Skip to main content

Profile characteristics of canal command area farmers

 

Profile characteristics of canal command area farmers

Basubramaniam.P,  Manickam, S and R. Vijayaraghavan

Abstract  

The farmers of canal command area are classified into three reaches namely; head, mid and tail reaches. The profile characteristics of farmers in the canal command area are differs from reaches; twenty three profile characteristics of respondents were identified and included in order to know the relative variability of the each character of respondents .Majority of the respondents in all the reaches have attended one day training on water management. More bore-wells were observed in head and mid reaches serving as supplemental irrigated sources.

The tail-reach farmers possessed open wells and bore-wells as supplemental irrigation sources. Majority's perception on condition of irrigation structures were good and poor perception was seen among a meager per cent of respondents. Majority reported that equal distribution of water was ensured only at head and mid reaches.

Introduction

In India more than 70 per cent of the annual rainfall occurs during the South West monsoon period between June and September. Irrigation especially during winter months enable increased intensity of land use for cultivation.  The irrigated agriculture has to expand considerably in order to increase the food production to the required level of about 400 metric tonnes by 2025.

In Tamil Nadu, since the water has become a scarce commodity, importance is given for command area development programmes in canal and tank irrigated areas and drip irrigation in well irrigated area. The farmers of canal command area are classified into three reaches namely; head, mid and tail reaches. The profile characteristics of farmers in the canal command area are differs from reaches. Keeping this in view a study has been conducted.

 

Research Methodology

The study was conducted in the lower Bhavani canal command area of Erode district, with head, mid and tail reaches of canal command area. Two blocks each at head, mid and tail reaches were selected randomly.  Sathyamangalam and Nambiyur in head-reach, Perundurai and Modukuruchi in mid-reach and Kangayam and Vellakoil in tail-reach were selected.  A sample size of 150 respondents (50 respondents each from three reaches) were selected by proportionate random sampling method.  The Assistant Agricultural Officer and Agricultural Officers, (60 nos.) working in the selected sample blocks were purposively selected to assess their opinions, and views on micro-irrigation system.

In the present study, a clear understanding of the characteristics of the selected respondents in total as well as category wise i.e. farmers in head, mid and tail reaches, would enable the investigator to interpret the data gathered in a meaningful way. For this purpose, twenty three profile characteristics of respondents were identified and included. In order to know the relative variability of the each character of respondents, mean and standard deviation were calculated. This would provide a clear understanding about the profile of the farmers. The results are presented in Table 1.

Findings and Discussion

Table 1.     Profile of respondents in the canal command area (head, mid, and tail reaches)

                   

S. No.

Variables

Category

Head-reach (n = 50)

Mid-reach (n = 50)

Tail Reach (n = 50)

Total
(n = 150)

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

1.

 

 

Age

 

 

Young

14

28

22

44

15

30

51

34

Middle

14

28

11

22

17

34

42

28

Old

22

44

17

34

18

36

57

38

2.

 

 

 

 

 

Educational status

 

 

 

 

 

Illiterate

2

04

4

08

2

4

08

5.33

Functionally literate

14

28

4

08

2

4

20

13.33

Primary

17

34

26

52

25

50

68

45.33

Middle

8

16

8

16

14

28

30

20

Secondary

6

12

1

02

5

10

12

08.0

Collegiate

3

06

7

14

2

04

12

08.0

3.

 

 

 

Occupational status

 

 

 

Farming alone

20

40

2

4

5

10

27

18

Farming and wage earner

3

06

5

0

8

16

16

11

Farming and business

6

12

5

10

37

74

48

32

Faming and services

21

22

38

76

-

-

59

39

4.

 

 

 

Farming experience

 

 

 

Low

12

24

14

28

8

16

34

23

Medium

17

34

18

36

19

38

54

36

High

21

42

18

36

23

46

62

41

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.

 

 

Farm size

 

 

Low

3

6

2

4

4

08

09

06

Medium

25

50.0

27

44

17

34

69

46.0

High

22

44

21

22

29

58

72

48.0

6.

 

 

Irrigation intensity

 

 

Low

9

18

16

32

14

28

39

26

Medium

20

40

14

28

19

38

53

35

High

21

42

20

40

17

34

58

39

7.

 

 

Farm power status

 

 

Low

13

26

16

32

16

32

45

30

Medium

18

36

14

28

16

32

48

32

High

19

38

20

40

18

36

57

38

8.

 

 

Annual income

 

 

Low

16

32

9

18

10

20

35

23

Medium

14

28

19

38

12

24

45

30

High

20

20

22

44

28

56

70

47

9.

 

 

Cropping intensity

 

 

Low

2

4

11

22

5

10

18

12

Medium

19

38

16

32

27

54

62

41

High

29

58

23

46

18

36

70

47

10.

