Analysis of Role Performance of Women in farm activities - Seea.org.in

Indian Res. J. Ext. Edu. 10 (2), May, 2010 109Analysis of Role Performance of Women in farm activitiesK. Chayal 1 and B. L. Dhaka 21. SMS (HSc. Ext.), 2. SMS (Agril.Ext.), Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Bundi, RajasthanCorresponding author e-mail:: kesarchayal@yahoo.co.inABSTRACTWomen play a significant and crucial role in agricultural development and allied fields. It is most unfortunate thatthe role of women in agriculture has not highlighted. By and large they have remained invisible workers. Therefore,efforts were made to analyze the work performed by women in agriculture. The study was undertaken in Bundidistrict of Rajasthan. A total of 200 farm women selected as respondents through proportionate random sampling.The selected respondents were interviewed personally using pre-tested well structured interview schedule. Thedata were analysed using appropriate statistical tool. The findings showed that cutting, picking, cleaning ofgrains, drying of grains, storage, processing, weeding, winnowing are the major farm operations mainly performedby farm women. Participation of farm women in agriculture was significantly affected by socio-economic variableslike –age, family income, land holding.Keywords: Participation of farm women, Role performance, Invisible workersIt is not an exaggeration, that women in India arethe backbone of food security. Women are playing asignificant and crucial role in agricultural developmentand allied fields including crop production, livestockproduction, horticulture, post harvest operation, agro/social forestry, fisheries etc. There is a greaterinvolvement of women under various agriculturaloperations along with house arrangement out of the total329 million hectares geographical area of the country,net shown area is 142 million hectare. It is estimatedthat women are responsible for 70 percent of actualfarm work and constitute up to 60 percent of the farmingpopulation. But it is most unfortunate that the role ofwomen in agriculture has not highlighted. By and largethey have remained invisible workers. Over the yearswomen cultivators are typically and wronglycharacterized as economically inactive and womencultivator play only a supportive role in agriculture asfarmers’ wives (Samanta; 1994). Keeping the abovebackground in mind an attempt was made to analyzethe participation of women in farming operations.METHODOLOGYThe study was undertaken in Bundy district ofRajasthan, to analyse the participation of women in agriculture.The population of study consisted of farmwomen involved in agriculture and allied activities. Asample of 200 farm women was selected through proportionaterandom sampling. Selected respondents wereinterviewed personally using well structured pre testedinterview schedule. The amount of work done by farmwomen in various farm activities was found by usingthe following criteria score category and the meanweighted score was found out for individual farm activities.Amount of work doneCategory ScoreLeast 1Less than half 2More than half 3Major 4Complete 5Data thus collected were analyzed usingappropriate statistical tool to infer results.RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONThe socio-economic characteristics of relatedrespondents were analyzed and presented in Table 1.

110 Indian Res. J. Ext. Edu. 10 (2), May, 2010The Table 1 depicts that majority (52.5 %) of therespondents belonged to middle age group followed byyoung age (30 %) and old age (17.5 %) group. It wasalso revealed that majority (60%) of respondents werebelonged to nuclear family and followed by (40 %) werefrom joint family. Result on family income shows thatmajority (44.5 %) of respondents were belongs toincome group Rs. 60000-90000 followed by (27.5 %)income group below Rs. 30000, (25%) income groupRs. 30000-60000 and (3%) income group above Rs.90000 annually. Results on cast categories indicate thatmaximum (45%) were from other backward class and(42.5%) were from schedule tribe category and rest ofrespondents (7.5%) were belonged to schedule class.While looking at their educational status, results revealedthat majority (57%) respondents were illiterate, (35%)were literate and (5%) were from primary level (2.5%) were from middle level and only (0.5 %) weregraduate. Result on land holding depicts that majority(42.5%) were had medium scale land followed by smallTable 1. Socio personal characteristics of respondents(N=200)Variable Categories N %ageAge Young (40) 35 17.5Type of family Joint family 80 40Nuclear family 120 60Annual familyincome (Rs.) Below 30,000 55 27.530000-60000 50 2560000-90000 89 44.590000& above 6 3Caste General 10 5OBC 85 42.5Schedule caste 15 7.5Schedule tribes 90 45Education Illiterate 114 57literate 70 35Primary 10 5Middle 5 2.5Graduation 1 0.5Land holding Small 75 37.5Medium 85 42.5Large 40 20(37.5%) scale land and only (20%) had large scale land.The participation of selected respondents in farmactivities was analyzed and presented in Table 2. Thedata in Table 2 reveals that cutting, picking, cleaning ofgrains, drying of grains, storage and processing are themajor farm operations wherein women participation was100 percent. Singh et.al. (2004) also reported thatthe farm operations in which the participation of womenwas100 percent were cleaning the produces, cutting,picking, storage and processing. It was observed thatwinnowing, weeding, gap filling, grading, shifting produceto threshing floor and cleaning of field farm operationsin which the participation of women was more than 75percent. The tasks in which women participation wasvaried between 50-75 percent were thrashing, raisingnursery for seedlings and thinning. The results also showTable 2. Participation of farm women in farm activities(N=200)S.No. Farm activities N %age1. Ploughing of field 4 22. Cleaning of field 170 853. Leveling of field 10 54. Raising nursery for seedling 110 55(okra, chilly, tomato, pea)5. Sowing 51 25.56. Transplanting 41 20.57. Mannure application 65 32.58. Fertilizer application 2 19. Weeding 151 75.510. Thinning 121 60.511. Gap filling 161 80.512. Irrigation 52 2613. Plant protection measures(Insecticide, pesticide used) 0 014. Cutting 200 10015. Picking 200 10016. Shifting production to 179 89.5threshing floor17. Threshing 100 5018. Winnowing 190 9519. Drying of grains 200 10020. Cleaning of grains 200 10021. Grading 180 9022. Storage 200 10023. Marketing 0 024. Processing 200 100

