An Analysis of the Impact of Mechanisation in Paddy Cultivation in Thanjavur District of Tamilnadu

AN ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF MECHANISATION IN PADDY CULTIVATION IN THANJAVUR DISTRICT OF TAMILNADU

Thesis submitted to BHARATHIDASAN UNIVERSITY, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN ECONOMICS

Submitted by A. THANGAVEL, M.A., M.Ed., M.Phil., [Ref.No. 012394/Ph.D.2/Economics/PT/October 2009]

Under the Guidance and Supervision of Dr. R. RAJENDRAN, M.A., M.Phil., Ph.D., Associate Professor and Head of the Department

DEPARTMENT OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES AND RESEARCH IN ECONOMICS GOVERNMENT ARTS COLLEGE (AUTONOMOUS) KUMBAKONAM - 612 001. TAMILNADU, INDIA

JUNE – 2014 Dr. R. RAJENDRAN, M.A., M.Phil., Ph.D., Associate Professor and Head, Department of Post Graduate Studies and Research in Economics, Government Arts College (Autonomous), Kumbakonam - 612 001.

Date:

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the thesis entitled ‘AN ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF MECHANISATION IN PADDY CULTIVATION IN THANJAVUR DISTRICT OF TAMILNADU’ submitted by Mr.A.THANGAVEL, in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN ECONOMICS, is a bonafide record of research work done by him under my guidance and supervision in the Department of Post Graduate Studies and Research in Economics, Government Arts College (Autonomous), Kumbakonam, and that the thesis has not previously formed the basis for the award of any Degree / Diploma, Associateship, Fellowship or other similar titles. The thesis represents the independent and original work on the part of the candidate.

Place : Kumbakonam Date :

Research Supervisor. A. THANGAVEL, M.A., M.Ed., M.Phil., Research Scholar (Part Time), Department of Post Graduate Studies and Research in Economics, Government Arts College (Autonomous), Kumbakonam – 612 001.

DECLARATION

I do hereby declare that the research work has been originally carried out by me, under the guidance and supervision of Dr. R. RAJENDRAN, Associate Professor and Head, Department of Post Graduate Studies and Research in Economics, Government Arts College (Autonomous), Kumbakonam. This work has not previously formed the basis for the award of any Degree, Diploma, Associateship and Fellowship at any University or Research Institute.

Place: Kumbakonam, Research Scholar Date : (A.THANGAVEL) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This dissertation is the result of a research work carried out involving the inputs of many eminent experts.

I greatly acknowledge my deep sense of gratitude to Dr. R. RAJENDRAN, M.A., M.Phil., Ph.D., Associate Professor and Head, Department of Post Graduate Studies and Research in Economics, Government Arts College (Autonomous), Kumbakonam, for his benevolent guidance, sagacious suggestions and enthusiastic encouragement in planning and execution of this research work successfully. I have learnt much from his experience from the beginning till the completion of the study and I am highly indebted to him.

I express my sincere thanks to the Dr. K.Mohanasundaram, M.Sc., M.Phil., M.Ed., Ph.D., Principal, Government Arts College (Autonomous), Kumbakonam who has encouraged me to complete this thesis with in the stipulated period.

I profoundly thank to the Faculty Members of the Department of Post Graduate Studies and Research in Economics, Government Arts College (Autonomous), Kumbakonam for their motivation to all my academic activities, the research work in particular.

It is with immense pleasure I express my deep sense of gratitude to Dr. R. Kanagarajan, M.A.,M.Ed., Ph.D., Principal, K.S.K. College of Education, Kumbakonam for his cordial care and erudite guidance at every stage of the study.

I am indebted to Dr. M. Manimekalai, M.A., M.Ed., M.Phil., Ph.D., Asst. Professor of education, K.S.K. College of Education, Kumbakonam for her kind guidance and support in completing the task. I owe my heartfelt thanks to Dr. Sakthivel, Assistant Professor of Economics, Thiru.Vi. Ka. Government Arts College, Tiruvarur, for his constructive suggestions and immeasurable contributions towards the progress of the work.

My sincere acknowledgement is due to Dr. K. Jayaraman, Assistant Professor of Economics, Govt. Arts College, Thiruvannamalai, for his timely help in getting relevant literature for the study.

The contribution of the librarians of Tamil Nadu Agricultural University-Coimbatore and Kattuthottam Agricultural University- Thanjavur, Bharathidasan University-Tiruchirapalli, St.Joseph College (Autonomous)-Trichirappalli, Madras Institute of Development Studies- Chennai, in the realm of my research has gone a long way towards completing this work.

I would like to air my special thanks to the Mr.R.Balamurugan, M.A., M.Phil., Guest Lecturer, Department of Economics, Thiru. Vi. Ka. Government Arts College, Thiruvarur and Dr. R.Gangatharan, M.A., B.Ed., M.Phil., Ph.D., for their tremendous co-operation in the collection of data.

It is my pleasant privilege to thank my Parents Thiru.A.P.Arumugam, Thirumathi.A. Manjula, my wife Mrs.T.Gayathtri, and my lovable child T.Dhansika for their moral support and endurance without which I could not have completed the research work.

I thank Mr.R.Manikandan , Rahul Net Cafe, Kumbakonam for his neat and flawless typing of the thesis.

Finally I thank one and all who rendered their wholehearted support for the fruitful execution of this research work.

(A. Thangavel) CONTENTS

i. CERTIFICATE ii. DECLARATION iii. ACKNOWLEDGMENT iv. LIST OF TABLES v. LIST OF FIGURES

CHAPTER TITLE PAGE NO

I INTRODUCTION 1-18

AN OVERVIEW OF FARM MECHANIZATION IN II 19-55 RELATION TO THE ECONOMY

THE EMPIRICAL REVIEW OF VARIOUS III 56-102 RELATED LITERATURE

IV PROFILE OF THE STUDY AREA 103-125

ANALYSIS OF PRIMARY DATA AND V 126-248 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS

VI FINDINGS, SUGGESTIONS AND CONCLUSION 249-257

BIBLIOGRAPHY

APPENDIX i. INTERVIEW SCHEDULE ii. INDIA, TAMIL NADU & THANJAVUR DISTRICT MAP iii. PUBLISHED PAPERS LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE TITLE NO NO Farm Mechanization and the Significant Happenings in 2.1 23 Agriculture during different Periods 2.2 The Milestones of Mechanization of Agriculture in India 26 2.3 Year-wise production and sale of tractor and power tillers 27 2.4 Sales of Tractors and Power Tillers in India 28 Average number of farm Equipment/ Machinery 2.5 possessed per 1000 farmer households in land class 31 (hectares) 2.6 Indian Agriculture – A Four Decade story (1960-2010) 34 2.7 The share of Agricultural labour in different countries 35 2.8 Population of agricultural machinery in India in 2003 35 2.9 Projections for Mechanization in India 37 Population of power sources and their power availability 2.10 41 in India 2.11 Availability of Farm Power in India 42 2.12 Share of Different Components of Energy in Agriculture 43 4.1 Thanjavur District at a Glance 106 Season-wise distribution of normal rainfall in Thanjavur 4.2 107 district 4.3 Total number of households of Thanjavur district 108 4.4 Area, population, literates sex wise of Thanjavur district 109 4.5 Population of rural and urban ratio of Thanjavur district 109 4.6 Population by religion of Thanjavur district 110 Occupational classification of population in Thanjavur 4.7 111 district 4.8 Land use pattern of Thanjavur district and Tamilnadu State 112 Size wise number of operational holdings in Thanjavur 4.9 113 district Area, production and productivity of principal crops of 4.10 115 Thanjavur district and Tamilnadu State 4.11 Sources of water supply in Thanjavur district 117 4.12 Source-wise net area irrigated of Thanjavur district 118 4.13 Area sown and irrigated of Thanjavur district 118 4.14 Block wise sown area under paddy crop 119 4.15 Details of Vadacheri Panchayat 120 4.16 Details of Vellur Panchayat 121 4.17 Details of Pulavangadu Panchayat 122 4.18 Details of Annappanpettai Panchayat 123 4.19 Details of Irumbuthalai Panchayat 124 4.20 Details of Vadapathi Panchayat 125 5.1 Sex - wise classification of the respondents 127 5.2 Age - wise classification 128 5.3 Religion-wise classification 130 5.4 Community-wise classification 131 5.5 Marital status of the respondents 133 5.6 Educational Qualification 134 5.7 Type of family 136 5.8 Occupation wise distribution of the respondents 137 5.9 Size of land holding 138 5.10 Farming experience of the respondents 139 Farming experience of the farmers in mechanized 5.11 140 operations 5.12 Details of own house holding 141 5.13 Nature of house holding 142 5.14 Annual income of the sample farmers 143 5.15 Annual expenditure 145 5.16 Savings of the respondents 147 5.17 Amount of savings 148 5.18 Savings avenues of the respondents 149 5.19 Loans availed by the sample farmers 150 5.20 Sources of borrowing 151 5.21 Possession of cattles 152 5.22 Possession of farm machineries and equipments 153 5.23 Farm machineries and equipments of the marginal farmers 156 5.24 Farm machineries and equipments of the small farmers 158 5.25 Farm machineries and equipments of the medium farmers 160 Number of farm machineries and equipments held by 5.26 162 overall respondents 5.27 Bullock drawn implements 164 Awareness about the government subsidy for buying 5.28 165 agricultural machines 5.29 Awareness on the amount of subsidy 166 Awareness about the department which provides 5.30 167 agricultural subsidy Awareness on the availability of agricultural machines for 5.31 168 rent Awareness on different types of agricultural machines 5.32 169 available for rent 5.33 Awareness about the amount of rent 170 5.34 Awareness on institutional loan facilities 171 5.35 Awareness on training and usage 172 5.36 Training attended by the sample farmers 173 5.37 Awareness on repairing the agricultural machines 174 Awareness on usage of agriculture machines during 5.38 175 plantation activities 5.39 Awareness about insuring the agriculture machines 176 Awareness on machine power in accordance with the 5.40 177 productivity 5.41 Ammapettai Block - Overall Awareness 178 5.42 Orathanadu Block - Overall Awareness 181 5.43 Overall Awareness results 184 Problems of availability of the agriculture machineries in 5.44 188 time Problems of availability of the agriculture subsidy without 5.45 189 any difficulties Problems of availability of operators of agriculture 5.46 190 machines during the cultivation time Problems of Availability of the repairing mechanics in 5.47 191 time Opposition from the agricultural labourers for using the 5.48 192 mechanics in agriculture machines Damage of straw by using the machines in agriculture 5.49 193 activities 5.50 Soil quality damage in using agriculture machines 194 5.51 Agricultural machines which can be used for all seasons 195 Problems in the availability of required spare parts from 5.52 196 nearby shops 5.53 Problem of accident in using agriculture machines 197 5.54 Problems of availability of fuel 198 5.55 Problems of unemployment in using agricultural machines 199 5.56 Female labourers and agriculture machines 200 5.57 Male labourers usage and agriculture machines 201 Problem in the use the machinery in small and marginal 5.58 202 lands Problem in the maintenance and repairing cost of 5.59 203 agriculture machines 5.60 Problem of irrigation 204 5.61 Environmental pollution and agriculture machineries 205 Ammapettai Block - Overall problems Results of Farm 5.62 206 Mechanisation Orathanadu Block - Overall problem Results of Farm 5.63 209 Mechanisation 5.64 Overall problems results of Farm Mechanisation 212 5.65 Agricultural production and agricultural machineries 217 Work burden of agricultural labourers and agricultural 5.66 218 machines 5.67 Profit and agricultural machines 219 Reduction in the labourer problems by using agriculture 5.68 220 machines 5.69 Area of cultivation and farm mechanisation 221 Quick operation of agricultural works and agricultural 5.70 222 machines 5.71 Crop rotation and agricultural machines 223 Ammapettai Block Overall advantages Results of Farm 5.72 224 Mechanisation Orathanadu Block Overall advantages Results of Farm 5.73 225 Mechanisation 5.74 Overall advantages Results of Farm Mechanisation 226 Mechanisation of agriculture attracted more youths in 5.75 229 agriculture 5.76 Increase in the amount of wage of agriculture labourers 230 Interest of the people in agriculture activities after the 5.77 231 application of agricultural machineries Mechanization of agriculture and the usage of cattle 5.78 232 population in agriculture 5.79 Opportunities for youths in the agricultural activities 233 5.80 Method of cultivation 234 5.81 Type of Irrigation Facilities 235 Comparative statement of the Cost of paddy Cultivation 5.82 236 Traditional versus Mechanized method Comparative statement of the income of paddy Cultivation 5.83 238 Traditional versus Mechanized method Comparative statement of the Profit of paddy Cultivation 5.84 240 Traditional versus Mechanized Method

