P.G. AND RESEARCH DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS KHADIR MOHIDEEN COLLEGE ADIRAMPATTINAM

Dr. Mrs. N. CHITHRA, M.A., M.Phil., Ph.D., Associate Professor & Research Advisor,

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the thesis entitled “THE IMPACT OF NEW

AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY ON INCOME AND EMPLOYMENT

OF FARMERS IN THANJAVUR DISTRICT ” submitted by A. RAJA

MOHAMED (Ref. No. 004646 / PhD2 / Eco / PT / July 2008) is a bonafide record of research work done by him under my guidance in the Department of

Economics, Khadir Mohideen College, Adirampattinam and that the thesis has not previously formed the basis for the award of any degree or any other similar title. The thesis is the outcome of personal research work done by the candidate under my overall supervision.

Date : (N. CHITHRA) Station:

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the work embodied in this thesis has been originally carried out by me under the guidance and supervision of

Dr. N. CHITHRA , Associate Professor & Research Adviser, Department of

Economics, Khadir Mohideen College, Adirampattinam. This work has not been submitted either in whole or in part for any other Degree or Diploma of any university.

(A. RAJA MOHAMED)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

At the outset, I wish to express my gratitude to Dr. N. CHITHRA ,

M.A., M.Phil., Ph.D., Department of Economics, Khadir Mohideen College,

Adirampattinam, for her expert guidance and invaluable help throughout the study. Mere words would not suffice to explain her persistent encouragement, advice and help to complete this research. It is a great pleasure and excellent experience to work under her guidance.

I am thankful to Dr. Mohamed Abdul Khadir, M.A., M.Phil., Ph.D.,

Principal and Secretary, Management Committee, for having granted permission to do Ph.D. (Part-Time) programme in Khadir Mohideen Colllege,

Adirampattinam.

I am sincerely thanking to all the Faculty Members of the Department of Economics, Khadir Mohideen College, Adirampattinam, for their timely help and moral support.

I am greatly indebted to Dr. D. Kumar, M.A., M.Phil., DPMIR.,

B.Ed., Ph.D., Reader in Economics, Jamal Mohamed College, Trichy for his valuable help and timely suggestions.

Last but not the least, I owe a great deal to my beloved Parents and

Wife for their selfless and constant help.

A.A.A. Raja Mohamed

CONTENTS

Chapter Page Title No. No.

I. Introduction 1

II. Review of Literature 34

III. Profile of the Study Area and Materials and Methods 74

IV. General Description of Tamil Nadu 90

V. Analysis and Discussion - I 122

VI. Analysis and Discussion – II 143

VII. Summary and Conclusion 193

Bibliography B1

Appendices A1

1. Interview Schedule

2. Papers Published

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page Title No. No.

Details of the sources and extent of irrigation in Thanjavur 3.1 77 District

The land utilization in Thanjavur district, Thanjavur, 3.2 78 Orathanadu and Papanasam block (2008-09)

Annual rainfall in Thanjavur district in 2007-2008 and 3.3 79 2008-09

3.4 Temperature of Thanjavur district 80

Density of population in Tamilnadu and India 1991 and 4.1 91 2001

Demographic characteristics of Tamilnadu and its sub-region 4.2 92 1991 and 2001

4.3 Land use pattern in Tamilnadu 93

4.4 Rainfall 94

4.5 Crop wise area irrigated 96

4.6 Per cent of area irrigated under crops 98

4.7 Land utilization in Tamil Nadu 99

4.8 Rainfall during 2003-2009 100

4.9 Normal Rainfall: 967.2mm 101

4.10 Crop pattern of Tamilnadu 103

4.11 Productivity (yield) of major crops in Tamilnadu 104

Growth rate of Area, Production and Yield of Major crop in 4.12 105 Tamilnadu Distribution of household across size of grass land for rural 4.13 107 Tamilnadu

4.14 Districtwise data - waste land in Tamilnadu 108

4.15 Paddy production on 31.9.2010 110

Details of regulated markets, check posts, rural godowns, 4.16 commercial grading centres, kapas grading centres and 113 tobacco grading centre in Tamil Nadu

4.17 Infrastructure facilities available in the regulated markets 114

4.18 Infrastructure facilities available in the regulated markets 115

4.19 Marketing institution during 2007-2008 (upto December) 117

4.20 Marketing of agricultural produce in 2008-2009 (upto December) 118

4.21 The number of godowns and their capacities 119

5.1 Type of farming of the sample respondents 122

5.2 Agewise schedules of the respondents in the study area 124

5.3 Educational Status of the respondents in the study area 125

5.4 Type of family respondents of the farmers in the study area 127

5.5 Caste-wise distribution of the respondents in the study area 129

5.6 Sources of Irrigation to sample farmers 131

5.7 Sources of money for irrigation 133

5.8 Type of seed use pattern of paddy cultivators 134

5.9 Purchase of water irrigation 136

5.10 Pattern of fertilizer and manure used by sample farmers 139

5.11 Sources of mass media for irrigation 14 6.1 Family Composition in the Study Area 143

6.2 Percentage of population with different levels of education 146

Occupational Analysis of Persons in the Working Age 6.3 149 Group in Percentage

6.4 Pattern of Household Income per annum 151

6.5 Pattern of Household Expenditure 153

6.6 Assets of the Farmers 155

6.7 Liabilities of Farmers 157

6.8 Area under different soil type in Study Area 158

6.9 Source of Irrigation in the Sample Villages 158

6.10 Area under Different Crops in Sample Farms 159

Extent of Spread of New Varieties of Major Crops in 6.11 162 Sample Farms

6.12 Constraints for Adoption of Mechanization 165

6.13 Pre Acre Yield of Major Crops in Sample Farms 168

Gross Income, Farm Business Income, Net Income for 6.14 175 Major Crops in Sample Farms

Operation wise distribution of Human Labour for Major 6.15 180 Crops in Sample Farms (mandays / acre)

Relationship between Level of Literacy rate and New 6.16 191 Agricultural Technology

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page Title No. No.

5.1 Type of farming of the sample respondents 123

5.2 Educational Status of the respondents in the study area 126

5.3 Type of family respondents of the farmers in the study area 128

6.1 Family Composition in the Study Area 145

6.2 Percentage of population with different levels of education 148

Occupational Analysis of Persons in the Working Age 6.3 150 Group in Percentage

6.4 Pattern of Household Income per annum 152

6.5 Annual Expenditure on Food Item 154

6.6 Assets of the Farmers 156

6.7 Constraints for Adoption of Mechanization 167

Chapter --- III

Introduction 1

CHAPTER – I

INTRODUCTION

1.1. Introduction

The Indian Agricultural sector provides employment to about 65 per cent of the labour force, accounts for 27 per cent of GDP, contributes 21 per cent of total exports, and raw materials to several industries. The Livestock sector contributes an estimated 8.4 per cent to the country’s GDP and 35.85 per cent of the agricultural output. India is the seventh largest producer of fish in the world and ranks second in the production of inland fish. Fish production has increased from 0.75 million tons in 1950-51 to 5.14 million tons in

1996-97, a cumulative growth rate of 4.2 per cent per annum, which has been the fastest of any item in the food sector, except potatoes, eggs and poultry meat. The future growth in agriculture must come from [G.B. Singh, 2000] viz.,

new technologies which are not only "cost effective" but also "in

conformity" with natural climatic regime of the country;

technologies relevant to rain-fed areas specifically;

continued genetic improvements for better seeds and yields;

data improvements for better research, better results, and sustainable

planning;

bridging the gap between knowledge and practice; and 2

Judicious land use resource surveys, efficient management practices and sustainable use of natural resources.

A central issue in Agricultural Development is the necessity to increase productivity, employment, and income of poor segments of the agricultural population. Among the rural poor, the small farmers constitute a sizeable portion in the developing countries. Studies by FAO have shown that small farms constitute between 60-70 per cent of total farms in developing countries and contribute around 30-35 per cent to total agricultural output [Randhawa &

Sundaram, 1990].

Liberalisation era (1990-91) began in India when over 40 per cent of rural households were landless or near landless, and over 96 per cent of the owned holdings and 68.53 per cent (over 2/3rd ) of owned land belonged to the size groups (marginal, small and semi-medium). The decade of 1981-82 to

1991-92 seems to have witnessed a marked intensification of the marginalisation process - the percentage of small owners increased from 14.70 per cent to 21.75 per cent.

Small farmers emerged as the size group with the largest share of 33.97 per cent in the total land, which has just doubled during this decade. As regards the large farmers, they were 1 per cent of the total owners in 1990-91 but owned nearly 13.83 per cent of the total land. An interesting, but speculative, inference is that the changing position of the large owners represents the other side of the marginalisation process, i.e., the presence, and possibly growing 3

strength, of a small but dominant and influential group in agriculture.

Analytical reports reveal that marginalisation process could gather further momentum in the years ahead to become an explosive source of economic and political turbulence, due to the features of prevailing policy-cum-market environment in the country.

Trend towards a greater casualisation (erratic and low-paid work) of the workforce that was witnessed in the 1980s appears to have continued in the1990s. Low productivity and inability to absorb the growing labour force make the agricultural sector in India witness to a pervasive process of marginalisation of rural people. This process is likely to get intensified in the coming years, raising formidable problems in achieving sustained development of rural areas and rural people [VM Rao & Hanumappa, 1999].

Both Information Technology, Genetic Engineering and Bio-Technology, which are the "drivers" of globalisation with their complementarities of liberalisation, privatisation and tighter Intellectual Properties Rights, are bound to create new risks of marginalisation and vulnerability. Information

Technology is able to produce a penetrating and clinical mapping of the land, encompassing the physical, chemical and biological features, and groundwater resources, and forecast of climatic conditions in a focussed manner, that even small geographical segments - the small farms - can be benefited through the guidance provided by the ways in which natural and human resources can be optimally combined with appropriate technologies, inputs and options to 4

enhance and diversify agricultural production [KVS2K]. Information

Technology will facilitate dissemination of information on development, education, extension, husbandry, marketing, production, and research, to agricultural farmers.

Indian agriculture is characterised by overwhelmingly small holdings due to higher population density and nearly two-third of its population residing in the rural areas coupled with unabated land fragmentation due to the inheritance laws of the country. Nearly 62 per cent of the estimated 142 m ha area is rainfed. Major sources of farm power include both animate (humans and draught animals) as well as inanimate sources such as diesel engines, tractors and electric motors. India’s well-orchestrated Green Revolution began in the mid 60’s. It was ushered in through the adoption of higher and balanced doses of the biological, chemical and mechanical inputs together with the timely intervention of the Government. The latter ensured the availability of the required inputs of high yielding seed varieties, fertilizers, pesticides water and improved power sources and equipment. The Government provided the minimum support price, easy access to procurement markets, rural roads and other infrastructures which helped to trigger the green revolution in selected areas of the country. Resultantly gross food production increased from 50.8 M tons in 1950-51 to 199.3 M tons in 1996-97 and land productivity rose from

0.58 tons/ha/year to more than 2.14 tons/ha/year. Whereas the quantum jump in production and productivity was brought about by a combination of factors, farm mechanization was often at the centre of controversy due to its impact on 5

employment of human labour in a labour abundant economy. This paper reviews the findings of various researchers on the impact of farm mechanization on agricultural production and productivity, cropping intensity, human labour employment on the farm, subsidiary and non-farm employment as well as gross farm income and net return.

1.2. Need for the Study

Agricultural technology has been a primary factor contributing to increases in farm productivity in developing countries over the past half- century. Although there is still widespread food insecurity, the situation without current technology development would have been unimaginable.

 New technology can provide additional rural employment, but there are

always countervailing pressures to reduce labour input and lower its

costs.

 Food prices are demonstrably lower because of technology, but the

distribution of benefits between consumers and producers depends on

the nature of the local economy and trade patterns.

The adoption of technology requires adequate incentives for producers.

Investments in labour or cash will not be made unless there are adequate returns. One of the most important supporting factors is the adequacy of markets for outputs and inputs. Although there is much academic debate regarding the nature and impact of technological change, the important issues for development assistance agencies are related to other uncertainties. These include: 6

 identifying the most effective planning procedures for directing

agricultural technology to poverty reduction;

 establishing the role of agriculture in national development strategies;

 deciding the degree to which agricultural investments are appropriate for

marginal areas;

 identifying the correct mix of public, private and civil society support to

agricultural technology generation;

 and identifying the types of technology that warrant support.

Because agricultural technology addresses multiple, and at times conflicting, objectives, there is a need for careful planning. But there is a trade- off between investment in micro-level technology screening, on the one hand, and support to basic institutional capacities and political responsiveness, on the other. The rhetoric of technological revolutions should be eschewed in favour of consistent attention to building technological capacity in response to changes in the rural economy. One of the most difficult choices is that which faces the appropriate level of (agricultural) support for poverty reduction in marginal areas.

1.3. Motivation for the study

Agriculture has a specialized significance as it can play an important role in improving the socio-economic status of a sizable section of the weaker population. It gives safeguard to the crop failures in the event of natural calamities. In most cases the livestock is the source of cash income for the 7

subsistence farmers as well as endurance of family purchasing power in the event of unprofitable agriculture due to unforeseen reasons. This immense potential is limited by the traditional and tenure system and subsistence farming practices (traditional technologies) that unfortunately seldom assure , or generate adequate returns which can promote the development of more commercially oriented livestock production systems. If agricultural technologies developed for farmers in developing countries are not transferred in correct (appropriate) manner and adopted accordingly, all the efforts by the researchers who developed new technologies would have been in vain. This is probably why transfer and adoption of new technologies is perhaps one of the most popular written about and controversial topics in developing agriculture

(Nell et al 1998). Technology transfer and development is not a new concept, it has been around since mankind discovered things that they did not know before

(Finlayson 1995). A farmer is a rational decision maker who normally strives for a better standard of living and seeks ways of adopting new technologies to accomplish this goal (Nell et al 1998).

1.4. Statement of the problem

The extent of commercialization and modernization of agriculture implicitly indicates the stages of the development. Introduction of modern technology expands production, which normally is larger than that required for family consumption and retention for seed purposes. With the spread of 8

modern technology, the process of monetization and commercialization of agricultural gets accelerated.

Modern agriculture, in the areas where it has been adopted, has had considerable impact on the life and economic activity of the people. The farmers are more receptive to new ideas and willing to take risks. The adoption of technology is also inducing organizational changes. New institutions have been established and agencies have been developed for ensuring services and supplies required by modern agriculture.

The agricultural sector has to grow at a rate much faster than before not only for its own sake but for the sake of the economy as a whole. It has a large potential to contribute to the National Income and provide direct employment and income to the numerically targeted and vulnerable sections of society. The main aim of this study is to analyze the following objectives:

1.5. Objectives

The study is undertaken with the general objective of assessing the contribution of new farm technology to the income and employment potentials of the farmers in the region of Thanjavur district.

 To assess the impact of new agricultural technology on employment of

small, medium and large farmers.

 To examine the impact of new agricultural technology on income of the

farmers

 To look into the impact of the use of fertilizer on agricultural

production. 9

1.6. Hypotheses

 New agricultural technology introduction to large farmer category is

viable than the small and medium farmers.

 There is a significant relationship between level of income and new

agricultural technology application.

 Application of chemical fertilizer is more suitable to the new varieties of

agricultural seed than the old one.

 There is a positive relationship between level of literary rate and new

agricultural technology.

1.7. Theoretical framework

Increasing agricultural productivity is central to reducing poverty – Technology’s Role

Mellor’s model of agricultural development is yet another significant contribution to agricultural economics. This model is a basic explanation of agricultural transformation from his traditional character to modernization.

Although not strictly cast in the Schultzian framework, it is an orderly exercise of agricultural dynamics. Prof. J.W. Mellor’s model entitled “The Economics of Agricultural Development” came in 1966, two years after Schulz’s

‘Transforming Traditional Agriculture’ was published. Even though in some respect Mellor agrees with Schultz but comparatively his approach is more pragmatic and extensive in nature. Mellor explains systematically the evolution of agriculture form primitive technology to modern agricultural technology. 10

Mellor believed that along the time path, agriculture undergoes some changes which initiate its transition from tradition to modernity.

Mellor believes that at any point of time, agriculture of an economy may be found to be one of the following three phases:

(i) Traditional agriculture.

(ii) Technologically dynamic agriculture with low capital / labour

intensive technology.

(iii) Technologically dynamic agriculture with high capital / labour

saving technology.

Mellor suggested following steps to smoothening as also to the rapid agricultural growth during this phase:

 Strengthening institutional environment

 Encouragement to research

 Supply of new improved physical inputs

 Setting of institutions to service agricultural production

 Spread of education

Boserup is one of those economists who have made fundamental contribution to the explanation of the process of agricultural development.

Boserup’s work assumed importance for the reason that it stoutly refuted the

Malthusian view on the relationship between agricultural development and human population-besides, of course bringing in focus the alternative explanation of agricultural transformation. Distinctly her explanation brings out 11

rising population as a stimulant for agricultural development rather than as a handicap culminating in the emergence of a situation wherein cruel hand of nature forces equilibrium by reducing the human population to existing food supply.

In her analysis, she attempts to inquire into the causes of agricultural development. She attributes agricultural development to a compelling situation arising on account of fast rising population in an economy. The development of patterns and techniques of cultivation are governed by the rate of population growth. In support of her assertion she examines agricultural development in some African and Latin American Countries.

Malthus constructed his treatise of population on the following two postulates:

(i) food is necessary to the existence of man, and

(ii) passion between the sexes is inevitable.

The two postulates were further used to deduce the third one namely

“the power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in earth to produce subsistence for them”.

He believed in some kind of equilibrium between population and food supply. If any time food supply increases more than the population growth, then, according to Malthus population will increase and a new equilibrium will be restored between population and food supply. On the other hand, if population growth of an economy is already beyond the means of subsistence, 12

it brings untold human sufferings and through positive checks, population will come down to reach an equilibrium level with food supply.

Both these aspects of Malthusian theory of population have been refuted by Boserup. She refutes first point of the theory by saying, “Few observers would like to suggest that the tremendous increase in the rates of population growth withnessed throughout the underdeveloped world in the two post war decades could be explained as a result of changes in the conditions for food production. It is reasonably clear that the population explosion is a change in basic conditions which must be regarded as autonomous in the sense that the explanation is to be sought not in the improved conditions for food production but in medical inventions and some other factors which the student of agricultural development would regard as independent variables.

Boserup refutes the second part of the Malthusian theory in a more emphatic and direct manner. According to her, “whenever, there is population pressure or not population does not go down. It rather leads to various technical and other changes which result in agricultural growth and increase in food supply. The technological changes in agriculture need not be considered autonomous in relation to population.

Stages of agricultural development

 the forest fallow stage

 bush fallow

 short fallow 13

 annual cropping

 multiple cropping

Boserup’s theory and present day underdeveloped Economics

Though Prof. Boserup substantiates her assertions taking examples relating to primitive agriculture, she maintains that her theory is valid even in the modern times for underdeveloped economics with underdeveloped industrial sector. In this connection, she writes, “The modest increase in output per man hour which can be obtained by the use of industrial products or scientific methods in such communities may not be sufficient to pay for the very scare resources of skilled labour and foreign exchange which they absorb”. It seems somewhat unrealistic, therefore, to assume that a revolution of agricultural techniques by means of modern industrial and scientific methods will take place in the near future in countries which have not yet reached the stages of urban industrialization (as a result of growing populaton)”.

Historically the stages of agricultural development as enunciated by

Boserup may not occur simultaneously in all the countries of the world.

Differential levels of development will certainly affect, though to some extent only, the experience of evolution of agricultural transformation of the underdeveloped countries, yet the sequential order of occurrence of different stages of development will remain the same. Boserup, therefore, is right in asserting that her explanation of agricultural development is valid for the present day underdeveloped agrarian economics of the world. 14

Production is a process whereby certain goods and or services are used to create goods and or services of a different nature. Production is the sname given to the process of conversion of certain inputs into a consumable form.

Farm production likewise refers to the producing of food, fibre and livestock by using several different kinds of inputs. Land is used by the farmers as a factory which helps them produce the desired crop. To this manufacturing plan

(land) labour and capital are added to cultivate plant and harvest the crop.

When considered necessary, fertilizer is also added by the farmers. Water may either be provided by rainfall or by artificial irrigation methods. Application of all these inputs results in the desired crops (output). The crops so produced are, in turn, consumed by the population, fed to animals which produce meat, milk, eggs and many other livestock and poultry products through complex biological processes.

Agricultural production economics is, thus, concerned with the quantitative relationships which are basic to production processes in agriculture. ‘These relationships take the form of input-output patterns, and the various types of interactions among the individuals inputs themselves and among the products which contribute to the output. It is also concerned with levels of factor costs and product prices and with the nature of production patterns which allow the attainment of certain desired optima, like profit 15

maximization or cost minimization,” 1 The subject matter of production economics covers all agricultural problems that fall under the scope of resource allocation and marginal productivity analysis. The farmer as a production economist is hence concerned with any phenomena which have a bearing on economic efficiency in the use of agricultural resources.

We have seen that there are three main factors of production, viz., land, labour and capital at the disposal of the farmer. It is the job of the farmer to use these three inputs in combination on the farm. In doing so, the farmers have to perform two distinct functions. In the first place, he has to act as entrepreneur or proprietor of the farm business and is responsible for farming the general policy or plan on which his business and his system of farming is based. In the second place, he has to act as chief executive or farm manager and is responsible for the administration of the plan. Both these functions of the farmer are concerned with the fundamental problem of ascertaining and adopting the optimum combination of land, labour and capital at the disposal of the farmer. Under any given set of circumstances, the optimum combination is that which will enable the farmer to obtain the maximum financial output for the minimum financial input from his farm as a whole.

Agriculture plays a unique role in reducing poverty. Partly this reflects the sheer number of poor people engaged in it. Around 75 per cent of those surviving on less than US$1 a day - the internationally agreed definition of

1 Robertson, C.A: An Introduction to Agricultural Production Economics and Farm Management, Tata Mc – Graw Hill, Mumbai, 1971. 16

absolute poverty – live in rural areas (IFAD, 2001) and agriculture is an important source of livelihood. It is estimated that 70 per cent of sub-Saharan

Africa's labour force and 67 per cent of South Asia's, work in agriculture

(Maxwell, 2001). But the argument in favour of agriculture as the poverty- alleviating sector par excellence rests on more than population statistics.

Improvements in agricultural productivity have a powerful knock-on effect to the rest of the economy by: creating jobs in neighbouring sectors such as food processing and input supply as well as directly in farming; increasing the supply of affordable food; and stimulating and supporting wider economic growth and development.

To the extent that technology raises agricultural productivity, it should be the major factor in creating these positive effects. Thirtle et al (2003) explored the relationship between agricultural productivity and poverty. They drew on observations between 1985 and 1993 in 48 developing countries and found that a 1 per cent improvement in crop yields reduced the proportion of people living on less than US$1 per day by between

0.6 and 1.2 per cent.

No other sector has demonstrated such a comparably high impact on poverty. Thus, Lipton (2001) argues that no other sector than agriculture offers the same possibilities to create employment and lift people out of poverty.

Indeed, the adoption of new technologies and subsequent increases in agricultural productivity in different parts of the world explain, in large part, 17

the regional differences in the reduction of poverty over the last few decades.

Nkamleu et al. (2003) calculate changes in agricultural productivity in 10 countries in sub-Saharan African countries between 1972 and 1999. In contrast with significant progress in Asia, Nkamleu et al found that, on an average, total factor productivity decreased in that period by 0.2 per cent annually. They suggest that, whilst efficiency was constant, technological change was the main cause of the failure of total factor productivity to increase.

How widespread has the adoption of new technology been?

Technological change in agriculture began at least 10,000 years ago, when the first cultivators selected wild plants and experimented with different growing environments. From those early beginnings, the technical performance of agriculture in the great civilizations remained roughly equivalent for centuries until the middle of the nineteenth century, where, principally in

Europe and North America, the introduction of new machinery and sources of power (Grigg, 1974), the rediscovery of Mendel’s experiments leading to the development of scientific plant breeding, and the development of artificial fertilisers, resulted in rapid increases in agriculture productivity.

Rapid technological change – leading to marked productivity increases - has clearly occurred in parts of the developing world, primarily over the last half century. This was particularly apparent during the Green Revolution - a term originally applied to the spread of short-straw, fertiliser-efficient new 18

varieties of rice and wheat, primarily, though not exclusively, in Asia.

Throughout the developing world, average cereal yields increased by 2.7 per cent per annum between 1966 and 1982 (IFAD, 2001). Performance in South

Asia was especially impressive, where, between the mid-1960s and the mid-

1980s, wheat yields increased by 240 per cent and those of rice by 160 per cent

(Kerr and Kolavalli, 1999). Gains from new technology have also occurred in other crops and regions, thanks in large measure to investments in agricultural research and extension. Since the mid 1980s progress in the rates of productivity increases achieved has slowed - the annual rate of increase in developing country cereal yields falling to an average of 1.7 per cent (IFAD,

2001). While some commentators point to reduction in external assistance to developing country agriculture as a cause of this (Pinstrup- Andersen et al.,

1997), a slow-down in productivity gains is almost certainly attributable - in part at least - to the Green Revolution ‘running out of steam,’ having achieved the easy gains under relatively favourable conditions in its early phases. The spread of new technologies has been impressive, particularly improved

“modern varieties” (MVs) of grains. By 1990 MVs represented an estimated 74 per cent of rice, 70 per cent of wheat and 57 per cent of the maize grown in the developing world (Byerlee, 1994). Although these figures reflected in part the

Green Revolution package of seed, fertiliser and irrigation, a substantial proportion of these MVs are grown with low or no external inputs (Byerlee and

Lopez-Pereira, 1994). But the story is not just confined to cereals, or to the 19

development of yield maximizing varieties. New technologies have also been developed for non-cereals, and many MVs have been developed principally for their resistance to pests and diseases. For example, improved cassava varieties have spread rapidly in parts of West Africa (Nweke et al. , 2002) and research undertaken in Nigeria in the 1970s was fundamental to the development of cassava resistant to mosaic virus in Uganda nearly two decades later (Otim-

Nape et al., 2000). New disease-resistant bean varieties have been extensively adopted by most small-scale farmers in western Kenya (David et al., 2002).

New varieties of potato, sweet potato, pearl millet, sorghum, groundnut, pigeon pea, soybean, chickpea, lentil, durum wheat and barley have also increased the yields, particularly of resource-poor farmers. Advances in crop management technology have also occurred but these are often less visible and tend to be under-reported compared to the spread of new varieties, but these too have made significant contributions to increased agricultural productivity. For example, agroforestry research has led to the widespread adoption of improved fallows in eastern Zambia, making an important contribution to soil fertility and increased yields (Franzel et al., 2002). The adoption of reduced-tillage practices in Brazil has increased productivity on more than 500,000 hectares

(Landers, 2001). Significant advances have also been made in the management of tillage, crop establishment and weed control in many areas of Asia (Hobbs et al., 2000).

20

What influences the adoption of new technology by farmers?

A range of factors appears to have been critical in determining the rate at which farmers have innovated new ideas and so been able to raise productivity for the benefit of growth and the pace of poverty reduction.

Secure output markets

Farmers will innovate to increase subsistence production, but as innovation generally implies some type of investment (in cash, labour or learning) the chances of farmers investing and innovating are greatly enhanced by the existence of secure markets. As evidence shows, it is difficult to overestimate the importance of reliable output markets as an incentive to new technology adoption. Dorward et al. (2004) argue that a key feature of many successful early Green Revolution environments was government’s role in stabilising output prices, a function which has been progressively dismantled in

Africa where innovation has been limited. Wiggins’ (2000) survey of African case studies found a number of success stories that contradict the general pessimism about African agriculture, but virtually every one was associated with well functioning output markets. In Malawi, Orr and Orr (2002) argue that unreliable maize markets lock many farmers into inefficiently producing as much of their own grain needs as possible, rather than innovating with new crops in which they may well have a comparative advantage.

Effective input supply systems, including credit

While there is danger in relying too heavily on “technology on the shelf”, effective input supply systems are essential, particularly when 21

technological change or advance depends on purchased inputs. Inadequate formal seed supply systems have been shown to dampen, or even preclude the diffusion of new crop varieties (Tripp, 2001). Increasing fertiliser use has long been plagued by difficulties in providing the right products in affordable pack sizes (Omamo and Mose, 2001). Establishing the systems to provide those inputs is, however, one of the major challenges for many technologies, and not merely the conventional seed-andchemical technologies. Delivery of tissue culture banana plantlets in Africa requires the development of a network of intermediary nurseries (Wambugu and Kiome, 2001). Nurseries are also crucial for the spread of many agroforestry technologies, and efforts at encouraging farmer groups to take on this role have largely failed (Bohringer and Ayuk,

2003). The delivery of veterinary technologies depends largely on the delivery role of the private sector (Leonard, 1993). But an operational system of input provision is often ineffective in the absence of effective credit systems.

Previous experiences with state-subsidised credit provision has received much justified criticism (Adams and Vogel, 1990) and new approaches are being considered, including linking input supply and output procurement (Dorward et al., 1998).

Supporting infrastructure – particularly irrigation

The presence of supporting infrastructure is fundamental to effective innovation on new technology and was a major factor in Asia’s successful

Green Revolution. Roads are critical to supporting input and output marketing 22

(Dorward et al., 2004), but the expansion of irrigation probably constituted the most important element of supportive investment. The expansion of irrigation in developing countries has been greatest where attaining increasing agricultural output through land expansion has been difficult and so gains are made by intensification. Thus, both South and East Asia have a much higher use of irrigated land compared to Africa (Table 1). By 2030, it is projected that about 80 per cent of future production gains will be made from intensification

(in part dependent on irrigation) with a much smaller proportion through land expansion (de Haen et al., 2003).

Risk and vulnerability

The relationship between risk and technology use is a perennial theme.

It can work in two directions. First, the adoption of agricultural technology can make a limited contribution to reducing the vulnerability of the poorest.

Examples include the adoption of drought resistant varieties that reduce the risk of crop failure because of drought. The use of irrigation can enable double cropping and lengthen the growing season, thereby smoothing production and consumption, and mitigating the impact of price volatility. Second, there can be trade offs between growth through agricultural technologies and risk since taking up new agricultural technology is, in itself, risky. Whilst improved productivity through agricultural technology can lead to increased incomes, adoption is associated with capital and transactions costs that poor people may not be able to afford. Furthermore, poor farmers struggle to control production 23

uncertainties. Whilst there are some instances of very poor people investing in quite risky technology (e.g. cotton farming in much of South India), on the whole, because poor people are risk averse , they tend to benefit less than others from agricultural technologies and stick to low risk, low return activities.

But have the poor benefited from new agricultural technology?

For many the key question remains: to what extent, and in what circumstances, have poor people benefited from new agricultural technologies or have the benefits been confined to the better off? Assessing this

“distributional” impact of new technology is difficult, as the uptake of innovations is inevitably skewed with the better-off usually being “early adopters.” Propositions regarding distributional impact should therefore be carefully specified, and any assessment of ultimate impact should not be based on the adoption pattern seen in the early years after technology release (Rogers,

1994).