 

 

Information source utilization

 

 

Low

16

32

13

26

15

30

44

29

Medium

14

28

20

40

17

34

51

34

High

20

40

17

34

18

36

55

37

11.

 

 

Mass media exposure

 

 

Low

15

30

11

22

14

28

40

27

Medium

18

36

18

36

17

34

53

35

High

17

34

21

42

19

38

57

38

12.

 

 

Innovativeness

 

 

Low

13

26

4

8

06

12

23

15.33

Medium

33

66

39

78

17

34

89

59

High

04

08

7

14

27

54

38

25.33

13.

 

 

Training undergone

 

 

One day

30

60

35

70

42

84

107

71.33

Two days

15

60

14

28

06

12

35

23.33

Three days

05

10

01

02

02

04

08

05.33

14.

 

 

 

Credit orientation

 

 

Low

08

16

07

14

05

10

20

13

Medium

15

30

28

56

18

36

61

41

High

27

54

15

30

27

54

69

46

15.

 

 

Scientific orientation

 

 

Low

15

30

13

26

13

26

41

27.33

Medium

13

26

20

40

11

22

44

29.33

High

22

44

17

34

26

52

65

43.33

16.

 

 

Economic motivation

 

 

Low

14

28

14

28

15

30

43

29

Medium

19

38

15

30

07

14

41

27.0

High

17

34

21

42

28

56

66

44

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

17.

 

 

Risk preference

 

 

Low

17

34

16

32

15

30

48

32

Medium

16

32

16

32

15

30

47

31

High

17

34

18

36

20

40

55

37

18.

 

Supplemental irrigation sources

 

Wells

16

32

20

40

32

64

68

45

Bore-wells

34

68

30

60

18

36

82

55

19.

 

 

Conditions of irrigation structure

 

 

Poor

14

28

18

36

19

38

51

34

Good

36

62

31

62

30

60

97

65

Satisfactory

-

-

1

2

1

2

02

01

20.

 

 

Equitability of water distribution

 

 

All reaches     (head, mid, and tail)

25

50

9

18

13

26

47

31

Only two reaches (head and mid)

24

48

37

74

29

58

90

60

Only head-reach

1

2

4

08

08

16

13

09

21.

 

Timely availability of canal water

 

Availability of water at critical stages  

15

30

11

22

22

44

48

32

Non availability of water at critical stages

35

70

39

78

28

56

102

68

22.

 

 

Period of availability of water

 

 

One season

5

10

17

34

28

56

50

33.33

Two seasons

43

86

33

66

19

38

95

63.33

All seasons

2

4

-

-

3

06

05

03.33

23.

 

 

Irrigation adequacy

 

 

Fully Adequate

12

24

6

12

14

28

42

28

Partially adequate 

20

40

26

48

25

50

71

49.33

Not adequate

18

36

18

36

11

22

47

31.33

                   

1.  Age

It could be observed from the Table 1 that 38 percent of farmers were old aged followed by young (34 %) and middle aged (28 %) groups. Among the three categories, 44 per cent of respondents in old age followed by equal per cent (28 %) in middle and young age respondent in the head-reach. It could be concluded from the above analysis, all the selected farmers in general and category wise are not equally distributed in their age category except in tail reach.

2.  Educational status

In category-wise, one third of respondents from head-reach were primary school level educated. Regarding mid and tail reaches, 50 per cent of farmers were observed to have completed primary school level education followed by middle, secondary and collegiate levels.          

3.  Occupational status

In category-wise analysis in head-reach 40 per cent of the respondents had farming alone as their occupation followed by farming with services (22%), farming and business (12%) and very few had the occupation of farming and wage earner (6%). In the mid-reach, majority were having farming and services (76%) followed by farming and wage earner (16%) and farming alone (10%). In the tail-reach, one third of respondents had farming with business (32%) followed by farming alone (18%) and farming and wage earner (11%). It was concluded that due to frequent monsoon failure and inadequate availability of water, the farmers started business enterprise with farming in order to meet both the ends.

4.  Farming experience

A perusal of the table 1 further indicates that more than one third of respondents had medium level of farming experience followed by high (41%) and low levels (23%). Regarding category-wise, in head-reach, more than two-fifth of respondents had high level (42%) of farming experience followed by medium levels (34%) and low levels of farming experience (24%). In tail-reach, the responders were found to have high level farming experience (46%) followed by medium (34%) and low levels (16%). The reason might be as half of the respondents belonged to old aged category and they had farming with business as their main occupation.