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure TITLE No 2.1 Sales of Tractors in India 2.2 Sales of Power Tillers in India

2.3 Share of agricultural workers, draught animals, machineries and equipments 2.4 Farm mechanisation: key driver of productivity 5.1 Sex wise classification 5.2 Age-wise classification of the respondents 5.3 Religion-wise classification 5.4 Community-wise classification

5.5 Educational Qualification 5.6 Occupation wise distribution 5.7 Annual income-wise classification 5.8 Annual expenditure -wise classification CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION CHAPTER – I

INTRODUCTION Agriculture is the ‘art and science of growing plants and the raising of animals for food, other human need, or economic gain’. Indian economy is basically agrarian in nature. Agriculture has retained its pride place of being the backbone of the Indian economy. Mahatma Gandhi said, "India lives in villages and agriculture is the soul of Indian economy". Nearly two-thirds of its population depends directly on agriculture for its livelihood and sustenance. National development rests on the prosperity of agriculture. Agriculture provides direct employment to nearly 51.1 percent of working population in the country. It is the main stay of India's economy. It contributes at about 26 percent of the gross domestic product. Agriculture meets food requirements of the people and it is the source of several raw materials for industries.

The Chronological Development of Agriculture Agriculture includes cultivating the soil, growing and harvesting crops, and raising livestock. Agriculture was independently developed in many places, including the Middle East, East Asia, South Asia, and Americas. The earliest evidence for agriculture has been found in the Middle East and dates to between 14,500 and 12,000 BC(Before Christ). Early cultivate included wild barley (Middle East), millet (China), and squash (the Americas).

Agriculture involving domestication of plants and animals was developed at least 10,000 years ago. Before this, the earlier people began altering plant and animal communities for their own benefit through other means such as fire-stick farming. Agriculture has undergone significant developments since the time of the earliest cultivation. The Western Asia, Egypt and India were areas of the earliest planned sowing and harvesting of plants that had previously been gathered in the wild. Independent development of agriculture occurred in the northern and southern China, Africa's Sahel, New Guinea and several regions of the Americas.

Wheat and barley were domesticated in the Indian subcontinent by 9000 BCE which followed domestication of sheep and goat. Barley and wheat cultivation along with the domestication of cattle, primarily sheep and goat continued in Mehrgarh 8000-6000 BCE. This period also saw the first domestication of the elephant. Agro pastoralism in India included threshing, planting crops in rows either of two or of six and storing grain in granaries. By the 5th millennium BCE agricultural communities became widespread in Kashmir. Cotton was cultivated by the 5th millennium BCE - 4th millennium BCE (Before the Common Era).

Archaeological evidence indicates that rice was a part of the Indian diet by 8000 BCE. The Encyclopedia Britannica portrays that a number of cultures have evidence of early rice cultivation, including China, India, and the civilizations of Southeast Asia. A well developed irrigation system existed in the Indus Valley Civilization by around 4500 BCE. The size and prosperity of the Indus civilization grew as a result of this innovation. This led to more planned settlements making use of drainage and sewers. Archeological evidence of an animal-drawn plough dates back to 2500 BCE in the Indus Valley Civilization showing the fate of agriculture.

Paddy was cultivated along the banks of River Ganges in the Sixth millennium BC. During the same period, barley, oats, wheat, lentil and chickpea were grown in the Northwest India. Some claim Indian agriculture began by 9000 B.P. as a result of early cultivation of plants, and domestication of crops and animals. Settled life soon followed with implements and techniques being developed for agriculture. Double monsoons led to two harvests being reaped in one year.

Despite some stagnation during the later modern era the independent Republic of India was able to develop a comprehensive agricultural program. The crops cultivated in India during 3000 to 6000 years ago were seasame, linseed, safflower, horse gram and black gram. The irrigation system was developed to a new level in the middle ages. Proper land water management agricultural programmes were

undertaken to have uniform growth. The Islamic rules patronized various irrigation canal systems.

Growth of Agriculture in India India, the land of abundant natural resources, is the home for wild flora and fauna. Agricultural is the basic for rolling the lives of many people and positively influences the industry. The packages of technology, services and public policies introduced since the beginning of the first Five Year Plan in 1950, made India being the first or second position in terms of production and area in several major crops.

From agricultural point of view, India is a unique country. It has vast expanse of level land, rich soils, wild climatic variations suited for various types of crops, ample sunshine and a long growing season. The net sown area in India today is about 143 million hectares. India has the highest percentage of land under cultivation in the world. In spite of the fact that large areas in India, after independence, have been brought under irrigation, only one-third of the cropped area is actually irrigated. The productivity of agriculture is very low. Farming depends mainly upon monsoon rain. Most of the production comprises of food crops. About one-third of the land holdings are small, less than one hectare in size. Farmers own their own small pieces of land and grow crops primarily for consumption. Even storage facilities for crops are inadequate.

Cultivation of Agro-products Indian agriculture has registered impressive growth over last few decades. The food grain production has increased from 51 Million Tonnes (MT) in 1950-51 to 250 MT during 2011-12 highest ever since independence. The production of oilseeds (nine-major oilseed) has also increased from 5 MT to 28 MT during the same period. The rapid growth has helped Indian agriculture mark its presence at global level. India stands among top three in terms of production of various agricultural commodities like paddy, wheat, pulses, groundnut, rapeseeds, fruits, vegetables, sugarcane, tea, jute, cotton, and tobacco leaves, (Government of India, 2008-09).

THE MAJOR ISSUES IN INDIAN AGRICULTURE While there are a number of factors responsible for the present state of agriculture in India, the following seven issues merit attention on priority:

1. Variations in Agriculture Indian agricultural production, of late, has been characterized by sharp variations due to unpredictable nature of monsoon. For instance, food grains production in the country varied between 174.19 million tonnes in 2002-03 (the lowest in the last 12 years) and 212.20 million tonnes in 2003-04, (the peak production attained so far). Similar variations can be observed in the production of non-food grains. It turns out that the variability of agricultural production in the 1980s was as much as five times the average variability recorded in the overall GDP during 1992-93 to 2002-03. Such wide variations in agricultural production underline the rain dependence of the Indian agriculture, thereby underscoring the need for improving the irrigation facilities. In 1998-99 only 39.2 per cent of the gross cropped area in the country was under irrigation.

2. Declining Public Investment During the 1990s, a steady downturn in investment rates was experienced by the agricultural sector, mainly in public investment. The ratio of public sector capital formation in agriculture to Gross Public Sector Capital Formation declined from 17.7 per cent in 1980-81 to only 4.1 per cent in 2000-01. Although the private sector capital formation in agriculture has been on the rise during the past decade, it has not been able to meet the shortfall on account of the corresponding decline in public investment. The inadequacy of new capital formation has slowed the pace and pattern of technological change in agriculture with adverse effects on productivity. To rejuvenate agricultural growth, the declining trend in public investment needs to be corrected.

3. Inadequate Credit Delivery Agricultural credit to the farming community has to be increased as the cost of cultivation also increased. An Institutional set-up arrangement to provide liberal agricultural credit facilities has to be made to reach the small and marginal farmers also. Although the ratio of agricultural credit to agricultural GDP has increased from 5.4 percent in 1970s to 8.7 per cent in 2001-02, it may be noted that agricultural credit as a proportion to total credit has declined from 20.5 per cent to 10.5 per cent during the same period indicating lower deployment of credit in agriculture.

4. Decline in Credit to Small Borrowers Besides the overall decline in agricultural credit, what is even more worrisome is the decline in the number of small loans (of up to Rupees 25,000). Their share in total bank credit also declined from 25 per cent to only 6 per cent during the same period. Thus, it seems that brunt of credit squeeze in agriculture is being faced by small farmers.

5. Sub-Optimal Use of Inputs and Adoption of Technology The imperative of stabilizing and augmenting agricultural yields is also evident from the fact that there is less scope for increasing area under cultivation of various crops. Further, apart from the decline in land-holding size, there is increasing cost of production and depletion of ground water. Increase in agricultural production would therefore have to emanate from improvements in productivity from the existing cultivated area through use of location-specific high yielding varieties, balanced fertilizer doses, effective transfer of technology and timely supply of all inputs. There is also an urgent need to increase the availability of farm electricity power to boost productivity.

6. Inadequate Spread of New Technology One of the main reasons for the low levels of yield in Indian agriculture has been the unsatisfactory spread of new technological practices, including the adoption

of High Yielding Varieties (HYV) of seeds and usage of fertilizers, inadequate spread of farm management techniques and other practices such as soil conservation and crop rotation.

7. Low availability of farm electricity power Power is an important source for the development of all the departments. The availability of farm electricity power in the country continues to be low. During 2000-01, it was as low as 1.35 kilowatt/hectare in India as compared with some of the developed nations, such as Japan (8.75 kw/ha), Italy (3.01 kw/ha), France (2.65 kw/ha), the United Kingdom (2.5 kw/ha), and Germany (2.35 kw/ha).

8. Distortion in Pricing and Subsidies The Minimum Support Price (MSP) mechanism was put in place to provide assured incomes to producers. However, during the 1990s, substantial increases in MSPs of rice and wheat have significantly distorted the incentives provided to these crops at the cost of other crops.

9. Untapped Exports Potential In recent period India has emerged as a leading producer of many agricultural products in the world. India is now the largest producer of coconut, areca nut, cashew nut, ginger, turmeric, black pepper, and the second largest producer of fruits and vegetables. This progress on the domestic front has, however, not been translated into enhanced exports of these commodities. Exports of agricultural products generally displayed a relatively lower rate of growth except for a brief period in mid-1990s. While exports of traditional commodities such as tea, coffee, rice, spices and oil meal have decelerated, sharp expansion was observed in exports of high value and processed agricultural products such as fruits and vegetables, processed fruits, juices, and meat and meat preparation. In order to realize the huge potential of exports which has so far been untapped, particularly in respect of processed foods, it is imperative that domestic controls are removed expeditiously and adequate rural infrastructure is

6 in place which would ensure efficient warehousing, processing, packaging, storage and related research. It is now agreed that Indian agriculture has vast business potential, especially in the food processing sector, in view of the substantial production of fruits and vegetables and milk and other animal food products in the country. However, tapping this business potential in food processing industry requires that Indian food exports should satisfy the codex alimentary norms.

10. Employment Absorptive Capacity Nearly 51.1 per cent of the population in India is dependent on agricultural income. This is clearly symptomatic of the failure of other sectors i.e., industry and services in absorbing the surplus labor from agriculture. It is expected that the working age population as a proportion of total population would double during the next three decades. This, in turn, would imply a growing proportion of population dependant on agricultural income which would have to be absorbed through creation of adequate employment opportunities within the agricultural sector. The decline in agriculture in the labour force has not kept pace with its decline in the economy. This stickiness has been attributed to low labour mobility and slow growth.

Origin of Paddy Cultivation The word "paddy" is derived from the Malay word padi, rice plant. Archaeologists generally accept that wet-field cultivation originated in China. The earliest paddy field found, dates to 6280 B.P (Before Present), based on carbon dating of grains of rice and soil organic matter found at the Chaodun site in Kushan County. At Caoxieshan, a site of the Neolithic Majiabang culture, archaeologists excavated paddy fields. Some archaeologists claim that Caoxieshan may date to 4000-3000 BC. There are ten archaeologically excavated rice paddy fields in Korea. The oldest two are the Okhyun and Yaumdong sites, found in Ulsan, dating to the early mumun pottery period. There is archaeological evidence, that unhusked rice was stored for the military and for burial with the deceased, from the Neolithic period to the Han Dynasty in China.