Among the most useful (but rarest) assessments impact of technology’s on poverty are those that follow farming communities’ experiences over a longer-term period (Lanjouw and Stern, 1998; Hazell and Ramasamy, 1991).

These studies tend to show that the poor have benefited from new technologies, principally through increased employment opportunities and higher wage rates.

On the other side, a review by Freebairn (1995) of over 300 other studies related to the Green Revolution revealed a general increase in 24

inequality between regions as a result of technology upgrade. This conclusion however, requires qualification. First, it is inevitable that technological advance will lead to an adopting area becoming relatively better off compared with a non-adopting area. This simply underlines the importance of balancing investment in technology generation between marginal and favoured environments. Secondly, the review itself identified the difficulties in separating the impact of technological change from concomitant changes in population, policies or land tenure.

Rigg (1989), identified a similar issue: many negative assessments of the poverty impact of the early Green Revolution are examples of ‘guilt by association’ – the technology was seen as responsible for increasing inequality which was primarily the result of other factors including: farm concentration, urban migration, and so on, which accompanied technology dissemination.

Most of the evidence about the poverty reducing effect of agricultural technology comes from Asia. In Africa there are far fewer examples of where agricultural technology has benefited poor people. However, evidence from

Zimbabwe reveals a post-independence Green Revolution amongst smallholders which had a very significant impact on poverty. This was achieved through the introduction of hybrid maize, expanded access to credit, guaranteed prices and marketing subsidies. The outcome was a doubling of maize production between 1980 and 1986 (Eicher, 1995).

25

How does new agricultural technology benefit the poor?

A number of factors influence the extent to which the poor benefit from changes in agricultural productivity through the adoption of new technology.

These are discussed below, beginning with the two most important factors – impact on employment and food prices.

The impact on employment

Employment on the farms of others is of critical importance to the livelihoods of the poor. This is not just true for the classically landless, employment is also a vitally important way for many farmers to supplement their incomes. The impact of new technology on labour markets – specifically its impact on the demand for labour and wage rates - is of great importance to the poor. Most evidence on this issue comes from the Asian Green Revolution experience and, while often technology-specific, a number of general principles emerge with respect to the impact of new technology on the demand for labour and wage rates.

In terms of the impact on the demand for labour :

 the adoption of high yielding rice and wheat varieties generally

increased demand for labour due to the higher harvesting and threshing

requirements associated with their greater yields

 the majority of additional labour used was hired rather than family

labour (Lipton and Longhurst, 1989). This is particularly important for

the poorest. 26

 increased labour demand was the greatest when new varieties were

introduced into high potential areas and often associated with an

increase in cropping intensity. The impact was less pronounced in low

potential areas. (David and Otsuka, 1994; Lipton and Longhurst, 1989).

The impact on wage rates is more difficult to determine because there are numerous causal, and on occasion counteracting, factors. Some conclusions can be drawn though, including that:

 generally wages appear to have increased (IFPRI, 2002)

 labour saving technology has probably dampened the rate of wage

increases, although this does not mean that wages have fallen because of

the adoption of new technology. Lipton and Longhurst (1989), show that

while a doubling of yields increased wages by 40 per cent early in the

Green Revolution, a similar yield increase 20 years later resulted in only

a 10-15 per cent increase in wages due to mechanisation. Bautista

(1997) describes disappointing increases in the demand for agricultural

labour in the Philippines, explained in part by subsidised farm

mechanisation

 in some cases, e.g. herbicide adoption in rice systems (Naylor, 1994),

the introduction of labour-saving technology has been a response to

rising rural wage rates caused by growth in non-farm wage rates

 even where wage increases have been modest, the adoption of new

technology has frequently increased the number of employment days,

and on occasion, facilitated the introduction of contracts for casual

labourers (Leaf, 1983). 27

Food prices

For the poor, the price of food is critically important given the relatively larger proportion of their income generally spent on it. A relative lowering of food prices – particularly of staples - allows the poor to eat more and possibly better which has a positive impact on nutrition, health and food security. But cheaper food also releases income which can be spent on other goods and services with immediate positive benefits to the poor such as improved shelter or access to key services such as health and education. This release of income also creates demand for goods and services which can have a powerful multiplier effect on the wider economy. In many developing countries - and for the developing world as a whole - increases in the production of staple foods have comfortably outstripped population growth since the mid-1960s when the

Green Revolution began to be adopted widely. Only in Sub- Saharan Africa have food supplies grown slower than population during the last thirty years.

Given this significant increase in per capita supply, and the relatively low elasticity of demand for basic foods, the real world market prices of the major traded grains have steadily fallen since the early 1950s. At the individual country level, increased production of food grains can have a dramatic effect on prices. This is of great benefit to the poor, both in urban and rural areas, where many people buy, as well as grow their own food (De Janvry and Sadoulet, 2002; Jayne et al., 1999). But increasing production can also be a double-edged sword if it reduces prices to the extent that producer incomes fall. 28

However, where productivity increases due to technology match or even outpace the corresponding fall in prices, both net consumers and net producers can benefit. Bangladesh provides an excellent example of this. Between 1980 and 2000, production of rice and wheat increased from below 15 to over 25.7 million tonnes, increasing per capita availability over the same period from 425 to 510 grams per day, despite population increasing over the same period from

90 to 191 million people. Real wholesale prices in Dhaka markets of rice and wheat have consequently fallen dramatically, with the price of rice falling from just over Taka 20 to around Taka 11 per kg in two decades. But despite declining market prices, farmers have successfully increased their production, yields and incomes - rice yields have risen from an average of 2 tonnes to over

3.4 tonnes per hectare by the early 2000s – through the use of new varieties, fertiliser and, above all an expansion of irrigation. These improvements have allowed farmers to cut their unit costs of production and so offset the impact of falling prices on their incomes. It also appears that smaller farmers have not been excluded from this technology.

Nutrition and food utilization

There are numerous examples of how agricultural technology has benefited the nutritional status of poor households. These include:

 improved varieties with increased vitamin content that contribute to the

reduction of human disease;

 post-harvest fortification of crops to reduce vitamin deficiencies; 29

 longer cropping seasons to regulate food supply and reduce the number

of months that households go hungry; and

 improved storage and processing to extend the shelf-life of food and

reduce waste.

Access to land and other resources

The extent to which agricultural technology can benefit poor people clearly relates to existing inequalities in land and access to other resources.

There are various explanations that are couched in terms of the allocation of land and other resources of why poor people stay poor. There is concern that technologies may exasperate inequality in access to productive resources. One major criticism of the early Green Revolution was the fact that early adopters tended to be larger (richer) farmers. (Indeed, a large proportion of subsidies for

Indian farmers continue to go to richer farmers (Gulati & Narayanan, 2003)).

These farmers were able to take greater risks and gain economies of scale from applying new technologies to larger land holdings. Evidence suggests that, subsequently, smaller farmers caught up and, in some cases, took better advantage of the new technology (Lanjouw and Stern, 1998; Hazell and

Ramasamy, 1991). Nevertheless, it is widely accepted that, initially at least, technology is an unlikely way to overcome major inequalities in access to basic resources, especially land.

30

Gender issues

Gender-related effects of technology change are often important in determining the impact of adoption on poverty. Technology generation has tended to favour crops traditionally grown by men, who frequently have greater access to labour, markets, credit and other inputs than women to a degree that may impact negatively on the intra-household distribution of income and consumption (Doss, 2001). Addressing these challenges goes well beyond technology design, as maledominated societal rules and norms, and a complex household environment of ‘joint decisions, multiple objectives and mutual dependence’ (Bonnard and Scherr, 1994) make it difficult to target, or predict the gender-related outcomes of technology development. Simply targeting technology to women’s crops is not necessarily the answer. (von Braun and

Webb, 1989).

Sustainability issues

Whilst new technologies are important for poverty reduction, if not carefully managed, they can create additional demand on resources which may simply not be sustainable in future. The most obvious example of this is water, for example the lowering of water tables and loss of aquifier water, but other resources, including biodiversity and chemicals, are also discussed here.

Irrigation and water resources

The area of irrigated farmland has tripled since 1950 (Smil, 2000).The expansion has not been evenly distributed, with much greater increases in 31

irrigation in South and East Asia. Irrigation has, undoubtedly, been a central component in poverty-reducing agricultural growth. But poorly managed irrigation has led to falling water tables, salinisation and other problems.

Salinisation

Rosegrant et al. (2002) review evidence of salinisation. They argue that on a global scale there are about 20-30 million hectares of irrigated land that are severely affected by salinity. Furthermore, an additional 60-80 million hectares are affected to some extent by waterlogging and salinity. Some salinisation would have happened even without new technology but some have been encouraged by unsustainable subsidisation of irrigation.

Chemicals

The indiscriminate use of chemicals has also caused problems; Rola and

Pingali (1993) showed that pesticide use on rice in the Philippines results in negative economic benefits if human health costs are included in the analysis.

Biodiversity

Technological advance is often blamed for the loss of biodiversity, but the issues here are complex. Agricultural expansion generally has caused habitat destruction and, at the local level, productivity increases can attract new farmers to the agricultural frontier by making farming more profitable. But yield increases achieved through new technology have curbed deforestation and the cultivation of marginal lands. If world crop yields had remained at their 32

1960 levels, another 800 million hectares of land (equivalent to the Amazon

River basin) would have had to be brought into cultivation to meet current demand (Ausbel, 1996). Modern crop varieties have frequently displaced many local varieties. But the relationship of these changes to overall genetic diversity is difficult to unravel. Recent work shows that the uptake of wheat has not lowered genetic diversity (Smale, 1997) as farmers often adopt a new crop variety and grow it alongside their traditional varieties.

1.8. Limitation of the study

This is a micro level study and generalization of the findings for the whole region is not feasible.

Personal interview method is followed for data collection. The data collected was for the agricultural year 2009. The answers given by the farmers may not be accurate and adequate since they do not usually keep a proper record of costs and returns in cultivation of crops. Since the respondents rely on their memory and reply to the questionnaire may be biased. Even then all efforts have been taken to minimize the error by cross checking the information.

1.9. Chapter Scheme

The whole thesis is divided into seven chapters, where in

Chapter I deals with the introduction, need for the study, motivation for the study, objectives, hypotheses, theoretical framework of the study, limitations and chapter schemes. 33

Chapter II brings out an account the review of literature.

Chapter III presents the profile of the study area and methods and material.

Chapter IV deals with the general description in Tamil Nadu of the study.

Chapter V presents Analysis and discussion – I.

Chapter VI deals with the Analysis and discussion – II.

Chapter VII gives the summary and conclusion. It also offers some suggestions and further research. Chapter --- IIIIII

Review of Literature 34

CHAPTER - II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1. Review of related literature on the impact of mechanization on income of the farmers in India

Technology has a great impact on all aspects of economic life. It is inevitable and essential for accelerated development of under-developed countries. Infact, appropriate technology provides a valuable weapon in the war against poverty by making better use of available resources. This ultimately brings about prosperity for the entire population. In a nut-shell, technology promotes efficiency and satisfies human wants from scarce resources.

Technology is the body of knowledge, or the know-how, since the emergence of Green Revolution the change that taken place in utilizing technical knowledge is known as technological change. It is concerned with a shift in production function which indicates the technical relations between output and inputs.

In other words, it is the application of scientific discovery of production and distribution which creates new products, new processes of manufacture and changes in the methods of distribution. Technological change provides greater output from resources of land, labour and capital. In this way technology increases production with lower cost or better quality produce for the same cost. Technology can be defined in two senses. In its narrow sense, it deals 35

with equipments and machines which are employed in production. In other words, it involves reproducible tangible wealth which can be used a number of times.

In a broader sense, technology includes not only reproducible tangible wealth but also body of the knowledge, skills, ideas that help the development and use of such machines and equipment. In the context of under-developed agriculture, this broad definition is of great significance.

In short, technological change is expressed by capital, entrepreneurial skill, marginal land technical skill, a trained labour force and better utilization of labour, equipments and materials, improvement in the quality of resources, products and methods of production and nationalization of production process.

Technological change in agriculture comprises of introduction of high yielding variety of seeds, fertilizers, plant protection measures and irrigation.

These changes in agricultural sector enhance the productivity per unit of land and bring about rapid increase in production.

Technological change in agriculture can be classified into two (i) Land- augmenting technical change (ii) Labour-augmenting technical change. Land- augmenting technical change involves change in biological techniques in crop production. It includes mainly HYV of seeds fertilizers, irrigation and plant protection measures.

Labour-augmenting technical change includes mechanical changes, namely, rapid mechanization of agricultural operations, such as introduction of 36

traders combine harvestors. This change in agricultural technology in India is regarded as “Green Revolution”. This is associated with the package of agricultural inputs and new agricultural practices. The package approach which includes, apart from HYV of seeds, fertilizers, inputs, weedicides, control over water supply, tractors etc. are the major feature of new agricultural technology.

Indian agriculture has witnessed significant changes in production technology through the introduction of high yielding varieties of crops, especially wheat and intensive application of complementary modern inputs in farming. The new momentum created by modern seeds and fertilizers was considered the initiation of Green Revolution. Consequently, the consumption of several agro-inputs like pesticides, growths regulating compounds and weedicides have increased, besides the fertilizers all over the country. It is accepted that consequent to the adoption of modern technology the farm production has increased considerably.

Malya (1961) 1 defines income as the total agricultural household income of the family consisting of receipts from occupation, dairy enterprise, rent received, interest on loans and remittance received, if any.

Shetty (1963) 2 discusses the implication of technological advance in plantation crops in India and concludes that despite some gains in yield per acre of coffee, tea and rubber, cost per unit of output increases due to the adoption of new technology.

1 Meenakshi Malya, “An Analysis of personal income Distribution in Rural Areas”, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 16(3), P.187-196, 1961. 2 K.T. Shetty “Implication of Technological change in Commercial crops – A case study of plantation crops in India”, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 28(3), P.56-63, 1963. 37

Edwin Faris (1964) 3 states that improvement of plant and animal varieties, introduction of new type of insecticides and fertilizers, mechanization in agriculture and effective use of many of the factors of production have been esteemed as technological change.

National Council of Applied Economics Research (1964) 4 preferred the term ‘Motorization’ to Mechanization. Motorization according to it, would mean substitution of tractors for animals as means of traction as against the mechanization meaning substitution of machines for any kind of labour animal as well as human.

Bradford and Johnson (1964) 5 categorize farm expenses into four types:

i) Items which are wholly used within the year. These items include

seed, feed, fertilizers etc. This is sometimes called current expenses.

ii) Depreciation on properties.

iii) Decrease in inventories of operating capital, feed and supplies other

than feed.

iv) Uses of the labour services performed by the members of the family

other than the operator.

3 Edwin Faris, “Structural change and competitive relationship among buying and selling Firms”, Journal of Farm Economics, 46(5), P. 1238-1245, 1964. 4 National council of applied Economic Research Agriculture and live stock in Rajasthan, Chapter V – Page-44, Allied publishers, New Delhi, 1964. 5 Laurence A. Bradford and Glen L. Johnson “Farm management Analysis” (New York: John Willy and Sons) (inc. London, 1964) 5. 38

Sarkar and Prahaladachar (1966) 6 define technology as the combination of various productive factors and technological progress implies change in this input mix in such a way as to increase output per unit of resources and reduce production cost per rupee of output.

Kahlon and Kaul (1968) 7 have observed that the new strategy in agriculture revolves around the cultivation of high yielding varieties which are highly responsive to fertilizer and are at the same time more time resistant to insect, pest and diseases.

Lavania and Dixit (1968) 8 argue that the high yielding varieties yield higher than the local varieties is too general an observation for any economic analysis. The success of a programme of this nature should consider the net gains of the farm fairly and not mere increase in the physical product. Their study is intended to examine the economics of high yielding varieties of wheat, maize, bajra and compare it with that of the local varieties in one of the blocks of Aligary District.

Venkataram (1968) 9 makes a comparison between local and hybrid varieties of Jowar in their cost of cultivation, yield and returns and concludes that cost of cultivation for hybrid Jowar is more than that of for local variety

6 K.K. Sarkar and M.Prahaladachar, “Mechanization as a Technological Change”, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 21(1), P.171-182, 1966. 7 A.S. Kahlon and J.D. Kaul, “Comparative study of Economics of Hyv’s of wheat – Punjab State”. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 23(4), P.79-86, 1968. 8 G.S. Lavania and R.S. Dixit, “Economics of Hyv’s in package District, Aligarh,” Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 23(4), P.93-103, 1968. 9 J.V. Venkataram, “Economic Aspects of High yielding crops Hybrid Jowar” Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 23(4), P.134-138, 1968. 39

due to increased needs of fertilizers and pesticides and yield of hybrid Jowar is

2½ times more than that of local variety.

Bhati (1969) 10 shows that technological change mainly involves the use of wonder seeds coupled with the use of fertilizers irrigation, pesticides and other modern input.

Sharma (1969) 11 divides the cost of production of farm crops into fixed cost and variable cost. The fixed cost includes cash expenses on permanent human and animal labour, depreciation on farm implements and machineries, land revenue and cesses, rental value of land and interest on permanent investment other than lend.

The variable cost covers wages paid to hired human labour, cost of seed manures and fertilizers, irrigation charges betterment levy and miscellaneous costs such as plant protection charges, cost of gunny bags and interest on variable costs.

Shah and Agarwal (1970) 12 conclude that with the introduction of new technology, the income level of progressive farmers has considerably increased in Uttar Pradesh. There is a significant difference in the income level of progressive and less progressive farmers in the different size groups of

10 J.P. Bhati, “Adoption of improved seeds – prospects and problems”, Agricultural situation in India, 25(9), P.967-970, 1969. 11 A.C. Sharma, “Scale Economics in the production of Farm crops in the cotton Belt of Punjab” Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 49(3) P.283, 1969. 12 S.L .Shaw and R.C. Agarwal, “Impact of New Technology on the level of Income and pattern of income distribution and savings of farmers in Central U.P. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 25(3), P.110-121, 1970. 40

holdings and income inequalities have widened among the farmers due to the adoption of new technology.

Garg et al. (1970) 13 state that the adoption of HYV of crops have helped in increasing income proportionate to the percentage of adoption in all groups of farmers with the adoption of HYV, the additional income per hectare has accounted for more than double the expenditure. It is also observed that technology is neutral to the size of the farm and it tends to reduce the disparities between the various groups of farms.

Kahlon (1970) 14 observes that because of the divisible nature of the farm technology, farm income of small farmers tends to rise although those of the big farmers have risen faster.

Shaw and Singh (1970) 15 have conducted a study relating to technology and employment. They have observed that skilled labour is needed to perform the technically exacting routines of machinery, water, soil and crop management in the new technology. They compare a typical farm and a tractor farm and conclude the employment. On the typical farm/acre is more than that in the tractor farm which shows a decrease in employment due to mechanization.

13 J.S. Garh, G.N. Singh and H.L. Srivastava, “Impact of Hyv of crops on patterns of income distribution”. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 25(3), P.115-121, 1970. 14 A.S. Kahlon, “New Farm Technology its implications in Agricultural Economics”. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 25(4), P.1-11, 1970. 15 S.L. Singh and L.R. Singh, “The Impact of New Agricultural technology on Rural Employment in North West U.P.” Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 25(3), P.29-33, 1970. 41

Desai et al. (1970) 16 have undertaken study to measure the impact of use of improved seed and irrigation and to measure the change in participation of family labour in farming due to introduction of new methods of farming. They have worked out permanent, family and casual labour requirement for 5 crops namely groundnut, bajra, wheat, Jowar and cotton for both hybrid and local varieties and conclude that only improved varieties of wheat use less labour and could give less family labour earning than those under local varieties.

Bardhan (1970) 17 counter argues that the green revolution may not help in raising agricultural employment.

Vyas et al. (1970) 18 in their study to identify the size of holdings which would enable an average farmer become viable in terms of certain desired level of income by adopting high yielding varieties, conclude that for making non- viable farms viable the level of efficiency at which the new technology is adopted is more important than the extent of area brought under the new technology.

Bainer (1970) 19 observed that machines were more efficient in keeping of the time lines of the field operations and decreasing the use of human and animal energy.

16 D.R. Desai, G.A, Patel and R.J. Patel “Impact of Modern Farm technology on Rural Development in Saurastra”. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 25(3), P.33-39, 1970. 17 Pranab Bardhan, “Green Revolution and Agricultural Labourers” Economics Political Weekly 5(29,30&31), P.1239-1246, 1970. 18 V.S. Vyas – D.S. Tyagi and V.N. Misra, “Significance of the new strategy of agricultural development for small farmers- A cross sectional study of two areas of Gujarat” Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 25(1), P.115-116, 1970. 19 Bainer, S., “Mechanized crop production” Indian Journal of Agricultural News Digest 1(10,11), P.312-318, 1970. 42

Parnape (1970) 20 indicated that mechanization will increase the production and ultimately raise the standard of living and increase economic welfare. He was of the opinion that mechanization would increase the real purchasing power of the people and thus have a leverage effect in demand for other products.

According to Singh et al. (1971) 21 mechanization of agriculture means the use of machines like tractors, water pumps, threshers, chaff cutters operated by oil, battery or electricity in the place of similar implements operated manually or by bullock power.

Dandekar and Rath (1971) 22 viewed employment from the perspective of income in that an adequate level of employment must be defined in terms of its capacity to provide a minimum living to population.

Acharya (1972) 23 concludes that use of fertilizers and insecticides increases with the participation in the HYV programme and mechanization.

Secondly, bullock labour input increases with the HYV and decreases with mechanization. Thirdly, participant farms have relatively larger area under

20 Parnape, R., “Experiment in the use of Large scale machinery” Journal of Farm Economics 14(2), P.336-340, 1970. 21 K.B. Singh, B.B.P.S. Goel and V.V.R. Murthy, “Estimation of availability of bullock power in certain tracts of India”. Agricultural situation in India, 25(7), P.483-487, 1971. 22 Dandekar V.M., and Rath, “Poverty in India” Economic and political Weekly, 6 (2), P.138, 1971. 23 S.S. Acharya, “Impact of Technological change on Farm Employment and Income distribution in Agricuture” Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Division of Agricultural Economics, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, 1972. 43

irrigation compared to non-participants and percentage of irrigated are and fertilizers used is higher for small farmers compared to medium and larger farms.

According to Vendattappa (1972) 24 , mechanization is a picture of sophisticated machines increasingly engaged in the replacement of reduction of human and animal power.

Patel and Patel (1972) 25 viewed that any use of mechanized power in the place of human or animal power for agricultural operation amounts to farm mechanization.

Ramasamy (1972) 26 defines new technology as the use of hybrid seeds coupled with the use of chemical fertilizers, plant protection chemicals, improved implements and machines and effective use of many of these factors of production with high level of useful knowledge on the part of farm people.

Ramasamy (1972) 27 concludes that the income gap between the progressive and the less progressive farmers has widened consequent to the adoption of new technology and the level of income increases with the intensity of adoption of new technology.

24 Venkatappa, B., “Farm mechanization in India”, seminary series IX, problems of Farm Mechanization, Indian Society of Agricultural Economics, P.2-15, 1972. 25 S.M. Patel and K.V. Patel. “Progress of Farm Mechanization in India seminar series IX, problems of Farm Mechanization. India society of Agricultural Economics, P.29-44, 1972. 26 C. Ramasamy, “Impact of New Technology on Income and pattern of Income Distribution among farmers – A study in Palani Block, Madurai District, TamilNadu, unpublished M.Sc, (Agri,) thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics TamilNadu Agricultural University 1972. 27 C. Ramasamy, “Impact of New Technology Income and pattern of income distribution among farmers – A case study in Palani Block Madurai District, TamilNadu” Unpublished (M.Sc) Agriculture thesis department of Agricultural Economics, TamilNadu, Coimbatore 1972. 44

Subba Rao (1972) 28 observes the two striking features in the relationship between credit and adoption of high yielding variety technology

(a) the high proportion of owned fund for financing current farm expenditure on HYV and (b) the failure of the borrowers especially small farmers, to lift the entire credit made available to them by the Co-operative Institutions especially in Eastern India.

Ramasamy (1972) 29 observed groups and farms having 20 percent or more of total cropped area under high yielding varieties as progressive class and the rest as less progressive.

Singh et al. (1972) 30 classify high progressive farmers are those who are possessing tractor and tube-well having at least 50 percent of their cropped area under HYV of crops.

Progressive farmers are those who have their own tube wells and at least

25 percent of the area under HYV. Traditional farmers are those farmers who have no improved farm implements but are having less than 25 percent of the cropped area under high yielding varieties.

Parameshwara Rao (1972) 31 states that farm mechanization means application of mechanical power to perform agricultural operations and to increases farm production and to raise the standard of living of the people

28 K. Subba Rao, “Institutional credit, uncertainty and adoption of Hyv technology: A comparison of East Uttar Pradesh with West Utter Pradesh. 29 C. Ramasamy, “Impact of new technology on income and pattern of income distribution among farmers – A study in palani block Madurai District. TamilNadu, Department of Agricultural Economics, TNAU, 1972, Unpubishe (M.Sc) Agri. Thesis, Coimbatore. 30 Ram Iqbal Singh, R. Kunwar and Shri Ram “Impact of new agricultural technology and Mechanization on Labour Employment”. Indian Journal of Agricultual Economics 27(4), P.210- 214, 1972. 31 K. Parameshwara Rao, “Southern Economists, March 1982, Vol.20, No.21, Page.19. 45

working in agriculture. Mechanization is partial when only part of the farm work is done by machine. It is complete when animal or human labour is completely displaced by the power operated machines.

Nandal (1972) 32 defined the term farm income as the value of the crops and live-stock products sale of farm assets, receipts of rent, custom services etc.

Sharma (1972) 33 defined the gross income as the income from the crops grown, the value of both main products and by products were considered in estimating the gross income.

Farm income is the difference between receipts and expenses. It is what the operator received for his own and family labour for the year and for the use of the capital invested by them.

Rai et al. (1972) 34 define income of agricultural house hold, to include the total agricultural income, loan taken and non-agricultural income received during the period under study.

Pandey et al. (1972) 35 define income as the total of agricultural and non-agricultural income consisting of those received from commercial establishments, carpet weaving, and other trades.

32 Nandal D.S. “Investment pattern in Haryana State” Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 28(5), P.75, 1972. 33 Sharma, R., “Explanatory Notes on important erns relating to crop loan” Financing Agriculture, 4(1), P.29, 1972. 34 K.N. Rai, D.K.Groves and D.S.Nandal, “Investment and savings pattern in irrigated Zones of Haryana state”. Indian Journal of agricultural Economics 27(4), P.75-82, 1972. 35 H.K. Pandey, Viswanath and P.P. Singh “Pattern of Income savings and investment in Agriculture in Eastern U.P” Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 27(4), P.51-55, 1972. 46

Kahlon (1972) 36 estimates gross income of farm family by adding all he incomes from farm non-farm sources and borrowings from institutional and non-institutional sources.

Misra (1972) 37 observed that per hectare decrease in human labour employment varied from 6.67 percent in maize to 57.78 percent in wheat while decreases in bullock labour varied from 64.71 percent in Maize to 90.48 percent in wheat.

Raj (1972) 38 reported that tractorisation did not result in any significant displacement of wage labour. The installation of pumps and tube-wells created demand for casual labour in replacement of permanent farm workers but the acquisition of tractors created demand for more permanent farm workers.

Moens (1973) 39 explained that agriculture is characterized by small holdings, low farm income and low labour cost. Mechanization will be successful only through the development of appropriate machine to meet the needs of the conditions prevailing in the country.

Rao (1973) 40 argued that a blanket assumption of full employment norm of 48 hours a week implies work of eight hours a day for six days of work

36 A.S. Kahlon, “Savings and Investment pattern of Farm families in Punjab”. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 27(4), P.19-28, 1972. 37 Misra S.P. “Impact of tractorisation – A study in a Tahsil of M.P. “Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics page 237 31(2), 1972. 38 K.N. Raj, “Mechanization of Agriculture in India and Sri Lenka” International Labour Review 106(4), 315-334, 1972. 39 Moens, R., “An Economic analysis of Mechanization” Yojana 12(2), P.23-25, 1973. 40 Rao, S.K.”Measurement of Rural unemployment”. Economic and Political Weekly, 8(39) A 78-A 90, 1973. 47

which is perhaps not an universally full employment norm to assume as several attached labourers do in fact worked more hours than that.

Directorate of Economics and Statistics (1973) 41 defines farm business income as the measure of earning of the farmer and his family for management, risk, their labour and capital investment (Gross receipts minus

A1 / A2).

They also define farm labour income as what the farmer and his family receive for management, risk and their physical labour that is gross income minus cost B and Net Income (profit or loss) as gross income minus Cost C.

For the present study gross income is defined as the total value of the main product and by product of the particular crops valued at the market price.

Net income is defined as the gross income less cost of cultivation of crops, live stocks maintenance, maintenance cost of farm buildings and farm machinery and equipments.

Bernard and Nix (1973) 42 have classified costs in farming into fixed cost and variable cost. Fixed cost represents farming expenses on an overhead nature and does not change with the levels of output taxes, depreciation, cash rent, interest payments form the fixed cost. Variable cost refers to the farming expenses which change with output. It relates to the variable resources.

41 “Studies in Economics of Farm Management in Coimbatore District, Tamil Nadu” Three year combined Reports (1970-71 to 72-73) Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation, New Delhi.. 42 C.S. Bernard and J.S.Nix “Farm planning and control”. (Cambridge, Cambridge University press, 1973), 45. 48

Mosher (1974) 43 by farm mechanization we mean introducing the use of mechanical procedures into farm operation in an area where these procedures have not previously been used. In the process both the machines themselves and the institutional arrangements by which they are made available to and used by farmers are included. Strictly speaking, the design and manufacture of farm equipment is external to farm mechanization as such, but the suitability of equipment for profitable use on farms in specific localities is so important to the success of farm mechanization that design and manufacture can usefully be included as part of farm mechanization itself.

Singh and Ramanna (1974) 44 observe that the adoption of improved technology coupled with adequate credit facility dynamises the income potential and offers the single best measure to solve the chronic problem of under employment of family labour on small farms and for labour in agricultural sector in general.

Mittal and Sacena (1974) 45 define fixed costs as those which are independent of the level of production whereas variable costs as those which vary with the level of production.

43 A.T. Mosher, “Some policy issues and Research Needs” Experience in Farm Mechanization in south East Asia. Edited by Herman south worth and Milton Barneth, page-335, 1974, published by the Agricultural Department Council, 630 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y.10020, Tanglin P.O.84, Singapore-10. 44 Shiv Karan Singh and R. Ramanna “The Role of Credit and technology in increasing income and employment on small and large farming in Western Region Hyderabad District, A.P. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 34(3), P.41-51. 45 J.P. Mittal and R.P.Saxena “A mathematical Expression for cost analysis of Farm Equipments”. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics. 29(1), P.51, 1974. 49

Mittal and Singh (1975) 46 defined mechanized farms as those farms where farm operations such as ploughing, harrowing and threshing were done by tractors.

