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

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