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

large holders have spent two to three times more than small and marginal ones
(Table 6.17).
Table 6.17: Relationship between irrigable holding size and oro
expenditure, Peechi Project
Size class Head Reach Middle Reach Tail Reach
(Acres) Avg. size OFO exp. Avg. size OFO expo Avg. size OFO expo
Below 0.5 0.24 (30) 1663 0.40 (29) 1666 0.4 (26) 617
0.5 to I 0.8 (40) 1992 0.73(45) 2148 0.71 (42) 824
1 to 2 1.23 (12) 2343 1.30(14) 2966 1.41 (17) 2354
2 to 4 2.96 (12) 4079 3.13 (9) 4138 3.62 (11) 942
Above 4 4.67 (6) 7636 4.23 (3) 6548 6.26(4) 1218
Overall 1.54 2514 0.91 2273 0.82 1265
,
Nole: FIgures III parentheses are the percentage <strong>of</strong> farmers belongmg to each
class.
The expenditure on OFD and the ownership <strong>of</strong> well, as mentioned earlier,
are positively related as shown in table 6.17. However. in the tail reaches. the
relationship between holding size: and OFD expenditure does not correspond each
other due to the high percentage <strong>of</strong> rubbcr area. The farmers do not consider it
necessary to irrigate rubber. incurring expenditure on land devclopment. The
pump set capacity in terms <strong>of</strong> HP obviously depends upon the size <strong>of</strong> the holding
to be irrigated and the extent <strong>of</strong> water availability in the well. Therefore. the
relatively large farmers installed higher capacity pumpsets and invested more on
OFD (table 6.18).
Table 6.18: Relationship between groundwater recharge, pump set capacity
and oro expenditure, Peechi project
Capacity <strong>of</strong> pump Number <strong>of</strong> Average Extent <strong>of</strong>GW OFD
sets (HP) farmers capacitv (HP) recharge exp(Rs.)
Below 1.5 40 1.28 3.43 2092
1. 5 to :2 26 2.00 4.25 2540
Above 2 9 3.68 4.73 4513
Total 75 1.93 4.14 2678
246