According to the National Council of Applied Economics Research

(1975) 47 Mechanization meant substitution of machines for any kind of labour, animal as well as human.

Directorate of Economics and Statistics (1975) 48 also a categorizes costs into Cost A1, A2, B, C. Cost A, approximates the actual expenditure incurred in kind and cash and it includes (a) Hired human labour (b) owned and hired bullock and labour (c) seeds, (d) manures and fertilizers, (e) plant protection chemicals (f) machine labour (g) land revenue, cess, water rates (h) depreciation on implements, machinery and farm buildings (i) interest on working capital.

Cost A2 is cost A1 plus rental value of leased in land. This applies only for tenancy farms Cost B is Cost A2 plus interest on fixed capital excluding land and rental value of owned land. Cost C is cost B plus imputed value of family labour.

46 Mittal F.P. and Singh T.F., “Mathematical models for the cost analysis of tractor custom unit”. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 30(1) P.69, 1975. 47 National Council of Applied Economic Research, Agricultural Live-stock in Rajasthan, Chapter V, Allied Publishers, Page.44, 1964. 48 Directorate of Economics and Statistics (1975), op cit. 50

Acharya (1976) 49 divides farms into small farmers (below 5 acres), medium (5-10 acres), and large farmers (above 10 acres). Besides he breaks the farms into three mechanization levels.

a. Bullock-operated farms. All operations are performed with bullocks and

human labour. In other words they can be called as non-mechanized

farms.

b. Pump-oriented farms. Irrigation is done by electric or diesel pumpsets

and all other operations are carried out by bullock and human labour.

c. Tractor operated farms. Pumpsets are used for irrigation and other

operations are carried by tractors and bullocks.

Stout and Downing (1976) 50 defined mechanization to encompass the use of hand tools and animal drawn implements as well as motorized equipments to reduce human efforts to perform certain operation that cannot be accompanied by other means and to improve the quality of work.

Smith (1976) 51 defined employment as a state in which a person combined his/her physical and or mental efforts with other resources including other human effort in a production process.

49 S.S. Acharaya, “Prospects for Agricultural labour in the context of New Agricultural technology in Rajasthan Rural Labour in India. Edited by S.M. Pandey Page.30 1976. Sri.Ram centre for Industrial Relations and human Resources, 5, Sadhu Vasvani Marg, New Delhi-110 005. 50 Stout B.A. and C.M. Downing, “Agricultural Mechanization Policy”. International Labour Review 113(2), P.171-187, 1976. 51 Smith L.D., “The political economy of employment criterion in agriculture” Journal of Agricultural Economics 27(3), P.351-363, 1976. 51

Hayami and Herdt (1977)52 state that technological progress for a commodity implies a downward shift in the cost function and hence a right shift in supply function which with a downward sloping demand curve resulted in a larger quantity at a lower cost.

Ketkar (1977) 53 has found that the farmers in the traditional sector are generally efficient, most of the inefficiency arising from the introduction of new technology has resulted from excessive diversification in the cropping production patterns.

The Government report (1977) 54 on HYV in India shows that high yielding varieties fail to approach their potential yields under field conditions and frequently achieve yields below or barely matching those of the existing local or local improved varieties.

Jain (1977) 55 has formulated a criterion to measure technological advancement on the basis of three indicators.

a. Percentage of area under HYV to total cropped area

b. Percentage of irrigated area to total cropped area

c. Fertilizer consumption per hectare in kilograms.

52 Yujiro Hayami and Robert W. Herdt, “Market price Effects of Technological change on Income Distribution in semi subsistence Agriculture” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 59(2), P.245-246, 1977. 53 S.L. Ketkar, “Impact of New Technology on Indian Agriculture – A programming Approach” Dissertation Abstracts International 34(6), P.2874, 1977. 54 Government of India “The Hyvp in India 1970-75 part II” controller of publications, Delhi 1977. 55 Baboolal Jain, “Impact of technological changes in Human Labour employment and its productivity in Agriculture in sehore block, sehore District, M.P.” Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics Banaras Hindu University, 1977. 52

Further, he has grouped farms having 20 percent or more of the gross cropped area under HYV as adopters and farms sowing local varieties of crops and having less than 20 percent area under HYV as non-adopters.

Mclnerney (1978)56 defines technology as a matrix of characteristics, structures and processes, entwined with the system of human activity found in rural areas and a change in technology means some alternations in this complex.

Roy (1978) 57 conducted a study on farm tractorisation productivity and labour employment in order to find out the impact of tractorisation on employment and concluded that the use of tractors has resulted in seven percent more employment and 23 percentage higher output in wheat farms.

Sharma (1978) 58 while studying the comparative statistics of labour input per hectare on two types of farm organizations concluded that the labour use was slightly higher (1.96%) in mechanized farms as compared to bullock operated farms.

Singh (1979) 59 in his study on the economics of tractor use in Punjab has observed that the utilization of human labour in the case of medium and large sized tractor farms was 18.85 and 33.03 percent less compared to bullock farms.

56 John P. Mclnerney, “Technological Innovations in Rural Development, “The Technology of Rural Development” (World Bank Staff Working paper No.295, 1978), 2. 57 Roy S.Farm tractorisation, productivity and labour employment – A case study of Indian Punjab – Journal of Development studies. 14(2), 193-209, 1978. 58 Sharma A.C. “Farm mechanization in Punjab” Agricultural and Agro-Industries Journal 11 (5), P.24, 1978. 59 Bhagat Singh, “Economics of Tractor use” Yojana 23(9), 19, 1979. 53

Kahlon (1980) 60 observed that the index of cropping intensity was

177.62 for the pure tractor farms as compared to 158.65 percent for the pure bullock farms.

Renganathan (1981) 61 defines technology as the use of hybrid seeds along with chemical fertilizers, plant protection, chemicals, improved implements and machines for higher productivity.

Ushaben (1981) 62 concludes that the impact of high yielding seed varieties on output and area in the case of wheat is remarkable. The adoption of

HYV’s has helped to accelerate growth rates of output and yield for Jowar

Bajra and total food grains.

She also observed that the adoption of HYV on large area has been instrumental in stepping up the output group substantially.

Rao (1982) 63 favours mechanization in agriculture and he places some reasons for it.

a. To over come labour shortage during the peak periods and on draught

animals which have low productivity and high costs?

b. To increase the rate at which operations are performed by timely and

effective farm operations.

60 Kahlon, A.S. (1980), op cit P.55. 61 V.S. Renganathan, “Technology, productivity and Farm size in Rice production in Palayamkottai Block, Tirunelveli District, Uupublised M.Sc.(Ag.) Thesis Department of Agricultural Economics, TamilNadu, Agricultural University, Coimbatore 1981. 62 Ushaben sharma, “Contribution of Hyv’s to cereal output, yield and area in Gujarat” Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 36(1), P-79-81, 1981. 63 Parameshwara Raw, “Southern Economist” Vol.20, No.21, March 1, P.19, 1982. 54

c. To step up total production by using water pumps and adopting multiple

cropping.

d. To perform tasks that cannot be done effectively by traditional methods.

e. Many of the major crop operations in India are rigidly bound by the

season. Because of the labour during peak period is very high and hence

labour shortage is usually experienced. This necessitates the use of

mechanical appliances in our agriculture.

f. As better land preparation and also timeliness of agricultural operations

are crucial for higher production, we are forced to use tractors in

agriculture despite their adverse effects on employment.

g. Our traditional implements are crude, inefficient and inadequate. It is

highly uneconomical to complete agricultural operations using them.

They need to be replaced by improved agricultural machinery and

implements.

Bina Agarwal (1983) 64 categorizes farms into (a) Tractor using and exclusively bullock using. (b) Tractor owning and tractor hiring. (c) Tube-well irrigated and exclusively canal irrigated – these contain both the tractor and the bullock farms.

64 Bina Agarwal, “Mechanization in Indian Agriculture” Impact of alternative Techniques on farm output and employment” page.165 1983. Allied publishers private Ltd., prarthana Flats, 1 st Floor, Navarangpura, Ahmedabad- 380 009. 55

Bina Agarwal (1983) 65 points out that the use of tractors and tube-wells in comparison with the use of bullocks and canals respectively is associated with higher cropping intensity. However, the advantage of tube-wells over canals is found to be much greater than that of tractors over bullocks.

Among the tractor using farms, it is essentially those owning tractors which account for the higher average cropping intensity; those depending solely on hired tractors are not found to differ very much from bullock farms in their level of cropping intensity.

Farmer in his study on the Green Revolution in Punjab indicated that mechanization would prove a boon than a curse if alternative employment could be arranged for the agricultural worker. 66

Singh and Singh (1985) 67 in their study on the impact of mechanization on human and bullock labour use in two regions of Utter Pradesh have found that the magnititude of labour displacement due to tractorisation decreased with the increases in farm size.

Sidhu and Singh (1986) 68 define Technological change as all the available means which improve the efficiency of converting scarce resources into products which satisfy human wants. It manifests itself in the use of new

65 Bina Agarwal (1983) “Cropping Intensity effects of Mechanization”. Mechanization in Indian Agriculture. Allied publishers Private Limited, Ahmedabad. 66 Parmer B.S.(1970) “The Green Revolution what is means” Eastern Economist 54,1165-69. 67 Singh L.R. and Singh R.V., (1985) op Cit P.95. 68 D.S. Sidhu and Singh H.J. “Technological change in Indian Agricultural Development Since Independence Edited by M.L.Dantwala and others, oxford & IBH publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd, 1986. 56

inputs and knowledge leading to an upward shift of the production function in the long-run.

Sisodia (1986)69 has conducted a study in Indore District with objectives to find out levels of input and output in production of local and Mexican wheats and to study the extent to which recommended practices are adopted and to work out the input needs at the farm, village and district levels and to define the problems which hinder the extension of new varieties.

69 J.S. Sisodia, “Some Economic Aspects of Hyvp of Indore District”, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 23(4), P.103-113, 1986. 57

2.2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ON THE NEW AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY AND PRODUCTIVITY

Sangha (1964) 70 defined productivity as the ratio between output and input both measured in real terms. He also defined productivity as the ratio between net output and number of workers or number of man hours. Capital productivity as the ratio between net output and net capital employed and land productivity as the ratio between net output and number of acres of land.

Billings and Singh (1970) 71 came to the conclusion that mechanization benefited society by reducing the cons of production.

Acharya (1974) 72 viewed the agricultural productivity in terms of yield per hectare of land cultivated.

Bhattacharjee (1972) 73 viewed the term productivity as the output per unit of input in farm business.

Inukai (1972) 74 concluded that mechanization increased labour productivity.

Motilal (1973) 75 observed that the yield of bajra in tractorized (17.94

Qtls) farms were higher as against the bullock operated farms (16.37 Qtls.).

70 Keher Sangha, “Productivity and Economic growth” Bombay, Asia publishing house, P.10, 1964. 71 Martin H. Billings and Arjun Singh “Mechanization and Rural Employment with some implications for Rural income Distribution”. Economic and Political Weekly 26, P.61-72, 1970. 72 S.K.Acharya, “Agriculture in mehalaya mizoram and mikir and north lachar hills artha vijnana, 16(1(, P.50-57, 1974. 73 J.P.Bhattacharjee, “A survey of Farm Mechanization in Ludhiana, IADP”, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 8 (209), 161, 1972. 74 Inukai “Employment technological change in Philippine Agriculture, International Labour Review” 106, (2,3), P.111-139, 1972. 75 Motilas, G. “Farm and Factory Economic aspects of Tractorization”. 7(10), P.105, 1973. 58

Studies by Rao (1972) 76 reaffirmed that mechanization increased income adequately to justify the cost.

Many Researchers (1974) 77 studied the impact of mechanization on the productivity. Lawrence concluded that tractor mechanization could bring substantial gains in production per acre.

Desai and Gopinath (1975) 78 concluded that the output per hectare of tractor farms was higher than that of non-tractor farms.

Motilal (1975) 79 in his study on the economics of tractorization has arrived at the conclusion that the net income in tractorised farms was 58.78 percent higher than that of bullock operated farms.

Gallen (1977) 80 concluded that mechanization increased income as well as employment and reduced the cost of production.

Sharma (1977) 81 in his study on farm mechanization in Punjab observed that farm mechanization has increased the yield by 7 percent without adversely affecting the level of employment.

76 Hanumantha Rao, C.H., “Farm Mechanization in a labour abundant Economy” Economic and Political Weekly 7, P.393-400, 1972. 77 Roger Lawrence “Some Economic aspect of Farm mechanization in Pakistan, USAID, 1970 as cited in Planning Agriculture in low income countries”. A symposium Development study No.14, P.38, Chap.2, 1974. 78 Desai B.K and Gopinath C. “Impact of farm tractorization on productivity and employment” Indian Agricultural News Digest 4 (8,9), P.271-275, 1975. 79 Motilas, G. “Impact of farm tractorization on productivity and employment” Indian Agricultural News Digest 4 (8,9), P.271-275, 1975. 80 S.T.Gallen, “Economic policy opportunities and Results of mechanization in the Mountain area” World Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociaological Abstract No.122, P.14, 1977. 81 Sharma A.C. “Farm mechanization in Punjab” Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, 8 (2), P.62-64, 1977. 59

Agarwal and Kumar (1985) 82 have observed that the introduction of tractor has increased the income by 5301.15 (64.5%) over the bullock cultivation under well irrigated conditions.

Sharma (1988) 83 in his study on farm mechanization in Punjab observed that the average returns on the tractor operated farms were 28.47 percent higher than the bullock operated farms. The higher income on tractor holdings was described to shift in the cropping patterns in favour of more remunerative enterprises, increased cropping intensity, higher expenditure on the yield, increasing technology and better preparation of land, timely, performance of operation and better placement of seeds and fertilizer.

Vanitha (2008)84 states that intensive cropping system are often based on manual labour such as in traditional paddy rice and raised – bed agriculture, or on highly mechanized systems based on purchased inputs. Intensive agriculture is an essential component of habitat management because it limits requirements for new areas of land. It can however, lead to degradation of natural resources if not managed appropriately. Modern Agriculture includes plant breeding, biotechnology and associated intellectual property rights, all of which are potentially able to adversely affect the natural resource base, particularly through declining biodiversity. High productivity is obtained in mechanized monoculture which in turn is dependent on chemicals which may

82 Agarwal and Narinder Kumar, “World Agricultural Economics and Rural sociological Abstract, P.39. 83 Sharms A.C., (1988), Op. cit. P.27. 84 K. Vanitha (2008), Development of Modern Agriculture, Agriculture under Globalization, Dominant Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi – 2, p.103. 60

inadvertently destroy desirable flora and fauna. Intensive cropping systems are suited to those environments where high yielding varieties, chemical inputs, fertile soils and irrigation can be guaranteed.

61

2.3. PATTERN OF TRACTOR UTILIZATION

Anand (1960) 85 defined it as the ratios of total cropped area to the cultivated are (net sown area current fallows).

Fragmented holdings, satisfaction with bullock power, lack of capital and credit and non-availability of credit at the appropriate time were the reasons for not using tractors according to Kolte (1967) .86

Human labour includes

(a) family labour and exchange for gratis labour

(b) hired labour (Casual and Permanent)

Sanghvi (1969) 87 measured the human labour in man day units of eight hour work by and adult man. For the purpose of standardizing the word units different categories of labour, two women or three juvenile labourers each with eight hours of work were reckoned as one man day unit.

Kahlon and Chawal (1969) 88 Cropping intensity refers to the number of crops raised n a particular area in a year expressed in percentage. It is a measure of land use efficiency in the farms over a period of time.

85 O.P. Anand, “Some aspects of optimum benefits from utilization of irrigation potential of chambal valley project” Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 15(4), P.19-32, 1960. 86 Kolte R. “A study of different characteristics of Farmers having mechanized and non-mechnaized farms and problems and factors associated with mechanization of farms”. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 6(1), P.27-28, 1967. 87 P. Sanghvi, “Surplus man power in Agriculture and Economic Development, Bombay, Asia publishing House, 1969, P.29. 88 A.S. Kahlon and Chawal (1969), “A study of Economic factors affecting cropping intensity in the Hissar District”, Journal of Research, 4(3), 467. 62

Patil (1970) 89 reported that the size of holdings determined both the purchasing power and economic use of tractors. He also is of the view that the lack of suitable type of machines, high cost and inadequate facilities for the sales and services were the causes for the slow phase of mechanization.

Khan (1970) 90 identified the following factors which limited the use of machines in a larger way they are: non-availability of tractors, lack of trained personnel, lack of cheap fuel and lubricants, lack of necessary capital for investments.

Selvaraj and Sundaresan (1972) 91 argued that the financial handicaps, small size of holdings, lack of servicing and training facilities were the impediments in the process of mechanization.

Umakesan (1972) 92 also standardizing the work units of farm labour by equaling two women labour to one male labour. The same standards were used in the present study as well.

Kanwar (1972) 93 analysed that the both time and space sequence of crops. It includes the identification of the most efficient crops of a region of homogenous soil and climatic belt. The rotation in which the crop fits in and

89 Patil S.S. “Demand recession in India” Economic Times November 15, P.3, 1970. 90 Majid Hussain Khan, “Mechanization in West Pakistan World crops” Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 22(1), P.23-25, 1970. 91 Selvaraj P. and Sundaresan R. “Farm mechanization problems and possibilities in Farm mechanization” Fact 6(3), P.34-35, 1972. 92 R. Umakesan, “A comparative study of tractor and non-tractor farms in coimbatore Taluk - An Economics Appraisal”. Un-published M.Sc. Agri.Dissertation, Department of Agriculture college and Research Institute, Coimbatore, P.44, 1972. 93 J.S. Kanwar (1972), “Scope and concepts of cropping pattern in India Proceedings of the symposium on cropping patterns in India, P.15, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi. 63

the intensity of cropping. The cropping pattern of a farmer means the cropping scheme as cropping intensity best suited to the farmer.

Mukhopadhya and Sarkar (1972) 94 states that the crop pattern in general is determined by regional and economic factors. The cropping pattern existing in a region is a result of trial and error over many years. At the individual farm level, the choice of crops and cropping sequence are constrained by resource endowment besides farmers goal.

Singh and Patel (1973) 95 viewed the bullock power as plough unit one pair of bullock and one human labour for eight hours of work was used as plough unit in days.

Marks (1975) 96 argued that mechanization required more capital for annual replacement. This in combination with high initial cost, severely limited the use of tractors.

Singh and Singh (1975) 97 viewed that mechanization required high level of technical knowledge the lack of which retarded the growth in the use of tractors.

94 A.M. Mukhopadhya and G.K.Sarkar (1972), “Economic Aspect of Cropping pattern”. Proceedings of the symposium on cropping pattern in India, P.582, Indian council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi. 95 Rajivir Singh and R.K. Patel “Returns to scale, Farm size of productivity in Meerut District” Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 28(2), P.48, 1973. 96 Marks R. “Impediments in the process of mechanization” Indian Journal of Extension Education 32(1), P.85-87, 1975. 97 Singh B.B. and Roshan Singh, “Mechanization of Farms in India” Seminar paper on Agricultural Mechanization, Anand, Indian Society of Agricultural Economics, 30(3), 1975. 64

Sharma and Sharma (1975) 98 considered that the huge initial investment as compared to the bullock power and implements hampered the extensive use of tractors. Cheap farm credit might help in the process of increased use of tractors.

Singh and Dhawan (1976) 99 found that in tractor operated farms the share of mechanical energy was as high as 94.83 per cent compared to that of animal energy 0.91 per cent under the existing situation.

Radhakrishnan and Sridharan (1976) 100 pointed out that the level and pattern of energy consumption varied with different operations, depending on the cropping pattern, sources of irrigation and size of farms.

Singh and Miglani (1976) 101 found that the energy use per hectare varied significantly between different types of soil-crop-climate complexes, levels of technology and size categories of farm. Mechanical energy was mainly used for irrigation, preparatory tillage and threshing purposes.

Misra et al. (1976) 102 concluded that at the existing pattern of use in the sample farms, the average working hours for tractor per year was 551.27 whereas the recommended level is 1000 hours.

98 Sharma V.K. and Sharma A.N. “Economic use of bullock power” Indian Agricultural News Digest 4 (8,9) P.265-267, 1975. 99 Shingh I.J. and Dhawan, K.C. “Energy requirement of different levels of technology in Punjab” Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 31(3), P.243, 1976. 100 Radhakrishnan S.A. B. Sridharan, “A study on the Inter-Regional variation in Energy utilization in Agriculture in TamilNadu” Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 31(3), P.223, 1976. 101 Singh A.J. and Miglani S.S. “An Economic Analysis of Energy requirement in Punjab Agriculture” Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 31(3), P.165, 1976. 102 Mishra D.K. Pandey R.N. and Pandey V.K. “Economic costs of Bullock and tractor power use in Uttar Pradesh Agriculture” Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 31(3), P.193, 1976. 65

Rebello et al. (1976) 103 viewed the bullock power in terms of plough unit. A plough unit includes a pair of bullocks along with a man.

Namboodri and Padmanaban (1976) 104 defined the term non- tractorized farms as those farms where bullock technology was used for operations.

Rao (1978) 105 reported that the existence of holdings with fragments distributed in many places rendered tractor farming unprofitable.

Aphiphan Pookpakdi (1992) 106 Observe that Green Revolution made a notable contribution to raising the production of rice and wheat by small-scale farmers, particularly in Asia and the Pacific. The high-yielding varieties

(HYVs) of rice released in the 1960s increased the productivity of rice by about

70% and of wheat by 150%. The HYVs are responsive to very high applications of fertilizer, and are efficient producers under intensive management conditions (RAPA 1989).

One indirect effect of the Green Revolution was to reduce the output of protein-rich grains and pulses which contributed greatly to ensuring a balanced diet for the rural poor (FAO 1991b). These crops were no longer competitive in terms of financial returns per hectare. The Green Revolution has also raised

103 N.S.P. Rebello. G.S.Chndrashekar, H.C.Shankaramurthy, K.S.Hiremath, “The impact of the increase in the prices of inputs on the profitability and production o sugarcane and paddy in Mandy Districts of Karnataka, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 31(3), P.223, 1976. 104 Namboodri, N.V. and Padmanathan K., “Farm tractorization – A benefit –cost analysis”, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 31(3), P.199, 1976. 105 Rao, “Rate of growth of power irrigation in Madras Agriculture” Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 33(1), P.209-217, 1978. 106 Aphiphan Pookpakdi (1992) Sustainable Agriculture for Small-Scale Farmers: A Farming Systems Perspective Department of Agronomy Faculty of Agriculture Kasetsart University Bangkok 10900, Thailand, 1992-12-01. 66

several sustainability issues. Although the upward trend in yield has been maintained over the past three decades, the rate of increase is slackening, largely because of deteriorating soil fertility and the high incidence of pests and diseases associated with monoculture. The social impact of the Green

Revolution has also sometimes been harmful. Since HYVS require high inputs such as fertilizer, irrigation water and pesticides, as well as intensive management, large landowners with plenty of capital were the main beneficiaries. Attracted by the high returns which the new seeds made possible, landowners tended to begin farming their land directly, sometimes exacerbating the problems of landlessness and rural poverty.

Other types of technology which give high yields but have a negative impact on the environment, such as heavy applications of pesticides, monoculture, and extension of irrigation systems, have already been discussed.

We must question how long our natural resources can meet the need for an increased output of agricultural commodities, before drastic degradation of the resource occurs and productivity falls even below its present levels.

Bob Carlisle and Jonathan Wadsworth (2005) 107 state that

Agricultural technology can affect smallholder income, labour opportunities for the poor, food prices, environmental sustainability, and linkages with the rest of the rural economy:

107 Bob Carlisle and Jonathan Wadsworth (2005), Central Research Department for International Development (DFID) in collaboration with Rob Tripp of ODI, London. 67

• Agricultural technology has been a primary factor contributing to

increases in farm productivity in developing countries over the past half-

century. Although there is still widespread food insecurity, the situation

without current technology development would have been

unimaginable.

• New technology can provide additional rural employment, but there are

always countervailing pressures to reduce labour input and lower its

costs.

• Food prices are demonstrably lower because of technology, but the

distribution of benefits between consumers and producers depends on

the nature of the local economy and trade patterns.

The adoption of technology requires adequate incentives for producers.

Investments in labour or cash will not be made unless there are adequate returns. One of the most important supporting factors is the adequacy of markets for outputs and inputs.

Although there is much academic debate regarding the nature and impact of technological change, the important issues for development assistance agencies are related to other uncertainties. These include:

• identifying the most effective planning procedures for directing

agricultural technology to poverty reduction;

• establishing the role of agriculture in national development strategies;

• deciding the degree to which agricultural investments are appropriate for

marginal areas; 68

• identifying the correct mix of public, private and civil society support to

agricultural technology generation;

• and identifying the types of technology that warrant support.

Because agricultural technology addresses multiple, and at times conflicting, objectives, there is a need for careful planning. But there is a trade- off between investment in micro-level technology screening, on the one hand, and support to basic institutional capacities and political responsiveness, on the other. The rhetoric of technological revolutions should be eschewed in favour of consistent attention to building technological capacity in response to changes in the rural economy. One of the most difficult choices is that facing the appropriate level of (agricultural) support for poverty reduction in marginal areas. An important challenge is marshalling sufficient (and coherent) support for public research and extension in the face of severe constraints in development budgets. Private sector technology generation (and technology delivery) is of growing relevance to poverty reduction strategies, but it is probably unreasonable to place high expectations on vastly expanded formal public-private partnerships. Support to NGOs in agricultural technology generation should focus on their role in building local institutions and capacities; a strong rural civil society is essential for articulating technology demand.

There are no easy rules for guiding investments in particular types of technology, and pragmatic, case-by-case analysis and follow-up is required. 69

Much current rhetoric (e.g. related to biotechnology or low external input agriculture) does little to promote responsible policies.

Among the most important policy challenges related to support for agricultural technology are:

• the identification of an effective investment portfolio of technologies;

• structuring interchange among producers, consumers, public institutes

(national and international), civil society and the private sector to elicit

effective pro-poor demand;

• structuring assistance to recognise the long-term, incremental nature of

technology generation;

• locating technology policies in a wider policy arena; and

• setting and articulating clear policy goals that relate technology

generation to food price, labour, trade, and regional development.

There are a number of implications for the way that donor assistance to agricultural technology is structured. The agencies need to develop in-house capacity to monitor the processes and outcomes of agricultural technology generation. This implies a commitment to developing institutional memory and to coordinating central syntheses and guidance with country-level experience.

Policies in support of agricultural technology generation should place strong emphasis on local institution building and should see that agriculture is addressed in a coherent fashion in poverty planning. An understanding of the multiple impacts and second-order effects of technology should inform the 70

policy process. Finally, donor agencies need to increase their collaboration and co-ordination in support of technology generation.

Kumar (2008) 108 pointed out that the globalization agreement on

Agriculture provides for new opportunities for increased international trade in

Agriculture, Globalization was felt that the disciplines of GATT, which traditionally focused only on import access problems, should be extended to measure affecting trade is agriculture, including domestic agricultural policies and the subsidization of agricultural exports. It was felt necessary to reform agricultural policies in order to achieve trade liberalization in agriculture. The idea was to progressively reduce trade distorting subsidies, improve import access and curb export subsidies in agriculture. Under the agreement on

Agriculture the main countries would have to reduce drastically subsidies granted to the farm sector.

Vanitha and Anitha Rexalin (2008) 109 states that agriculture is the largest and most important sector of the Indian economy. But this sector remains most backward and about 40 per cent of rural population remain below the poverty line. Much of the rural population does not have access to common infrastructure like connectivity, electricity, health and safe drinking water.

Complex characteristics of rural India include inaccessible terrain and dispersed villages, sub optimal utilization of natural resources, lack of

108 Dr. S. Kumar (2008), Indian Agriculture and the Globalization, Agriculture under Globalization, Dominant Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi – 2, p.10. 109 Vanitha and Anitha Rexalin (2008), Agriculture and Globalization, Agriculture under Globalization, Dominant Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi – 2, p.55. 71

extension of adequate privileges are detrimental to the socio-economic environment in India. Imbalance in socio-economic development and rural urban divide can be removed if the infrastructure in rural areas is made adequate, qualitative and a growth oriented business environment is created.

This in turn can generate employment opportunities.

Raja Mohammed (2009) 110 views that Reduction and especially, elimination of agrochemical require major changes in management to assure adequate plant nutrients and to control crop pests. As it was done a few decades ago, alternative sources of nutrients to maintain soil fertility include manures. Sewage sludge and other organic wastes, and legumes in cropping sequences. Rotation benefits are due to biologically fixed nitrogen and from the interruption of weed, disease and insect cycles. A livestock enterprise may be integrated with grain cropping to provide animal manures and to utilize better the forages produced. Maximum benefits of pasture integration can be realized when livestock, crops, animals and other farm resources are assembled in mixed and rotational designs to optimize production efficiency, nutrient cycling and crop protection.

Raja Mohammed (2010) 111 stated that in India is making a substantial surge in the GDP growth. We are contemplating a 10 per cent + increase with euphoria. Among the major sectors, namely, agriculture, manufacturing and

110 Raja Mohammed (2009), Modern Agriculture and Sustainable Farming, Peninsular Economist, Vol. XXI, No. 1, Pp.234-235. 111 Raja Mohammed (2010) Lack of Technology and Awareness, Southern Economist, Vol. 48, No. 24, April 15, 2010, Pp. 5-6. 72

services. The main GDP growth is due to manufacturing and services. In spite of the meagre 2.1 per cent growth in agriculture, we are still able to achieve a substantial increase in GDP largely because of manufacturing and services.

Apart from GDP growth, a populous nation like India which constitutes about 1/6 th of the human race – has to think seriously about food security for its future. The food habits are also changing fast. In the past, the priority was to feed million of poor people at least one square meal a day. Today, the priorities are changing. More affluence, resulting out of the GDP growth, has paved the way for more successful people to look for variety and quantum, which has in turn increased the demand for supply of food.

We have to educate people to develop multiple skills in using agricultural equipment. This will also help the work force to get better pay and hence result in prosperity. Unfortunately from agriculture to manufacturing, we have too many specialists in India and multi-skills are lacking.

In the field of dairying the first revolution in the 60’s has ensured the survival of several millions of people. Today India stands ahead of any other country producing 91 million tonnes of milk but productivity fares much below any other country of repute. 5 million animals in France produce 24 million tonnes of milk per annum and India produces 91 million tonnes with 70 million animals. Not that we have to match France or Germany, but better productivity is definitely possible with the existing setup by educating farmers, using better 73

tools and creating awareness of modernization and mechanization of even small farms.

Ishwar C. Dhingra (2010)112 has points out that the improved strains of seeds are essential for increasing agricultural production. Unless the farmer has good seeds of suitable varieties, he cannot get the best out of other inputs, such as irrigation, fertilizers, insecticides and machinery. With HYV seeds, it becomes possible for him to take to intensive agriculture because of the resultant high yield and good economic returns. When one seeds in retrospect, it becomes clear that much of the stagnation that prevailed in India agriculture till the mid – 1960’s could have been explained in terms of the availability of poor and low-yielding variety seeds.

