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