5.  Farm size 

Table further communicates big farm size holdings were found to be operated by nearly half of the respondents followed by small (46%) and marginal farm holdings (6%). The category-wise analysis reveals that majority of farmers were having big farm size holdings followed by small and marginal farms in all the three reaches. This trend might be due to population growth and land being a scarce commodity, it got divided among the family members generation after generation, resulting in fragmentation of holdings ultimately.

 6.  Irrigation intensity

Table 1 shows that regarding category-wise analysis, the respondents in head-reach were found to have more and high level of irrigation intensity. In mid-reach, high level of irrigation intensity (40%) followed by low (32%) and medium levels (28%) were also observed.  In tail-reach, the respondents had high level irrigation intensity followed by medium and low levels. The reason for more proportion of respondents with high irrigation intensity may be due to the use of more than one irrigation sources. The findings are in agreement with findings of Krishnaraj (2004).

7.  Farm power status

It could be found in Table 1that in tail-reach, the farmers were possessing high level of farm power status (18%) followed by medium and low levels (16%).  The result shows that majority having high level of farm power status.

8.  Annual income

It could be understood that more than 40 per cent of respondents in each reach observed with high level of annual income. The reason might be farmers were having more units of allied activities as subsidiary occupation along with agriculture.  

9.  Cropping intensity

It could be seen from the table 1 that more than 40 per cent of respondents had high and medium levels of cropping intensity followed by low level (12%). Regarding category-wise analysis, more than fifty per cent of the respondents had high level of cropping intensity followed by medium (38%) and low levels (40%) in head-reach, whereas, forty six per cent of the respondents in the mid-reach had high level of cropping intensity followed by medium (32%) and low levels (26%). More than fifty per cent of the tail-reach respondents (54%) had medium level of cropping intensity followed by high (36%) and low levels (10%). The reason might be that when there was adequate availability of water, the cropping intensity and cropping pattern would tend to vary in each reach.

 10.  Information source utilization

The category-wise analysis observed that 40 per cent of the respondents in head-reach had high level of information source utilization followed by low level and medium levels (32%). In the mid-reach, respondents had more medium level of information source utilization followed by high (34%) and low levels (26%). Tail-reach farmers were equally distributed in all three categories.           The reason might be due to the special importance given by Agricultural and Agricultural Engineering Departments on water management practices in the canal command area as quoted by Kavitha (2001). 

11.  Mass media exposure

The category-wise analysis further showed that more than one third of respondents in all reaches had medium level of mass media exposure followed by low levels. The reason might be due to high educational status possessed by respondents in all reaches of canal command areas.

12.  Innovativeness.

Medium level of innovativeness was observed among the total respondents as well as in the categories. The head and mid-reach farmers were having more of medium level of innovativeness (78%) followed by low and high levels. The head and mid-reach farmers were found to have frequent contact with extension workers in the study area. This could have resulted in easily accepting and adopting technologies. This might be the possible reason for majority of the growers to have medium level of innovativeness.

13.  Training undergone  

It could be seen in for the Table 1 that majority of the respondents (71.33%) had attended one day training on water management practices followed by 23.33 per cent with two days and meager per cent of (5.33%) with three days duration It shows that farmers in all reaches were found to have attended one day training on water management practices. The high information sources utilization and mass media exposure would be reasons for attending the training on water management practices. Partial water availability in canal for all seasons would have necessitated in attending the training on water management practices, in order to conserve and effectively use the irrigation sources.          

14.  Credit orientation

In the case of credit orientation, nearly half of the total respondents had high (46%) and medium level of credit orientation (41%) followed by low level of credit orientation (13%). Regarding category-wise, the head-reach farmers had high level of credit orientation, whereas, more of medium level of credit orientation was observed in mid-reach.

15.  Scientific orientation

The Table 1 reveals that more than 40 per cent of respondents had high level of scientific orientation followed by medium (29%) and low levels (27%). Head-reach farmers had more of high level (44%) of scientific orientation. Contradictory to that, mid-reach farmers had more of medium level of scientific orientation (40%) followed by high and low levels (26%). Similar to head-reach, the tail-reach farmers had high level of scientific orientation. The reason might be that high level of mass media exposure, information source utilization and trainings would have secured higher per cent of scientific orientation.

16.  Economic motivation

The Table 1 shows that regarding category-wise, head-reach farmers had medium level of economic motivation (38%) followed by high and low levels (28%). In the remaining two reaches (mid and tail), farmers had high level of economic motivation followed by medium and low levels. The reason might be due to the high educational status, innovativeness and information source utilization, which would have increased economic motivation level of farmers.  

17.  Risk preference

It is evident from the table 1 that more than one third of total respondents in all the three reaches had been seen with high level of risk preference (37%). In reach wise, head and mid-reach farmers were having similar levels of risk preference. The tail-reach farmers were equally distributed in their risk preference in all levels. The high education status and more innovativeness were the probable reasons for facing risk preference in adoption of water management practices.  