112 Ishwar C. Dhingra (2010), The Indian Economy, Environment and Policy, Sultan Chand and Sons, Educational Publishers, New Delhi, Chap. 13, p.312. Chapter --- IIIIIIIIIIII

Profile of the Study Area and Materials and Methods 74

CHAPTER – III

PROFILE OF THE STUDY AREA AND METHODS AND MATERIALS

3.1. PROFILE OF THE STUDY AREA

In this section, some key characteristics of the study district, sample blocks and the three study villages are presented. This study gives an idea of the general economic condition of the study region and of forces influencing the agricultural new technology directly or indirectly in this region. Thanjavur district is primarily an agricultural district enclosed with very good irrigation system of the Cauvery. It is the first district of Tamilnadu, where all innovative methods in agriculture were introduced in green revolution schemes to achieve higher productivity in the farm sector.

3.1.1. Location and Administration

Thanjavur district is centrally located in Tamilnadu with an area of

3,39,657 sq.km. It is bounded by Tiruchirapalli in the West, Tiruvarur and

Nagai in the East, Pudukkottai on the South, Ariyalur and Perambalur district

North East and North with the head-quarters at Thanjavur town. The district has three revenue divisions, Thanjavur, Kumbakonam and Pattukkottai. As already noted, the district has been divided into 8 taluks for revenue administration. The district further is divided into 3 blocks for development

75

administration. There are 14 town panchayats, 22 townships, 3 municipalities,

906 villages with 589 village panchayats for local administration.

3.1.2. Population

The total population of Thanjavur district is 22,16,138. Out of which

10,96,638 are male and 11,19,500 are female. The density of the population is

659 per sq.m. The population accounts for 72 per cent in the total population figure. Sex ratio in terms number of females for 1000 males is 993. The rate of literates is 74.45% out of which 49.49 per cent are male and 50.51 per cent are female.

3.1.3. Geographical area of Thanjavur district

The district being predominantly agricultural one is called the Rice

Bowl of the South. Out of the total geographical area of 3,397 lakh sq.km. The net area under Paddy Crop is 160606 hectares. Cauvery is the chief river of the district and has so many branches. The soil available in the area can be broadly classified into two varieties namely sandy alluvial and ragar. Since the area lies in the Cauvery delta, it contains more of alluvial soil which is the best for agricultural purpose. The sandy alluvial soil is very fertile, which is mostly suitable for cultivations of paddy, sugarcane, groundnut and pulses. The Rager soil is most suited for growing tapioca, groundnuts and pulses. The major crop in the area is paddy for which the whole of Thanjavur district is famous.

76

3.1.4. Sources of water supply Irrigation

The main source of irrigation in Thanjavur district is Cauvery, Mettur reservoir stores Cauvery water from Karnataka. The major source of irrigation in Thanjavur district. Cauvery river after the grand Anaikkat is divided into 37 branches. The main Aycut was 1505, B and C division in 283766 ayacuts. Its length is 23,200 km in Thanjavur delta area. 211 lakh acres are cultivated by the Cauvery water in Salem, Tiruchy, Thanjavur, Cuddalore, Karaikkal and

Erode districts. Major portion of 14½ lakhs acre is only in Thanjavur district.

River Cauvery has several tributaries, the Vennar, Kallanai Kalvai and Cauvery

Divisions. There are also innumerable streams and rivulets. The gross area irrigated is 1,96,703 hectares, open wells irrigated 1105 hectares. Well irrigation is mainly to supplement irrigation during the period of non- availability of water in the canals as well as tanks. Thanjavur district has 25 canals with the length of 638.0 km, the tube wells and other wells are 49577.

Besides there are certain pockets where well is the major source of irrigation.

Hence the district can be divided into three sub regions as canal irrigation as the predominant irrigation source, well irrigation and tank irrigation.

The following table presents the sources and extent of irrigation in

Thanjavur district (2008-09).

77

Table - 3.1

Details of the sources and extent of irrigation in Thanjavur District

Block S. Particulars No. Thanjvur Orathanadu Papanasam

1. Flow irrigation Major and 1345 14190 6436 Medium

2. Number of Tube Wells and 1550 11926 3350 others

3. Number of open wells 984 120 4012

4. Number of wells used for 26411 800 884 domestic purpose only

5. Number of tanks 111 200 210

Total 30401 27236 14892

Source: Director, Department of Economics and Statistics, Chennai-6 (2008).

78

3.1.5. Land-use pattern / Land utilisation

Land utilization is therefore, of great importance particularly when it can be put to alternative uses. Details are given in table 3.2.

Table - 3.2 The land utilization in Thanjavur district, Thanjavur, Orathanadu and Papanasam block (2008-09) (in acres) S. Thanjavur Oratha- Papa- Particular Thanjavur No. district nadu nasam

1. Total geographical area 3396.57 27776 29206 10684

2. Forest 3516 3426 Nil 2

Land put into non- 3. 291264 15945 8328 3940 agricultural uses

4. Cultivable waste 6125 4946 1182 201

Permanent pastures and 5. 126 126 348 10 other grazing lands

6. Current follows 2701 810 1044 485

7. Net area sown 202867 19967 25506 7412

8. Area under paddy 160608 10477 23672 5893

9. Cultivation 251454 10477 23672 5893

10. Other fallow lands 62159 8648 4238 1919

Source: Assistant Director of Statistics, Thanjavur-2008-2009.

79

3.1.6. Rainfall

Rainfall occurs during two season the South-West monsoon early June to the end of September and North-East monsoon from early December. The winter period occurs during early January to February and the hot weather period during early March to April.

The rainfall distribution for the district is given in the following table.

Table - 3.3 Annual rainfall in Thanjavur district in 2007-2008 and 2008-09 (in millimeters) S. Normal Actual Period 2008-09 No. Rainfall Rainfall 1. South West Monsoon Period Total 342.0 354 303.1 Jun.2008-09 36.7 16.1 7.5 Jul. 2008-09 70.9 46.4 52.6 Aug. 2008-09 115.8 57.2 92.1 Sep. 2008-09 118.6 234.7 150.9 2. North East Monsoon Total 545.7 639 953.2 Oct. 2008-09 190.5 394.7 242.3 Nov. 2008-09 206.7 223.7 508.5 Dec. 2008-09 146.5 20.9 202.4 3. Winter Period Total 50.7 2.6 11.0 Jan. 2009-10 32.8 0.6 11.0 Feb. 2009-10 17.9 2.0 00 4. Hot Weather Period Total 114.6 205.3 132.8 Mar. 2009-10 21.9 9.7 39.0 Apr. 2009-10 36.1 93.4 28.8 May 2009-10 56.6 102.2 65.0 Total 1053.0 1201.6 1400.1

Source: District Statistical Office, Thanjavur – 2009-10.

80

Table - 3.4 Temperature of Thanjavur district (in °celsius) Humidity (%) Month Minimum Maximum (Average)

Jun.2009 22.20 37.00 70.00

Jul.2009 23.20 37.00 72.00

Aug.2009 22.60 37.40 62.00

Sep.2009 22.20 36.60 73.20

Oct.2009 22.00 34.70 82.60

Nov.2009 21.00 30.00 89.60

Dec.2009 19.50 32.00 81.40

Jan.2010 18.00 33.00 77.90

Feb.2010 21.80 37.00 68.40

Mar.2010 21.50 39.00 67.10

Apr.2010 22.50 39.00 77.20

May 2010 23.20 39.00 64.00

Source: District Statistical Office, Thanjavur – 2009-10.

3.1.7. Transport

Thanjavur district shows that there are 570.90 km of National

Highways, 268.510 km of State Highways, 405.519 km of Corporation and

Municipality road, 3705.639 km of Panchayat Union and Panchayat road,

474.939 km Town Panchayat road, 1874.932 km district major and other roads

81

and 1300 km of forest road. The total length of train routes in the district in

2004-05 was 182.96 km consisting of 42 km of broad gauge to Kumbakonam and 2007-08 55 km of broad gauge to Kumbakonam and 2007-08 consisting

55 km of broad guage to Thiruvarur. The quantity and quality of road available have an important bearing on the mode speed and cost of movement of foodgrains. Thanjavur town is located on the main railway line connecting

Chennai, another Eastern centre is Nagapattinam and Western centre is

Tiruchirapalli.

3.1.8. Communications

Postal, telegraphic and telephone services play a vital role in communication. There are 307 post offices doing postal business, alone, 195 post offices doing post and telegraph business, there are 131557 telephone connection, 1382 public call offices and 103 telephone exchanges.

3.1.9. Banking facilities

Thanjavur district has been served by a large number of Financial

Institutions, half the farmers and intermediaries in agricultural trade. There are

8 primary land development banks, 2 district, 257 primary agricultural cooperative societies, 39 housing co-operative societies, 54 employees co- operative societies, 25 lift irrigation schemes insurance offices, 55317 policies issue officers and a number of private pawn brokers.

82

3.1.10. Marketing Agencies

There are 13 regulated markets under the Thanjavur Market Committee.

Further market yards are located in all 8 taluk head quarters. Market

Committee operates rural godowns in 8 places of the district providing storage facilities to the farmers. The farmers’ cooperative societies also procure agriculture produce from the farmers, the primary objective of agricultural marketing societies in marketing the agricultural produce of their numbers.

They also undertake addition of chemical fertilizer, agricultural inputs, issue of pledge loan to enable growers to wait for better prices and recoveries of cultivation loans through marketing. There is warehouse owned by central ware housing operation at Thanjavur and 8 godowns of Tamilnadu Civil

Supplies Corporation in Thanjavur. One warehousing of Kuruthayal Sharma

Trust in private is located in Thanjavur.

3.1.11. Seed

The breeder seeds produced by Tamilnadu Agricultural University are multiplied into foundation seeds in 39 State seed farms. And they are further multiplied into certified seeds in the farmers’ holding. To ensure quality seeds of certificate standard are being advocated. The seeds are processed in the 16 major, 3 medium and 51 mini seed processing units functioning in the country.

They are distributed through the agricultural centre.

83

3.1.12. Selection of Blocks

In the first stage three Blocks out of 14 blocks have been selected for the study by random sampling. The sampled three blocks are Orathanadu,

Papanasam, Kumbakonam. In the second stage one village is selected from each Block again using random sampling. In the third stage 100 farmers were selected from each village by random sampling method and with the help of list of cultivator household available with Village Administrative Officers.

3.1.13. Kumbakonam Block

The total population of Kumbakonam block is 159047 out of which

79851 are male and 80196 are female. It is spread over an area of 39,27,989 km. The density per sq. km is 405. More than half (60%) of the villagers are literates. The ratio is 992. The literacy ratio is 66.67 per cent. Scheduled caste people account for 23.32 per cent of the total population. The total number of villages is 75 per cent.

The climatic conditions of this area and other facilities are very conducive for cultivators. The cultivators are also familiar with some slight difference. 75 per cent of the area is river irrigated, plantain, sugarcane, coconut, groundnut, green gram, block gram, banana, oil seeds and the major food crop is paddy.

3.1.14. Orathanadu Block

The total population of Orathanadu Block is 1,65,466 of which 66,493 are males, and females are 66774. It is spread over an area of 409.79 sq. km.

84

The density of per sq.km is 404. The sex ratio is 10.39. The literacy ratio is

40.05 per cent. Scheduled caste people account for 13.39 per cent of the total population. The total number of village chavadies is 25. Orathanadu block has its irrigation facilities mainly from the river Cauvery. The Cauvery and its smaller canals help in the entire irrigation in Orathanadu Block. Drainage facilities are provided by the smaller canals and rivers like Kallanai Kalvai.

Irrigation facilities are available for about eight months a year. Since most of the areas in bock are irrigated by rivers canals and wells, there is no need for other source of irrigation.

3.1.15. Papanasam Block

Papanasam is situated 25 km away from the district head quarters of

Thanjavur. This block consists of agriculture based villages. A famous 108-

Sivalaya temple is situated in the town. Another place Kabisthalam is also found in the story of the Ramayana. Papanasam block consists of 48 Revenue villages and 34 Village Panchayats. Papanasam Block is surrounded by T.Palur

Block of Perambalur district in the north, Thanjavur and Ammapet Block in the

South, Thiruvaiyaru Block in the West, Kumbakonam Block in the East.

Agriculture is the main occupation in this block. Paddy is the major crop of this block. The other major crops next to paddy are sugarcane, blackgram and banana. River fed water is the main source for irrigation. The total area is

143.58 sq. km.

85

The population of Papanasam Block is 139951 of which 68403 are male,

71548 are females. The rural male population is 53516, and females are 55819.

Urban population of the male is 14887 and female is 15729. The density per sq.km is 975. The sex ratio is 1046 (number of females per 1000 males). The literary ratio is 66.13 per cent.

3.1.16. Educational institutions

There is a Tamil University and one Medical College, five Government

Colleges, four Aided Colleges, 18 Self-Finance Colleges, one Engineering and

Polytechnic for Women, 7 Engineering Colleges, three Deemed Universities, one Government Music College, one Government College of Education, One

Arts and Crafts College, 112 Higher Secondary Schools, 13 High Schools, 215

Middle Schools and 113 Primary Schools.

3.1.17. Industries

There are several medium and small-scale industrial units in the district,

10 medium scale industries, 569 small scale industries, 300 cottage industries and 125 other industries. Names of the important industries are Kings

Chemicals and Distilleries Ltd. in Vadaseri, SRVS in Kumbakonam, Thiru

Arooran Sugar Mill in Thirumandagudi, Arignar Anna Sugar Mill in

Kurungulam, 3 Modern Rice Mills in Ammanpettai, Pattukkottai and

Thirunageswaram.

86

3.2. METHODS AND MATERIALS 3.2.1. Database and period of the study

The study has employed both primary and secondary data. The primary data were collected for the financial year 2009-2010. The data were collected from the respondents by using interview schedule method from May 2010 to

June 2010.

3.2.2. Sample Design

Thanjavur district was selected purposely for the study because it covers major part of area under paddy cultivation Tamil Nadu. Three zones namely

(Papanasam), (Orathanadu) and (Kumbakonam) division were selected purposely for the present study on the basis of the highest area under new agricultural implementation. All paddy cultivating farmers were stratified into three zones, from each zone there is one division selected based on intensive paddy cultivation use of factors and other new agricultural technology, in total there are three sample divisions. From the sample division farmers are categorised and classified on the basis of land holding pattern, such as small farmers, medium and large from each sampled division is done on the basis of local consideration of each division (Irrigation potentiality, cropping pattern and acres of paddy cultivation). From each sample division 100 sample respondents have been selected and in total 300 samples are based on random sampling method. The sample respondents are paddy cultivators. To study the

87

new agricultural implementation a well structured interview schedule has been prepared based on the objectives.

The structured interview schedule has been used to collect the necessary information from the cultivators. Related secondary data have been collected from the publications of Ministry of Agriculture, Fertiliser Statistics,

Directorate of Agriculture Chennai, Joint Director of Agricultural Office of

Thanjavur, Assistant Statistical Office of Thanjavur, etc.,

The holdings have been divided into four groups as show below.

0.01 – 2.50 acres - Small Farmers

2.51 – 5.00 acres - Medium Farmers

5.01 – 10.00 acres - Large Farmers

And above 10.00 acres - Land lords.

THANJAVUR DIVISION

Kumbakonam Orathanadu Papanasam

100 100 100

300

88

To elucidate the scientific inference, Thanjavur division has been classified into three divisions namely Kumbakonam, Orathanadu and

Papanasam. On the whole 300 samples have been taken for the present study.

3.2.3. Selection of crop and variety

Two paddy varieties have been selected to study the adoption of new agricultural technology components. The two seasons are Samba (July to

November) and Thaladi (November to February). In Tamil Nadu, the farmers cultivate long duration 140 to 160 days) varieties in Samba season.

Selection of new technological components for this study:

1. Seed

a. own seed

b. Co-villager’s seed purchase from other farmers)

c. Government Department Seed.

2. Fertilizers

a. Nitrogen

b. Phosphate (P)

c. Potash (K)

3. Pesticides

a. Liquid Potash

b. Seed Treatment

4. Weedicides

5. Irrigation

89

6. Machinery

a. Tractors

b. Pumpset

3.2.4. Tools used for the study

The data collected through the interview schedule were scrutinized and the statistical packages for social studies (SPSS 12.0) are used for analysis.

Apart from simple trend, percentage analysis, correlation the following tools were used in the analysis of data. To measure the cost and returns of paddy cultivation, multiple regression analysis has been used.

Chapter --- IIIVIVVV

General Description of Tamil Nadu 90

CHAPTER - IV

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF TAMIL NADU

4.1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION 4.1.1. Location

Tamilndau is the Southern most State in the Indian Sub-continent. The

State is bounded on the North by Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, on the West by Kerala, on the East the Bay of Bengal and on the south by Indian ocean.

Tamilnadu has a long coastline of about 1000km which accounts for 12 per cent of the entire coastline of India. Tamilnadu with an estimated area of

1,20,058 sq.km, ranks eleventh among the States of India in size and constitutes 4 per cent of the land area of the country. The state can be divided into two broad natural regions-the costal plains and hilly western area. The major rivers flowing through Tamilnadu are the Cauvery, Vaigai and the

Thamaraparani.

4.1.2. Climate

Tamilnadu has an equatorial tropical climate in the inland and equatorial, maritime climate in the coastal regions. In the inland the temperature may go to extremes in some places while it tends to be moderate in the coastal areas. By and large, the average temperature for most part of the state ranges between 28 and 40°C in summer and between 18 and 26°C in the short lived winter season. In some more hilly terrain, the maximum 91

temperature may be as low as 26°C and the minimum temperature may go down to 3°C degree. The state periodically has adverse seasonal conditions.

The normal rainfall is 942.8 mm. The rainfall has been below normal in 25 years over a period of 40 years.

4.1.3. Administrative units

There were 29 revenue districts in the state as on 2005 January. The revenue districts are divided into 166 revenue taluks. There are 17,029 revenue villages in the state. There are 10 corporations, 104 municipalities and 611 town panchayats widely dispersed in this state.

4.1.4. Demographic aspects of Tamilnadu

Tamilnadu had a population of 55.9 million according to the census which rose to 62.1 million in 2001 making it the sixth most populous state in the country. The density of population in Tamilnadu is 478 persons per sq.km whereas the national average is 324 persons per sq.km and it is the sixth highest among the states of India.

Table - 4.1 Density of population in Tamilnadu and India 1991 and 2001 (in sq.km) Density of population Density of population State In the year 1991 In the year 2001

Tamil Nadu 429 478

All India 267 324

Source: Census of India 2001, paper 1 of 2001. 92

In Tamilnadu growth rate between 1981 and 1991 was 15.39 per cent whereas growth rate between 1991 and 2001 was only 11.19 per cent. The compound annual growth rate between1981 and 1991 which was 1.43 per cent declined to 1.06 per cent in the last decade. Tamilnadu is now the most urbanized state in the country with 43.86 per cent of the population living in urban area. The sex ratio in Tamilnadu has improved slowly in the last decade.

The combined rural and urban sex ratio was 948 in 1991 and 986 in 2001.

Table - 4.2 Demographic characteristics of Tamilnadu and its sub-region 1991 and 2001

Number of females per 1000 Sex Ratio (all) males

1991 969 965 944 906 960 938 967 952 958 952

2001 953 950 937 897 931 956 963 950 941 951

Source: GOTN (2000) for (a) and Census into (2001) for (b)

4.1.5. Agrarian economy 4.1.5.1. Land utilization pattern

The area of Tamilnadu is around 130 lakh hectares. Under forest there are 21.40 lakh hectares and it accounts for 16 per cent of the total land area against the enistonmentally desirable 33 per cent. The availability of cultivable land set the limit for extensive farming. Net area sown is less than 55 lakh hectares in 2000. 93

Table - 4.3 Land use pattern in Tamilnadu (Lakh hect) S. Land use 1970- 1980- 1990- 1999- 2000- 2006- 2007- 2008- No. Pattern 71 81 91 2000 2005 07 08 09 1. Reporting area 13015 13004 13003 13019 12991 12995 130.27 130.27 2. Forests 1866 2013 2022 2155 2132 2135 21.06 21.16 Barren and 3. Uncultivable 945 832 577 509 476 455 3.09 4.9 land Land put to non- 4. 1295 1489 1747 1820 1978 1999 21.60 21.61 agri. uses Permanent 5. pasture and 363 231 159 124 123 127 1.10 1.10 Grazing lands Land under 6. misc. tree crops 246 226 212 234 243 249 2.68 2.68 and groves Cultivable waste 7. 706 507 343 290 349 369 3.54 3.47 land 8. Other follows* 632 573 459 104 1140 1240 14.93 14.99 Current 9. 964 946 2120 1264 1085 1095 9.07 9.81 follows** 10. Net are sown 5997 6169 5364 5579 5463 5479 51.26 50.62 Area sown more 11. 1324 1215 1109 1053 1054 1057 7.17 7.53 than once Gross cropped 12. 7320 7384 6473 6632 6517 6539 58.43 58.15 area Cropping 13. 120 120 121 119 119 120 114.00 114.88 intensity Net area 14. 2461 2486 2570 2373 2972 2872 28.9 28.7 irrigated per cent to are 15. 41.0 40.3 47.9 42.5 54.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 sown Gross area 16. 3235 3279 3294 2894 3585 3486 33.1 33.3 irrigated 17. per cent to Gross 44.2 44.4 50.9 43.6 55.0 56.6 56.6 56.6 Intensity of 18. irrigation per 131.5 131.9 128.2 122.0 120.6 121.8 114.5 114.9 cent

* Lands are cultivated but remaining follow for 2.5 years. ** Lands are cultivated but remaining follow during the current year. Intensity of irrigation=percentage of gross irrigation area to net irrigated area. Source: T.N.-Economic Appraisal-Several Issues – 2008-09 94

4.1.6. Rainfall

Most of Tamilnadu falls within the rain shadow region of western ghats and hence the average rainfall in the state is only around 943 mm/year against the average rainfall of 1170 mm of the country.

However the coastal districts receive higher rainfall due to contributions of the North East monsoon. Since most of the regions have seasonal flood the rainfall has to be conferred through tanks and reservoirs. 60 per cent of the ground water potential has also been utilized.

Table - 4.4 Rainfall

Actual Rainfall S. Normal Season No. Rainfall 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

1. Winter: Jan.– Feb. 37.5 8.7 12.1 (-)67.7 (+)39.1 46.2

2. Summer: March-May 127.5 124.9 283.4 (+)122.3 (+)126.9 261.2

3. South West: June-Sep. 324.3 329.7 459.8 (+)41.8 (+)39.5 341.6

4. North East: Oct-Dec. 464.7 404.5 470.9 (+)1.3 (+)39.5 515.4

Total 954.0 867.8 1226.2 (+)26.5 (+)41.3 1164.4

Source: Agricultural Department, Government Tamil Nadu 2005-07 and 2007-08.

It varies from 1200 mm nearer the costal area to 550 mm in the inland area. 95

4.1.7. Irrigation

The total area of land irrigated in 1960-61 was 24.61 lakh hectares and it has expanded to 29.72 lakh hectare by 2000-2002, but with a noticeable change in the relative share of different sources. Natural surface flow of water from canals and tanks accounted for 35.80 percent and 38.01 percent of total area irrigated respectively in 1960-61. They account for only 29.21 per cent and

21.30 percent respectively in 1994-2000. Even in absolute terms area irrigated by tanks has shown significant contraction from 9.36 lakh in 1960-61 to 5.31 lakh in 1990-91. In 1999-2000 it changed 6.33 lakh hectare irrigated by wells.

It has nearly trebled from 5.98 lakh hectare to 14.53 lakh hectare during the same period. This shows in creating exploitation of ground water, requiring investment in wells and use of electricity or diesel for the pumps etc. The projected water requirement in 2050 exceeds the total availability of surface and ground water in the state by 24 per cent Tamilnadu may have to rely less on sharing water with other states unless and until the inter linking of rivers projects become a reality. 96

Table - 4.5 Crop wise area irrigated (Area in ‘000 ha) Food All Year Rice Jowar Pulses Groundnut Sugarcane Cotton Crops Crops

1970-71 2425 128 10 3084 181 114 85 3279

1971-72 2484 120 16 3140 211 116 122 3530

1972-73 2361 115 12 3306 178 143 108 3673

1973-74 2485 126 13 3211 269 186 109 3674

1974-75 2018 125 11 2696 171 160 100 3033

1975-76 2379 122 06 3068 163 128 72 3376

1976-77 2018 108 11 2677 144 154 89 3001

1977-78 2581 107 12 3287 198 167 147 3799

1978-79 2556 109 11 3300 251 154 165 3818

1979-80 2709 116 14 3444 283 149 143 3983

1980-81 2105 96 16 2807 264 183 100 3294

1981-82 2306 95 14 2986 226 207 96 3427

1982-83 1787 71 11 2364 188 185 73 2732

1983-84 2196 81 17 2787 240 156 85 3249

1984-85 2331 73 19 2949 288 169 129 3506

1985-86 2081 65 22 2695 262 191 127 3240

1986-87 1789 54 35 2378 235 196 75 2844

1987-88 1766 47 39 2344 315 195 109 2945

1988-89 1717 46 29 2343 245 217 108 2873 97

Food All Year Rice Jowar Pulses Groundnut Sugarcane Cotton Crops Crops

1990-91 1796 55 50 2465 273 222 111 3045

1991-92 1686 46 58 2328 274 233 77 2894

1992-93 1958 38 49 2603 338 238 89 3257

1993-94 2016 37 44 2665 379 216 89 3385

1994-95 2137 42 39 2841 354 249 83 3544

1995-96 2063 38 40 2849 348 328 96 3588

1996-97 1796 38 37 2546 259 326 96 3183

1997-98 2015 36 33 2690 268 260 81 3347

1998-99 2197 45 38 2846 271 283 80 3519

1999-00 2128 36 45 2919 296 306 78 3635

2000-01 2016 38 52 2875 265 316 62 3585

2001-02 2019 37 50 2909 275 318 65 3661

2002-03 2117 36 48 2875 271 323 71 3660

2003-04 1972 34 37 2675 298 293 79 3444

2004-05 2006 38 39 2794 318 291 84 3508

2005-06 2015 42 49 2664 301 275 101 3601

2006-07 2128 38 51 1909 295 252 112 3186

2007-08 2118 41 52 2794 318 249 91 3666

2008-09 2016 43 49 2995 348 234 89 3717

Source: Seasons and Crop Report of Tamil Nadu (various Issues) (2008-09) 98

Table - 4.6 Per cent of area irrigated under crops Food Sugar All Year Rice Jowar Pulses Groundnut Cotton Crops Cane Crops 1979-80 90.28 17.03 2.03 59.35 84.44 18.10 27.33 44.41 1980-81 92.31 16.74 2.73 60.16 99.15 18.89 29.05 46.21 1981-82 92.28 16.91 1.84 62.95 99.31 16.78 35.64 47.71 1982-83 91.9 19.66 1.96 63.42 100 23.68 36.33 48.04 1983-84 90.62 18.52 2.37 61.22 100 17.51 40.16 45.71 1984-85 92.78 14.93 1.27 60.53 100 17.43 34.62 46.66 1985-86 88.35 12.83 2.02 54.56 99.35 16.18 37.08 41.99 1986-87 92.77 14.25 2.06 61.99 100 21.38 45.23 47.93 1987-88 92.74 15.66 1.79 64.00 100 25.53 47.55 49.64 1988-89 93.22 16.09 2.31 66.8 100 28.36 51.07 51.61 1989-90 94.39 17.88 2.94 68.31 100 33.46 45.05 50.91 1990-91 93.47 14.20 2.51 64.52 103 22.31 4013 49.69 1991-92 94.60 10.92 2.23 60.24 106.3 20.61 38.22 45.31 1992-93 93.33 10.84 2.82 59.06 102.6 25.10 47.75 46.78 1993-94 92.94 10.63 3.08 63.57 99.41 30.02 50.99 49.46 1994-95 91.92 8.92 3.78 58.37 100 28.11 50.09 47.51 1995-96 91.51 7.40 5.08 57.54 100 26.20 31.51 43.7 1996-97 87.82 6.15 6.14 56.07 100.5 28.64 44.67 43.77 1997-98 90.99 7.76 4.64 57.13 98.19 23.47 44.26 44.54 1998-99 91.48 9.42 6.09 58.03 95.85 25.28 41.42 44.64 1999-00 90.86 8.50 6.85 59.68 100 28.46 32.18 43.64 2000-01 92.45 7.43 6.32 64.96 100 30.75 33.67 46.68 2001-02 92.29 6.58 5.96 67.55 100.2 31.89 33.33 47.9 2002-03 92.66 8.30 5.65 70.55 99.84 30.56 36.23 49.51 2003-04 92.57 8.80 5.79 73.94 100.1 32.23 37.62 51.07 2004-05 92.07 9.91 6.41 76.25 99.94 27.75 36.81 50.79 2005-06 88.62 9.11 5.68 75.60 95.87 23.74 31.21 51.84 2006-07 93.19 11.84 6.42 78.14 100.00 27.10 28.37 53.66 2007-08 93.54 9.86 7.06 79.41 100.00 29.75 35.62 54.85 2008-09 93.16 10.83 7.50 79.14 100.00 29.03 34.83 55.16 Source: Seasons and Crop Report of Tamil Nadu by Commissioner, Development of Economic Statistics – 2007-08. 99

Table - 4.7 Land utilization in Tamil Nadu (Lakh hectare) 2004-05 S. 1995- 2000- 2001- 2002- 2006- 2007- 2008- Item Area in 2005-06 No. 1996 2001 2002 2003 07 08 09 Hectare

1. Total area 130.19 130.4 129.91 129.91 129.91 13026645 130.21 130.19 130.01

Cultivable 2. 2.90 3.48 3.52 3.87 389 374026 3.90 3.92 3.87 waste

Current 3. 12.49 12.93 11.34 10.26 15.02 691926 16.01 15.92 16.79 fallows lands

4. Other fallows 10.44 11.30 12.28 14.09 14.91 1704139 15.91 14.99 15.10

5. Net are sown 55.78 53.42 53.03 51.72 45.90 507011 52.11 51.42 51.15

Cultivable area 6. 81.61 81.13 80.17 79.94 79.72 80.01 81.17 80.95 (2+3+5)

Area sown 7. 10.53 9.25 10.34 10.53 6.01 792058 8.12 9.19 9.00 more than once

Gross cropped 8. 66.32 62.67 63.38 62.26 51.91 5889069 57.89 58.89 58.17 are (5+7)

Cropping 9. 118.90 117.30 119.50 120.30 113.10 114.90 117.15 116.90 intensity

Ratur of net sown area to cultivable area (5/6) per cent 10. 68.34 65.84 66.15 64.70 57.60 290072 58.60 61.11 60.67 (including extent of use of cultivable area

Source: Development Indicators for Tamilnadu. Seasons and Crop Report of Tamilnadu by Commissioner, Development of Economic and Statistics, 2007-08

The net sown area has declined over the last 10 years from 55.78 lakh.

ha to 45.90 lakh ha. the cultivable area also has declined from over 81.61 lakh

ha to 79.72 lakh ha with the cropping intensity remaining around 18 to 120 per 100

cent and come down to 113.1 per cent during 2002-2003, the gross cropped

area declined from over 66 lakh hectare to little over 51 lakh hectare and in the

past 10 years period it has been no where near the cultivable area of around 80

lakh hectare.