During the twentieth century, paddy field farming became the dominant form of growing rice. Hill tribes of Thailand still cultivate dry-soil varieties called upland rice. paddy field farming is practiced in Cambodia, Bangladesh, China, Taiwan, India, Indonesia, Japan North korea, South korea, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan the Philippines, SriLanka, Thailand, Vietnam and Laos, as well as Piedmont in Italy, the Camargue in France the Artibonite Valley in Haiti, and Sacramento Valley in California. Paddy fields are a major source of atmospheric methane and have been estimated to contribute in the range of 50 to 100 million tonnes of the gas per annum. Recent studies have shown that this can be significantly reduced while also boosting crop yield by draining the paddies to allow the soil to aerate to interrupt methane production.

A pit-house at the Daecheon-ni site yielded carbonized rice grains and radiocarbon dates, indicating that rice cultivation in dry-fields might have begun as early as the middle Jeulmum (c. 3500-2000 B.C.) in the Korean Peninsula. The paddy field feature was found next to a pit-house that is dated to the latter part of the Early Mumun Pottery Period (c. 1100-850 BC). The excavations of Kyunganam University Museum revealed similarly dated paddy field features at Yaeum-dong and Okhyeon.

The earliest Mumum features were usually located in low-lying narrow gullies that were naturally swampy and fed by the local stream system. Some Mumum paddy fields in flat areas were made of a series of squares and rectangles, separated by bunds approximately 10 cm in height, while terraced paddy fields consisted of long irregular shapes that followed natural contours of the land at various levels.

Mumum Period rice farmers used all of the elements that are present in today's paddy fields, such as terracing, bunds, canals, and small reservoirs. We can grasp some paddy-field farming techniques of the Middle Mumum (c. 850-550 BC), from the well-preserved wooden tools excavated from archaeological rice fields at the

Majeon-ni Site. However, iron tools for paddy-field farming were not introduced until sometime after 200 BC. The spatial scale of paddy-fields increased, with the regular use of iron tools, in the three Kingdoms of Korea Period (c. AD 300/400- 668).

In the Philippines, the use of rice paddies can be traced to prehistoric times, as evidenced in the names of towns such as Pila, Laguna, whose name can be traced to the straight mounds of dirt that form the boundaries of the rice paddy, or "Pilapil." Wet rice cultivation in Vietnam dates back to the Neolithic Hoa Binh culture and Bac Son culture.

Paddy Production and Productivity The scientific name of paddy is Orizum Sativum. Rice is the most important food crop of India. It is predominantly a summer crop. It covers about one third of total cultivated area of the country and provides food to more than half of the Indian population. The staple food of Majority of Indian population is rice. Rice is grown in almost all the states of India. West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Bihar, Orissa, Assam, Karnataka and Haryana are the major producing states. More than 50 percent of the total production comes from the first four states. It is also grown in Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Kerala, Gujarat and Kashmir. Agriculture still remains the major source of Income for families in India. Farms cover over half the land and almost three-quarters of that land is used to grow the two major grains: rice and wheat. India is the second largest producer of rice in the world, next only to China. India's annual rice production stands at about 85 to 90 million tons.

Rice is the most important cereal food crop of India. It occupies about 23.3 percent of gross cropped area of the country. It plays vital role in the national food grain supply. Rice contributes 43 per cent of total food grain production and 46 percent of the total cereal production of the country. Rice is the staple food of more than 60 percent of the world's population especially for most of the people of South-

East Asia. Among the rice growing countries in the world, India has the largest area under rice crop and ranks second in production next to China. The productivity of rice in India is higher than in Thailand, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal but much below the productivity in Japan, China, Korea, U.S.A. and Indonesia. Average rice productivity in India during 1999-2000 was 1986 kg/ha, which is about 23 percent below the world average productivity of 2563 kg/ha during the same year.

There is considerable increase in productivity of rice in India during the recent past. The productivity of rice was 668 kg/ha in 1950-51 and it has increased to 2,066 kg/ha during 2001-02. The increase in productivity of rice is about 209 percent and this increase is due to introduction of high yielding rice varieties responsive to high dose of fertilizers coupled with improved package of practices evolved by Agricultural Scientists for various regions. In fact, there is considerable increase in productivity of rice in the country but there are still certain areas, where rice productivity is low and very low. Rice productivity in such areas fluctuates significantly from region to region due to various factors such as soil type, soil fertility, rainfall pattern, flood, water logging and climatic conditions.

India is one of the world's largest producers of white rice, accounting for 20 percent of all world rice production. In India, Rice Production has increased from 53.6 million tons in 1980 to 74.6 million tons in 1990, 39 percent increase over the decade. By 1992, rice production had reached 111 million tons, second in the world next to China (182 million tons).

India’s rice production declined to 89.13 million tonnes in 2009-10 crop years (July–June) from record 99.18 million tonnes in the previous year due to severe drought that affected almost half of the country. India could achieve a record rice production of 100 million tonnes in 2010-11 crop years on the back of better monsoon this year. The India's rice production reached to a record high of 104.32 million tonnes in 2011-2012 crop years (July–June).

Traditional Method of Cultivation Rice can be cultivated by different methods based on the type of region. But in India, the traditional methods are still in use for harvesting rice. The fields are initially ploughed and then fertilizer is applied which typically consists of cow dung and then the field is smoothed. The seeds are transplanted by hand and then through proper irrigation and after that cultivated.

The green revolution converted India from food dependent country to the self- sustained economy with sufficient reserves. This is the fruit to the hard and planned work of Indian Government and the people. There has been a change in the direction and composition of India’s exports. Still, the agricultural sector contributes nearly 25 per cent of the total exports of our country. In spite of its pre-dominance on agricultural sector, its productivity has come down. This trend needs to be reversed at once. The lack of awareness among the farmers is another one factor, low level of productivity resulting in low agricultural yield when compared to other countries.

Mechanisation in Agriculture Mechanisation may be defined as the process of injecting power and machinery between man materials in a production system. Mechanization related to farming requires the study, manufacture, utilization, maintenance and repair of all tools, implements, machines, equipment and structures. This would enable the farmer to raise the productivity of human labour economically.

Agriculture mechanization is the application of mechanical technology and increased power to agriculture, largely as a means to enhance the productivity of human labour and often to achieve results well beyond the capacity of human labour. This includes the use of tractors of various types as well as animal-powered and human-powered implements and tools, and internal combustion engines, electric motors, solar power and other methods of energy conversion. Mechanization also includes irrigation systems, food processing and related technologies and equipment.

Effective Mechanization Method The effective mechanization contributes to increase in production in two major ways: the timeliness of operation and good quality of work. The requirement of power for certain operations like seed bed preparation, cultivation and harvesting becomes so great that the existing human and animal power in the country appears to be inadequate. As a result, the operations are either partially done or sometimes completely neglected, resulting in low yield due to poor growth or untimely harvesting or both. Yet Indian agriculture lacks farm power which needs to be increased from 1.25 kW/ha to at least 2.0 kW/ha. Draught animals and farm workers are important sources of farm power. Mechanization possibility is strongly influenced by:

(i) farm size, (ii) cost of farm labour, and (iii) availability of suitable machines. The farming system continues to utilize manual labour, animal power and tractor based technology in almost all operations. Mechanisation has a direct link with economic development of a nation. The economic progress of a nation depends directly upon availability of energy and its consumption for fruitful utilization. Increased energy input in agriculture directly or indirectly increases the production of crops. In order to bring more land under cultivation and to improve productivity, it is necessary to introduce other sources of power like tractors, power tillers, oil engines, self propelled combine harvester, electric motors and renewable energy (specially wind mills for water pumping).

Mechanisation in India In India, mechanization of agriculture has advanced considerably. In certain region, the level of mechanization has gone far ahead of the average level in the country. Human and animal power sources are no longer the predominant sources on Indian farms. Presently, India is the largest manufacture of tractors in the world accounting for about one third of the global production and more than 50 percent of tractors in <50 hp category. The country produced 3,45,172 tractor units in 2007-

2008 of which 43,553 units were exported. There are 20 tractor manufacturers, 9 power tiller manufacturers and a number of agricultural implement and machinery manufacturers. On the basis of annually critical review of the mechanization position, one observes that the shortages of labour and high labour wages are the main factors which strongly propel mechanization. Consequently, the more labour intensive operations, such pumping of irrigation water, land preparation and threshing are the first operations which are mechanized. Large amount of labour or draught power which can be replaced through machines provides a strong incentive to mechanize. Available mechanization technologies from the industrialized countries have limited scope of introduction in the developing world. Hence, indigenous solutions must be found for some of the mechanizations problems particularly for paddy production system. Efforts have to be made to develop rice transplanter, rice harvester and appropriate rice milling machinery appropriate to the location specific conditions of South and South East Asian Countries.

The different equipments are used to till the land for agricultural purposes. These different applications are commercially available and accepted by the farmers. It is also used on custom hire basis, for rice, and wheat harvesting. The land levelers, seed-cum-fertilizer drills have also been accepted by the farmers but on limited scale. Major adoption of agricultural machinery in addition to irrigation equipment and tractor, was thresher for rice crop. Due to various applications of paddy straw, preference has been limited for paddy threshers. Self propelled / tractor operated combines, reaper harvester, potato and groundnut mechanization machinery are also commercially available and accepted by the farmers in states where tractors were introduced. Now combine harvesters are commonly used in different parts of the country, on custom hire basis, for rice and wheat, harvesting.

Making Mechanization as Mass Movement India is a labour abundant country and animal sources. The mechanization should be used in order not to vitiate the employment conditions. In Indian

conditions selective mechanization for utilization of abundant human and animal power sources with supplementary mechanical and electrical power will be beneficial. As irrigation is available to less than 50 per cent cultivable area, improved technology for upland and lowland rice will surely increase rice production and productivity. The small holdings should also be brought under mechanization so as to increase the productivity and feed the people. The collective efforts by scientists, extension workers and government machinery along with strong political will have to be achieved this goal. Massive programmes to extend the improved production technology to the farmers and to provide irrigation facilities are to be organized to increase agricultural production. Steps have to be taken for availability of high yielding variety seeds, fertilizers, pesticides and agricultural implements at block and Panchayat level. Adequate farm power would increase rice production within the time frame. Custom hiring of costly farm implements and easy availability of credit are required for small and marginal farmers to accept the improved production technology. Proper procurement policy, value addition by processing and improved marketing infrastructure will improve the economic conditions of the rice farmers.

Statement of the problem Nowadays in India, the increasing population also increases the demand for food crops especially rice. But, while comparing with the increase in demand for rice, the production of rice in India is not satisfactory. By this same time, due to urbanization the size of cultivable land for rice has been reducing since 1990’s and the productivity of rice also declining due to non-availability of inputs such as labour, fertilizers, seeds, and machineries. To increase the supply of rice to meet its demand, implementation of mechanization in the paddy cultivation will be the only solution. But, the implementation of mechanization in rural India is having lot of challenges like, lack of awareness of farmers, high cost of machineries and non- availability of quality inputs.

Mechanization has to be carried out to increase the agricultural production to feed the mass population. So this study has focused the implementation of mechanization in paddy cultivation and the problems involved in it. It is expected that this analysis attempted here will be of some help in providing guidelines for agricultural development in the country and particularly in the field of paddy cultivation.

Scope and Objectives of the study

The following objectives have been framed for the study. They are 1) To study the social conditions of the sample respondents in the study area 2) To analyse the awareness level about various aspects of mechanization 3) To study the problems in agricultural mechanization 4) To analyse the advantages of agricultural mechanization 5) To study various aspects of agricultural mechanization 6) To compare the productivity and total production of paddy per acre with and without using machines 7) To make a comparative study of cost and profitability in agriculture with and without using machines 8) To give some policy suggestions

Hypotheses of the study The following null hypotheses have been framed for the study. 1. There is no significant difference between the awareness levels of respondents between the two different blocks of the study area. 2. There is no significant difference between the two blocks of the study area regarding the mechanization problems related responses. 3. There is no significant difference in the responses regarding the opinion about advantages of mechanization between the two blocks.

