economics of on-farm development - Institute for Social and ...

differences in topography. there are wide differences in the envisaged and
realized cropping patterns across these two command areas. This being so, a
strict comparison <strong>of</strong> many <strong>of</strong> the attributes and characteristic features <strong>of</strong> the
farms and farming community IS not possible and hence. each <strong>of</strong> them are
considered separately and comparison is made wherever possible.
The sample villages and sample farms are classified based on their
position along the canal system divided into head. middle and tail reaches.
Sufficient care has been taken to arrange the sample farmers in the sub-canal
systems according to the location <strong>of</strong> their plots in the distribution network. The
sample farms in the Kallada project are classified as shown in table 4.2. Of the
23 villages covered. 10 are in the head reaches with a sample size <strong>of</strong> 78 (39 %)
farm households. followed hy 8 villages in the middle reaches covering 65
farmers (33 %) and 5 villages in the tail end with a sample coverage <strong>of</strong> 57
farmers (29 %).
Table 4.2: Distribution <strong>of</strong> sample farms in the Kallada command area
Avg.
Location <strong>of</strong> No. <strong>of</strong> No. <strong>of</strong> Wet area Dry area Total area
hold. size
the farm vi llages farmers (Acres) (Acres) (Acres)
(acres)
Head 10 78
56.92 108.13
(34.49) (65.51)
165.05 2.12
Middle 8 65
41.38 130.60
(24.06) (75.94)
171. 98 2.65
Tail 5 57
32.85 91.67
(26.38) J,73.62)
124.52 2.18
Total
--,
,~
200
131.15 330.40
(28.42) (71.58)
461.55 2.31
-
>
Nole: Figures III parenthesIs are respective percentages.
The proportioll <strong>of</strong> wet area ranges between 24 to 26 per cellt in tIl(: middle·
and tail reaches, indicating the predominance <strong>of</strong> dry crops grown in the garden
--
123