Table - 4.8 Rainfall during 2003-2009 (mm)

S. Normal Actual Rainfall Season No. Rainfall 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Winter 1. January – 36.7 70.0 8.7 12.1 13.5 13.7 24.1 14.9 February

Summer 2. (March- 134.2 85.8 124.9 283.4 282.4 291.5 295.1 296.1 May)

South West 3. Monsoon 331.6 185.4 329.7 337.4 317.9 319.1 321.7 322.1 Jam-Sep

North East 4. Monsoon 464.7 407.2 404.5 415.7 409.2 411.7 419.3 420.4 (Oct-Dec.)

Total 967.2 748.4 867.8 1048.6 1023.0 1041.2 1053.5

Source: Agricultural Development Policy Note on demand No.5 2004-2005 and 2007-2008.

The rainfall received during 2003 was more or less normal with

deviations of only 10.2 per cent from normal rainfall. However it was 15 per

cent more compared to the year 2002 even though short fall during months like

September (-40.3 %) and December (76.4%) created lot of water stress for the

Samba paddy crop. 101

Table - 4.9 Normal Rainfall: 967.2mm

Years Rainfall (mm) 1998 1036.4 1999 837.3 2000 847.5 2001 774.7 2002 748.4 2003 867.8 2004 1048.6 2005 1023.0 2006 1036.0 2007 1041.2 2008 1053.5 2009 1054.0

Source: Agricultural Department, Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi, 2008-09.

Even with increasing use of ground water net area irrigated is only 29.72 lakh hectare, which benefits only 54.4 per cent of net sown area. The intensity of irrigation is low at 120 per cent. It has its impact on keeping intensity cropping also low at 119 per cent. So goods cropped area is only 56.17 lakh hectare in 1999-2000 showing a sharp decline from 73.20 lakh hectare in 1960-

61.

The major reservoirs of the State are Mettur, Amaravthi Sathanur,

Pechiparai, Periyar-Vaigai, Bhavani sagar, Parmbikulam Aliyar and

Mainmutharu. Among the various reservoirs, the Mettur reservoir alone has to supply water to more than 70 per cent of the irrigated area. Mettur reservoir 102

supplies water for irrigation for the districts of Thanjavur, Tiruvarur,

Nagapattinam, Tiruchirapalli and Cudalore and Karaikal Districts.

There are 17 river basins in Tamilnadu of which the Cauvery is the largest. Most of the surface water is harnessed in 61 major reservoirs and in about 39000 tanks. The Cauvery as an interstate river comes under the Cauvery water quantity. Water resources issues are of particular concern to Tamilnadu, since there are “deficits’ in many of the basins, and quality problem occurs increasingly due to pollution.

4.1.8. Cropping pattern

Paddy is the dominant crop accounting for 33 per cent gross cropped area. Groundnut, Sugarcane and Cotton are important commercial crops.

Jowar, Bajra and Pulses are important food grain crops. These seven crops account for about 73 per cent of gross cropped area, while 42 other crops are each cultivated in small areas. Rice being the stable food of the people of

Tamilnadu its dominant share in the crop mix had remained steady when supply of water in the Cauvery was delayed. Area cultivated with Jowar

(Cholam) has come down from 7.74 lakh hectare in 1960-61 to less than 4 lakh hectare in 1999-2000. Area under Bajra (Cumbu) has fallen from 4.89 lakh hectare to 1.58 lakh hectare in the same period. Area under pulse crops expanded from 4.27 lakh hectares to 6.93 lakh hectares between 1960-61 and

1999-2000. Area under sugarcane has increased from just 0.82 lakh hectare in

1960-61 to 3.16 lakh hectare in 1999-2000. 103

Gross cropped area has shrunk from 73.20 lakh hectare to 65.17 lakh hectare, nearly 10 per cent reduction. This needs attention because the number of workers dependent upon agriculture has increased from 95 lakhs in 1971 to

144 lakhs in 1991.

Table - 4.10 Crop pattern of Tamilnadu (000 hectare) S. Sources of 1960-61 1970-71 1980-81 1990-91 2000-01 No. irrigations

1. Rice 2518 26.36 22.30 1856 2164 (35.40) (35.70) (34.47) (27.98) (33.21)

2. Jowar 774 749 537 541 351 (10.59) (10.14) (8.37) (8.16) (5.38)

3. Bajra 489 490 319 274 158 (6.68) (6.64) (4.39) (4.13) (2.43)

4. Pulse 427 492 544 847 693 (5.83) (6.66) (8.41) (12.77) (10.63)

5. Sugarcane 82 135 183 233 316 (1.12) (1.83) (2.83) (3.51) (4.85)

6. Groundnut 871 1000 789 963 913 (11.90) (13.54) (12.19) (14.52) (14.01)

7. Cotton 396 311 222 239 178 (5.41) (4.21) (3.43) (3.61) (2.73)

8. Other Crops 1763 1571 1646 1679 1744 (24.08 (21.28) (25.44) (25.32) (26.76)

9. Gross Cropped 7320 7384 6470 6632 6517 area

Source: Seasons and Crop Reports, Government of Tamilnadu 2009. Figures in parentheses are indicates in percentage. 104

Table - 4.11 Productivity (yield) of major crops in Tamilnadu (Kg. per hectare) S. 1970- 1980- 1990- 1999- 2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008- Crop Units No. 1971 1981 1991 2000 2005 2006 07 08 09

Rice 1. Rice 1414 1974 1865 3116 3482 3415 3350 3395 3310 in kg.

Grain 2. Jowar in 816 730 790 1010 983 1010 960 995 950 Kg.

Grain 3. Bajra in 616 660 840 1080 1525 1518 1348 1378 1279 Kg.

Grain 4. Pulses in 265 271 324 425 420 710 710 715 711 Kg.

Tones 5. Sugarcane of 80 77 101.5 100.8 108 107285 106778 108771 106112 cane

Nut 6. Groundnut in 1217 920 860 1220 1541 1765 1784 1884 1771 Kg.

Unit 7. Cotton 167 200 200 290 325 285 305 307 291 Kg.

Unit Total 8. in 2262 2238 Food grins Kg.

Source: Tamilnadu An Economic Appraisal (2007-08). Policy Note Demand No.5, Agriculture Dept.2004-05 and 2007-08. 105

Table - 4.12 Growth rate of Area, Production and Yield of Major crop in Tamilnadu (in percentage) S. Crops Variables 1970’s 1980’s 1990’s 2000 2010 No. A 2.66 2.32 -2.32 1.34 1.37 1. Rice Y 1.40 4.39 5.27 2.22 2.25 P 4.07 6.81 3.06 3.66 3.67 A 0.10 -3.86 0.11 -3.59 -3.23 2. Jowar Y 2.27 1.40 -1.77 2.66 2.73 P 2.38 2.47 -1.61 -0.92 -0.72 A -7.75 -6.76 -5.99 -4.71 -3.71 3. Bajra Y 6.75 5.00 4.20 2.03 2.87 P -0.01 1.79 -1.30 -2.65 -2.13 A 4.07 2.00 5.29 1.40 1.51 4. Pulses Y 0.37 3.50 4.01 3.00 3.21 P 3.73 5.80 9.30 4.40 4.70 A 1.96 2.25 -3.69 -0.88 -0.91 5. Food grains Y 2.67 3.40 1.28 6.01 6.72 P 4.13 5.63 -2.43 6.70 5.70 A 9.30 1.69 7.30 4.20 4.27 6. Sugar cane Y -0.51 4.30 0.70 2.02 2.08 P 8.34 5.59 7.75 6.25 6.91 A 1.69 1.93 7.25 1.60 2.20 7. Groundnut Y -3.10 -3.60 2.50 2.70 2.92 P -1.41 -2.95 10.01 3.03 3.43 A -3.79 -1.56 5.35 -2.22 -2.02 8. Cotton Y 2.40 3.80 13.00 0.35 0.21 P -1.30 2.93 19.18 -2.09 -1.99

Note: Annual Compound growth rates for each decade compound A = Area (ha) Y = Yield/hectare P = Production.

106

4.1.9. Land distribution pattern

Net area under forest and fallow lands and total land available with farmers was 76-08 lakh hectare in 1980-81 and marginally increased to 78.62 lakh hectare in 1995-96. In 1995-96 there were 82.35 lakh farmers. Their operation area was 78.62 lakh hectares. The average farm size was 0.95 hectare only. Among them there are 60.40 lakh marginal farmers with land holding in size of less than one hectare each average size being 0.38 hectare. Small farms

(1-2 ha) are 13.05 lakh in number and they have the total land area of 18.32 lakh hectare, average size being 1.40 hectare.

Farms classified as semi medium size group are 6.33 lakh in number and have 17.29 lakh hectares, the average size of farm being 2.73 hectares. Thus

96 per cent of land holdings are smaller than 4 hectares each.

In 1999-2000 the average area of land possessed was less than half (0.34 hectare) of that for All India (0.81 hectare) and a little higher than the lowest value of Kerala’s 0.28 hectare. It comes down from 0.4 hectare to 0.34 hectare in Tamilnadu 1993-94 and 1999-2000 though at the All India level also such a trend is observed. In 1993-94 and 1999-2000 the proportion of this household increased between 63.4 and 67 per cent. 107

Table - 4.13 Distribution of household across size of grass land for rural Tamilnadu

In hectares 1993-94 1999-2000

0 63.4 (38.7) 67.0 (40.9)

0.04-0.4 146. (18.8) 15.5 (22.3)

0.41-1 11.9 (17.3) 9.9 (16.8)

1-2 6.7 (13.4) 5.2 (11.2)

2.01-4 2.4 (07.6) 1.8 (05.9)

4.01 and above 1.0 (04.3) 0.6 (03.0)

Source: NSSO (1996, 2001) Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentage.

108

4.1.10. Waste land

A recent estimate shows that in 20 districts of Tamilnadu there is waste land to the extent of 36.28 lakh hectare.

Table - 4.14 Districtwise data - waste land in Tamilnadu (000 hectare) S. District Waste Land No. 1. Kancheepuram 183 2. Cuddalore 276 3. Vellore 149 4. Thiruvannamalai 141 5. Salem 262 6. Dharmapuri 195 7. Coimbatore 182 8. Erode 180 9. Thiuchirappalli 391 10. Pudukottai 137 11 Thanjavur 139 12 Madurai 177 13 Dindigul 209 14 Ramanathapuram 144 15 Virudhunagar 141 16 Sivagangai 177 17 Tirunelveli 284 18 Thoothukudi 180 19 Niligiris 47 20 Kanyakumari 34

Grand Total: 36.28 lakh hectare. Source: Perspective plan for waste land development. TNAU, Coimbatore 2001. 109

4.2. PRODUCTION OF IMPORTANT FOOD GRAINS 4.2.1. Paddy – gross area cultivated

Paddy is the dominant crop accounting for 33 percent of gross cropped area. Paddy is the stable food of the people of Tamil Nadu. Its dominant share in the crop mix had remained steady, yield of paddy has increased from 1414 kg/hectare in 1960-61 to 3482 Kg/hectare in 1999-2000 more than doubled.

This increase in area under paddy is the result of expansion of irrigation and farmers replaced the low value coarse with high yield paddy.

The gross cropped area which reached the maximum in 1970s with

74.56 lakh hectare sharply fell to 51.91 lakh hectare in 2002-2003. the area under fallows are on the increase from 12.02 lakh in 1970s (9.2%) to 15.03 lakh hectare in 2002-03 (11.6%) area sown more than once tended to decrease from 13.21 lakh hectare in 1970s to 6.01 lakh hectare in 2002-03.

4.2.2. Paddy crop prospects

The area under Kuruvai Paddy in delta district was only 0.46 lakh hectares against the normal area of 2.074 lakh hectares recording a steep fall by nearly 80 per cent. Similarly in samba against the normal area of 3.72 lakh hectares, the coverage was 3.529 lakh hectares of which 1.241 lakh hectares was direct sown crop. During Thaladi only 0.423 lakh hectares was brought under cultivation against the normal area 01.770 lakh hectare in these districts.

As a result only 4.412 lakh hectares was brought under paddy cultivation against the normal area of 7.564 lakh hectare in the delta districts. Raising of 110

water intensive crop like paddy and sugarcane are discouraged and farmers are encouraged to raise crops such as millets, pulses and oilseeds etc.

4.2.3. Production of rice

The productivity of paddy largely depends upon the genetic and physical purity of the seeds. The production of rice increased sharply from 40.1 lakh tonnes in 1969-70 to 50.0 lakh tonnes in 1970-71 and 58.0 lakh tonnes in 1979-

80. The annual compound growth rate calculated for this period is 1.38 per cent for the entire state. Composite Thanjavur District contributes the major portion of state total rice production and followed by composite Chengalpet district and

Thiruchirappalli district. The productivity of paddy crop has increased between

1964 and 3106 kg of rice per hectare in 1989-90 to 1991-92. The productivity of paddy crop target is 73.58 metric tonnes but actually yield is 47.380 MT on

31.3.2006.

Table - 4.15 Paddy production on 31.9.2010

S. Area (L.Ha) Production (L.MT) Crop No. Target Actual Target Actual 1. Rice 20.00 14.008 73.58 47.380 2. Millets 10.00 11.900 13.15 14.602 3. Pulses 7.20 7.926 3.12 3.400 4. Cotton (L.Sales) 2.50 0.988 5.40 1.770 5. Sugar cane (G) 3.00 1.92 33.65 20.92 6. Oil seeds 9.50 8.011 16.07 12.530 Total Food Grains 37.20 33.834 89.85 65.382

Source: Agriculture Department, Govt. of Tamilnadu Policy Note Demand no.5, 2009-2010. 111

4.3. MARKETING AGENCIES

Marketing infrastructure plays a pivotal role in fostering and sustaining the tempo of rural economic development. Marketing is critical to better performance in agriculture and farming itself. Agricultural marketing is a process which starts with a decision to produce a saleable farm commodity and it involves all the aspects relating to pre and post harvest operation including assembling, grading, storage, transportation and distribution. The market was founded in 1977 and it was renamed in the year 2001 as agriculture business in order to focus on other activities like export, post harvest management, food processing, etc.

4.3.1. Market committees

20 market committees are functioning in Tamilnadu covering various districts except Chennai and Nilgris. Now these market committees are functioning with nominated members and chair person elected by the members from January 2003.

4.3.2. Regulated markets

There are 273 regulated markets, 15 sub-markets, 15 check posts, 108 rural godowns and 108 grading centres functioning under the 20 market committees. A new regulated market was opened on 30.08.2003 at Sathankulam. Competitive or remunerative prices are ensured for the produce sold by the farmers through closed tender system in the regulated markets. Free grading facilities for agricultural commodities are also made 112

available in the regulated markets. The market committees are collecting one per cent of the value of the produce transacted as market fee from the traders.

License fee is also collected from the traders and weight man. No fee is collected from producers / sellers for any service rendered in the regulated markets. All farmers are eligible to sell their agriculture produce in the regulated markets. Licensed traders have eligibility in trading in the regulated markets. All farmers are eligible to sell one metric tonne or more of agriculture produce per year in the regulated markets and at the same time all food related projects are eligible for the grant from the Ministry of Food Processing industries subject to guidelines from the Ministry. As the grant offered in front ended, the applications are to be submitted well before the commencement of commercial production.

4.3.3. Service rendered by regulated markets

These include correct weighment godown facilities, banking facilities, immediate payment, price information, rest sheds, drinking water facility, cattle sheds, free medical aid to farmers input shops, payment counter for easy disbursement, phone and fax facilities, etc.

Regulated market is to help the producers to get better price for their producer according to their grades and in order to avoid distress sales by the small and marginal farmers in the peak season. Regulated markets are issuing pledge loan to farmers. The farmers can store their agriculture produce in the godowns of regulated markets for a maximum period of 6 months and take 113

pledge loan of 75 per cent of the value of the produce up to a maximum of

Rs.50,000/-. As an incentive to the traders and to help them to make

immediate payment to the farmers pledge loan is given to the licensed traders

in the regulated markets. Pledge loan of 50 per cent of the total value of the

purchased produce or Rs.1.00 lakh whichever is less, is made available to the

traders. The maximum stock period is 3 months for the traders.

Table - 4.16 Details of regulated markets, check posts, rural godowns, commercial grading centres, kapas grading centres and tobacco grading centre in Tamil Nadu

Commercial Kapas Tobacco S. Market Regulated Sub Check Rural grading grading grading No. Committees Markets markets post godowns centre centre centre 1. Kancheepuram 14 1 2 5 7 ------2. Vellore 12 ------4 5 ------3. Thiruvannamalai 16 ------7 10 ------4. Cuddalore 10 1 --- 3 6 ------5. Villupuram 18 ------9 13 1 --- 6. Salem 19 ------2 6 ------7. Dharmapuri 16 --- 2 4 5 ------8. Coimbatore 18 5 --- 11 2 3 --- 9. Erode 25 6 1 9 10 2 1 10. Tiruchirapalli 19 2 4 10 4 ------11. Thanjavur 13 --- 2 4 3 ------12. Pudukkottai 10 --- 1 2 2 ------13. Madurai 6 ------2 2 ------14. Ramanathapuram 20 --- 1 10 6 1 --- 15. Tirunelveli 20 ------12 6 3 --- 16. Kanyakumari 6 --- 2 5 2 ------17. Theni 7 ------2 1 1 --- 18. Dindigual 8 ------4 4 ------19. Nagapattinam 8 ------1 1 ------20. Tiruvarur 8 ------2 1 ------Total 273 15 15 108 96 11 1

Source: Agriculture Department Policy Note Demand No.5, Ministry of Agriculture, 2007-2008. 114

Table - 4.17 Infrastructure facilities available in the regulated markets

S. Market Own Rural Transaction Godown No. committees land godown shed 1. Kancheepuram 7 --- 5 4 2. Vellore 9 6 4 6 3. Thiruvannamalai 13 5 7 14 4. Cuddalore 5 2 3 11 5. Villupuram 12 4 9 26 6. Salem 5 1 2 4 7. Dharmapuri 9 1 4 7 8. Coimbatore 18 58 11 19 9. Erode 14 12 9 19 10. Tiruchirapalli 12 13 10 24 11. Thanjavur 10 11 4 17 12. Pudukkottai 3 1 2 3 13. Madurai 4 --- 2 1 14. Ramanathapuram 14 8 10 12 15. Tirunelveli 15 3 12 9 16. Kanyakumari 5 2 5 6 17. Theni 4 --- 2 3 18. Dindigual 6 1 4 6 19. Nagapattinam 1 1 1 2 20. Tiruvarur 1 --- 2 1 Total 167 129 108 194

Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Agriculture Department, 2007-08. 115

Table - 4.18 Infrastructure facilities available in the regulated markets (in numbers) Tran- Drinking S. Market Own Rural Drying Farmers’ Sanitary Godown saction water No. Committee land Godown yard rest shed facilities shed facilities

1. Kancheepuram 7 --- 5 4 7 2 6 5

2. Vellore 9 6 4 6 4 2 7 7

3. Thiruvannamalai 13 5 7 14 11 6 10 9

4. Cuddalore 5 2 3 11 5 3 9 5

5. Villupuram 12 4 9 26 13 10 22 12

6. Salem 5 1 2 4 4 --- 4 3

7. Dharmapuri 9 1 4 7 7 3 11 7

8. Coimbatore 18 58 11 19 21 6 14 12

9. Erode 14 12 9 19 16 3 14 14

10. Tiruchirapalli 12 13 10 24 13 3 19 11

11. Thanjavur 10 11 4 17 7 6 9 9

12. Pudukkottai 3 1 2 3 2 1 3 2

13. Madurai 4 --- 2 1 3 3 2 3

14. Ramanathapuram 14 8 10 12 10 2 12 13

15. Tirunelveli 15 3 12 9 13 10 14 15

16. Kanyakumari 5 2 5 6 7 5 5 5

17. Theni 4 --- 2 3 6 1 3 4

18. Dindigual 6 1 4 6 7 --- 5 5

19. Nagapattinam 1 1 1 2 1 --- 1 1

20. Tiruvarur 1 --- 2 1 1 2 1 1

Total 167 129 108 194 158 68 171 143

Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of Tamil Nadu (2008).

116

4.3.4. Co-operative marketing societies

The Tamilnadu Co-operative Marketing Federation (TANFED) was started in 1959. The cooperatives play a vital role in the marketing of agriculture produce and allied activities. The marketing federations help the member of farmers in processing sharing and marketing their agriculture produce to get reasonable price.

4.3.5. TANFED

The TANFED as the wholesaler distributes through agricultural cooperative banks and co-operative marketing societies. As a marketing organization TANFED undertakes procurement of agricultural commodities such as cotton, chilies, coriander, pulses and oilseeds. TANFED provides market support to the farmers through co-operative marketing societies.

Procurement operation is under taken the co-operative marketing societies and the regulated market to fetch remunerative price to the farmers. In order to provide financial and technical support to the member societies, the activity is being done under joint venture basis, agency basis and by tie-up arrangements with national agricultural co-operative marketing federation.

For the purpose of string agriculture in puts as well as agriculture coral commodities Tamilnadu Co-operative Marketing Federation has constructed 36 godowns with financial assistance form NCDC at various places with a combined capacity of 27,640 M.Ts. In addition to these godowns TANFED has hired 21 godowns with a total capacity of 12100 M.Ts. TANFED has 20 117

Regional Offices and Operates 2 Cold Storage godowns 1 at Basin bridge,

Chennai with 1,350 M.Ts. capacity and the other with 2,500 M.Ts at the

Koyambedu wholesale market complex.

Table - 4.19 Marketing institution during 2007-2008 (upto December)

Handled by Handled by other Total TANFED institutions Commodity Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value (in NPK (Rs. in (in NPK (Rs. in (in NPK (Rs. in tones) lakhs) tones) lakhs) tones) lakhs)

Fertilizer 56565.000 7105.44 16260.939 2062.47 727825.929 9167.91

Pamni mixtures manufactured (in MTs) 4512.550 349.27 ------4512.55 349.27

Pamani 17.17.17 5047.600 412.02 ------5047.600 412.02

Pesticides distributed --- 3.80 --- 63.63 --- 67.43

Seeds distribution --- 3.20 --- 148.70 --- 151.90

Agri. implementation distributed ------20.59 --- 20.59 Source: Co-operation and Food Dept. Policy note No. 2007-2008.

118

4.3.6. Marketing of agriculture produce

The co-operative marketing societies help the farmer members in processing, string and marketing their agricultural produce to get a reasonable price for them by eliminating middle man. The marketing societies arrange for auction sale of agricultural produce and also make outright purchase from members and sell them to the consumers. The co-operative marketing societies serve as a bridge between producers and consumers.

Table - 4.20 Marketing of agricultural produce in 2008-2009 (upto December)

Achievement in S. Name of the Achievement in 2007-08 2008-2009 No. commodity (kg/hect) (kg/hect0

1. Paddy and Rice 1469.51 3900

2. Food grains 453.50 2678

3. Cotton 5324.72 5708

4. Oil seeds 1078.83 1759

5. Pulses 291.81 700

6. Vegetables 1883.48 27.93

7. Sugar cane 2778.22 12505

8. Others 1191.07 2000

Total 14892.14

Source: Co-operative and Food Dept. Policy, Economic Appraisal of Tamil Nadu, 2008-09. 119

4.3.7. Linking of consumer co-operative stores with working societies

In order to enable the producers to get a remunerative price for their produce and also to help the consumer to get essentials at reasonable prices, the co-operative marketing societies have been linked with primary agricultural co-operative banks and co-operative wholesale stores. A target of Rs.20.80 crores was fixed for the year 2003-2004. Agriculture produce to the value of

Rs.19.64 crores was sold up to March 2004 by the co-operative marketing societies through the consumer co-operative stores.

4.3.8. Storage – Rural and Marketing Godowns

Table - 4.21 The number of godowns and their capacities

Capacity (in lakhs Number of Godowns M.Ts.) a. Rural Godowns 4661 5.30 b. Marketing Godowns 456 2.03 c. Consumer Godowns 161 0.92

Total 5278 8.25 Source: Co-operation, Food Dept. Policy Note 2007-2008.

4.3.9. Private trading

An important marketing agency for marketing of agricultural produce is private trading. Private traders set up their business venture at the big villages, taluk or district head-quarters or directly go to farmers and purchase from 120

them. The traders also purchase through their agents in the production villages or nearby villages.

4.3.10. AGMARK grading

Grading under AGMARK has already become a symbol of quality. In order to help the consumer to get quality food products 30 State Agmark

Grading laboratories, 15 Agricultural officer (marketing) centres and one

Principal Laboratory are functioning in the State. Agmark grading is done for centralized and decentralized commodities by the technically qualified staff.

Agmark labels are issued to the authorized packers under the direct supervision of the State Agmark Grading Authority certifying the quality and purity of the food products.

4.3.11. TNCSC and Govt. Procurement of Paddy

The Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation was incorporated with the following main objectives in 1972. They encourage in promoting, improving, developing, transporting, distribution and sale of food grains, food stuffs and any other essential articles and non essential commodities and to provide services and assistance of all kinds for the purpose, including capital credit, means, resources, technical and managerial services advice and assistance. This corporation consists of 30 regional offices one in each revenue district.

a. Procurement of paddy from farmers through DPC under decentralized

procurement scheme. 121

b. Hulling paddy through 23 modern rice mills of TNCSC and about 300

private hulling agents appointed from time to time. c. Lifting of rice, wheat and sugar allotted by Govt. of India from central

Govt. for distribution under public distribution system. d. The corporation lifts from FCI and distributes food grains to

beneficiaries of the welfare schemes announced by Central Government

Schemes e. Issue of Public Distribution System commodities to the retail Shops run

by the corporation and the cooperative and non public distribution

system commodities to the welfare schemes and for Amuthan

Departmental Stores. f. Purchase of non public distribution system commodities such as pulses

edible oils etc. for distribution under various welfare schemes of noon

meal scheme, old age pensioners’ schemes. g. The corporation also purchases Ragi, Maize, Jaggery in the open market

and distributes under integrated development schemes to the food

societies. h. Running of 1145 fair price shops. Chapter --- VVV

Analysis and Discussion-I 122

CHAPTER - V ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION – I

5.1. Category of the respondents

Cost of cultivation may vary depending on the size of the land holding of the farmers. Hence an attempt is made to classify total sample respondents into four categories i.e. marginal, small, medium and large farmers as shown in table 5.1.

Table - 5.1 Type of farming of the sample respondents (No. of farmers) Farm Category Kumbakonam Orathanadu Papanasam Total 33 35 35 103 Marginal (33.0) (35.0) (35.0) (34.3) 31 28 35 94 Small (31.0) (28.0) (35.0) (31.3) 30 18 18 66 Medium (30.0) (18.0) (18.0) (22.0) 6 19 12 37 Large (6.0) (19.0) (12.0) (12.3) 100 100 100 300 Total (100) (100) (100) (100) Source: Primary data Note : Figures in parentheses indicate percentage to total. Among the respondents surveyed, marginal farmers form the highest percentage in all the three taluks. Large farming accounts for a total of 12.0 per cent only. The small farmers come second in total percentage (35.0 per cent). In Papanasam taluk marginal farming and small farming account for equal number, 35 per cent in Orathanadu taluk marginal farmers are maximum.

Large farmers are the lowest in Kumbakonam taluk and maximum in

Orathanadu taluk. 123

Figure – 5.1 Type of farming of the sample respondents

40

35 35 35 35 33

31 30 30 28

25

20 19 18 18 Percentage

15

12

10

6

5

0 Marginal Small Medium Large Farm Category

Kumbakonam Orathanadu Papanasam

124

5.2. Agewise schedule of the respondents

The present study is about the personal characteristics of the selected taluks consisting of age of respondents in the study area. Agewise classification of the farmers is necessary to study their behaviour towards adoption of new technology to increase the marketable surplus. The age of the farmers has been divided into four groups as shown in table 5.2.

Table - 5.2 Agewise schedules of the respondents in the study area (No. of farmers) Age group Kumbakonam Orathanadu Papanasam Total Less than 30 years --- 7 7 14 (7.0) (7.0) (4.7) 31 – 40 70 66 61 19.7 (70.0) (66.0) (66.0) (65.7) 41 – 50 18 27 13 58 (18.0) (27.0) (13.0) (19.3) More than 50 12 19 31 --- (12.0) (19.0) (10.3) 100 100 100 300 Total (100) (100) (100) (100) Source: Primary data Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentage to total.

The above age-wise survey of respondents in the three taluks shows that middle aged farmers are pre-dominant with 70.0 per cent. There are no cultivators above 50 years in Orathanadu taluk. In Kumbakonam taluk this age group is the lowest in percentage 12. But in Papanasam taluk farmers in the age group 41-50 form the lowest percentage that is 13. ig.5.6 125

5.3. Educational Status

In the agricultural adoption process, the spread of literacy plays a vital role to receive new ideas and skills. In recent times there has been considerable spread of adult literacy in the rural areas, thanks to various Non-

Governments for implementing non-formal educational / adult education /

Total literacy programmes continuously in general. Literacy develops new personality structure, which is characterized by freedom, initiative, innovations and pragmatic out look. The educational status of the farmers is presented in table 5.3.

Table - 5.3 Educational Status of the respondents in the study area (No. of farmers) Educational Status Kumbakonam Orathanadu Papanasam Total 06 04 02 12 Illiterate (0.6) (0.4) (0.2) (4.0) 19 21 20 60 Primary (19.0) (21.0) (20.0) (20.0) 57 49 46 152 High School (57.0) (49.0) (46.0) (51.0) 06 14 20 40 Higher Secondary (6.0) (14.0) (20.0) (13.0) 100 100 100 300 Total (100) (100) (100) (100) Source: Primary data Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentage to total

A notable feature of education reveals that in educational status, illiteracy level is very low in Orathanadu and Papanasam taluks compared to

Kumbakonam taluk. The respondents with higher secondary education are also the lowest in Kumbakonam taluk that is 6 per cent of the respondents with high school education are maximum in Kumbakonam in all the three taluks that is

12 per cent. No farmer has technical education or training in agriculture. 126

Figure – 5.2

Educational Status of the respondents in the study area

60 57

49 50 46

40

30 Percentage

21 20 20 19 20 14

10 6

0.6 0.4 0.2

0 Illiterate Primary High School Higher Secondary Educational Status

Kumbakonam Orathanadu Papanasam

127

5.4. Type of family

Examining further the nature of the family organization, the respondents have been required to furnish information about the size of their families.