4. There is no significant difference between the average cost of cultivation between traditional and mechanized methods. 5. There is no significant difference in income between traditional and mechanized methods. 6. There is no significant difference in profit both from traditional and mechanized methods. 7. There is no significant correlation between cost and profit in both the methods. 8. There is no significant correlation between production and profit in both the methods.

Methodology This study is based on both primary and secondary data. Thanjavur district of Tamil Nadu has been chosen for the study. There are fourteen blocks in Thanjavur district namely, Ammapettai, Kumbakonam, Orathanadu, Pattukkottai, Sethubhavachatram, Thiruppanandal, Thiruvonam, Budalur. Madukkur, Papanasam, Peravurani, Thanjavur, Thiruvaiyaru, and Tiruvidaimarudur among the fourteen blocks, two blocks, Orathanadu and Ammapettai have been selected for this study. These are the two most paddy sown blocks in the Thanjavur district. The paddy sown area of Orathanadu block is 25,413 hectares and other paddy sown area of Ammapettai block is 22,920 hectares. Cumulatively it comes to 48333 hectares.

Orathanadu block of the Thanjavur district consists of 58 village panchayats. Again top paddy sown area is taken as criterion for choosing the village panchayat. Accordingly, three village panchayats have been selected namely, Vadacheri, Vellur, and Pulavangadu. In Ammapettai block, there are 46 village panchayats and three village panchayats have been selected for the study namely, Annappan pettai, Irumbuthalai, and Vadapathi. Thus, in total six village panchayats have been selected for the present study. To select the respondents from each village panchayats stratified

16 random sampling technique has been used and from each village five percent of the total paddy cultivators were randomly selected. In each panchayats five percent of household was randomly selected by size of land holding. Thus the total number of paddy cultivating households selected in Orathanadu block is 275, and the total number of households selected in Ammapettai block is 219. As a whole in both the blocks 494 sample households were randomly selected for the study.

A well-structured interview schedule was prepared for collecting the details from the respondents. Secondary data about the scheme have been collected from the district administration and government websites. The period of the study for the primary data analysis is 2012-13.

Statistical Tools The basic statistical tools have been used to analyze of data collected for the study. To test the hypotheses, t-test, correlation and Chi-square tests have been employed. Two points scaling technique has also been used to analyze the awareness level, advantages, procedures followed and impact of the farm mechanization on Agriculture.

Chapter Scheme The present study has been divided into six chapters.  The First Chapter introduces the study theme, the problems, the objectives, methodology and chapterisation.  The Second Chapter makes a critical theoretical review about farm mechanization in India. The features of farm mechanization are given in detail.  The Third Chapter deals with the empirical review of various related literature.

 Fourth Chapter presents the profile of the study area. It presents the profile of India and Tamil Nadu before giving a detailed picture of the study district of Thanjavur.  Fifth Chapter deals with analysis and interpretation of results. This has been subdivided under five - sections viz., the social conditions, the economic conditions, the awareness level, advantages in mechanization, the impact level and overall opinion about the farm mechanization.  Sixth Chapter deals with the findings, suggestions and conclusion.  Appendix includes the Bibliography and the Questionnaire.

CHAPTER II

AN OVERVIEW OF FARM MECHANIZATION IN RELATION TO THE ECONOMY CHAPTER - II

FARM MECHANIZATION IN RELATION TO THE ECONOMY

2.1 Introduction Mechanization of farms means the use of machines for conducting agricultural actions, replacing the traditional methods which involve human and animal labor. Mechanization is one of the packages of green revolution technology. Farm mechanization implies the use of mechanical technology in the varied farming operations sowing, harvesting, threshing, leveling, watering, spraying, weeding etc. Mechanization includes the development, application and management of all mechanical aids for field production, water control, materials handling, storing and processing. Agricultural mechanization helps in increasing production, productivity and Profitability by ensuring timely farm operation, and increasing utilization efficiency of agricultural inputs. Besides it reduces drudgery and improves quality of rural life. Farm mechanization may be viewed as package of technology to ensure timely field operations, increased productivity, reduced crop losses and improved quality of grain or product. Farm machines have not only increased the mechanical advantage, but also helped to reduce drudgery while performing the different agricultural operations.

2.2 Evolution of Mechanization in Agriculture The implementation of mechanisation in Agricultural sector has started in the first half of the 18th century in the Western Europe and USA. New machines and technologies reduced farmers' physical labors during the late 1820s and the 1830s. Most of the new inventions dealt with harvesting. Ohio farmers began to use the cradle in the late 1820s. This device allowed farmers to harvest four acres of grain per day instead of just one with a sickle. Ohioan Obed Hussey patented a reaper in 1833, allowing farmers to use horses to help harvest grain for the first time.

19 In the 18th century, four key factors influenced increases in the rate of crop production: more efficient use of labour; the timeliness of operations; more efficient use of inputs; and more sustainable production systems. These four drivers played out at different rates in different crop production systems, but always led to more efficient systems with lower input costs. Technological innovations generally increased mechanization by integrating functional processes in a machine or crop production system and by making it possible for a farmer to manage increasingly large areas of land.

By the late 19th century, electronically controlled hydraulic and power systems were the enabling technologies for improving machine performance and productivity and electronically addressable machine architecture, coupled with public access to Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS). Mechanization in the last 20 years has been focused on leveraging information, automation, and communication to advance ongoing trends in the precision control of agricultural production systems.

A major turning point occurred when tractors began to replace draught animals in the early decades of the 20th century. Tractors leveraged a growing oil economy to significantly accelerate agricultural productivity and output. Early harvesting methods had required separate process operations for different implements. With tractors, the number of necessary passes in a field for specific implements was reduced, and eventually, those implements were combined through innovation into the “combination” or combine harvester.

Many advancements in farming techniques and tools have been manifested since agriculture's beginnings thousands of years ago. The greatest strides have occurred in the last three hundred years. A substantial contribution to Oklahoma agriculture has been the escalation from manual and stock-animal labor to steam-and then gas-powered implements. Although steel plows, mowers, mechanical reapers, seed drills, and threshers contributed to the development of agriculture in the Great

20 Plains and the West, tractors enabled the western farmer to sow and harvest large acreages with less manpower.

Steam-powered equipment and tractors were available in time for the white settlement of Oklahoma Territory in 1889, but most Oklahoma farmers did not invest, at least individually, in the machinery until World War I. Many large farmers used their outdated tools and horse power for everyday farm work and only depended on steam-powered and, later, gas-powered equipment and harvesting crews to bring in the crop. Entrepreneurs would buy combines and other equipment, hire themselves out to farmers, and follow the harvest from south to north. Many wheat-threshing crews began in southwestern Oklahoma and followed an annual path along the plains to Canada. The Great Plains wheat farmer didn’t lose his distrust of combines and tractors and depart from his trusted headers, binders, and threshers until grain prices rose and labor became scarce during the "war to end all wars," World War I.

Agricultural historian R. Douglas Hurt asserts that only 30 per cent of American farmers owned a tractor in 1945 and that tractors did not out number draught animals until 1955. By 1920 only 3 per cent of Oklahoma farmers had obtained tractors. The wheat and grain growers of the Great Plains needed this large equipment more than did the cash-crop cotton, sugar cane, and tobacco growers of the South.

After World War I the Agricultural Extension Service strongly advocated the purchase of tractors and farm implements, causing farmers to accumulate loans. The debt of many farmers increased after agricultural prices dropped and markets constricted. This led to increased tenancy and a poorer rural population. By the early 1930s agricultural prices had dropped more than 60 percent, while industry prices for implements and gas-powered machinery had dropped less than 20 per cent. With the failure of many farmers, the size of farms increased as holdings were consolidated. New Deal incentives (plowing under crops to reduce the surpluses in the market and a

21 program to increase the ability of farmers to buy tractors) benefitted the large farmer and crippled the already-suffering small farmers, tenants, and sharecroppers.

The mechanical spindle pickers that became popular with Oklahoma cotton producers after World War II eased the reliance on workers and beginning in the 1950s imperiled another labor force. The use of airplanes to spread pesticides indicated that most technology could be modified and applied to the farm. The air- conditioned tractor cab is an example. Although mechanization has increased the output of agriculturalists and lessened the hard labor involved, it has also hastened the decline in the number of farmers and contributed to the increase of large and corporate farms in Oklahoma.

Farm mechanization, the use of machines to till the soil and to harvest a crop, dramatically increased farm yields and reduced farmers' workloads beginning in the nineteenth century. In the 19th century, as our society measured, a great many innovations transformed the face of world agriculture. Taking advantage of a large labor base and draught animals, farmers had been able to manage reasonable areas of land. This form of agriculture was still practiced in some places until the middle of the 20th century. Early innovations were implements and tools that increased the productivity of draught animals and assisted farmers in preparing land for cultivation, planning and seeding, and managing and harvesting crops. This important innovation increased the productivity of farmers working in the sticky soils of the Midwest.

22 Table 2.1 Farm Mechanization and the Significant Happenings in Agriculture during different Periods

Sl. No Period Significant Happening

1 18th century Farm mechanization started in Europe and USA

Electronically controlled hydraulic system, 2 19th century mechanical structure More tractors usage in America, green revolution in 3 20th century India, invention of power thresher More intensive agricultural farming with modern 4 21st century machines and implements Source: Hand book of Agriculture, ICAR Various Issues

Generally, the big farmers are using tractors and power tillers which require large size farms. In order that these are used by a very large number of small farms, the Tenth Plan advocated: “Implements and machinery used in countries like Japan which are specially suited to small farms will be adapted for India.”

2.3 Mechanization of agriculture in India The Farm mechanization helps in effective utilization of inputs to increase the productivity of land and labour. Besides it helps in reducing the hard work in farm operations. The early agricultural mechanization in India was greatly influenced by the technological development in England. Irrigation pumps, tillage equipment, chaff cutters, tractors and threshers were gradually introduced for farm mechanization. The high yielding varieties with assured irrigation and higher rate of application of fertilizers gave higher returns that enabled farmers to adopt mechanization inputs, especially after Green revolution during period of 1960s. The development of power thresher in 1960, with integrated Bhusa making attachment and aspirator blower and mechanical sieves for grain and straw separation, was the major achievement of Indian engineers. These threshers were widely adopted by the farmers. Gradually

23 demand for other farm machinery such as reapers and combine harvesters also increased. Equipment for tillage, sowing, irrigation, plant protection and threshing has been widely accepted by the farmers. Even farmers with small holdings utilize many improved farm equipment through custom hiring to ensure timeliness of farming operations.

After intensive testing and evaluation in late 1950’s, manufacturing of irrigation pumping sets commenced. Initially two-thirds were engine operated and one-third electric operated. As rural electrification advanced, proportions have changed in favour of electrical power. Animal drawn improved equipment such as seed drills, seed-cum-fertilizer drills, 5 hp power threshers promotors like diesel engines, electric motors got into manufacture and use. Central Tractor Organization (CTO) established soon after independence to reclaim marshy lands in Tarai of UP and scrub forests elsewhere to settle displaced people who came from across the border set the pace of tractorisation in India. CTO used crawler tractors, their operation, and upkeep and later on indigenous fabrication of certain fast wearing components, after OE stocks exhausted, were locally developed. For tractorisation of agricultural field operations around mid-1960s small 4-wheel general purpose tractors were brought in CKD (Completely Knocked Down) condition and assembled, marketed, operated, and serviced by training Indian technicians. Confidence thus gained resulted in progressive indigenous manufacture. Swaraj 35 hp from M/s Punjab Tractor was the first totally indigenous tractor. A little later two-wheeled tractors popularly known as power tillers were introduced and at one stage more than a dozen firms had manufacturing licenses. However farming system in vogue, wet cultivation during kharif and upland farming during rabi, and lack of proper after- sales-services support adversely affected their growth. All but two Mitsubishi and Kubota by M/s VST Tillers, Bangalore and M/s Kerala Agro Industries Corporation survived. Today India is the largest producer of tractors in world with about 2, 75,000 tractors per year and about 15,000 power tillers. China is able to market its power

24 tillers in India at cheaper prices, nevertheless there are after sales service problems in many cases.

