’s category with exactly equal proportion (Fig.5) of 48.89 per cent in both with farm-pond and without farm-pond areas. Followed by large farmers of 33.33 per cent and 40 per cent in with farm-pond and without farm-pond areas respectively. The average land holding observed was almost same (1.73 ha and 1.77 ha) in both areas, respectively. Whereas marginal farmers were of smaller proportion in both with farm-pond (17.78%) and without farm-pond (11.11%) area. 5.2 Extent of use of rwhs in the selected micro-watershed Table 4.4 reveals that the total number of beneficiaries under the project were 497 and 470 with almost equal total investment of Rs. 56.87 lakhs and Rs. 54.13 lakhs in the selected Managundi and Tumari-koppa MWS respectively. By considering different harvesting structures in the study area major part of investment was on farm-ponds (47.60%) followed by contour bunding (31.38%) in Managundi MWS. Where as in Tumari-koppa MWS high investment was made on contour bunding (52.77%) followed by farm-ponds (37.16%). The analysis of extent of use of any practice in the study area helps in proper designing of sample farmers. In both Managundi and Tumari-koppa MWS, the number of beneficiaries (Fig.6 and 7) was more in adoption of contour bunding (60.76% and 66.17%) followed by farm ponds (19.52% and 17.23%, respectively). 5.3 Cost involved in various rwhs It is generally felt by the farmers that the rain water harvesting structures need heavy investment and the returns are spread over few years. The investment was highest (Rs. 14,573.96/ha) for farm-pond (Fig.8) as compared to other structures. A note worthy feature of
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 and 34: Plate 4. Nala bunding Plate 5. Rese
Page 35 and 36: Table 4.1. Age and education status
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: Table 4.14. Employment levels in di
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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?