Table - 5.4 Type of family respondents of the farmers in the study area (No. of farmers) Study Area Joint Nuclear Total 81 19 100 Kumbakonam (81.0) (19.0) (100) 67 33 100 Orathanadu (67.0) (33.0) (100) 62 38 100 Papanasam (62.0) (38.0) (100) 210 90 300 Total (70.0) (30.0) (100) Source: Primary data. Note: Figures in parentheses refer to percentage.

From the above table regarding the size of families 70 per cent of the respondents are joint families and the remaining 30 per cent belong to nuclear families. In Kumbakonam taluk Joint Families are the maximum i.e. 81 per cent and the minimum of nuclear families 19 per cent. 128

Figure – 5.3 Type of family respondents of the farmers in the study area

90

81

80

67 70 62

60

50

38

Percentage 40 33

30

19 20

10

0 Kumbakonam Orathanadu Papanasam Study Area

Joint Nuclear

129

5.5. CASTE-WISE DISTRIBUTION OF FARMERS

A social factor that may have a bearing on cultivation of paddy is the status of the farmers in the community enjoyed by their caste. For the purpose of the study farmers have been classified into four major groups, viz. Backward castes, Forward castes, Schedule castes and Other castes. The caste-wise distribution of the farmers is presented in table 5.5.

Table - 5.5 Caste-wise distribution of the respondents in the study area (No. of farmers) Area Backward Forward Scheduled Others Total Kumbakonam Marginal 28 02 02 01 33 Small 24 03 01 03 31 Medium 20 05 01 04 30 Large 04 02 ------06 Total 76 12 04 08 100 Orathanadu Marginal 26 06 01 02 35 Small 19 05 01 03 28 Medium 12 04 --- 02 18 Large 14 04 --- 02 18 Total 71 18 02 09 100 Papanasam Marginal 25 05 03 02 35 Small 30 05 ------35 Medium 16 02 ------18 Large 04 06 --- 02 12 Total 75 18 03 04 100 Source: Primary data. 130

From the above table it is found that Kumbakonam taluk stands first having 76 farmers belonging to backward caste followed by Orathanadu and

Papanasam taluks having 71 and 75 belonging to Backward caste. Further even in the distribution of scheduled caste, Kumbakonam stands first having 4 farmers belonging to scheduled caste followed by Orathanadu and Papanasam taluk having 2 and 3 farmers respectively belonging to scheduled caste.

5.6. Sources of Irrigation

It is common knowledge that irrigation helps in increasing agricultural production brought about not only by raising productivity, but also by increasing the intensity of land use. However the process through which such a positive change is effected after the introduction of irrigation is not very well recognized. Making available water for irrigation in the storage is not enough, its proper and efficient distribution is more crucial in bringing about desired changes through the introduction of irrigation. Efficient control of irrigation water distribution is supposed to contribute to increased agriculture production by making possible planting at optimal time, extending the effective cropping season and permitting in the process a switch to high productivity, high value crops., Given agro-climatic conditions and seed varieties the ability of the irrigation system to regulate the water supply to individual pieces of land in its command and maintain an appropriate level of soil moisture at all stages of the growth make a significant difference in the outcome. 131

Orathanadu, Papanasam and Kumbakonam have their irrigation facilities mainly from the river Cauvery. The Cauvery and its smaller canals help in the entire irrigation in the study area. Drainage facilities are provided by the smaller canals and river like Vennaru and Vettaru. Rainfall in the study area is generally confined to the four rainy season months viz., August to November, while paddy needs moisture throughout the period of growth. This could be arranged only by artificial watering i.e. irrigation. Irrigation in the study area is provided by four major sources like canals, bore-well, open-well and the tank.

The sources of irrigation of study area are indicated in the table 5.14.

Table - 5.6 Sources of Irrigation to sample farmers (No. of farmers) Open Farm Canals and Bore Open Canals Tank well and Total category Bore well well well tank Orathanadu Marginal 38 02 ------40 Small 27 05 ------32 Medium 10 09 03 ------22 Large 01 01 04 ------06 Total 76 17 07 ------100 Papanasam Marginal 41 05 ------46 Small 23 05 ------28 Medium 14 04 ------18 Large 02 04 02 ------08 Total 80 18 02 ------100 Kumbakonam Marginal 24 05 10 05 04 --- 48 Small 14 06 15 01 ------36 Medium 02 --- 08 02 ------12 Large ------03 01 ------04 Total 40 11 36 09 04 --- 100 Source: Primary data. 132

It is able to measure from the above table that Papanasam taluk stands first having 80 farmers depending on canals source followed by Orathanadu and Kumbakonam taluks having 76 and 40 depending on Canal sources.

Further even in the distribution of bore well, Kumbakonam stands first having

36 farmers depending on bore well followed by Orathanadu and Papanasam taluks having 7 and 2 farmers respectively depending on bore wells.

5.7. FINANCIAL SOURCES 5.7.1. Financial problems

The need for finance is more in the case of paddy cultivation. Yet farmers do not come forward to cultivate paddy because of its increased cost of cultivation coupled wit risk. Majority of the respondents do not have their own funds to invest the required capital. They borrow from different sources. The various sources of credit to the farmers are co-operative banks, commercial bands, private loan, own source. The difficulty in getting financial assistance at a reasonable rate of interest compels them to reduce the expenditure on maturing, irrigating etc. which ultimately results in the poor yield and inadequate return. Incidentally it may be mentioned here that the amount sanctioned by the organized sector is not even sufficient to meet 50 per cent of their expenditure. Hence it is suggested to increase the loan amount from

Rs.5,000 to Rs.10,000 per acre. 133

5.7.2. Delay in getting loan

It becomes imperative to get inputs at proper time. The delay in getting loans affects the application of inputs like fertilizers and pesticides to the crop at the ripening time. Further delay results in low yield.

The ownership of the land holding is essential to the farmers for obtaining loans from the banks more than the position of the lands. While a large number of farmers possess ownership right, a few among the farmers have taken lands for lease in addition to their own lands.

Table - 5.7 Sources of money for irrigation (No. of farmers) Co-operative Commercial Private Study Area Own Total Bank Bank Loan Kumbakonam Marginal 24 --- 07 07 33 Small 20 02 04 05 31 Medium 15 05 06 04 30 Large 02 02 --- 02 06 Total 61 12 12 18 100 Orathanadu Marginal 26 03 02 04 35 Small 18 04 02 04 28 Medium 06 02 04 06 18 Large 05 03 05 06 19 Total 55 12 13 20 100 Papanasam Marginal 26 04 03 02 35 Small 20 04 05 06 35 Medium 02 05 96 05 12 Large 04 02 02 04 12 Total 52 15 16 17 100 Source: Primary data. 134

From the study of the given table, one may find that for the sources of money available for irrigation, co-operative banks play a leading role in extending farm loan to majority of farmers in Kumbakonam, Orathanadu andPapanasam taluk. Further majority of farmers have mobilized funds from their own sources in the above study. The role of commercial banks and private money lenders is only meagre in the study area.

5.8.1. Sources of seed

Source of seed is one of the important factors, which determine disease resistance of the seedlings.

The farmers who have purchased from depot are defined as depot seed users; own seed and other (Private and relatives) seed users.

Table - 5.8 Type of seed use pattern of paddy cultivators (No. of farmers) Study Area Depot seed Own seed Others (Private and Relative) Total Kumbakonam Marginal 03 25 05 33 Small 01 29 01 31 Medium 03 25 02 30 Large --- 099 --- 06 Total 07 85 08 100 Orathanadu Marginal 04 26 05 35 Small 01 24 03 28 Medium 02 15 01 18 Large 03 16 --- 19 Total 10 81 09 100 Papanasam Marginal 02 30 03 35 Small 03 26 06 35 Medium --- 16 02 18 Large 02 10 --- 12 Total 07 82 11 100 Source: Primary data. Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentage to respective column total. 135

It is clear from the table that there is no wide difference in the use of own seed among the three taluks. Majority of the farmers are dependent on either own as private seed for cultivation in Kumbakonam, Orathanadu,

Papanasam 90 and 93 farmers respectively. The Government depot seed is the lowest in Kumbakonam, Orathanadu, Papanasam 7, 10 and 7 farmers respectively. Some farmers are interchanging the seed for ordinary paddy without any additional cost among the co-villagers. It reduces the seed problem in one way and consumes time. Among these three types the depot seed is superior to others in quality. This is also properly processed, protected and tested by scientific methods but the depot seed is not available in time. It reveals that the majority of farmers are dependent on either own or private seed for cultivation.

5.10. Pricing of water

The financing of irrigation has been discussed and cost recovery which though indirectly brings in the issue of water rates or tariffs, etc., does not explicitly deal with the theory and practice of pricing of irrigation water taking into consideration both the efficiency and equity aspects of irrigation. To appreciate the need for a proper policy for pricing of irrigation water it is necessary to take into account the government policy in this regard in the distant and recent past.

In keeping with the recommendations of the several past commissions and committee and those of the Vaidyanathan committee and the Tenth 136

Finance Commission, the water charges cover at least the entire operation and maintenance costs of irrigation and 1 per cent of the capital cost to begin with.

This brings us to the question of translating the general principles regarding the pricing of water into specific rates.

With the proliferation of bore wells, an extensive water market is being developed in the study area as seen in the table 5.17.

Table - 5.9 Purchase of water irrigation (No. of farmers) Farm No. of Area Cost Average per acre category buyers acres (Rs.) (Rs.) Kumbakonam Marginal 16 40.00 60600 1515 Small 10 39.50 60277 1526 Medium 03 21.00 30576 1456 Large ------Total 29 99.50 151453 1522 Orathanadu Marginal 14 31.50 44920 1429 Small 07 29.50 44440 1506 Medium ------Large ------Total 21 61.00 86360 1415 Papanasam Marginal 03 12.50 15704 1256 Small 02 9.50 11543 1215 Medium ------Large ------Total 05 22.00 27247 1238 Source: Primary data. 137

As reported by the farmers, the major reasons for the emergence of the water market are

1. Some of the marginal lands surrounded by other holdings lose their water

courses from the main canals in course of time. The owners of larger

holdings purposely destroy these water courses in order to gain control of

water resources.

2. In the study area, an early paddy crop is raised even before water is

released for irrigating from the river Cauvery, so that a third crop (Ragi)

can be obtained. For preparing nursery and transplanting for this first

paddy crop, the farmers who have no bore-wells enter into agreements with

those who have surplus water from the bore-wells.

3. Farmers having elevated lands and land in the tail end of the irrigation

system have to necessarily depend on purchased water.

The average cost of the purchase of water comes to Rs.1200 per acre in the study area.

The above schedules show that in Kumbakonam area, 29 farmers buy water for irrigating 99.50 acres. Among them 19 are marginal farmers, 10 small and 03 medium farmers. None of the medium farmers buy water since they have their own bore-wells in other two areas. 138

5.12. USES OF CHEMICAL FERTILIZERS AND MANURE 5.12.1. Manuring

Manuring is essential for the high yield of paddy. Normally paddy should be manured periodically 2 to 3 times during the first one month to three months of planting. Some farmers prefer to use farm yard manure at the time of preparatory village. Some others prefer to use tank silt as natural manure.

As the method of manuring will have a direct impact on the cost of cultivation, an attempt is made to find out which method of manuring is popular among the four types of farmers (marginal, small, medium and large).

5.12.2. Use of chemical fertilizers

In order to expedite the growth of the plant and to increase the yield almost all types of farmers use chemical fertilizers either straight fertilizers,

(Urea, Potash, Phosphates) complex fertilizers or ready mixtures. Variation in the cost of cultivation is subject to the user of any one of the three types of fertilizers because of the lower price. Cost of production may also very depending upon the number of times the chemical fertilizers are used. 139

Table - 5.10 Pattern of fertilizer and manure used by sample farmers (No. of farmers) Category of farmers Once and Twice Thrice Manure Total

Kumbakonam

Marginal 20 03 10 33

Small 18 04 09 31

Medium 19 04 07 30

Large 03 --- 03 06

Total 60 11 29 100

Orathanadu

Marginal 20 05 10 35

Small 16 03 09 28

Medium 10 02 06 18

Large 11 02 06 19

Total 57 12 31 100

Papanasam

Marginal 20 04 11 35

Small 22 03 10 35

Medium 11 02 05 18

Large 07 01 04 12

Total 60 10 30 100 Source: Primary data. 140

While going through the table about sharing the pattern of fertilizer and manure usage, one may observe that majority of the farmers in the study area covering Kumbakonam, Orathanadu, and Papanasam applied fertilizer and manure maximum of twice for their crop and only very few farmers applied fertilizer and manure more than two times.

5.14. Sources of information

The farmers will get the information only through mass media. It will differ depending on the education, availability of technology and quality of the farmers. The educated farmers get the information through radio, television, and also through audio video sources only. The television sources available from private agency are found only in city areas. Other villages get only information from the programme telecast in national channel. They cannot get information from private channel due to non-availability of cable connection.

The mass media exposure like radio, television and news prints are very influential. For the adoption processes of new technology components are also significant. The sources of mass media for irrigation of study area are indicated in the table. 141

Table - 5.11 Sources of mass media for irrigation (No. of farmers) Prints and Extension Study area Print Radio Television Radio Total agencies Television Kumbakonam Marginal 23 05 03 --- 02 35 Small 20 06 03 02 01 31 Medium 15 10 02 03 --- 30 Large 01 02 01 01 02 06 Total 59 23 09 05 04 100 Orathanadu Marginal 20 04 06 02 03 35 Small 20 02 03 02 01 28 Medium 10 03 03 00 02 18 Large 08 04 03 02 02 19 Total 58 13 15 06 08 100 Papanasam Marginal 19 06 04 03 02 35 Small 22 04 02 04 03 35 Medium 10 03 02 01 02 18 Large 04 02 01 01 04 12 Total 55 15 09 10 11 100

Source: Primary data. Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentage to respective column total.

142

It is possible to measure from the above table the quality of the samples.

The educated farmers are almost the same in all three areas but radio and television viewers are more in Orathanadu taluk because of the availability of private channels.

5.15. Diseases

Paddy suffers from many diseases. The major disease that affects paddy is leaf blight top. The other diseases, in order are the grain discolouration, a result of complex multi-fungi infestation, blast, false smut and bakane. The leaves of the affected plants are bunched together into rose at the top and the margins are wavy and slightly rolled consisting of dashes and dots along the midrib. There is no cure for the disease and affected plants should be sprayed with pesticide to kill the aphids and then they will be destroyed to prevent its spread to other plants.

White backed plant hopper Rice, Lispa another types of disease is also caused by fungus. It destroys the leaves. Pesticides with spray are effective against this disease and the loss due to this disease is not alarming.

Certain questions were incorporated in the schedule to ascertain the awareness of the farmers about the different types of diseases that affect the paddy cultivation. Chapter --- VIVIVI

Analysis and Discussion-II 143

CHAPTER - VI

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION – II

This chapter devoted to the analysis of new agricultural technology on income and employment of farmers in Thanjavur District.

Table – 6.1 Family Composition in the Study Area

S. Age Male Percentage Female Percentage Total Percentage No. Group

1 0 – 10 8 5.63 7 6.48 15 12.11

2 10 – 20 25 17.61 30 27.78 55 45.39

3 20 – 30 41 28.87 25 23.15 66 52.02

4 30 – 40 23 16.20 17 15.74 40 31.94

5 40 – 50 20 14.08 20 18.52 40 32.60

6 50 – 60 13 9.15 5 4.63 18 13.78

7 60 and 12 8.45 4 3.70 16 12.15 above

Total 142 100.0 108 100.0 250 100.00

144

The total population of 45 households is 250 and the average size of the household is 5.56 members. Under the age group of 15-60 years, the male population forms 82.36 per cent and the female population forms 89.3 percent.

This indicates that enough manpower is engaged in agriculture. The dependent population in this region is in the age group below 10 years and above 60 years.

The dependant population below 10 years forms 15 percentage of the total population. The dependent population above 60 years forms 16 percentage of the total population. The school going group (5-20) forms 57.5 percent. This group cannot be esteemed as dependant population since all those above 6 years start earning in one way or the other. They either help their parents or work for others and thus they contribute to the increase of income of the family. This can be represented in the form of a diagram. 145

Figure – 6.1 Family Composition in the Study Area

35

30 28.87

27.78

25

23.15

20 18.52

17.61

16.2 15.74 Percentage

15 14.08

10 9.15 8.45

6.48

5.63 5 4.63 3.7

0 0 – 10 10 – 20 20 – 30 30 – 40 40 – 50 50 – 60 60 and above Age Group

Male Female

146

6.3.1. LITERACY

Education enables the farmers directly and indirectly to step up agricultural production. If the farmers are educated, they can update themselves about farming by reading papers and by training. Besides, they can also exchange their views and knowledge with other farmers around them. The educated farmers easily understand the merits and demerits of adopting new techniques and they will be in a position to undertake research pertaining to their problems in agriculture.

On the other hand, if the farmers are uneducated, they will not be as open the educated farmers. They may not make use of the available recent technique in agriculture. They may not cultivate their fields in a scientific manner. The table shows the literacy level of the sample village.

Table – 2 Percentage of population with different levels of education

S. Level of Male Percentage Female Percentage Total Percentage No. Education 1 Illiterate 12 8.45 17 15.74 29 24.19 2 Elementary 24 16.90 27 25.00 51 41.90 School 3 High 69 48.59 44 40.74 113 89.33 School 4 Higher 10 7.04 11 10.19 21 17.23 Secondary 5 College 22 15.49 9 8.33 31 23.82 Education 6 Others 5 3.52 - - 5 3.52 Total 142 100.00 108 100.00 250 200.00 147

Out of the total sample of 45 households 8.45 percent of males and

15.74 percent of females are illiterate. Illiteracy among the female is greater than among the male.

They put forward some reasons for that:

1. Many parents do not favour education for female children.

2. Higher education may be an impediment for a girl to get married.

3. In the rural society a women’s duty is domestic occupation. She is

expected to assist her father before marriage and her husband after

marriage. 148

Figure – 6.2

Percentage of population with different levels of education

48.59 50

45

40.74

40

35

30

25

25 Percentage

20 16.9 15.74 15.49

15

10.19

8.45 10 8.33 7.04

3.52 5

0

0 Illiterate Elementary High Higher College Others School School Secondary Education Level of Education

Male Female

149

6.1.2. OCCUPATIONAL PROFILE

The farmers are not only engaged in agriculture that they are also involved in some other occupations like teaching, contract, business. The following table indicates how many of the farmers are engaged in other occupations excluding agriculture.

Table – 6.3 Occupational Analysis of Persons in the Working Age Group in Percentage

S. Name of Occupation Male Female No.

1 Cultivators 87 50

2 Teachers 6 1

3 Household 0 7

4 Traders 4 0

5 Services 10 1

Source: Tabulated from the survey taken for the study.

150

Figure – 6.3 Occupational Analysis of Persons in the Working Age Group in Percentage

90 87

80

70

60

50 50

Percentage 40

30

20

10 7 10 6 4 1 0 0 1

0 Cultivators Teachers Household Traders Services Name of Occupation

Male Female

151

Table – 6.4 Pattern of Household Income per annum

S. Percentage of Income Group No. of persons No. Household 1 Up to 10,000 72 24.00 2 10000 – 20000 48 16.00 3 20000 – 30000 45 15.00 4 30000 – 40000 40 13.33 5 40000 – 50000 38 12.67 6 50000 – 60000 32 10.67 7 60000 and above 25 8.33 Total 300 100.00 Source: Primary Data

Among the farmers, 48 persons are getting income between 10,000 to

20,000. They are the majority. About 45 people get an annual income between

20 to 30 thousands. About 40 persons get an annual income between 30 to 40 thousands. The number of farmers earning 60000 is very great and encouraging. The number of person earning 10000 is very high.

According to the table, we can conclude that the farmers’ income is not low. On the other hand their income is up to the mark and they earn more then

10000 per year. It shows that they are economically well off.

152

Figure – 6.4

Pattern of Household Income per annum

8.33 10.67 24

12.67 16 13.33 15

Up to 10,000 10000 – 20000 20000 – 30000 30000 – 40000 40000 – 50000 50000 – 60000 60000 and above

153

6.1.3. PATTERN OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE

The expenditure of the households falls under two categories.

Expenditure on food and expenditure on other items. People spend plenty of

money on festivals and religious celebrations. Besides they spend lavishly on

clothing. Expenditure on ceremonies like marriage, ear-boring is deemed to be

very important and essential because it determines the social status of the

household. Since majority of the people purchase new clothes during festival

seasons, the expenditure on clothes and festivals is predominant. The table

shows the annual expenditure of the farmers.

Table – 6.5 Pattern of Household Expenditure

Annual Percentage Expenditure Percentage S. No. of No. of Expenditure of (in item in of No. Persons Persons on food Households Rs.) Household

1 2000 – 3000 36 12.00 1000 – 2000 42 14.00 2 3000 – 4000 42 14.00 2000 – 3000 36 12.00

3 4000 – 5000 25 8.33 3000 – 4000 20 6.67

4 5000 – 6000 30 10.00 4000 – 5000 35 10.50

5 6000 – 7000 34 11.33 5000 – 6000 40 13.33

6 7000 – 8000 38 12.66 6000 – 7000 38 12.66

7 8000 – 9000 40 13.33 7000 – 8000 34 11.33

8 9000 – 10000 35 10.50 8000 – 9000 30 10.00

9 10000 and 20 6.67 9000 – 10000 25 8.33 above

Total 300 100.00 300 100.00 Source: Primary Data 154

Figure – 6.5

Annual Expenditure on Food Item

6.67 12 10.5 14 13.33

8.33

12.66 10 11.33

2000 – 3000 3000 – 4000 4000 – 5000 5000 – 6000 6000 – 7000 7000 – 8000 8000 – 9000 9000 – 10000 10000 and above

155

ASSETS AND LIABILITIES

To study the impact of technology on income and employment of the farmers, it is necessary to study the asserts and liabilities of the farmers in the study area.

Among the 300 farmers, 40 farmers have assets worth less than 1 lakh all the others have asserts worth of more than one lakh rupee. The percentage of the farmers who own 2-3 lakhs worth of property and 3-4 lakhs worth of property 11.33 per cent and 12.66 per cent respectively. They constitute the majority. The percentage of the farmers whose value of property is 5-7 lakhs is second.

Table – 6.6 Assets of the Farmers (in Lakhs) S. No. Assets No. of Persons Percentage 1 Below 1 lakh 40 13.33 2 1 – 2 lakhs 38 12.66 3 2 – 3 lakhs 34 11.33 4 3 – 4 lakhs 38 12.66 5 4 – 5 lakhs 42 14.00 6 5 – 6 lakhs 36 12.00 7 6 – 7 lakhs 25 8.33 8 Above 8 lakhs 20 6.67 Total 300 100.00

Source: Tabulated from the survey taken for the study.

156

Figure – 6.6 Assets of the Farmers

6.67 13.33

8.33

12.66 12

11.33

14

12.66

Below 1 lakh 1 – 2 lakhs 2 – 3 lakhs 3 – 4 lakhs 4 – 5 lakhs 5 – 6 lakhs 6 – 7 lakhs Above 8 lakhs 157

LIABILITIES

The farmers borrow loans from Agricultural banks, Co-operative societies and they also borrow loan on Jewels and from their friends and relatives. The liability of the farmers can be depicted in the form of a diagram and table.

Table – 6.7 Liabilities of Farmers (Rs in thousand) Sl. Liabilities Percentage No. 1 Up to 10,000 51.1 2 10,000 – 20,000 28.9 3 20,000 – 30,000 6.67 4 30,000 – 40,000 2.22 5 40,000 – 50,000 6.67 6 Above 50,000 4.44 Total 100.00

Source: Tabulated from the survey taken for the study.

Of the 45 farmers. 51.1 percentage of them got loans below Rs.10, 000.

28.9 percent of them belong to the second category having liabilities between

Rs.10, 000 to 20,000. 6.67 percentage of the farmers come under the category having liabilities between Rs.20, 000 to 30,000. The percentage of the farmers having liabilities between 30,000 to 40,000 is very low compared to that of the farmers having liabilities between Rs.40, 000 to 50,000 and above.

158

SOIL TYPE

The soil types of sample farms and area under each soil type are shown in Table – 10.

Table – 6.8 Area under different soil type in Study Area

Sl. Percentage to Soil Type Extent (acres) No. Total 1 Red soil 42130 31.31 2 Clay loam soil 27417.5 20.37 3 Sandy loam soil 44890 33.36 4 Black cotton soil 20132.5 14.96 Total 134570 100

Source: Taluk Statistical officer, Thanjavur District.

Alluvial sandy loam and loamy soil constitute major portion of the deltaic regions bordering the river cauvery. Sandy loams are found predominantly in Thanjavur district.

6.2.1 SOURCE OF IRRIGATION Table – 6.9 Source of Irrigation in the Sample Villages

Sl. Acreage of Total area Percentage to Source of Irrigation No. Land Irrigated Total 1 Canals 320 320 46.51 2 Tanks 18 18 2.61 3 Wells 350 350 50.87 Total 688 688 100

Source: Tabulated from the survey taken for the study. 159

Wells with electric motors - 30

Wells with diesel engine - 45

Filter points - 60

Bore wells - 13

The sample farms have irrigation for 688 acres. Canals and wells are the main source of irrigation. Canal irrigation covers an area of 46.51 of the irrigated area and well irrigation covers an area of 50.87 of the irrigated area.

Tank irrigation covers an area of 2.61 percent of the total irrigated area.

In the sample villages, wells with electric motor number 30 and wells diesel engine number 45 and there are 60 filter points and 13 bore wells in the study area.

6.2.2 CROPPING PATTERN

The cropping pattern in the sample farms of the study area is described in the Table-18.

Table – 6.10 Area under Different Crops in Sample Farms S. Percentage to Crop cereals Area (acres) No. Total 1 Paddy 350.5 54.51 2 Cholam Pulses 6 0.93 3 Green gram 19.5 3.03 4 Black gram Oil seeds 23.5 3.65 5 Gingelly 132 20.53 6 Coconut Food Crops 14 2.18 7 Sugar cane 49.5 7.70 8 Banana 48 7.47 Total 643 100

Source: Tabulated from the survey taken for the study. 160

AREA UNDER DIFFERENT CROPS IN SAMPLE FARMS:

The cropping pattern can be classified into four seasons namely kuruvai, samba, thaladi and navarai.

PADDY

Paddy is cultivated in four seasons. That is kuruvai, samba, Thaladi and

Navarai seasons. Samba season is from August to September, thaladi season is from October to December, navarai season is from December to January,

Kuruvai season is from June to August.

SUGAR CANE

It is cultivated from December to April, for one year and from January to January. Both well and canal irrigation are used for cultivation. Sugar cane cultivation is secondary to them.

BANANA

Banana is also cultivated by the farmers. The percentage of banana cultivation to the total are of cultivation is insignificant. It is cultivated for one year, July to August, January to February, and April to May.

BLACK GRAM

Black gram is cultivated from January to March during Navarai season.

The percentage of block gram cultivation to the total cultivation area is 3.65. 161

GREEN GRAM

Green gram is yet another crop which is very prominent in the area. It is cultivated from January to March. The percentage of green gram cultivation to the total cultivated area is 3.033.

CHOLAM

Cholam is not given importance in the study area, particularly in the study area. The percentage of cholam cultivation is only 0.93 compared to the total cultivation area.

GINGELLY

Gingelly is the second crop which is cultivated in the study area. It constitutes 20.53 percentage of the total cultivation area. People cultivate it because it fetches them very good income and cost of cultivation is cheap.

Gingelly is cultivated during Navarai season form February to April.

COCONUT

Coconut is cultivated in the study area. But it is not given much importance. The percentage of coconut cultivation is 2.18 compared to the total cultivated area.

SPREAD OF NEW VARIETIES

The extent of spread of new varieties for the major crops identified for the study namely, paddy, gingelly, sugarcane, and banana, black and green grams is described in the Table 11. 162

Table – 6.11 Extent of Spread of New Varieties of Major Crops in Sample Farms

New variety Local variety total Sl. Crop No No. of No. of Area No. of farms Area Area farms farms

1 Paddy 40(100) 350.5 (100) - - 40(100)

2 Sugarcane 19(100) 49.5(100) - - 19(100)

3 Banana 12(100) 48(100) - - 12(100)

4 Coconut - - 10(1000 14(100) 10(1000 14(100)

5 Gingelly 10(38.46 22(16.67) 16(61.54) 110(83.33) 26(100) 132

6 Black gram 3(37.5) 3.5(14.89) 5(62.5) 20.5(87.23) 8(100) 24

7 Green gram 6(75) 17.5(89.73) 2(25) 2(10.27) 8(100) 19

8 Cholam 4(100) 6(100) - - - 4(100) Source: Tabulated form the survey taken for the study. (Figures in parenthesis indicate percentage to total). 163

Table 11 refers to the table in the sheet among the 45 sample farms, 45 farms are cultivating paddy and they are growing new variety. Old variety of paddy is very rare in the study area.

About 19 farms are growing sugar cane. They have introduced new varieties like 67071, 84067, 6304, 761, 6001, 676 and so on.

Nearly 12 farms are growing banana like puvan, nendran rasthali. In coconut cultivation, new variety is not found in the area. Only old variety is found. About 10 farms are growing coconut.

In gingelly cultivation, both new and old varieties are found in the area.

10 farms are cultivating new variety like TMV 4, KM4, MD 6. 16 farms are growing old variety. Old variety is widely cultivated in comparison with new variety of gingelly in the study area.

New variety of Black gram is cultivated by only 3 farms and old variety is cultivated by 5 farms. New variety is not very popular in the study area.

Green gram has new and old varieties. But old variety is very common.

It is called Anjukam, New variety is very rare in the study area. Only 6 frams are growing new variety and 2 farms are cultivating old variety.

Cholam is cultivated only by 4 farms and it is not given much importance in the study area. It is insignificant.

REASON FOR ADOPTION OF NEW VARIETY

Out of 45 farmers, 30 are cultivating new variety of paddy because of yield and income. 38 farmers expressed their views that they are cultivating 164

new variety of paddy due to it cultivation. 40 farmers are growing new variety because of the demand for the new variety. 40 farmers opined that they are cultivating new variety of paddy because it suits the soil. About 35 farmers pointed out that they are cultivating new variety on account of time saving factor.

Of the 45 farmers, 10 are growing gingelly, because of high and income.

8 are cultivating gingelly owing to easy cultivation and harvest. Around 10 farmers are taking to cultivation, due to the demand for the new variety 7 farmers adopt new variety since it suits the soil and 10 farmers disclosed that they are cultivating new variety because of time – saving factor.

Among the 45 farmers, 19 are growing sugar – cane, because of high yield and income. 15 farmers favour new variety since it is easy to cultivate and harvest. Nearly 19 respondents expressed that they concentrate on sugar cane cultivation owing to the demand for the commodity. 18 persons revealed that they are adopting new variety on account of the suitability to the soil. 18 persons opined that they are engaged in sugar – cane cultivation due to time – saving factor.