With the introduction and growth of tractors in India in production of matching equipment for scraping and land levelling, seedbed preparation, seeding and planting, seed-cum-fertilizer drilling, spraying and dusting, harvesting and power threshing, 2-wheel and 4-wheel tractor trolleys got in to indigenous manufacture and these got reserved for Small Scale Industries (SSI) sector. It became a very competitive farm equipment industrial activity in Punjab and in pockets all over the country. However, to enhance quality of farm equipment many items have been dereserved now. By early 1980s Vertical Conveyor Reapers (VCR) were introduced to mechanise sickle harvesting, initially walking type, then a larger tractor version and subsequently riding type self propelled units. During 1982-84 production of tractor mounted VCRs increased tenfold each subsequent year reaching to 3000 in third year but got reduced to 2000 annual production in the fourth year, the year insurgency in Punjab touched its peak. At this point of time Punjab farmers found combining of rice and wheat cheaper and less risky. Several manufacturers (29) in Small Scale Sector took to general purpose standard grain harvesting combines by manufacturing tractor mounted, self propelled and tractor driven versions. Combining, however, created problem of rice and wheat straw gathering, transforming and handling as Bhusa. Straw disposal through incineration was found creating serious environment pollution whereas straw incorporation in to the soil was leading to nitrogen stealing. Invention and introduction of straw combines did provide a solution to reclaiming wheat Bhusa but still about 50-60% of the rice and wheat straw is being disposed by burning. It may not be entirely due to combines, demand for wheat Bhusa has also declined. Its transport to feed deficit areas in loose farm is expensive and uneconomical. Complete feed block buffer stocking to fight feed famines is a possibility.

25 2.4 Progress of Farm Mechanization in Indian Agriculture The first tractor was used in India in 1914.

Table 2.2 The Milestones of Mechanization of Agriculture in India

Year Significant event

1914 First tractor

1930s Introduction of pump-sets and diesel engines Import of High Horsepower Crawler Tractor by Central Trading 1940s Organization 1950s Manufacture of irrigation pump

1960 Manufacture of power tillers

1967 75000 units of tractors

1970s Hiring of farm equipments in North India

1980 5,00,000 (1 tractor/260)

2010 40 million tractors (1 tractor/35 ha)

Present The largest producer of tractor (5,00,000 and 10% of it is being scenario exported) Source: Singh, CIAE Report (2011)

The production of mechanical equipments is related to the conditions of agriculture in India. The monsoon has a profound influence on the production of agricultural products and its demand is only the derived demand in nature.

From 1982–83 to 2011–2012, there had been in general a rising trend in production and sale of different types of agricultural machinery especially tractors, power tillers in the country, which is evident from Table 2.3 and 2.4.

26 Table 2.3 Year-wise production and sale of tractor and power tillers (in numbers)

Tractors Power Tillers Year Production Sale Production Sale

1982-83 63155 63073 2248 2221 1983-84 75872 74318 2751 2901 1984-85 84876 80317 4244 4222 1985-86 75550 76886 3706 3754

1986-87 80369 80164 3325 3209 1990-91 139233 139831 6228 6316 2000-01 255690 254825 17315 16018

2003-04 190687 190336 15849 15665 Source: Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, 2004

Presently, India is the largest manufacture of tractors in the world accounting for about one third of the global production and more than 50 percent of tractors in <50 hp category. The country produced 3,46,501 tractor units in 2007-2008 of which 43,553 units were exported. There are 20 tractor manufacturers, 9 power tiller manufacturers and a number of agricultural implement and machinery manufacturers. Similarly about the hundred thousand pump sets are being installed in Indian farms annually.

27 The following table shows the sales of tractors and power tillers. Table 2.4 Sales of Tractors and Power Tillers in India ( in numbers)

Year Tractors Sales Power Tillers Sales 2004-05 2,47,531 17,481 2005-06 2,96,080 22,303 2006-07 3,52,835 24,791 2007-08 3,46,501 26,135 2008-09 3,42,836 35,294 2009-10 3,93,836 38,794 2010-11 5,45,109 55,000 2011-12 6,07,000 60,000 Source: Department of Agriculture and Cooperation,(2012)

Table 2.4 vividly portrays the sale of tractors and power tillers in India from 2004-05 to 2011-12. There has been 2.45 times increase in the tractor sales in 2011-12 when compared to 2004-05. There has been impressive growth in the sales of power tillers in the said period with 3.43 times. India has slowly been changing its name as traditional user of agricultural users to the modern agricultural user. The number of tractors produced in 2007-08 were 3,46,501 tractor units and 43,533 units were exported to various countries. Presently India is the home for 20 tractor manufacturers, 9 power tiller manufacturers and number of agricultural implements and machinery manufacturers.

The first tractor to India was brought in 1914. In 1930’s pump-sets were introduced in the country. In the 1940’s, high horsepower crawler tractors were imported under the aegis of Central Tractor Organization (CTO) mainly for land development and to eradicate obnoxious weed Kans grass. At the time of independence, Indian farmers used mostly bullock-drawn ploughs and wooden planks

28 for pulverization, compaction and smoothening. Hand tools like spades, pick axe, crowbars, hoe, sickle and chopper were in use. For irrigation, watering buckets and for transportation bullock carts were in use. In late 1950’s, manufacturing of irrigation pump-sets started. There were only about 8,000 tractors in 1950 and these increased to 39,000 units in 1960. Engines (petrol, kerosene, and diesel) were being used for post harvest processing like floor making, rice milling, grinding, etc.

Figure: 2.1 Sales of Tractors in India

Source: Mechanisation and Technology Division, Ministry of Agriculture-India (2012)

Figure: 2.2 Sales of Power Tillers in India

Source: Mechanisation and Technology Division, Ministry of Agriculture-India (2012)

29 Figure: 2.3 Share of agricultural workers, draught animals, machineries and equipments

Source: Mechanisation and Technology Division, Ministry of Agriculture-India (2012)

Figure: 2.4

Source: Mechanisation and Technology Division, Ministry of Agriculture-India (2012)

30 Table 2.5 Average number of farm Equipment/ Machinery possessed per 1000 farmers households in land class (in hectares)

Medium and Large Small and Marginal Farmers Farmers All Items 0.01- 0.41 - 1.01 - 2.01 - 4.01 - size < 0.01 > 10 0.40 1.00 2.00 4.00 10.00 Plough 49 292 568 775 889 1030 1189 569 Harrow, Seed - drill, Sprayer & 64 165 354 481 685 1051 1512 389 Duster Thresher 2 19 43 53 74 106 198 44

Power Tiller 0 1 4 15 33 75 148 13

Tractor 2 2 22 25 75 189 375 29

Source: NSSO Report (2005) Farm Equipment especially tractors, power tillers possessed by Small and Marginal farmers are substantially less than medium and large farmers

India passed through severe food crisis during sixties and the situation was called "ship to mouth”. During later half of this decade, important policy decisions were taken by the Government of India for bringing in transformation. The Government of India assured procurement of main crops from farmers at Minimum Support Price (MSP). There were only about 75,000 units of tractors (1 tractor/1800 ha) in India in 1967.

In 1970s in North India, with extensive irrigation canal network, actual command area of canals decreased significantly due to increased water requirement of HYV crops. Farmers using traditional methods of lifting ground water, like Persian wheels for irrigation were not able to grow these HYV crops as they were not able to

31 provide sufficient water (5-6 irrigations) to exploit the yield potential of these HYV crops. Most “better-off” farmers invested in tube-well pumps powered mainly by diesel engines of 5-10 hp. The Government of India also expanded its rural electrification program significantly and farmers installed 3-10 hp electric motors driven pumps for pumping ground water from bored wells. To grow HYV crops farmers not owning tube-well pumps purchased water from neighbor farmers and normally payment was made after the sale of harvested crop. This was the beginning of custom hiring of farm equipment. Thus, the first and most important mechanization in India was ground water pumping using engine and electric motor driven irrigation pumps.

As the volume of crop harvested increased manifold on irrigated farms using HYV seeds these farmers also invested in purchasing threshers, mainly for wheat crop, powered by the same engine or motor used for water pumping. Interestingly, initially many of the threshers were fabricated by local black-smiths in small towns using locally available materials, especially from discarded Persian wheels. Farmers not owning threshers hired these from neighboring farmers mostly on share of produce basis.

In fact, the mechanization in India was driven by assured price to farmers for their produce (wheat and rice initially). The intensification of agriculture was assisted by higher inputs of farm power, but also because the greater profitability of farming- generated surpluses that could be spent on capital equipment. With adoption of HYV seeds the number of tractors doubled by 1971 and 96 per cent of the tractors were privately owned on farms of over 10 ha in size. By 1980, the number of tractors was more than 500,000 (1 tractor/260 ha) which in 2010 reached about 4.0 million units (1 tractor/35 ha). At present, India is the largest producer of tractors in the world at annual production of 500,000 units with export of over 50,000 tractors.

32 Through all these years, the economics of ownership of most tractors had been justified by custom hiring for on-farm works as well as for off-farm transport and construction activities. The use of tractors in transport activities accounted for about 60% of average annual use of 600 hours. Many small farmers also started owning tractors due to opportunity of custom hiring. Custom hiring of combine harvesters has been another remarkable success in mechanization, some custom operators hiring covering almost five states (600 km) in one crop season and earning on an average Rupees 300,000 (US$ 6,000) per annum on each combine. In Northern India, most farmers replaced bullocks by she-buffaloes and sold their milk and used the cash for daily necessities and custom hiring of farm machines. The rising wage of labour and bullock costs also contributed to the higher viability of tractors and created the conditions for diversification into high value crops and the provision of mechanization services at competitive rates, to their more numerous small-scale farmers. The benefits to smallholders could also be increased through tractor hiring services. As a result, in Northern India most of the wheat crop now is threshed by custom-hired threshers mounted on trailers and powered by tractors of 45 and higher hp.

Over the years, due to rural electrification majority of the irrigation pumps are powered by electric motors and their size has increased due to lowering of water table in many areas. As the electricity to rural areas for agricultural purposes in India is subsidized most farmers either individually or jointly have installed tube-wells wherever ground water is available. The number of electric motor operated pumps increased from four million in 1981 to 20 million in 2010 and is expected to increase to 25 million by the year 2015. The number of diesel operated irrigation pumps has also increased from 3.3 million in 1981 to 6.7 million in 2010 and is expected to reach 7 million by 2015. There was a phenomenal growth of farm equipment due to favourable government policies for promoting machinery manufacturing in private sector.

33 Table 2.6 Indian Agriculture – A Four Decade story (1960 - 2010) Item 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Agricultural land (mha) 133 140 140 143 143 142 Irrigation pumps (million) 0.4 3.3 6.2 12.9 19.5 25.1 Irrigated area (percent) 19 22 28 33 34 35 Cropping intensity 1.15 1.18 1.23 1.30 1.33 1.39 Fertilizer use (kg/ha) 2 15 39 88 125 150 Grain yield (kg/ha) 700 860 1000 1300 1600 1900 Tractors (thousands) 37 146 531 1 200 2 600 4 000 Area per tractor (ha) 3600 960 260 120 55 36 Power tillers (thousand) 0 9.5 16 31 100 155 Draught animals (million) 80.4 82.6 73.4 70.9 60.3 50 Source: Gajendra, Agricultural Mechanization Development in India-Lessons for Developing Countries

The use of tractor has increased tremendously by 25 times during the period 1970-2010. The number of animals used in agricultural activities has come down from 82.6 million to about 50 million in the same period.

Tractor use has increased by more than 25 times between 1970 and 2010 while the number of draft animals in use has declined from 82.6 million to about 50 million. Statistics on other machinery and implements show similar trends. The states with high rates of available power per hectare are also the ones which have the highest yields.

