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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

farm-pond in the study region was that they provided irrigation to crops at critical stages. Similar advantages of farm-pond was also reported by Naik, (2000). A sunken pond is another expensive water harvesting structure (Rs, 13,496.6) among farmers of the study area. In case of contour bunding (Rs. 3,854.54/ha) and Nala bunding (Rs. 3,679.24/ha) the investment was quite high and almost similar. Rubble checks and diversion channel are other most important water harvesting structures, which need moderate investment of Rs. 1,764.70/ha and Rs. 1,261.90/ha, respectively. 5.4 Impact of farm-ponds 5.4.1 Cropping pattern A critical observation of cropping pattern (Table 4.6) reveals that the gross cropped area increased by 22.32 per cent in case of with farm-pond area over without farm-pond area and as for as kharif crops were concerned, there was no much change in cropping pattern between with farm-pond and without farm-pond areas. However, the total rabi area was (Fig.9) relatively more (30.18%) in with farm-pond area than without farm-pond (13.05%) area. The area under rabi jowar and green gram in with farm-pond area (8.10% and 22.08% respectively) was higher as compared to the without farm-pond (2.70% and 10.35%, respectively) area. The improved soil moisture condition due to farm-ponds undertaken in watershed area has resulted in increased area under the above crops. The results were in confirmity with the findings of Srivatsava et al. (1991) and reported that the gross cropped area increased by 38.31 per cent and watershed helps farmers to bring more area under rabi crops. Moreover, the availability of water from water harvesting structures had resulted in diversification of the cropping pattern with the substitution of more profitable crops. 5.4.2 Cropping intensity It is evident from Table 4.7 that the gross cropped area was more in case of with farm-pond (110.04 ha) area compared to without farm-pond (89.96 ha) area. The area under double cropping (30.18%) was also increased in with farm-pond area as compared to without farm-pond (13.05%) area mainly because of better conservation of residual moisture in the rabi season due to construction of farm-ponds. As a result, cropping intensity enhanced (141.42%) in case (Fig.10) of with farm-pond area. The results gain support from the study conducted by Phadnawis et al. (1990), Jahagirdar (1991), Neema et al. (1991), Singh (1990) and others who observed that the adoption of in situ moisture conservation techniques had resulted in decline of the area under waste land and helps in increased the cropping intensity. Therefore, in order to bring fallow land under cultivation and to increase cropping intensity farmers need to be encouraged to follow the adoption of RWHS under watershed technology. 5.4.3 Productivities of major crops The results presented in Table 4.8 revealed better idea about the differences in crop productivities of all crops of with and without farm-pond areas by virtue of implementation of farm-ponds. In could be inferred that percentage increase of crop productivity obtained by the farmers was considerably higher over without farm-pond area. The change in crop yield over without farm-pond area was noticed (Fig.11) more in case of maize (7.43 q/ha) followed by paddy (4.60 q/ha) indicated that paddy and maize were highly responsible for water and overall change in crop yield was vary from 16 per cent to 41 per cent. The reason that could be attributed to this phenomenon is availability of water as a protective irrigation at critical stages of crop production from the farm-ponds. As a result of farm-pond treatment in the watershed area, there was additional storage of moisture in the soil profile due to this factor production and productivity have increased considerably in case of with farm-pond region. The result was in confirmity with the findings of Singh (1990), Chandregouda and Jayaramaiah (1990) and reported that due to increased soil moisture and increased area under kharif and rabi that positively lead to increase in the crop yields. 5.4.4 Cost and returns profile for different crops
A critical observation of cost and returns structure (Table 4.9 to 4.12) revealed that the cost of cultivation was higher in all crops in with farm-pond area over without farm-pond area because of higher levels of input usage. However, returns also increased in case of with FP area in all crops over without FP area due to increased production as well as better price. The change in net returns was (Fig.12) varied from Rs. 594.63 (green gram) to Rs. 3,865.79 (cotton). So overall change in net returns from all crops due to farm-ponds was Rs. 16,318.53/ha. The above findings was supported with the study conducted by Naidu (2001) noticed that water harvesting structures showed a rise in groundwater level and hence increase in the double cropped area and net returns were varying from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 8,000 per ha. 5.4.5 Impact of farm-ponds on levels of income and employment The per household average net income generated was revealed by Table 4.13 depicts that average net income generated in with farm-pond area (Rs. 16,748.85) was found to be relatively higher than that of without farm-pond area (Rs. 11,300.65). In percentage terms, the corresponding increase of income was 48.21 per cent. The definite positive change in yield levels of all crops, employment as well as addition income generated from all crops or animal husbandry brought about by effective implementation of farm ponds had given opportunity to increase the income of the farmers. Similar results were noticed by Kumar and Dhawan (1992) and observed that the overall change in income in the watershed area due to harvesting structures was 49.13 per cent. A glance on Table 4.14 provides an increase in man-days per household in with farmpond area (343.33) over without farm-pond area (329.85) with a percentage increase of 4.08 per cent. From different sources of employment agriculture followed by animal husbandry generated more number of man days in with farm-pond area. The improved crop management practices and operations have resulted in the change of cropping pattern and cropping intensity and this contributed for providing additional employment among farmers. In addition to this, in off-season, other sources of employment that included the construction of farm-ponds, there was an involvement of more labours that provides more employment opportunities in case of with farm-pond area. 5.5 Financial feasibility of investment in farm-ponds The investment in farm-ponds was evaluated by using various investment or project evaluation techniques viz., pay back period, benefit: cost ratio, net present worth and internal rate of returns. The economic life of farm-ponds was assumed to be 10 years. Cash flows were discounted at 8.5 per cent discount rate as this rate represents prevailing bank rate. The pay back period was very low and the investment could be recovered in one and half years. The B: C ratio was 3.05, which is more than unity, and NPV was Rs. 51,719.86 and was found positive. The result showed that the investment in farm-ponds was economically viable the internal rate of return was high as 51.48 per cent which is so high and indicated the investment in farm-ponds was financially feasible. The pay back period, B: C ratio and net present worth results were in line with the study conducted by Palanisami (1991), Naik (2000) and IRR result was gain support from study conducted by Selvarajan et al. (1984) and reported that the investment in farm-ponds was found economically more feasible as evidenced by high internal rate of returns (IRR). 5.6 Farmers perception and constraints towards rwhs All the 90 sample farmers of with and without farm-pond area were asked to list their perceived benefits and constraints in adoption of RWHS. All the 45 farmers of with farm-pond had opined that the RWHS were beneficial (Table 4.16) because of realization of increased moisture availability (60%), increased income (55.56%), increased yield (53.33%) and reduced soil erosion (51.11%) followed by additional employment (46.67%). Maintenance of common assets and increased ground water recharge were other benefits indicated by the farmers. The main objective of the watershed development project is to improve and conserve the soil and water for efficient and sustained production and productivity of agriculture land or to improve the status of natural resource base in the project area. Due to adoption of RWHS
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 and 52: Table 4.14. Employment levels in di
Page 53: V. DISCUSSION The results of the st
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
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?