12 farmers pointed out that they are engaging in banana cultivation because of high yield and income. About 10 farmers are cultivating banana since it is easy to cultivate and harvest. 12 people are cultivating banana as the demand for the commodity is greater. 10 farmers are cultivating it just because of the suitability to the soil. About 5 respondents pointed out that time-saving factor influenced them to engage in banana cultivation. 165

CONSTRAINTS FOR ADOPTION OF MECHANISTATION

The farmers are facing problems when they go in for mechanization and new technology. The reasons for non-adoption of new technology and mechanization can be summarized in the form of a table.

Table – 6.12 Constraints for Adoption of Mechanization

S. No. of Percentage Particulars No. Persons to Total

1. Lack of Awareness 5 16.67

2. Lack of funds 18 60

3. Size of holdings 22 73.33

4. Lack of training for farmers 18 60

5. High cost of machines 15 50

6. High cost of maintenance 20 66.67

7. High cost of fuel 24 80

Total Respondents - 30

Source: Tabulated from the survey taken for the study.

Of the 30 respondents, 5 pointed out that the constraints for adoption of machanisation in agriculture was due to lack of awareness of the farmers. 18 of them responded that lack of funds in an obstacle for the adoption of mechanization in agriculture. About 22 came out with the view that the size of holding is very small, which is an impediment for the adoption of 166

mechanization. Another 18 of them opined that lack of training in handling machines is the cause for the non-adoption of mechanization. 15 of them disclosed that the high cost of machine prevents the farmers from adoption of mechanization. Still some 20 persons are of the view that the cost of maintenance of machines is too high and expensive. About 24 farmers hold the view that the cost of fuel is too high and it is not available in sufficient quantity.

167

Figure – 6.7

Constraints for Adoption of Mechanization

16.67

80 60

66.67 73.33

50 60

Lack of Awareness Lack of funds Size of holdings Lack of training for farmers High cost of machines High cost of maintenance High cost of fuel

168

FARM BUSINESS ANALYSIS

Yield : They yield per acre of the crops taken for the study is furnished in the Table 22. For convenience, the yield is converted into money terms and measured in money units in the analysis.

Table – 6.13 Pre Acre Yield of Major Crops in Sample Farms Main By S. Total (in Crop Product Product No. Rs.) (in Rs.) (in Rs. (50) (50) New 8000 1. Paddy 7500 500 Old - - - (15) (10) New 8300 8000 300 2. Gingely (10) (10) Old 5300 5000 300 (50) (20) New 13000 3. Sugar cane 12000 1000 Old - - - (1000) New 2000 22000 4. Banana 20000 Old - - - (25) (12) New 10600 10000 600 5. Black gram (20) (10) Old 8500 8000 500 (15) (12) New 8100 7500 600 6. Green gram (15) (10) Old 6500 6000 500 Source: Primary Data 169

In the sample farms, the mean yield per acre for paddy is Rs.7500 and

Rs.500/- as by product. The new variety of paddy gives them more yield than the old variety. In the study area, only new variety of paddy is found.

In the sample farms, new variety of gingelly gives them Rs.8300 per acre and old variety gives them Rs.5300 per acre. On an average each farm gets

10 bags of gingelly per acre.

In the case of sugar cane, only new variety is cultivated and each farmer gets Rs.12,000 per acre and Rs.1000 as by product.

In banana cultivation, each farm yields worth Rs.22,000 from the new variety. Old variety is not found in the sample farms. If we take black gram, each farm gets yield worth of 10600 per acre from the new variety and it is also yields worth Rs.8500 per acre from the old variety.

Green gram cultivation is also found in the study area. Each farm yields worth Rs.8100 per acre for new variety and gets yield worth of 6500 per acre for old variety. The yield from the new variety is greater than from the old variety.

The table 15 gives the input wise cost of cultivation for the major crops in the sample farms. Cost of cultivation of an acre of new variety of paddy is higher than that of ordinary variety.

When the share of each input in the per acre cost of cultivation is considered, it is observed that in new variety of paddy cost of seeds is 7.89 perecentage, manure is 19.74 Plant protection is 9.87 labour is 26.32, cost of 170

bullock power is 26.32 and tractor power is 9.87 the cost of bullock power and labour is very high compared to other costs of cultivation in any modern farm.

The cost of cultivation is greater in the new variety of paddy.

In banana, the cost of seed is 60.42 percentage for new variety whereas it is 52.63 percentage for old variety. Thus the cost of seed of the new variety is greater than that of the old variety. The cost of manure for new variety is 6.04 while it is 10.53 percentage for old variety. Thus the cost of manure is more for old variety than that for the new variety. The cost of plant protection is cheaper for new variety than that of the old variety. The cost of labour is higher in the use of new variety than in the case of old variety. The cost of bullock power is

10.88 percentage for new variety and it is 14.03 percentage for old variety. The cost of tractor power is 4.53 percentage for new variety and it is 5.26 percentage in the case of old variety.

For gingelly, the new variety involves 7.87 percentage for seeds, whereas the old variety involves 7.84 percentage for seeds. The new variety involves 19.69 percentage for manure, 15.75 percent of plant protection and

23.62 percent for labour 23.62 percentage for bullock power and 9.44 percentage for tractor power.

The old variety requires 24.50 percentage for manures, 11.76 percentage for plant protection, 24.50 percentage for manure, 11.76 percentage of plant protection, 24.50 percentage of labour and 19.61 percentage for bullock power and 11.76 percentage of tractor power. 171

With regard to sugar cane, the cost of seed is 58.10 percentage for new variety. It requires 11.80 percentage for manure, 8.85 percentage for plant protection and 7.37 percentage for labour and it involves 9.44 percentage of bullock power and 3.54 percentage for tractor power. The cost of seed is very high in the case of sugar cane cultivation. Only new variety is cultivated in the study area.

Regarding black gram, the farmers cultivated two varieties. The cost of seed for new variety is 12.30 percentage while that of old variety is 8.92 percentage, the cost of manure for new variety comes to 20.489 percentage while that of ordinary variety is 22.32 percentage the new variety requires

16.40 percentage for plant protection whereas that of old variety is 13.39 percentage. The new variety involves 16.40 percentage for labour, on the other hand, the ordinary variety requires 17.86 percentage for labour.

The new variety requires 24.59 percentage for bullock power but the ordinary variety needs 26.79 percentage for bullock power. The cost of tractor power in the case of new variety is 9.84 percentage but the cost of tractor in the case of ordinary variety is 10.71 percentage.

By and large, the increase in cost of cultivation per acre in new varieties of crops is due to the extensive use of improved seeds, increased use of fertilizers, manure, plant protection chemicals and use of tractor power.

172

5.2.3. THE COST OF PRODUCTION

The cost of production consists of cost cultivation, interest on working capital and depreciation on assets used in crop production.

The interest on working capital is invariably more for the new variety than the ordinary variety, which implies that the new variety uses more of the working capital towards seeds, manure and plant protection.

The cost A1 for new variety of paddy is Rs.1800. It is higher than that of gingerly (Rs.1500). The cost A1 for sugarcane is Rs.4200 and that of banana is Rs.3500. the cost A1 of sugar cane is greater than that of banana. The cost of

A1 of new variety of black gram and green gram is Rs.1400 and Rs.1300 respectively. When it is compared with the cost A1 of ordinary variety of black gram and green gram, the cost A1 of new variety is high.

The cost of A2 new variety paddy is Rs.2000 and that of gingelly is

Rs.1800. the cost of A2 new variety is greater than that of he old variety of gingelly.

In the case of sugar cane, only new variety is cultivated. The cost of A2 the new variety of banana, the cost of A2 of sugar cane is greater than that of banana. Let us compare the cost of A2 of black gram with that of green gram.

Let us compare the cost of A2 of black gram with that of green gram. The cost of A2 new variety of black gram is Rs.1600 and the cost of green gram is

Rs.1400. the cost of black gram is grater than the cost of green gram. If we compare that cost A2 of the old variety of black gram with that of green gram, 173

the cost of black gram is higher than the cost of green gram. From this we can arrive at a conclusion that the cost of A2 new variety paddy, sugar cane, banana and black gram and green gram and gingerly is more than the cost of old variety of crops.

The cost B includes cost of A2 and rental value of own land. The rental value of own land per acre differs from village to village and so the cost B for all crops is varying from one crop to another. In cultivation, family labour is involved to a great extent. In garden land farms there is some involvement of family labour, but it is not very significant. Because about 10 farmers only have garden land out of the 45 farmers in the sample villages. So the cost of B paddy is Rs.2400 which is greater than that of new variety black gram which is greater than the cost of new variety of green gram. The difference between them is Rs.250. The difference of cost B between the old variety of black gram and the old variety green gram is Rs.250.

On the whole, the cost of B new variety of paddy, sugar, cane banana, gingerly, black gram and green gram is greater than the cost of B old variety of all crops.

The cost C which is the cost of production is varying from crop to crop since the family labour is engaged in all crop cultivation in the sample villages.

Regarding paddy, family labour is engaged. So the cost C comes to

Rs.2500. It is higher than the cost C for ginger. In the old variety of gingerly, much family labour is not required because the cost of cultivation is cheaper. 174

With regard to sugar cane, the new variety requires family labour. So the cost

C is Rs.5000 per acre.

In the case of banana, family labour is engaged, so the Cost of C is

Rs.4100. The cost of sugar cane is more expensive than the cost of banana cultivation in the sample villages. The difference between them is Rs.900 per acre.

If you take black gram, the cost of C new variety is more expensive than that of green gram. The difference of cost between them is Rs.150 per acre in the study area. The cost of old variety of black gram is Rs 1900 per acre, which that of green gram is Rs.1600 and so the cost difference between them is

Rs.300 per acre in the sample villages.

In short, the cost of A1, A2, A3 paddy, gingerly, sugarcane banana, black gram and green grams are higher in the case of new varieties than in the case of old varieties. It is due to various costs involved in the production of each crop in the sample villages.

The table 25 percents the details crop wise on gross income, farm business income and net income, profit or loss per acre of the sample farms.

175

Table – 6.14 Gross Income, Farm Business Income, Net Income for Major Crops in Sample Farms

Own Farm Family Net S. Gross Cost Cost farm Crop business Cost B Labour Cost C Profit No. Income A1 A2 business income Income or Loss income New 8000 1800 6200 2000 6000 2400 5600 2500 5500 1. Paddy Old 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 New 8300 1500 6800 1800 6500 2000 6300 2300 6000 2. Gingelly Old 5300 1200 4100 1500 3800 1750 3550 1900 3400 New 13000 4200 8800 4600 8400 4900 8100 5000 8000 3. Sugar cane Old 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 New 22000 3500 18500 3800 18200 3950 18050 4100 17900 4. Banana Old 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Black New 10600 1400 9200 1600 9000 1750 8850 1850 8750 5. gram Old 8500 1250 7250 1500 7000 1700 6800 1900 6600 Green New 8100 1300 6800 1400 6700 1500 6600 1700 6400 6. gram Old 6500 1200 5300 1400 5100 1450 5150 1600 4900

New: New Variety , Old: Ordinary Variety Source: Tabulated from the survey taken for study. 176

i) FARM BUSINESS INCOME

The farm business income is computed as the gross income minus cost of A1. Farms business income for the new variety of paddy is Rs.6200 per acre which is higher than that of the local variety, because it fetches only Rs.4000 per acre in the sample villages. However variety is not found in the sample villages.

Farm business income in new variety of gingely is Rs.6800 per acre.

Ordinary variety of sugar cane is vary rare in the sample village. If we compute value for them, it fetches Rs.6000 per acre. Thus, the difference between the new variety and the old variety is Rs2800 per acre.

Farm business income for new variety of banana is Rs.18500. But we cannot make a comparison with the old variety of banana. Since it is not found in the sample villages. But at the market rate, old variety might fetch

Rs.10,000 per acre. Thus, the farms business income is very high in the case of new variety rather than in the old variety.

Black gram shows a farm income of Rs.9200 per acre and the difference of income between the new and old variety is Rs1950 per acre. If we make a comparison between the farm income of green gram and black gram, the income of black gram for new variety is Rs.9200 and that of green gram is

Rs.6800. Thus, the income from black gram is more than the income from the green gram. Likewise the income of the old variety of black gram is Rs.7250 177

and that of green gram is Rs.5300. Thus, the difference of income between them is Rs.1500 per acre.

We can say that the farm business income of major crops in the sample villages is higher in the case of new variety and its is less in the case of old variety.

ii) FAMILY LABOUR INCOME

Family labour income is gross income minus cost B. This is the earnings of the family. If we have a glance at table 25 we may get some idea about family labour income, of the sample villages.

The new variety of paddy brings a reasonable income for each family of the sample villages. Each family gets an in-come of Rs.5600 per acre.

The new variety of gingely gives the farmers an income of Rs.6300 whereas the old variety of gingely provides family labour income of Rs.3350 per acre. Thus the family labour income of new variety of gingely is greater than that of old variety in the sample villages.

If we make study between sugar cane and banana, the family labour income from sugar cane is Rs.8100. On the contrary the income from banana cultivation is Rs. 18050. It shows that the family labour income of the banana is very high compared to the family labour income of sugar cane.

When we examine the family income between black gram and green gram, the family income from black gram is Rs.8850 for new variety and I is Rs.6600 for green gram. The family labour income from black gram old variety is 178

Rs6800 and that of green gram is Rs.5150. Thus, black gram gives more family labour income in the case of both new and old varieties of green gram in the sample villages. The family labour income from banana is the highest in the sample villages. The family income from banana is second.

iii) NET INCOME (PROFIT OR LOSS)

The new variety of paddy shows a profit of Rs.5500 per acre. Gingely shows a profit of Rs.6000 and the ordinary variety fetches a profit of Rs.3400.

The difference between the new and ordinary variety of gingely is Rs.2600 per acre. The difference between the profit of new variety of paddy and the new variety of gingely is Rs.500 per acre.

When we compare the profit between the new variety of sugar cane and banana, sugar cane shows a profit of Rs.8000 per acre. Whereas the new variety of banana brings a profit of Rs.17900 per acre. Thus, the difference in the profit between them is Rs.9900 per acre. It shows that banana is a very profitable cultivation in the study area, the farmers are getting more profit with less expense.

In the study area, the new variety of black gram shows a gain of Rs.8750 per acre. Likewise the old variety of black gram adds to the profit of the farmers. The difference in the profit between both the varieties is Rs.2150 per acre.

The new variety of green gram shows a gain of Rs.6400 and the ordinary variety adds RS.4900 as profit to the farmers. The variation in the 179

profit between the new and the old variety is Rs.1500. if we take into consideration the profit of the sample farms, they get substantial profit from banana cultivation rather than other cultivation. The farmers get Rs.17900 as profit from banana cultivation.

In general, the new variety of paddy, sugar cane, banana, gingelly.

Black gram, green gram give more profit than the old varieties. Banana gives the highest profit followed by the black gram and green gram in the study area.

LABOUR USE PATTERS

The operation wise labour use pattern for the major crops is showsn in table 26. 180

Table – 6.15 Operation wise distribution of Human Labour for Major Crops in Sample Farms (mandays / acre)

preparatory Harvesting and S. No. CROP After cultivation Total cultivation thrushing New 200(41.7) 160(33.33) 120(25) 480 1. Paddy 200(48.78) 120(29.27) 90(21.95) 410 Old 400 280 210 890 New 80(40) 40(20) 80(40) 200 2. Gingelly 60(37.5) 40(20) 60(37.5) 160 Old 140 80 140 360 New 50(31.25) 50(31.25) 60(37.5) 160 3. Black gram 40(30.76) 40(30.77) 50(38.46) 130 Old 90 90 110 290 New 160(27.59) 120(20.69)) 300(51.72) 580 4. Sugarcane 140(25) 120(21.43) 300(53.57) 560 Old 300 240 600 1140 New 160(61.54) 100(38.46) - 260 5. Banana 160(66.67) 80(33.33) - 240 Old 320 180 500 Source: Tabulated form the survey taken for the study. (Figures in parenthesis indicate percentage to total). Note: N: New Variety, O: Old Variety

181

The use of human labour has been expressed in terms of Mandays. New variety of paddy uses 480 Mandays and it uses 410 Mandays for old variety of paddy. New variety of paddy absorbs more labour than the old variety.

In the case of gingely, new variety of paddy requires 200 Mandays whereas it requires 160 Mandays for old variety.

Regarding black gram, the new variety demands 160 mandays whereas it requires 130 mandays for old variety.

If you consider sugarcane, it involves 580 mandays for new variety. It absorbs 560 mandays for old variety. In the study area, only new variety is predominant.

With regard to banana, new variety needs 260 mandays whereas old variety requires 240 mandays.

For paddy cultivation, more labour is required for preparatory cultivation both for old and new varieties. It absorbs more labour after cultivation also.

If you take gingely cultivation, it requires more labour for preparatory cultivation and for harvesting it does not require much of labour after cultivation.

With regard to black gram, the new variety absorbs more labour for harvesting and it requires less labour for preparatory cultivation and after cultivation. It holds good for the old variety as well. 182

Regarding sugarcane, the new variety demands 580 mandays but the old variety demands 560 mandays.

The new variety of sugarcane requires more labour for harvesting and for preparing cultivation. In the case of old variety, it requires more labour for harvesting and for preparatory cultivation. It needs less labour after cultivation.

If you take banana cultivation, it absorbs more labour for preparatory cultivation and it requires less labour after cultivation and it requires much less labour afterwards.

On the whole paddy requires more labour at all stages. Gingely requires less labour compared to paddy. Black gram requires less labour compared to paddy. For sugarcane, more labour is requires at start and for harvesting sugarcane requires more labour than banana. Because land has to be prepared, and sugarcane has to be planted and it requires more labour for harvesting.

Whereas, banana requires less labour is required only in the beginning after cultivation, very little labour is required. There is no harvesting for banana, so the demand for labour is very little.

6.1. IMPACT ON EMPLOYMENT

This section analyses the results of the various objectives drafted for the study.

The first objective of the study is to find out the impact of new agricultural technology on employment. In the study area, new agricultural technology is very prominent and agriculture is gradually mechanized, in order 183

to find out the impact of new agricultural technology on employment, we have compared the use of tractor and pump set. Tractor is made use of for ploughing and bullocks are also utilized for ploughing.

So, we have to calculate the ploughing charge for bullock farms and for tractor farms. Besides we have to computerize the use of bullock and the use of tractors for cultivation.

In the case of irrigation, bullocks are used by the non-mechanize4d farms. While, pump sets are used by mechanized farms. For irrigation, a non- mechanized farm has to employ bullocks. It takes 4 hours to irrigate one acre of land. For a mechanized farm, pump set is used for irrigation.

It takes half an hour to irrigate one acre of land. If you take the expenses, the non-mechanized farm has to spend Rs.50 to spend Rs.25 to irrigate one acre of land. Thus, a mechanized farm has to spend more on irrigation. We can come to a conclusion that the new agricultural technology has led to reduction in the employment of labour and bullock power in irrigation. The cost of irrigation is high in the case of non-mechanized farm while it is low in the case of mechanized farm.

In the study area, a mechanized farm utilizes tractor for ploughing. A non-mechanized farm uses bullocks and when we compare the cost of ploughing between tractor and bullock. Tractor ploughing is cheaper than bullock ploughing. If a farmer employs tractor, he has to spend Rs.120 per acre and he finishes the work within an hour. 184

On the other hand, if a non-mechanized farmer employs bullocks for ploughing, he has to spend Rs.480 per acre and the work which is finished in one hour by a tractor is finished in 96 houses by bullock power. So, because of the mechanization the work is completed within no time and the cost of ploughing is cheaper also. Thus, mechanization has paved the way for less employment of bullocks for cultivation in the study area.

The work that could be finished by one tractor, requires 12 human persons, thus mechanization reduces the employment of labour.

6.1.1. Fertilized and Manures

In a mechanized farm, fertilizer is used more than manure. If a mechanized farm uses fertilizer, it has to spend Rs.750 on fertilizer, whereas a non-mechanized farm requires Rs.1600 per acre for manures. Thus, the switch over to fertilizer has resulted in the reduction in the cost of cultivation.

If fertilizer is used, a farmer puts it utmost three times for a crop, while manure is used, a farmer can put utmost two times for each crop. In the case of fertilizer, the employment of labour will be greater. If manure is used in cultivation, the employment of labour will be less.

By and large, mechanization has reduced the employment of bullock in ploughing and large, mechanization has reduced the employment of bullocks in ploughing and irrigation and it has increased the employment of labour if fertilizer is used in agricultural cultivation. 185

6.1.2. Impact on Income

The second objective of the study is to look into the effect of new agricultural technology on agricultural income of the farmers in the study area.

In the study area, paddy cultivation is very common and it is given prime importance. So, we shall examine the income from paddy cultivation. Income includes income form main product and income from by product, that is income from paddy and income from by product, that is income from paddy and income from straw. The income from paddy can be analysed from the point of view of mechanized farm and non- mechanized farm.

In the case of mechanized farm, each farm gets Rs.150 per bag of the paddy per acre. It gets a net income of Rs.110 per bag of paddy per acre.

If you take a non-mechanized farm, each farm gives Rs.140 per bag per acre. It gives a net income of Rs.100 per bag per acre. From this analysis we can come to understand that the income from a mechanized farm is greater than the income from a non-mechanized farm. The net income of the mechanized farm is Rs.110 per unit of paddy and that of non-mechanized farm is Rs.100 per unit. So, mechanized farm brings more than the non-mechanized farm.

When we analyse the cost of cultivation of paddy, then mechanized farmers spend Rs.1520 per acre. Whereas a non-mechanized farmers spend Rs.1800 per acre. The mechanized farms involve more expenditure on labour and fertilizer and on dead stock. Ploughing with tractor is cheaper than ploughing with bullocks. 186

In case of non-mechanized farms, it includes more labour for every agricultural operation. Since human and animal labour is demanded to a large extent, the cost of cultivation is high; in addition to that it is time consuming and labour consuming. If we turn over attention to the study area, mechanization is slowly picking up. The employment of labour is mechanized in agriculture. The farmer aims maximizing output with minimum expenditure.

So they favour of mechanization. The percentage of income is increasing day after day in the study area.

6.1.3. Unit cost and cost of production

If we look at the cost of production, and unit cost, the unit cost of new variety of paddy is Rs.50 par bag and cost of production is Rs.2500 per acre.

Regarding the unit cost of gingely, new variety cost Rs.115 per bag and the cost of production is Rs.2300 per acre. The unit cost of production old variety of gingely is Rs.126.67 and the cost of production is Rs.1900 per acre.

In the case of banana, the unit cost is Rs.4.1 and the cost of production per acre is Rs.4100. In the study area only new variety of banana is cultivated by the farmers.

If the sugarcane, the unit cost new variety comes to Rs.100 per tonnes and the cost of production amounts to Rs.5000 per acre. The new variety of block gram costs Rs.74. While, the cost of production comes to 1850. With regard to old variety, the unit cost is Rs.95 and the cost of production comes to

Rs.1900. 187

The unit cost of new variety of green gram is Rs.113.33 and the cost of production is Rs.1700 per acre. If you glance at the unit cost of the old variety of green gram, it is Rs.106.67 and the cost of production is Rs.1600.

Let us compare the unit cost of mechanized farms with the unit cost of non-mechanized farms.

For paddy, the unit cost of paddy is Rs.50 per bag in a mechanized farm and the farm and the unit cost of paddy in non- mechanized farm is Rs.51. Thus the unit cost of paddy in a mechanized farm is cheaper than that of a non-mechanized farm.

Regarding gingely, the unit cost comes to Rs.115 per bag and cost of production amounts to Rs.2300 in a mechanized farm. Whereas, the unit cost of gingely in non- mechanized farm is Rs.80 thus, the unit cost gingely in a non- mechanized farm.

Even if you take green gram, the unit cost of new variety of banana is

Rs.4.1 per bunch. While the unit cost of new variety of banana in a non- mechanized farm is Rs.2.22 thus, the unit cost of banana in a non-mechanized farm is cheaper than that of the mechanized farm.

In the case of sugarcane, the unit cost of new variety of sugarcane in a mechanized farm is Rs.100 per tonne. While, the unit cost of in non- mechanized farm is Rs.36 per tonne. Thus, the unit cost of sugarcane in non- mechanized farm is cheaper than that of the mechanized farm. 188

When we compare the unit cost and cost of production between the mechanized and non-mechanized farms, the cost of production for non- mechanized farms is cheaper then the mechanized farm. Since the unit cost of production is less in non-mechanized farm, the yield and the income is also less compared to the mechanized farm.

In the case of mechanized farms, the cost of production and the unit cost is higher, at the same time the income and yield is greater compared to the non- mechanized farms.

6.1.4. Biological Change

In order to study the impact of bio-chemical change on agriculture income, the researcher restricts himself to the use of fertilizer and its impact on income and employment in agriculture.

The crops are divided into two categories. Traditional and high yielding varieties and it is fitting if we study the impact of the use of fertilizer on new variety and traditional variety of major crops in the study area.

For paddy, the new variety requires 2 bags of fertilizer per crop and it yields 50 bags per acre and it feature Rs.7500 per acre. In the case of traditional variety, if requires 2½ bags of fertilizer. But the yield is 35 bags per acre in the study area and it gives Rs.3500 as income to a farmer. Thus, the use of fertilizer bring more income to a farmer. Thus, the use of fertilizer bring more income to the farmer who cultivates high yielding variety of paddy. In the study area, high yielding variety is very common and widespread. 189

For gingely, each farmer uses 1 bag of fertilizer per acre, because it does not require much fertilizer. If a farmer cultivates a traditional variety, he puts 1 bag of fertilizer per acre. He gets 10 bags per acre. But he gets 15 bags if he cultivates new variety. The income from the new variety is Rs.7500 and that of old variety is Rs.5000. Thus, the use of fertilizer is more effective and remunerative for high yielding variety than for the traditional variety.

If a farmer cultivates black gram, he uses 1 bag of fertilizer per acre. He need not put more fertilizer for this cultivation. He may have to spend Rs.160 on fertilizer; he gets 15 bags of black gram of new variety and 10 bags of old variety. The old variety gives him Rs.5000 per acre and the new variety fetches

Rs.7500 per acre. Thus the yield from the new variety is greater than that of the old variety because of the use of fertilizer in the study area. The difference of income between the new variety and the old variety is Rs.2500.

In case of green gram, the new variety requires half bag of fertilizer and the old variety needs half bag of fertilizer per acre. The yield from the new variety is 15 bags per acre and yield from the old variety is 10 bags per acre.

The new variety brings an income of Rs.6750 per acre while the traditional variety brings an income of Rs.4500 per acre, thus, the new variety yields greater than the old variety. The difference of income between them is Rs.250 per acre, we can boldly say that the effect of fertilizer is greater for new variety than the old variety. 190

If you examine the effect of fertilizer on sugarcane and banana, the new variety of sugarcane requires 1 bag of fertilizer and it yields 50 tonnes per acre.

Whereas the old variety requires 1 bag of fertilizers, but it yields only 40 tonnes. Utmost the new variety given Rs.10000 per acre while the old variety gives Rs.7200 per acre. Thus, new variety gives more income to the farmer than the old variety. The use of fertilizer has greater impact on the new variety of sugarcane then on the old variety of sugarcane then on the old variety of sugarcane in the study area.

With regard to banana, the new variety requires 1 bag of fertilizer per acre and it yields Rs.1000 bunches per acre, on the other hand, the old variety requires 1 bag of fertilizer per acre and it yields 800 bunches pre acre. The income from the new variety is Rs.18000 and then old variety is Rs.12000.

Thus, the impact of fertilizer is greater on the new variety than on the old variety.

In a nutshell, the use of fertilizer is very effective on the new variety of crops than on the old variety of crops in the study area.

191

6.1.5. Relationship between level of Literacy rate and new agricultural technology

Table – 6.16 Relationship between Level of Literacy rate and New Agricultural Technology X Y X2 Y2 XY 113 90 12769 8100 10170 21 14 441 196 294 31 22 961 484 682 5 4 25 16 20 14196 8796 11166

XY 11166 r = = X2 + Y 2 8796 +14196

11166 r== 0.99 11174.436

X = Level of education

Y = familiarity with new agricultural technology

In the study area, among the people who studied high school 90/113 are engaged in agriculture and they are very much familiar with new agricultural technology and modern equipments and implements. Of the people 21 who had higher secondary education about 14 are familiar with new agricultural technology in agriculture. Other people are not involved in agriculture and they are not familiar with modern agriculture and new agricultural technology.

Of the 31 people who had college education, 22 are well informed of new agricultural technology and the remaining people are not actively involved in agriculture and so they are not a very much aware of the new agricultural technology in agriculture. 192

Of the people 5 had technical and other education, 4 are familiar with new agricultural technology in agriculture.

In the study area, most of the people who studied high school are well- informed of the new agricultural technology in agriculture. Those who had college education are not fully involved in agriculture. But they are familiar with new agricultural technology. Of the people who had elementary school education, many are not involved in agriculture because they are all children, abut 15 out of 51 are really engaged in agriculture and they are familiar with modern equipments and new agricultural technology.

In short, there is a higher positive correlation between the level of education and new agricultural technology in the study area, it is 0.99. Among the illiterate many are children so they were not taken into account for calculation. People who had high school, college and other education were taken into account of calculation. The majority of the people had high school education and they are very familiar with new agricultural technology. Among the people who had college education, very few are involved in agriculture but they are fairly aware of modern implementation and new agricultural technology. A minimum percentage of people are actively engaged in agriculture from this category. Of the people who had technical education, they are not actively involved in agriculture, but they are familiar with new agricultural technology in agriculture to certain extent because they hail from agricultural families. Chapter --- VIVIVIIVI III

Summary and Conclusion 193

CHAPTER – VII SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The main objective of the study is to find out the impact of new agricultural technology on employment and Income in agriculture in the study area. Having analyzed this objective, the researcher has identified some findings and evolved some suggestions. This Chapter is divided into three sections.

FINDINGS

In the study area, the researcher observed certain points that could be summarized in this Chapter.

 The objective of the research was to find out how far agriculture is

advanced and mechanized in the study area. As far as my knowledge

goes, the sample villages of my study area are a good example for

mechanization of agriculture. In the study area, mechanization is

practised in agriculture. It is very popular among the big farmers and it

is prevalent among the medium farmers. It is not very popular among

the small farmers. By and large farmers are adopting modern techniques

in agriculture. The farmers are very up to date and familiar with the

latest developments in agriculture.

 The Government has enacted many legislations on land reforms and it is

against bonded labour. But permanent labour is still existing and 194

persisting in the area. The farmers employ them on contract basis in

order to escape from the Government. The bonded labour system is not

fully abolished in the study area. It is prevalent even now. Since there

are many loopholes in the legislations, the big land lords take advantage

of them. In order to escape from land reform act, lands are in different

names of the family members.