Table 2.6 provides the Indian agriculture – A Four Decade story from 1960 to 2010. Almost all the items have increased over the years. The notable one is the increase in the grain yield and the number of tractors. The applications of fertilizers have tremendously increased from 2 kg/ha in 1960 to 150 kg/ha in 2010. This signifies the interest of the Indian farmers to get more yields. Another significant contribution is the reduction in the area per tractor (ha) from 3600 to 36 in 2010.

34 FARM MECHANISATION AND SHARE OF AGRICULTURE LABOUR Table 2.7 The share of Agricultural labour in different countries

Sl. Percent of labour Level of Farm Country No involved in agriculture Mechanization in (%)

1 USA 2.4 95 2 Western Europe 3.9 95 3 Argentina 9.4 75 4 Former Soviet Union 14.4 80 5 India 55 40 6 Africa 60 20 7 China 64.9 38 Source: Agricultural Mechanisation at a Glance in selected country studies in Asia on Agricultural machinery development

USA and Western Europe have 95 per cent level of farm mechanization and China has 40 per cent of mechanization. It is to be noted that 20 per cent mechanization percolated in Africa. The developed countries have more mechanization than the developing economies due to the availability of labour.

Table 2.8 Population of agricultural machinery in India in 2003 Number in Sl.No. Implement Hundreds Manually Operated Implements 1. Seed cum fertilizers 24,948 2. Seed drill 191,365 3. Chaff cutter 5,367 4. Wheel hoe 21,417 5. Sprayer/duster 50,512

35 6. Thresher 90,959 7. Horticultural tools 501,540 Animal Operated Equipments 1. Cultivator 60986 2. Disc harrow 26500 3. Seed/fertilizer drill 51,032 4. Leveler 119,713 5. Wetland puddler 35,467 6. Sugarcane crusher 4,344 7. Cart 101,012 8. Ghanis (oil expeller) 1,934 Tractor and other Power Operated Equipment 1. Mould board 7,494 2. Cultivator 17,716 3. Disc harrow 9,325 4. Rotavator 1,140 5. Seed/fertilizer drill 10,110 6. Planter 1,140 7. Leveler 8,776 8. Potato digger 2,953 9. Tractor Operated combine Harvester 1,152 10. Self propelled combine Harvester 3,086 11. Power Operated paddy thresher 1,609 12. Power Operated wheat thresher 7,261 13. Power Operated multi-crop thresher 6,809 14. Maize sheller 1,185 15. Sugarcane crusher 1,897 16. Reaper 101,663

36 17. Rice planter 1,643 18. Trailers 11,162 Plant Protection Equipment 1. Manually Operated sprayers/ dusters 40,245 2. Power operated sprayer/dusters 6,078 3. Tractor operated sprayer/ dusters 1,719 Irrigation Equipment 4. Manual 8,621 5. Animal 2,705 6. Diesel Engine 72,376 7. Electric Pump set 84,461 8. Drip 4,352 9. Sprinkler 7,355 Source: Livestock census, 2003

Table. 2.9 Projections for Mechanization in India

Item 2010 2020 2030 2050 Agricultural Workers (millions) 250 300 340 350 Draught Animals (millions) 50 30 20 10 Tractors (millions) 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 Power Tillers (thousands) 200 300 400 500 Diesel Engines (millions) 6.8 7.3 7.8 8.5 Electric Motors (millions) 21 30 35 40 Power (kW/ha) 1.8 2.5 3.5 4.5

Source: Singh G.(2000) Agricultural Situation in India,

37 The projections for mechanization in India are given in Table 2.10. The tractor population is expected to stabilize at around 7 million units by 2050 and available farm power will then stabilize at around 4.5 kW/ha. The draught animal population will decrease drastically whereas power tillers, diesel engines and electric motors are expected to register significant increases during the period 2010 to 2050.

The progress of agricultural mechanization has been closely linked with the overall development in production agriculture. Till 1950, very few farmers possessed prime movers like tractors, engines and motors. Heavy agricultural tractors and machinery were imported by government organizations mainly for land reclamation and development of large government farms.

The picture changed quickly during the early sixties with the introduction of high yielding varieties of wheat and other crops which needed irrigation facilities. The progressive farmers soon realized that the traditional water lifts, which were driven by draught animals or operated manually, could not meet the water requirement of the high yielding varieties of different crops. Lift irrigation was, therefore, quickly mechanized through the use of electric motor or diesel engine powered pumps.

Modernization of Indian agriculture began in mid sixties. The major emphasis during this period was to increase the application of inputs such as high yielding varieties, agro-chemicals and irrigation for agricultural development. Research efforts were made to generate technologies in the field of varietal development, soil and water management, improvement in fertilizer application, pesticides and modern methods of their application. These efforts led to higher agricultural production to meet gross demand of the country. However, the inclusivity could not be achieved, disparities remained and migration from farm to non-farm activities is continuing. The hardships, uncertainties, and low profitability are some of the reasons that, if not corrected, may lead to acute shortage of food, feed and fiber.

38 During the Ninth Plan period (1997-2002), a total of 12 lakhs tractors were sold at an annual average of about 24 lakhs per year. Uttar Pradesh leads in the purchase of about 25 per cent of the total sales in India, followed by Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan and Haryana. These five states account for nearly 62 per cent of the total sale of tractors.

So far as power tillers are concerned, the total sale during the Ninth Plan period (1997-02) was about 75,000 at an annual average of 15,000. West Bengal leads with nearly 30 per cent of the total sales in India followed by Tamil Nadu, Assam, Karnataka, Kerala and Orissa. These six state account for 72 per cent of the total sale of power tillers in the country.

However, it may be noted that the sale of tractors and power tillers, though indicative of the progress of mechanization in agriculture, does not indicate by itself an increase in agricultural productivity in various states in India. Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh are at the top in the share of states of sales in tractors as compared with Punjab and Haryana who have shown much better progress in yield per acre. Similarly, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Assam and Karnataka are at the top in the use of power tillers, but not so in yield per hectare. Despite progressive increase in the use of agricultural machines, its sustainable benefits towards agricultural development have not been uniform in all states. In fact, these benefits have been mostly cornered by northern states and by some others where irrigation facilities have been developed. Generally, the big farmers are using tractors and power tillers which require large size farms. In order that these are used by a very large number of small farms, the Tenth Plan advocated: “Implements and machinery used in countries like Japan which are specially suited to small farms will be adapted for India.

According to the Indian livestock census, the population of 44 items of Agricultural Implements and Machinery during 1977 was 109.66 million. This went up to 126.85 million in 1982 and further to 154.38 million in 1987 and then decreased

39 to 141.93 million in 1992. Again during 1997, it increased to 180.57 million and further to 223.84 million during 2003 (55 items).

Introduction and adoption of agricultural machinery in the recent past has mainly been confined to the northern States of India. However, with the increase in the irrigation facilities and modernisation of the cropping practices, the demand for agricultural machinery has shown an increasing trend in the southern and western parts of the country. The eastern and the north-eastern States have been less responsive to adoption of agricultural machinery.

From table 2.11 it is clear that sufficient progress has been made in farm mechanisation in India. For instance, the number of tractors which was less than 10,000 in 1950-51 rose to 1 lakh in 1970-71, by 1992-93, it jumped to 18 lakhs. Similarly, the number of oil engines sets rose steeply from over 80,000 in 1950-51 to nearly 5.2 million in 1992-93. During the same period, the number of electrically operated irrigation pumpsets increased from 26,000 to 9.6 million. As a consequence, there was a substantial increase in the area under assured irrigation, all these instruments of farm mechanisation resulted in the increase of power consumption in Indian agriculture, from the low level of 1,5 Kwh per thousand hectares of gross cropped area in 1950-51 to 351 Kwh in 1992-93.

As a result of mechanisation, the demand for agricultural machinery has increased substantially. It has been estimated to be of the order of Rs. 30.000 crores annually. (Rs. 20.000 crores for power units and crop production equipment and Rs. 10.000 crores for post-harvest equipment).

40 Table 2.10 Population of power sources and their power availability in India

Agriculture Draught Animal Tractor Power Tiller Diesel Engine Electric Motor Year Workers Population Power Population Power Population Power Population Power Population Power Population Power (000’) (kW/ha) (000’) (kW/ha) (000’) (kW/ha) (000’) (kW/ha) (000’) (kW/ha) (000’) (kW/ha) 1971-72 125666 0.045 78416 0.133 119.39 0.02 16.418 0.759 1442.82 0.053 1535.52 0.041

1975-76 133751 0.048 77519 0.135 207.43 0.04 23.486 1.110 2075.45 0.078 2063.59 0.056

1981-82 146766 0.051 76208 0.128 513.38 0.09 32.400 1.562 3061.01 0.112 3202.67 0.084

1985-86 161089 0.057 75356 0.129 746.55 0.14 40.303 1.971 3742.20 0.139 4192.07 0.111

1991-92 185238 0.065 74110 0.126 1243.60 0.23 60.325 3.020 4799.79 0.177 6018.95 0.159

1995-96 200979 0.071 73300 0.124 1734.32 0.32 82.130 4.098 5528.47 0.203 7464.12 0.196

2000-01 222551 0.079 72309 0.122 2599.72 0.48 122.488 6.112 6465.58 0.238 9524.71 0.250

2005-06* 246438 0.087 71341 0.120 3819.49 0.70 181.079 9.035 7431.58 0.273 11866.07 0.311

Source: Power Availability in Indian Agriculture, 2000, Central Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Nabi Bagh, Berasia Road, Bhopal.

41 The progress of mechanisation has resulted in increasing the farm power availability from 0.25 Kw/ ha in 1951 to 1.15 Kw in 1997. Data given in table 2.11 reveals that whereas the share of animal power was 97.4 per cent in 1951. It has gradually come down to 22.7 per cent in 1997. In other words, animal power is being replaced by mechanical and electrical power. This has helped remove a major constraint on productivity. The trend needs to be strengthened further so that 2.0 Kw/ha becomes available for farm operations.

Table 2.11 Availability of Farm Power in India Total Power Percentage Distribution of Power Mechanical Year Kw/ hectare Animal Power Electric Power Power 1951 0.25 97.4 2.1 0.5 1961 0.31 94.9 3.7 1.4 1971 016 79.2 16.3 45 1981 0.63 48.2 12.3 19.5 1991 092 34.5 34.7 30.8 1997 1.15 22.7 43.5 33.8 Source: The Hindu Survey of Indian Agriculture (1999). Although India adopted a policy of selective mechanisation of agriculture, the traditional practices are being rapidly replaced by mechanical and electric energy. The use of diesel power and electric energy has enabled the use of ground water resources and this change has a direct bearing on productivity. Moreover, the use of power in operation of tractors, threshers etc. also helped in raising productivity.

Data given in table 2.12 reveals that whereas human and animal energy accounted for 89 per cent in 1951, their share came down to 71 percent in 1980 and then declined sharply to 36 per cent in 1992. In other words, mechanical and electric energy use which was only 11 per cent of total energy use in 1951 has gone up sharply during the 41-year period to reach a level of 64 per cent in 1992. This phenomenon of a rapid shift in energy use in favour of diesel and electric power has

42 been specially noted in Punjab, Haryana, and Western U.P., in certain districts of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh. This change is spreading and thus has become the vehicle of ushering Green Revolution in many other slates.

Table 2.12 Share of Different Components of Energy in Agriculture (Million Joules per hectare)

Energy Source 1970 1980 1990 1992 a. Diesel Energy 23 148 288 299 b. Electricity 322 1,002 3,233 4.080 (i) Subtotal (Mechanical) 345 1150 3521 4379 c. Animal energy 1,606 1,404 1,409 1,059 d. Human Energy 1,331 1,401 1,409 1,434 (ii) Subtotal (Animal plus human) 2,937 2,805 2,510 2,493 (iii) Total Energy (Mi) 3,282 3,955 6,031 6,872 Mechanical out of total energy f(i) ÷ (iii) x100 11 29 58 64 Source: Compiled and computed from The Hindu Survey of Indian Agriculture (1999).