Indian Res. J. Ext. Edu. 10 (2), May, 2010 111Table 3. Amount of work done by farm women in variousfarm activities (N=200)S.No.Farm activities1. Ploughing of field 12. Cleaning of field 4.93. Leveling of field 14. Raising nursery for seedling 4.5(lady finger, green chilly,tomato, cauliflower)5. Sowing 3.46. Transplanting 57. Mannure application 3.58. Fertilizer application 19. Weeding 4.2110. Thinning 311. Gap filling 412. Irrigation 213. Plant protection measures 014. Cutting 2.915. Picking 416. Shifting production to 4.9threshing floor17. Threshing 218. Winnowing 4.519. Drying of grains 520. Cleaning of grains 521. Grading 4.122. Storage 4.5923. Marketing 024. Processing 5MWS = Mean weighted score)Work done(MWS)that sowing, manure application and irrigation wereperformed on field by women 25 to 32.5 percent. Leastinvolvement of farm women was found in ploughing offield (2%) and in fertilizer application was (1%). Therewas no participation of women reported in marketing,plant protection measure.The data in Table 3 shows that the transplanting,drying of grains, cleaning of grains and processing weremajor farm activities which were completely done byfarm women. Similar results were reported by Singhet.al. (2004). The farm operations including cleaningof field, raising nursery for seedling ,weeding, gap filling,picking, shifting production to threshing floor, winnowing,storage& grading in which major amount ofwork done by farm women. They do more than halfwork of sowing, thinning, and manure application. Thefarm women do less than half work of irrigation, cuttingand threshing operations. In case of ploughing offield, leveling of field, and fertilizer application leastamount of work was performed by women. Choudharyand Singh (2003) also reported that the role of womenin ploughing of field, application of manure and fertilizerwas found to be very less. The work was also notdone in marketing and plant protection measure by farmwomen.Efforts were made to find out the relationship ifexisted between the personal variables of women withtheir participations. Table 4 depicts that women agewas negatively correlated with agriculture operations.Obviously the young aged farm women are more proneto change. Their physical strength enables them toperform more agriculture activities. The findings aresupported by Choudhary and Singh (2003). Type offamily, education level, caste were found non significantwith women participation in agriculture. It is also showsby data that land holding and family income were alsoeffects the participation farm women in agricultureactivities significantly.Table 4. Relationship of personal variables of women withtheir participation in agriculture activities (N=200)S. No. Personal variables Coefficient ofcorrelation “t”1 Age - 4.76*2 Type of family 1.28 NS3 Family income 2.13 *4 Land holding 3.63 *5 Education level 1.4 NS6 Caste 1.08 NS* Significant at 5 percent level of significanceNS - Non significantCONCLUSIONThe present study concludes that the women playan significant and crucial role in agriculture and alliedfields. Research showed that farm women’sparticipation was maximum in Cutting, Picking, cleaningof grains, drying of grains, storage , processingoperations and major part of cleaning of field, raising

112 Indian Res. J. Ext. Edu. 10 (2), May, 2010nursery for seedling ,weeding, shifting production tothreshing floor, winnowing, & grading operations arealso done by farm women . In case of leveling of field,fertilizer application they do least amount of work,whereas there is no participation of farm women inploughing of field, plant protection measures andmarketing activities. The study also depicts that age,family income, land holding influence the womenparticipation in agriculture and the women participationin agriculture. Type of family, education level, cast werenot effected by the women participation in agriculture.REFERENCES1. Choudhary, H. and Singh, S. (2003). Farm women in agriculture operations. Agri.Ext.Rev. 15 (1):21-23.2. Samanta, R.K. (1994). The reap less than show. The Hindu. April Issue,Chennai, India.3. Singh, P.; Jhamtani, A.; Bhadauria, C.; Srivastava, R.; Singh, R. and Singh, J. (2004). Participation of women in agriculture.Ind. J. Ext. Edu. 30 (3&4):23-27.