 The price of agricultural commodities is very low. So, the farmers are

very much affected by it. They get very low income, because of

procurement price and levy, they invest on agricultural cultivation. But

the remuneration is very discouraging and disheartening.

 The village revenue officers exploit the farmers. They get paddy from

the farmers at procurement rate which is cheaper but, they show a higher

rate to the Government. But the money does not reach the Government.

It goes into the pocket of the Revenue officer and village officer. So,

the procurement and levy are a disadvantage to the farmers. They want

to cheat Government as to get higher income from their crops.

 The agricultural loans provided by the co-operative bank is in no way

beneficial to the farmers. They prefer agricultural bank to co-operative

bank, because the interest on loan is very high and the loan is not

disbursed in time to the farmers. The farmers have to fulfil so many

formalities to get loans from the co-operative society; it is too much for

the farmers. 195

 The pesticides, fertilizers and seeds are provided by the agricultural

department. The cost of fertilizer is very high and the quality is not up to

the mark and it is not distributed when it is required for the farmers. The

seed must be checked and rechecked properly before it is sold to the

farmers.

 The agricultural extension centre is enabling the farmers and guiding

them through training and visit system and it is keeping in touch with

them. The farmers are constantly helped by the farmers. But the

agricultural officers choose the farmers who are known to them and who

are well-to do and rich. The small farmers are not taken care of and not

paid attention to by them. They too must be assisted by the agricultural

officers.

 The crop insurance scheme is not known to the many farmers. Even if

some are aware of it, the conditions laid by the Government are too

strict and rigid, so the farmers are not benefited by it at all. This scheme

does not serve its purpose. The farmers find it useless to ask for crop

insurance from the Government.

 The farmers complain that the Cauvery water was not released for more

than five years. They cannot rely on that now. So they have sunk wells

and they have filter points in their fields. It has affected their cultivation

and income. They have to depend on well water only. 196

 The farmers want to electrify their wells so as to reduce the expense on

irrigation. But the Government delays in granting permission for the

electric motors. The farmers have to bribe the officials in order to get

electric motors. Besides the small farmers cannot enjoy this privilege.

Because they do not have money they cannot influence the officials even

if they bribe the officials. They go to the big farmers and then they fulfill

the needs of the small farmers. It is not easy for a small farmer to get

electrics motors.

 In the study area, people are occupied throughout the year. They have

agricultural work the whole year. Since they have got wells they

cultivate their fields according to the seasons and people are involved in

agricultural work throughout the year. People are fully occupied and

employed.

 In the sample villages, old variety of paddy, banana, and sugar cane is

not found. Since they are business minded and they want to earn more

income, they want to cultivate new variety of crops so that they could

get more yield and more income from the crops.

 The farmers want to cultivate in time and harvest the crops in time. So

they are in favour of mechanization and they want to employ more and

more of modern implements and machinery in agriculture than the

employment of human labour and animal power in agriculture. So, the

farmers have sold off their cattle, very few farmers have bullocks for the 197

purpose of ploughing and watering and so on. They do not feel the need

of bullocks for agricultural purposes. They want to switch over to

mechanization.

 Each panchayat union has got a tractor to hire out to the farmers. But

they are not helping the farmers. They are given to the big farmers and

influential people only. Moreover, when the people need them they will

not be in a good condition because they are not maintained properly.

SUGGESTIONS

Mechanization in agriculture is picking up in the study area. It has to be revitalized and strengthened, them only we can think of advancement, fast progress in agriculture. So, some steps have to be taken by the Government with the view of boosting and encouraging the farmers and motivating them to put in more efforts and hard work in agriculture.

 The distribution of fertilizer must be properly done in time and the cost

of fertilizer, pesticides and weedicide is very high. It has a bearing on

the farmers and the cost of cultivation is very high and the income from

cultivation is very low. In order to encourage them and support them,

the cost of fertilizer, seed, and pesticides must be subsidized and given

at concessional rates. This will be an incentive for the farmers to carry

on agriculture with their whole heart and soul.

 The price of the agricultural commodity is very low. It really

discourages agriculturists. The Government must fix a higher price for 198

agricultural commodities. Then only they can get good income from

their cultivation and it will motive them to carry on agriculture and to

introduce new methods and implements.

 The procurement and levy is misused by the Revenue officials. This

must be checked and stringent action must be taken on those who are

responsible for exploitation in this. It is eyewash on the part of the

Government, the purpose of the Government is defeated because of the

bribes and exploitation of the Revenue officials.

 The farmers are provided loan by the co-operative society which is not

helpful to the farmers. Because the conditions laid down by the co-

operative societies are very difficult and inconvenient for the farmers

and the dealing with the farmers is very rude and rough. So, the

conditions must be relaxed and reformulated in such a way that ordinary

farmers can profit by the co-operative societies. The loans must be

sanctioned in time without delay. The officials must be very sympathetic

and understanding towards the farmers which is very lacking now.

 The farmers undergo many hardships and suffering because they do not

have electric motors. The Government must sanction electric motors

without any undue and unnecessary delay. This will enable the farmers

to carry on their cultivation and will bring down the cost of cultivation

as well. 199

 The agricultural extension service centers are not properly functioning.

The officers are not really interested in the farmers. They do not

approach all kinds of farmers. They are not sincere and responsible, so

they must approach all the farmers and their way of dealing with the

farmers must be cordial and friendly.

 The farmers do not know how to handle the modern agricultural

machines and implements. The Government must start centers to

disseminate knowledge to the farmers about the operation and repair of

the modern tools and equipments.

 The crop insurance is a good step to rescue the farmers from any

unfortunate and loss. But the intricacies must be reformulated and

simplified so that the farmers may feel that they are supported by the

Government in times of crisis and unexpected situations.

 The main source of irrigation is the Cauvery water. But the Cauvery

water is not timely released to farmers. So the farmers have lost the faith

in the canal irrigation. In order to restore their hopes, our Government

must initiate and negotiate with the neighbouring State Governments

and come to a negotiation and decision which will be acceptable to all

and fruitful and beneficial to the farmers in the study area. If the

Government of TamilNadu fails to take any measure towards it, the

whole block will turn out to be a desert and forest very soon. It will

retard the agricultural production of TamilNadu. 200

 The farmers do not have faith in the Government programmes, so the

Government must make them realize that the Government is interested

in the welfare of the farmers and it must encourage them and support

them through reasonable price for the agricultural commodities,

subsidies and concessions. The Government must ask for the opinions of

the farmers. Before it fixes procurement price and the farmers must be

consulted through their trade unions before it takes any decision

pertaining to agriculture.

 Mechanization in agriculture among the small farmers is not very

popular because the size of holding of land is very small. So they find no

meaning in purchasing machines. Besides they run short of money to

buy modern machines in order to intensify their agriculture. So

Government must give preference to the small farmers while sanctioning

agricultural loans.

Besides land Reform Act must be vehemently put into effect and those who have lands more than the stipulated acres, must be taken to task and the excess land must be distributed to the landless people. This will step up agricultural production in the study area and the number of farmers will increase.

The officials and people must extend their co-operation to the

Government. Otherwise, the land will be concentrated in the hands of a few big farmers and they will produce more and get more income from the products. 201

The small farmers will produce less and get less income from the products. So the Government must stringently implement the land ceiling act without giving any consideration to any politics.

 The Agriculture extension service centre has started many

demonstration farms in many panchayats to inform the farmers about the

modern cultivation and to instill them to follow them in their cultivation.

But this is situated in a very few places and in important places only. On

the contrary, the demonstration farms must be started in many villages

which are accessible to all farmers. So that they can imitate the modern

technique in their farms too. More demonstration farms must be started

in as many rural villages as possible.

CONCLUSION

In general, Agriculture is a backward sector. The Government is taking serious steps to develop the sector. It gives emphasis to Agriculture in all the

Fiver Year Plans. Agriculture is slowly becoming a business and it is progressing and advancing. As far as the study area block is concerned,

Agriculture is progressing faster and quicker. The farmers are adopting modern techniques and implement in agriculture. They are very open to modern technology and they favour mechanization in agriculture. Because of modernization in agriculture, they are getting good yield and income from their crops. 202

Agricultural production can be still stepped up, if the farmers are paid attention and their needs and demands are fulfilled and accomplished.

Agricultural production is hindered and impeded because of financial constraints, Government policies, and water problem, lack of standard seeds and good fertilizer and pesticides.

The Government must deem Agriculture as important as industry, and it must frame policies to boost agricultural production. The Government should focus its attention on the farmers and come to their rescue and provide all financial facilities and distribute standard seeds, fertilizer, weedicide and it must start research centers in various places in order to revitalize agriculture. If the Government takes all these steps, Agriculture will contributes a substantial portion of income to the National Economy. The Government must show interest in the farmers and encourage them through various ways and means.

The farmers must extend their full support and co-operation to the nation along with their interests, when the Government and the farmers co-operate with each other the agricultural production will be increased and the National Income will go up.

The progress and future of agriculture depends on the policy of the

Government. The Government must frame its policies keeping in mind the interests of the farmers and the interest of the National when the Government is with the farmers, the agriculture will undergo stupendous changes and it will bring about a tremendous change over the National Economy. So it is not 203

enough that the Government frames policies in the interest of the farmers. But, it must see to it that the policies are put into practice and it must create a conductive climate for that purpose. The Government must play a pivotal role in modernizing agriculture.

Bibliography B 1

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

Asok Basu, Technological possibilities of Indian Agriculture, 1978, Firma KLM Private Limited, Calcutta-12.

Bina Agarwal, Mechanization in India Agriculture 1983, Allied publishers private Limited, Ahmedabad-9.

Bradcord, Lawrence A. and Gleu L. Johnson, Farm management Analysis, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Incl. London, 1964.

Dantwala, M.L. and others, Indian Agricultural Development since Independence, 1986 oxford & IBH publishing New Delhi.

Dr. S. Kumar (2008), Indian Agriculture and the Globalization, Agriculture under Globalization, Dominant Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi – 2, p.10.

Farmer B.H., Green Revolutions 1977, The Macmillan Press Ltd. London and Basing stoke associated companies in New York.

Forster, C.W., Farm Organizational Management, New York: Prentice Hall Inc. 1963.

Herman South Worth and Milton Barneh, Experience informs Mechanization in South East Asia 1974, the Agricultural Development council INC New York-10020.

Ishwar C. Dhingra (2010), The Indian Economy, Environment and Policy, Sultan Chand and Sons, Educational Publishers, New Delhi, Chap. 13, p.312.

Leemarsin, R., A Survey of Agricultural Economic Literature volume-I the University of Minnesota press, for the American Agricultural Economic Association.

Pandey, S.M., Rural Labour in India 1976, Shri Ram centre for Industrial Relations and Human Resources, New Delhi.

Saint, G.R., Farm size, Resource-use efficiency and Income distribution, 1979, Allied publishers Private Limited, Bombay-38. B 2

Sankaran S., Indian Economy 1986, Margham Publication. Madras.

Tandon B.B. and Kulwinder Kaur, Indian Economic Problems 1987, S. Chand and Company, New Delhi.

Theodor Bergmann, Mechanization of Indian farming 1978, popular prakashan private Limited, Bombay-34.

Vanitha and Anitha Rexalin (2008), Agriculture and Globalization, Agriculture under Globalization, Dominant Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi – 2, p.55.

PERIODICALS

Adams, D. and R. Vogel (1990) ‘Rural financial markets in developing countries’ in C. Eicher and J. Staatz (eds.) Agricultural Development in the Third World. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Adams, R. (1995) Agricultural income, cash crops, and inequality in rural Pakistan. Economic Development and Cultural Change 43: 467-491.

Alex, G., W. Zijp and D. Byerlee (2002) Rural Extension and Advisory Services: New Directions, Washington DC, USA: World Bank.

Alston, J.M., G.W. Norton and P.G. Pardey (1995) Science Under Scarcity: Principles and Practice for Agricultural Research Evaluation and Priority Setting. Ithaca, New York, USA: Cornell, University Press.

Ashley, C. and Maxwell, S. (2001) ’Rethinking Rural Development’ Development Policy Review 19(4): 395-425.

Atanassov, A., Bahieldin, A., Brink, J., Burachik,M., Cohen, J., Dhawan, V., Ebora, R., Falck-Zepeda, J., Herrera-Estrella, L., Komen, J., Low, F., Omaliko, E., Odhiambo, B., Quemada, H., Peng, Y., Sampaio, M., Sithole-Niang,I., Sittenfeld, A., Smale, A., Sutrisno, Valyasevi, R., Zafar, Y. and Zambrano P. (2004) To Reach the Poor: Results from the ISNAR-IFPRI Next Harvest Study on Genetically Modified Crops, Public Research and Policy Implications . EPTD Discussion Paper, Washington DC, USA: IFPRI.

Bhati, J.P. “Adoption of improved seeds prospects and problems” agricultural situation in India 25 (9): 967-970, 1969.

Bina Agarwal, “Effects of Agricultural Mechanization on crop output; A study of the operation-wise effects for Hyv wheat in he Punjab. B 3

Briefing Paper 1999(1). London, UK: Overseas Development Institute (ODI).

Dantwala M.L. “Economic and Political Weekly” Vol.XIII, Page.1299-1306, August 1978.

Daranth, G.K. “New Technology and Traditional Rural Institutions” Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. XXII, No.51, December 19, page-2217, 1987.

Desai, DPR., G.A. Patel and R.J. Patel. “Impact of Modern Farming Technology on Rural Development in Saurashtra”, Indian Journal Agricultural Economics, 25 (3), 33-39, 1970.

Dhuruva Narayana, V.V. & Prasad, B.S.N., "Soil and Water Conservation for better land & water management", Indian Farming 39(7):17-18

Fan, S. and Hazell, P. (2000) Should Developing Countries Invest More in Less-Favored Areas? An Empirical Analysis of Rural India. Economic and Political Weekly , April 22, 1455-1464

Faris, Edwin, “Structural change and competitive Relationships among buying and selling firms” Journal of Farm Economics, 46 (5), 1238-1245, 1964.

Federal Geographic Data Committee of U.S. Geological Survey Report No: FGDC-STD-001-1998, GDC-STD-006, and also see http://www.startkart.no/isotc211/scope.html

Finlayson 1995, Transferring technology in developing countries. In "The world of Farm Management: An intervention exchange". Proceedings of Tenth International Farm Management Congress at the University of Readings, 10-15 July 1995. Edited by P T Doward, Reading: University of Reading.

Fisher, J.J : "The Role of Natural Resources in Economic Development: Principles and Pattern" in (Eds) H.F.Williamsons and J.A.Buttrick, 1964, pp 32

Forster, J., Greer, J. and Thorbecke, E. (1984) A Class of Decomposable Poverty Measures, Econometrica , 52 (761-766)

Freebairn, D. (1995) Did the Green Revolution Concentrate on Income? A Quantitative Study of Research Reports. World Development, 23, 265-279.

G.B. Singh: "Green Revolution in India - Gains and Pains", 21st Indian Geography Congress, Nagpur (India), January 2-4, 2000. B 4

Galiani, S., Gertler, P. and Schargrodsky, E. (2005) Water for Life: The Impact of the Privatization of Water Services on Child Mortality. Journal of Political Economy , 113(1): 83-119.

Goutam Sankar, K. “Some basic Economics Aspects of Technological progress with the Tea plantation Industry” Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 21(1), P.166-171, 1966.

Grewal, S.S. and P.S. Rangi, “Farm Income-Nexus with prices, technology” Financial Express, September-24, 1987.

Guissepi A. Forgionne 1991 "Decision Technology Systems : A Step Toward Complete Decision Support", Information Management Systems, Vol. 8, No 4, Fall 1991, Auerbach Publishers

Haque A and Ray G C 1983, Factors Related to the Adoption of Recommended Species of Fish in Composite Fish Culture. Indian Journal of Extension Education XIX (1 and 2): 74-83.

Hayami, Yujro, “Agrarian problems of India; An East and South East Asian perspective”. Economic and political weekly 16(6), 707-712, 1981.

Indian Economic Review, Vol. XV, No.1, 1980.

Jakhade, W.M. “Agricultural Development and Income Distribution”, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 25(1), P.4-15, 1969.

K.V. Sundram: "The Small Framer Development Strategies for the Next Millennium", presented at National Institute of Rural Development, Hyderabad, 2000.

Kahlon, A.S. “New Farm Technology It’s Implication in Agricultural Economics”, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 25(4), 1-11, 1970.

Kahlon, A.S. and J.L. Kaul, “Comparative study of Economics of Hyvs of wheat – Punjab state”, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 23(4), 79-86, 1968.

Kalirajan, K. “The contribution of local specific Research to Agricultural productivity” Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 35(4), 8-16, 1980.

Karbar Singh, “The Impact of New Agricultural Technology on Agricultural wage rates and Employment in IADP Districts”, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 27(4), 223-227, 1972. B 5

Kaul, J.L. and S.K. Mehta, “Factors share in Agricultural Income”, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 27(4), 1972.

Lal Gupta, S.B. and S.B. Singh, “Impact of Development Activities on Technological change in Varanasi District”. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics. 21(1), 154, 1960.

Lavania, G.S. and R.S. Dixit, “Economics of Hyvs in package Districts, Aligarh, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 23(4), 93-103, 1968.

Lave, Lester B. “Impact Estimates of Technological change in united states Agriculture”. Journal of Farm Economics, 44(4), 941-951, 1962.

Lewis, W.A., "The Theory of Economic Growth"

Meenakshi Malya, “An Analysis of personal Income Distribution Rural Areas, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 16 (3), 187-196, 1961.

Misra, V.N. and S.B.L. Gupta, “Fertilizer Input on Resource productivity”, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 52(4), 311, 1971.

Mollet, J.A., "Planning for Agricultural Development", Croom Helm (London & Canberra), St.Martin's Press, New York, 1984

National Bureau of Fish Genetic Resources (NBFGR) - "Digitization of database - Fish Genetic Resources' Planning and Methodology Review" under National Agricultural Technology Project (NATP) , 28-29, January, 2000

National Conference on "Informatics for Sustainable Agricultural Development" (ISDA-95), organised by National Informatics Centre, in collaboration with the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Rural Development, 25-26 May, 1995, Vigyan Bhawan, New Delhi.

Panda.R.K., "Possible Impact of New Economic Policy on Agricultural Credit, Farm Investment, and Productivity", Agricultural Situation in India, Vol.53, No.6, 1996, PP-391.

Pandey, R.N. and L.J. Singh, “Model for optimize crop combination” Eastern Economist, 55(12), 498-501, 1970.

Parameshwara Rao, K., Southern Economist Vol.20, No.21, Page-19, 1982.

Pinstrup-Anderson, P. and Hazell, P. (1985) The Impact of Green Revolution and Prospects for the Future. Food Review International , 1(1) 35 B 6

Pitt, M. and Khandker, S. (1998) The Impact of Group-Based Credit Programs on Poor Households in Bangladesh: Does the Gender of Participants Matter? Journal of Political Economy 106: 958-998.

Pranab Bardhan, “Green Revolution and Agricultural Labourers”, Economic and Political Weakley 5(29, 30, 31), 1239-1246, 1970.

Rai, K.N., Groves, D.K. and D.S. Nandal, “Investment and saving pattern in Irrigated Zone of Haryana State” Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 27(4), 75-82, 1972.

Raj Kumar Singh, “New Agricultural Technology in India”. Southern Economist Vol.26, No.18, 1987, P.7.

Raj, K.N, “Some questions concerning the Growth, Transportation and planning of Agriculture in Developing countries”, Journal of Development planning 1(1), 15-38, 1969.

Raja Mohammed (2009), Modern Agriculture and Sustainable Farming, Peninsular Economist, Vol. XXI, No. 1, Pp.234-235.

Raja Mohammed (2010) Lack of Technology and Awareness, Southern Economist, Vol. 48, No. 24, April 15, 2010, Pp. 5-6.

Rakesh Basant, “Agricultural Technology and Employment in India”, Economic and Political Weekly, August 1, 1987.

Ram Iqbal Singh, R. Kunwar and Shri Ram, “Impact of New Agricultural Technology and Mechanization on Labour Employment”, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 27(4), 210-214, 1972.

Randawa, N.S. and Sundaram, K.V., "Small farmers Development in Asia and the Pacific: Some lessons for strategy formulations and Planning", FAO Economic and Social development Paper No. 87, FAO/UN, Rome, 1990

Randawa, N.S., "Soil Resource Conservation for Agricultural developments", Indian Farming, 1989, 39(7): 12-16

Rao, V.M. and Hanumappa, H.G., "Marginalisation Process in Agriculture - Indicators, Outlook and Policy Implications", Economics and Political Weekly, 34(52), December 25-31, 1999, PP (A133 - A138).

Rutton V.W. “Research on the Technological change in American Agriculture” Journal of Farm Economics, 42(4), 735-753, 1960. B 7

Sain, K. “Technological progress and prospect of Agricultural Growth, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 35(4), 28, 1980.

Sanjay Kathuria, “Technological change in Developing countries”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. XXII, No.50, 1987, P.1710.

Sarkar, K.K. and Prahaladachar, “Mechanization as a Technological Change” Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 21(1), 171-182, 1966.

Shah, S.L. and L.R. Singh, “Impact of New Agricultural Technology on Rural Employment in North West U.P.” Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics,25(3), 29-33, 1970.

Sharma, A.C. “Scale Economics in the production of farm Crops in the Cotton Belt of Punjab”. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 49(3), 283, 1969.

Shetty, K.T., “Implications of Technological change in Commercial crops – A case study of plantation crops in India”, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 21(1), 189-198, 1966.

Shiv. Karan Singh and R. Ramanna, “The Role of credit and Technology in increasing Income and Employment on Small and Large Farms in Western Region of Hyderabad District, Andhra Pradesh”, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 34(3), 41-51.

Shive Karan Singh, “Southern Economist” Vol.16, No.12, P.13, 1977.

Shukla, B.D, “Output Relationship in Agriculture” Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 47(3), 309, 1966.

Shukla, B.K. and S.D. Misra, “Impact of co-operative Finance” Financing Agriculture, 1(3), 26, 1974.

Singh, N.P. “Towards and Appropriate Technology policy in India” Productivity, 20(1), 1-19, 1979.

Subba Rao, K. “Institutional credit, uncertainty and Adoption of Hyv Technology; A comparison of Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 35(1), 1980.

Tripp, R. (2001) Seed Provision and Agricultural Development . Oxford, UK: James Currey. B 8

Ushaben Sharma, “Contributions of Hyvs to Cereal Output yield and Area in Gujarat”. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 36(1), 79-81, 1981.

Venkatram, J.U. “Economic Aspects of High yielding crops – Hybrid Jowar”, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 23(4), 134-138.

Versteeg, M., Amadji, F., Etéka, A., Gogan, A. and Koudokpon, V. (1998) Farmers’ adoptability of Mucuna fallowing and agroforestry technologies in the coastal savanna of Benin. Agricultural Systems 56: 269-287.

Von Braun, J. and P. Webb (1989) The impact of new crop technology on the agricultural division of labor in a West African setting. Economic Development and Cultural Change 37: 513-24.

Vyas, V.S., D.S. Tyagi and V.N. Misra, “Significance of the New strategy of Agricultural Development for small Farmers – A cross sectional study of Two Area in Gujarat”. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 25(1), 115-116, 1970.

Wills, I.R. “Green Revolution and Agricultural Employment and Income in Western Uttar Pradesh, Economic and Political Weekly, 6(13), A5 to A10, 1971.

UNPUBLISHED THESES

Anbalagan N.G. “Farm mechanization and Resource use efficiency in Gudiatham Taluk. North Arcot District” Unpublished M.S (Ag.) thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics, TamilNadu Agricultural University Coimbatore.

Cherina Kesavan K., “Factors influencing Farm mechanization and problems encountered in it”. Unpublished 1978, M.Sc. (Ag) thesis, Agricultural college and Research Institute, TamilNadu, Agricultural University, Coimbatore.

Crawford, J.G., Publications by Government and other Agencies, Golden Jubilee of the Indian council of Agcricultural Research, New Delhi on September 3, 1979.

Muthuraj K. “Factors Influencing the use of Farm machinery available at Agro- Engineering and service co-operative centre, by small and marginal farmer”. 1979 Unpublished M.Sc (Ag) thesis, Agricultural College and Research Institute. TamilNadu Agricultural University Coimbatore. B 9

Ramasamy, C. “Impact of New Technology on Income and pattern of Income Distribution among Farmers – A study in Palani Block, Madurai District, TamilNadu”. 1972 Unpublished M.Sc (Ag) thesis Department of Agricultural Economics, TamilNadu Agricultural University Coimbatore.

Rao, T. Ragotharma, “A study on the tracts associated with users and Non- users of Farm machinery and the problems encountered in Farm mechanization”. 1972 Unpublished M.Sc (Ag) thesis, Agricultural College and Research Institute. TamilNadu Agricultural University Coimbatore.

Ravi Chandran S. “Impact of New technology on Dry land Agriculture”. 1982 Unpublished M.Sc (Ag) thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Centre for Agricultural and Rural Development studies TamilNadu Agricultural University Coimbatore.

Udry, C. (1991) Rural Credit in Northern Nigeria. PhD Dissertation, Yale University

Umakesan R. “A comparative study of Tractor and Non-Tractor Farms in Coimbatore Taluk”. An Economic Appraisal 1971 Unpublished M.Sc (Ag.) thesis, Agricultural college and Research Institute, TamilNadu Agricultural University Coimbatore.

REPORTS United Nations Millennium Project (2005) Investing in Development: A Practical Plan to Achieve the Millennium Development Goals. New York: United Nations Development Program Watts, M. (1983) Silent Violence: Food, Famine and Peasantry in Northern Nigeria. Berkeley: University of California Press 36 World Bank (2003) Global Economic Prospects 2004: Realizing the Development Promise of the Doha Agenda. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. World Bank (2004) Global Poverty down by Half since 1981, but Progress Uneven as Economic Growth eludes many Countries. News Release no. 2004/309/S, April 23, 2004. http://www.worldbank.org/data/wdi2004/index.htm. World Bank (2006) Water Management in Agriculture: Ten Years of World Bank Assistance, 1994-2004. Washington, D.C.: World Bank World Bank and IFPRI (2006) Agriculture and Achieving the Millennium Development Goals. Agriculture and Rural Development Department Report Number 32729-GLB. Washington, D.C.: World Bank

B 10

DIRECTORATE OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS

Gadgil, D.R. and V.R. Gadgil, “Farm Business in Wai Taluk”. Gokale Institute of Politics and Economics 1940, Government of India, “The Hyvp in India (1970-75); Part II controller of publications Delhi, 1977.

Mclnerney, John P. “Technological Innovations in Rural Development” The Technology of Rural Development, World Bank staff working paper No.295, 1978.

Planning Commission, Government of India. Approach to the Fifth Five Year Plan 1974-79, New Delhi MMU Press, Department of Family Planning, 1973.

Selvaraj, P.B. Natarajan and J. Kubendran, “Adoption and Diffusion of New Farm Technology – 1978 – 1979” Agro Economic Research scheme (DPAP) Kovilpatti, TamilNadu Agricultural University.

Studies in Economics of Farm Management in Coimbatore District (TamilNadu) three year combined Report (1970-71 to 1972-73). Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation, New Delhi.

Appendices A 1

AAPPENDIX - I

INTERVIEW SCHEDULE

NAME :

ADDRESS :

I. FAMILY COMPOSITION: Name of the Income members of the Sex Age Education Occupation from family occupation 1 2 3 4 5 6

II. LAND HOLDING PATTERN

Leased Area Owned Area Leased Area Total Operationa Type of out Type of Extent Value Extent in value extent Extent l area Land value Land (Acre) (Rs.) (Acre) (Rs.) (Acre) (Acre) Value (Rs.) (Rs.) 1. Wet 2. Dry 3. Garden Total

III. CROPPING PATTERN S. No. Crop Variety Acreage Season Irrigated Dry Remarks I II III IVIII Total

A 2

IV. VALUE OF ASSETS: (A). LAND AND BUILDINGS Land Building Value Its original Present S. No. possessed possessed (Rs) value (Rs) value (Rs) (Acres) (Nos) 1 2

B. IRRIGATION STRUCTURE Annual Annual Particulars Original Present Expected income Expenditure of Nos. value value Life from sale (Repair & irrigation (Rs) (Rs) (Years) of water Maintenance ) (Rs) Canals Tanks Wells

C. MISCELLANEOUS ASSETS Maintenance Original Present Particulars Nos. expenditure Remarks Value (Rs) Value (Rs) (Rs) 1. Fence &

Compound 2. Threshing

floor 3. Manure pit 4. Roads 5. Others Total

D. DEAD STOCK: IMPLEMENTS AND MACHINES

Purchase Present Maintenance Expected S. Particulars Nos. Price Value of Repair life Remarks No. (Rs) (Rs) cost (years)

A 3

V. FINANCIAL ASSETS

S. Description Value (Rs) No. 1 Cash on hand 2 Cash in bank or post office 3 Prize Bonds 4 N.S.S. 5 L.I.C. 6 Loans / Advances 7 Jewellery Total

VI. FAMILY LABOUR

No. of Annual Nature of Wage per Type Nos. Age days income work day (Rs) worked (Rs) Men Women Children Total

VII. PERMANENT LABOUR

Payment per Annum No. of Periodicity Nature S. Total days Name Age Sex Per of of No. Kind Cash value worked quisite payment work (Rs.) annual 1

A 4

PATTERN OF INVESTIMENT

S. Particular Nos. Value (Rs) Total (Rs) No. 1. Land 2. Farm Buildings 3. Irrigation Structure 4. Raads & Birds 5. Live stocks & Birds 6. Machinery & Implements 7. Vehicles Total

VIII. A. INCOME PATTERN

S. No. Particulars Total Income (Rs) 1. Crops 2. Live stock 3. Labour 4. Occupation 5. Miscellaneous Total

B. INCOME FROM CROPS

Main Bye-product Main and Bye-products Name Product S. of the Variety No. Crops Value Value House Sales Yield Yield Seed Feed (Rs) (Rs) consumption (Value)

Total

A 5

IX. EXPENDITURE PATTERN A. CONSUMPTION EXPENDITURE S. Particulars Quantity Value (Rs) No. 1 Consumption of food 2 Clothing 3 Fuel & Lighting 4 Medical Expenses 5 Education 6 Recreation 7 Social & Religious 8 Consumer durables Total

B. INVESTMENT EXPENDITURE S. Particulars Value (Rs) No. 1 Agricultural Income-Tax 2 Land Tax 180+180+140 3 Maintenance of Dead Stock 4 Maintenance of Buildings 5 Maintenance of Live Stock 6 Other charges (Politics) Total

X. GENERAL INFORMATION i) Water scarcity. ii) Programme offices not clearly given that ideas. iii) Govt. project (Cement canal) is waste one, because not properly alone. iv) Procurement officers is not enough. v) This modern method yielding high (Profit). vi) All real must be do in time. A 6

AAPPENDIX - II PAPERS PUBLISHED

A 7

A 8

A 9

A 10

A 11