Lastly, post-harvest mechanisation can help to reduce losses due to poor storage and transportation. These losses estimated to be as high as 10 per cent in foodgrains, 20-40 per cent in fruits and vegetables. 10-12 per cent in animal products and fishery the total losses are estimated to be Rs. 82,325 crores annually. If improved and timely harvesting and storage measures are taken under the programme of post harvesting mechanisation, the losses can he reduced by 50 per cent, implying a net additional output of Rs. 40,000 crores to Indian agriculture.

The policy of selective mechanization of agriculture has modernized agriculture in certain areas of the country. The spectacular gains witnessed in Punjab and Haryana are now catching the imagination of other states as well. The spread of farm mechanization widening the horizon of Green Revolution can help to achieve the target of producing 325 million tonnes of food grains by 2020 AD. Besides this, the

43 phenomenon has the potential to raise productivity in agriculture, help a pattern of multi-cropping and thus improve levels of income and employment in rural India, therefore necessary to strengthen the impulses of farm mechanisation to improve the quality of life of the farming population in India.

2.5 Use of Farm Machines in Different Crops in the World Mechanization is the process of converting the traditional agriculture in to the modern agriculture with the agricultural implements such as tractors and weeding instruments.

Traction and power  Tractor / Two-wheel tractor  Tracked tractor/ Caterpillar tractor

Soil cultivation The two-wheeler tractor is the important one to be adopted in many areas. Today, the Soil cultivation is carried out with so many implements that save the precious human power. The human may be profitably employed in the industries and the service sector. The soil cultivation has been undertaken with various implements such as Power tiller, Dragged teeth piercing the soil, Chisel plow, Harrow, Spike harrow, Drag harrow, Plow or plough used for tilling the land, Spading machine, Destoner, Rotator, Ridger and Roller.

Planting Planting is the commonest thing to be followed in the agricultural sector for the increase in the yield of various crops. The man in the past used the human power to seed and plants the saplings. With the entry of the technological equipments and the modern methods of farming the method of seeding and planting has seen changes in the structure and scientific farmers try to deploy various machineries to avoid the cost of cultivation and to face the shortages of labour

44 Fertilizing & Pest Control The equipments that are used to put fertilizer and pest control include fertilizer spreader, see broadcast seeder, sprayer and slurry agitator.

Irrigation Irrigation is the central nerve of any agricultural cultivation. They are center pivot irrigation, drip irrigation, hydroponics and micro jet system.

Harvesting / post-harvest The farm harvesting and the post-harvesting machinery such as baler, bean harvester, cart, chaser bin, combine harvester, cotton picker, fanning mill, farm truck, gleaner, rake, reaper, reaper-binder, scythe, sugarcane harvester, thresher, tractor and mechanical tree shaker and other orchard equipment.

Other farm machinery The other implements that are used in the farm mechanization include feed grinder, grain cart, conveyor analyzer, trailer, bale trailer, bale spike, tractor mounted forklift and bale splitter.

Obsolete farm machinery Steam-powered: stationary steam engine, portable engine, traction engine, plough engine, hog oiler, reaper, winnowing machine and threshing machine are under the category of obsolete farm machinery.

2.6 Impact of Mechanisation on Paddy Cultivation in India Mechanization is now essential for rice production and processing. If farmers want to intensify their cropping, they need to speed up the operations that are labor- intensive when conducted manually. Farm mechanization is regarded as sine-qua-non to reduce the human drudgery and enhance the agricultural productivity. During the post-green revolution period, the impact of farm mechanization on agricultural production and productivity has been well recognized in India. Depending upon the

45 use of other inputs such as irrigation, high yielding seed varieties, chemical fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides, different States in India have attained different levels of mechanization.

Consequently the agricultural production & productivity has witnessed three to four fold increases. Studies have been conducted by various organizations & individuals which have highlighted the impact of agricultural mechanization on farm production and productivity.

In view of the labor shortage and the need to reduce cost of cultivation, mechanization of rice farming is to be followed at each step of farm operation. In this direction, (i) development and Central Rice Research Institute Manual transplanter developed by CRRI, Cuttack promotion of extensive use of tractor operated rotavator and power tiller (ii) power tiller operated seed drill, and tractor operated seed drill for dry seeding and drum seeder for wet seeding with lower seed-rate and (iii) self propelled 4 row ‘mat’ type transplanter and self-propelled power weeder perfected for extensive application, are priority research agenda. Rice is cultivated in 44 million hec in India and is largest area in the world. During the past 55 years there has been a remarkable increase in the production of rice. The area under rice increased by 1.5 times while the production increased by over four times to the tune of 99 million tonnes. The productivity has increased from 0. 7 t/ha to 2.40 t/ha. To mitigate the growing population rate rice production should rise to 120 million tonnes by 2020. This could be achieved only through selective mechanization and increase of productivity as the area is plateaued.

With depleting natural resources, deteriorating soil health and declining input use efficiency achieving the target of 120 million tones is an uphill task. Increase in rice production is achieved mainly due to the improvement of irrigation facilities, introduction of high yielding varieties and judicious use of critical inputs. Agricultural mechanization is one critical input which not only facilitates timely completion of

46 operations and thereby increases the production, labour saving, energy efficiency, productivity and profitability.

Transplanting, weeding and harvesting operations consume most of the labour requirement in rice cultivation and hence thrust should be given for this mechanizing these operations in order to reduce the labour requirement in rice cultivation. High labor demand during peak periods adversely affects timeliness of operation, thereby reducing the crop yield.

The steady drift of agricultural labor to industrial sector is adding more to the woes of the rice farmer. Because of drudgery and notion that the farm operations are below the dignity, labor availability, in general, has decreased considerably to farm operations. To offset these problems stress on mechanization is the need of the hour.

2.7 Impact of Mechanization on Labour Usage In the developed countries where full- scale mechanization has been adopted two things need to be given special attention: (i) shortage of labour, and (ii) high level of industrial development. Because of the overall shortage of labour, these countries do not have enough labour to spare for agriculture. And since non-agricultural industries are growing rapidly, labour productivity and, therefore, wages in these industries are very high. For this reason, labour prefers a non-agricultural profession to any agricultural occupation. As result, there is still greater shortage of labour in agriculture, forcing wages in the upward direction. Confronted with a situation of labour shortage and rising wages, the only way out for such countries is to go in for large-scale mechanization of agriculture. This enables them to make up for the deficiency of labour supply. At the same time, by raising productivity, it becomes possible to pay high wages to labourers who are retained on land.

According to Indian study measures impact of mechanization on labour displacement the introduction of mechanization as a means of increasing agricultural efficiency in India has always aroused a considerable amount of controversy. Some

47 observers have argued that economic conditions in India are not favourable to mechanization. Although it has been conceded that it helps to smooth out the peak periods of farm activity and to overcome labour shortages at those times, in certain regions there is always a fear of resulting unemployment due to displacement of labour. Other studies have pointed to areas where both the available tractor power and bullock power have been underutilized at the existing level of crop production. One study conducted by the National Council of Applied Economic Research has shown that the net impact of mechanization on employment is not labour displacing, but on the contrary the type being followed has potential to generate further indirect employment.

The fact that many of these studies seem to highlight the impact of mechanization on the already existing unemployment problem among farm-family- labour has often been used as an excuse for the slow pace of adoption even of selective mechanization. On the other hand, some researchers have felt that in many progressive areas in India, operations like ploughing, sowing, threshing and transportation are being handled by mechanized equipment and that this helps in increasing intensity of cropping and open more avenues for employment on farms.

A recent report prepared by two Indian agricultural economists has attempted to study the effect of farm mechanization on cropping intensity, crop yield, farm income and labour employment. The report compiled by Prof. I.J. Singh, head of the Department of Agricultural Economics at Haryana Agricultural University, and R.A.J. Pal Singh, head of the Department of Agricultural Economics at Janta Vedic College in Baraut, was based on a survey of 147 farms in two community development blocks in the Meerut Muzaffar nagar districts of Uttar Pradesh in northern India. Basically, the survey showed was that farm mechanization increases cropping intensity, farm production and income, in more detail, per hectare human and bullock labour use in almost all crops decreased with the increase in the size of the mechanized and non- mechanized farms.

48 On the whole, the total human labour use per hectare was about 14 percent less on mechanized farms in comparison with non-mechanized farms. The magnitude of reduction in case of bullock labour use on mechanized farms was markedly higher, being about 65 percent.

Displacement in human and bullock labour use through tractorization on mechanized farms was very much pronounced in land preparation, threshing and winnowing, and in transportation operations. Human and bullock labour displacement in land preparation through tractorization decreased with the increase in farm size on both mechanized and non-mechanized farms. The highest displacement of human labour was observed on medium-sized farms. The two economists have suggested that these findings have far-reaching implications for a labour-surplus farm economy in India, with the number of medium-sized farms of 2 to 4 ha likely to increase as a result of the present land ceiling policy in vogue in India and the fragmentation of landholdings due to the laws of inheritance. So we can conclude that the mechanization process reduced the disguished unemployment in farm sector slightly and the excess labour who engaged with agricultural activities indirectly are forced to move away from agricultural operations to some other activities. At the same time, the labours who remained with agriculture are getting high wage rate due to the shortage of the labour. So the mechanisation process in India reduced the employment opportunity for the human labour in the agricultural sector with the increase in the wage rate by increasing the shortage of labour.

2.8 Problems and Limitations in Agricultural Mechanization in India Agricultural mechanisation is indeed for the development of agriculture. But at the same time the implementation of agricultural mechanisation in India consists huge problems and it has certain limitations too. Basically India is labour abundant country, which requires more employment opportunities for the increasing population. But contrary to that, the adoption of mechanisation reduces the opportunities to the human

49 labour in farm activities. Thus the mechanisation process leads to unemployment problem directly affected to the rural farmers.

The implementation of agricultural mechanisation requires high cost of investment in the farm sector. But, basically Indian farmers are being poor and they couldn’t implement all those modern methodologies in cultivation. Majority of small cultivators are poor who are not in a position to purchase the costly machinery like tractors, combine harvesters etc.

Moreover, they don’t have the awareness of adopting the modern mechanical instruments in the farm sector as they are illiterate and innocent. Lack of proper knowledge of farmer to purchase farm machinery, operate and maintain it properly leads to wrong choice, makes it uneconomical and risky too.

Most of the Indian farmers are having small size of holding or medium size of holding of land. This results the absence of mechanization in farm sector because, the Small size and scattered holdings of the land will increase the cost of production. As a result of this, farm machinery generally remains underutilized.

The use of tractor operated machinery may render some of the draught cattle population surplus. Studies under AICRP on Energy Requirement indicate that tractor owning farms do use draught animals for certain jobs. Like-wise farms using animate sources of farm power, use tractor on custom service for certain jobs.

The farm machinery have large turning radius and thus require comparatively larger farm for economical use. Mechanization may lead to structural change in agriculture in respect of the occupational distribution in the rural economy. No doubt, the increasing farm mechanization is going to increase employment in secondary and tertiary sectors but it does displace labour in farm operations.

There is great shortage of diesel in the country as a whole. Thus, to use so extensive oil based farm machinery is not desirable. The lack of repair and

50 replacement facilities especially in the remote rural areas is another hindrance in efficient small farm mechanization.

Due to the seasonal nature of the agriculture, the farm machinery remains idle for much of the time. Thus, idle machinery means unnecessary high costs unless proper alternate use of such machinery in the off-season is made.

In India labour supply is increasing rapidly with increasing population. Each and every year, large additions are being made to the labour- force. Industrial development is, on the other hand, slow. As a result, it is not possible to provide work even to the new additions to labour supply. The unemployment situation is thus bad indeed. Since agriculture is the only major occupation, almost all the labour-force depends upon it, and, therefore, most unemployed people are to be found in the agricultural sector. In such a situation, mechanization of agriculture would only act as an additional factor in increasing unemployment in the country.

