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

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