18.  Supplemental irrigation sources

It could be observed from Table 1 that more than fifty per cent of total respondents were having bore wells as supplemental irrigation sources followed by 45 per cent of respondents possessed wells as supplemental irrigation sources. Regarding the reach wise, more number of bore wells observed in head and mid-reaches. The tail-reach farmers (64%) possessed wells and thirty six per cent of respondents possessed bore wells also. It shows that majority of farmers are utilizing supplemental irrigation sources (Bore-wells and wells) for irrigation due to inadequate water availability in canal at critical stages. The findings are conformity with findings of Krishnaraj (2004). 

19.  Conditions of irrigation structures

Table 1 shows that 65 per cent of respondents expressed that conditions of irrigation structures were good followed by 34 per cent rated as poor. Regarding reach wise, more than sixty per cent of respondents in all three reaches expressed that the conditions of irrigation structures were good. Very meager per cent (2%) of respondents in mid and tail reaches expressed satisfactory condition of irrigation structures. The Public Work Department officials with help of the water user's association in the area had maintained the irrigation structures in good condition to have a high flow and equal distribution of water in all reaches.      

 20.  Equitability of water distribution 

In reach wise, 50 per cent of respondents in head-reach reported that equal distribution of water at all reaches (head, mid and tail reaches). In mid-reach, majority (78%) of the respondents expressed that equitability of water distribution at two reaches only followed by 18 per cent of the respondents for all reaches. Regarding tail-reach, 58 per cent reported that equal water distribution at two reaches only (head, mid) followed by (26%) at all reaches (head, mid and tail reaches). This shows that equal distribution of water was reported at head and mid-reaches only. Due to this, the tail reach farmers could not have much access to equal distribution of water.     

21.  Timely availability of water

Regarding the timely availability of water, Table 1 indicates that more than sixty per cent of total respondents reported that water was not available at critical stages, while 32 per cent reported the availability of water in critical stages. Regarding the reach-wise, more than fifty per cent of respondents in all reaches expressed that non-availability of water at critical stages. The poor condition of irrigation structures, seepage and percolation loss of water leads to non availability of water in time.   

 

22.  Period of availability of water

In the case of period of availability of water Table 1 shows that more than sixty per cent of the total respondents expressed that the availability of water for two seasons alone followed by one third (33.33%) expressed the availability for one season and (3.33%) meager per cent reported for all seasons. Regarding reach wise, majority (86%) of the head-reach farmers expressed that water availability was there for two seasons. In mid-reach, sixty six per cent of respondents expressed that the water availability was there for two seasons. More than fifty per cent of respondents expressed that availability of water for one season in tail-reach. 

With respect to period of availability of water, nearly two third in over all reported that availability of water in two seasons, while one third stated that availability of water in only one season. The findings are conformity with findings of Krishnaraj (2004). 

23.  Irrigation adequacy                    

Regarding reaches, 50 per cent of tail-reach farmers reported that availability of canal water was partially adequate and 48 and 40 per cent of head and mid-reach farmers expressed that availability of water as adequate. This shows that in all reaches, irrigation adequacy is perceived as partially adequate. This might be due to monsoon failure and inadequate rainfall.

Conclusion

The farmers in all reaches were equally distributed in their age category, majority were found to be educationally with primarily level followed by middle school educated, the respondents in all the reaches had farming with business and farming with services as occupational status followed by farming alone.. High level of annual income, medium level of cropping intensity, high level of information source utilization and high level of mass media exposure were observed. Majority of the respondents in all the reaches have attended one day training on water management. More bore-wells were observed in head and mid reaches serving as supplemental irrigated sources.

The tail-reach farmers possessed open wells and bore-wells as supplemental irrigation sources. Majority's perception on condition of irrigation structures were good and poor perception was seen among a meager per cent of respondents. Majority reported that equal distribution of water was ensured only at head and mid reaches.

 References:    

  • Kavitha, S. 2001. Integrated water management - An expost facto study on differential knowledge and adoption behaviour of rice growers. Unpub. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, AC&RI, TNAU, Coimbatore
  • Krishnaraj, A. 2004. Awareness, knowledge, extent of adoption and consequential effects of water management/conservation practices. Unpub. M.Sc.(Ag.) Thesis, AC&RI, TNAU, Coimbatore.


 

1. Associate Professor (Extn), ODL, TNAU, Cbe-3, 2. Associate Professor (Agronomy), TCRS, Yethapur, Salem District, 3. Professor (Extn), Community Radio, DOEE, TNAU, Cbe-3
0
Your rating: None Average: 4 (1 vote)

Please note that this is the opinion of the author and is Not Certified by ICAR or any of its authorised agents.