Profile characteristics of canal command area farmers
Basubramaniam.P, Manickam, S and R. VijayaraghavanAbstract
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
- Login to post comments
- 2406 reads