The slow pace of industrial development of the country is an additional hurdle in the mechanization of agriculture. Even if we choose to install machinery in this sector, it is next to impossible to have machines in adequate quantities and of all types. Capital is so short that it is insufficient even for non-agricultural machinery. There is little possibility of finding capital for the production of agricultural machines. Besides, unless heavy industries are adequately developed, it is not possible to produce tools and equipments needed for agricultural operations. It can be suggested that such machines can be imported; till at least such time that we are in a position to produce them ourselves. But this line of thinking ignores the point that this involves foreign exchange, and that whatever little is available is urgently required for priority needs. Thus, in view of the abundant labour supply and the slow growth of industries, mechanization of agriculture is neither desirable, nor practicable.

Besides the above two reasons, there are some other factors present in the Indian situation which operate against the feasibility of mechanization of agriculture

51 on a large scale. One of them is the small size of farms. For full mechanization of the type prevalent in most advanced countries, large farms are necessary. In India the average size of the farm is less than 2 hectares. Most of the farms in India are, however, even much below this average size. There are a few large farms in the country, but their number is very small. On the whole the size of an overwhelming number of farms in the country is too small to be adequate for full-scale mechanization in the way it has been done in the advanced countries. Of course, to some extent it is possible to make use of small machines, but full-scale mechanization will come up against extraordinary difficulties.

Another important factor standing in the way of mechanization is the availability of animal power in the country. If cattle wealth is properly used, we can save a lot of capital needed for agricultural machines, and use it for industrial development. It is certainly true that the animals of India are not of superior quality, yet it is a fact that they are engaged in one or the other agricultural operation. A small investment in them can improve their health and efficiency to a much larger extent. Besides, the agricultural sector possesses implements and devices such as wooden ploughs, carts, etc. which over centuries have been designed and adapted to the animal power. In the context of the large animal power and the simple implements and devices, recourse to mechanization would amount to their destruction. One should, therefore, calculate the cost of introducing machines not only in terms of the direct value of these machines, but also the cost involved in rendering waste the existing simple animal-driven machines.

Still another hurdle in the way of mechanization of agriculture is the gross inadequacy of education and technical training. The agriculturist has no education about the use of machines, nor can he look after the maintenance of these. There is, again, a severe shortage of trained personnel for the repair and servicing of these machines. The facilities relating to research, training and manufacturing of farm implements are too few and far between to be of any use in the production of new

52 machines, or for the adaptation of foreign designs to suit Indian conditions. Nor do we have adequate empirical studies of cost-benefit of the use of machines to chalk out precise programmes of producing and using particular types of machines. The problems can be summed up as follows

 Reduction in employment opportunities and draught animals

 Encourages migration to cities

 High cost of investment in farm sector

 Lack of awareness – operation and its usage, high level of illiteracy

 Lack of technical education and training

 Small land holdings

 Shortage of diesel and increasing the price of it

 Poor utilization of diesel and higher fuel consumption rate

 Seasonal nature of agricultural business – farm machine rendered idle for many days

 Low income of the farmers

 High debt burden

 Slow pace of industrialization – the way for absorbing the surplus labour from agriculture

 Import of farm machinery reduces the foreign exchange availability

 Not suitable foreign machinery to Indian conditions

2.9 Government Policies on Mechanisation In India, the development of mechanisation process is fully supported by the government of India. The government policies regarding with the growth of mehanisation has played vital role in the development of mechanisation in the Indian agricultural context. The Government has laid emphasis to provide financial assistance to the farmers and other target groups for purchase of different kinds of farm equipment, demonstration of new equipment among farmers for spread of new technology, human resource development in operation, maintenance/ repairs and

53 management of agricultural machinery and the quality improvement through testing and evaluation besides institutional credit and fiscal measures. The farm machinery training and testing institutes at Budni (M.P), Hissar (Haryana), Coimbatore (T.N), Garladinne (A.P) and Bishwanath Chariali (Assam) established by the Government have playing a vital role in promoting agricultural Mechanisation.

The Government promotes agricultural Mechanisation in the following directions:- 1. Agricultural mechanization should contribute to sustainable increase in yields and cropping intensity so that the planned growth rates in agricultural production are achieved and maintained. 2. The income of agricultural workers (cultivators and labourers) should increase at a satisfactory rate so that the disparity between urban and rural incomes is contained, and the agricultural worker given his rightful opportunity to lead a dignified life. The benefits of agricultural mechanization should be extended to all categories of farmers with due consideration to small and marginal ones and to all regions of the country especially the rainfed areas. 3. Agricultural mechanization should make the environment worker friendly especially for the women workers by reducing drudgery and health hazards and by improving safety in production operations. 4. Agricultural mechanization should contribute to conservation of land and water resources and to more efficient use of inputs like seed, chemicals, fertilizers and energy. 5. Agricultural mechanization should lead to reduced costs of production of different commodities, to increase income of farmers and to impart a price advantage to Indian agriculture for competing in the international market.

Spreading new technology, the demonstration of newly developed equipment has been taken up through State Governments, ICAR and through Central / State organizations. Efforts are on to improve the quality of agricultural equipment

54 particularly those manufactured in the small scale sector, development of human resource for promotion of new and hi-tech equipment for the benefit of small and marginal farmers. Due priority is given to popularize gender friendly agricultural equipments for women farmers. Emphasis is also being given on promotion of resource/residue management equipment, water and energy conservation equipment etc. moreover, the government has to ensure that the Institutional credit is available to the farmers in easy mode besides subsidy for the purchase of various identified equipments.

55 CHAPTER III

REVIEW OF LITERATURE CHAPTER - III

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Review of literature is the selection of available documents (both published and unpublished) on the topic, which contain information, ideas data and evidence written from a particular standpoint to fulfill certain aims or express certain views on the nature of the topic and how it is to be investigated, and the effective evaluation of these documents in relation to the research being purposed. The dissemination of such findings is important because the purpose of research is to contribute in some way to our understanding of the world. With this objective, the following review of literature has been done.

Foreign Reviews Eric Clayton (1974) attempted on economic performance of farm mechanisation and employment in developing countries. He analysed to measure the externalities to the farm that mechanisation has created, in the farm of the increasing disparity of rural incomes and rural employment. The mechanisation of agriculture, more attractive to youth, thereby reducing rural-urban migration, must provide more attractive incomes and less physical toil. In mechanization programmes in developing countries he concluded that they should not be encouraged because they had proved to be uneconomic and labour-displacing. He recommended that the government should not subsidize farm machinery. He disputed that there was no indication that tractorization has raised over-all agriculture or labour productivity. He stated that the indication of mechanization has decreased the demand for labour and is thus an employment destroyer.

Soltani (1974) examined the problems of labour utilization in the three agricultural regions of Fars province in the south central Iran. Specifically, the study was concerned with the impact of farm mechanisation on labour utilization in the

56 rural areas of Marvdasht Plains. The analysis was based on cross- sectional data obtained from a randomly selected sample of 30 villages. The study was comparison of three farming situations to determine the desirability of using machinery power in place of labour and its welfare effects. They were mechanized, semi-mechanised and non-mechanised farms. The analysis considered wheat and barley, two major enterprises in the region, and the technologies under investigation were tractor and combine harvester. The study estimated the degree of labour utilization in the selected regions. A regression and budget analysis were used to estimate the number of labour hours displaced by selected technologies and the desirability of using machinery power in place of labour. The result of the study shows that the net farm income in the case of mechanized wheat is higher than in both the semi-and non-mechanised wheat. However, the non-mechanised wheat (small farmers) appears to be in a more favourable economic position than the semi-mechanised one. The analysis indicates that full mechanization of wheat production results in the displacement of nearly 131 hours of labour per hectare. The result of regression analysis showed that the use of tractor for seed bed preparation and sowing replaces between 35 to 40 hours of labour per hectare while the combine harvester on an average replaces between 156 to 176 hours of labour per hectare of wheat and barly. The comparison of labour requirements and its distribution under different levels of mechanization indicates that mechanization reduces total requirements considerably. However, monthly labour requirements were more even in the mechanized than in the non-mechanised farms.

William C. Merrill (1975) analysed the impact of agricultural mechanization on employment and food production. The study concluded that mechanize those operations which will reduce costs, have the least effect on employment, and the greatest effect on output. Selective mechanization hopefully would improve working and living conditions in rural areas thus making rural living more attractive and reducing migration to urban areas. The emphasis is on increased productivity of labour while maintaining employment per unit of land area. Those operations where

57 accuracy and timing are important for increased yields, for example, may be selected for mechanization provided they reduce per unit production costs and increase labour productivity without substantially reducing employment.

Som Prasad Pudasaini (1979) surveyed of traditional and mechanized farms of Bara district in Nepal. The main objective of the study was to assess the impact of mechanization on cropping intensity, timeliness, yields, income, employment and efficiency, cropping intensity, yields, income and employment were higher on mechanized than on traditional farms. However, the much greater use of cash inputs and higher education levels associated with mechanized farms made it difficult to attribute yields and income effects solely to machinery. Tractors could not be clearly linked with any on-farm labour displacement and pump sets were found to raise farm employment. Tractor ownership allowed large farms to achieve higher cropping intensity through speedy and timely operations. Increased cropping intensity appeared to put a premium on timeliness for large farms, but did not seem important for small units. Tractorisation permitted the farmers to nearly eliminate bullocks. The highest levels of efficiency were achieved by pumpset owning and tractor hiring farms rather than large tractor owning farms.

Bernsten (1981) studied the effects of mini-tractor Mechanization on employment and labour use intensity. The study was conducted during 1979 - 81 in Sidrap and Pinrang district of South Sulwasi in Indonesia. The study had a random sample of respondents selected from town villages in both Sidrap and Pinrang, including rainfed and irrigated farmers who prepared their fields by mechanization and non mechanized techniques. The objective of this study were (1) land preparation labour use; including total, family and hired labour (2) crop establishment and maintenance labour, (3) harvest labour and total labour use. The study concluded that mechanized land preparation reduces the human labour input/crop required for land preparation. On the other hand, it has little or no impact on labour requirements for crop establishment and maintenance. While mechanized farms used more harvest

58 labour, this is due to higher yields probably resulting from higher fertilizer application.

Mohamed Ibnouf (1981) studied the economics of Mechanisation in the central rainlands of the Sudan. Primary and Secondary data sources were used for this study. The primary data were collected from private mechanized farms, state farms and also from traditional farms over a whole season which extends from June to March. In each area a random sampling technique was selected from the mechanized farms and traditional farms. The objectives of the study were (i) to identify and measure the effect of the mechanization potentials on farm output, income and employment. (ii) to compare the financial and economic costs and benefits of mechanization (iii) to analyse the impact of mechanized farming on farm income distribution. The linear programming technique was used to find out optimum combination of machinery and labour which maximize farm income for a given price, input – output coefficients and resources constraints. Budget technique was also used to evaluate the profitability and investment.

John Lingard and John Wicks (1982) researched the impact of mechanizing small scale rice production in Philippines, Indonesia and Thailand. The primary data obtained and impact of mechanization has hypothesized to be changed farm input structure leading to output differences between mechanized and non mechanized farms. The study indicates that agricultural mechanization has brought far reaching changes in farming structure in all developed countries. Mechanization has been associated with increasing farm size, migration of labour out of farming and the development of agriculture as a specialist commercial activity. New inputs of improved quality have been developed, modern management practices adopted and machinery inputs (capital) have substantially substituted for labour and animal-power inputs. The impact on farm earnings along with the income effects on landless labourers. The results showed that mechanized farms produced, on average, at least as high a yield as the non-mechanised farms. However, fertilizer use was almost always

59 higher on mechanized than non-mechanised farms. The study concluded that the alternative employment opportunities are limited reduction in drudgery through mechanization will cause greater hardships as income will be transferred from labourers to machine owners.

Kenji Kenneth Oshiro (1982) studied the mechanisation of paddy cultivation and its effects on farm households in Tohoku region of Japan. The main objective of the study was the effect of machinery purchases on the input of labour for rice farming. The effects of reduction in labour input during the agricultural cycle must be analysed to gain insights into the conduct of farming and the reallocation of household labour. The sample of 57 households was selected for this study. The study found that reduction of labour input for paddy cultivation is one of the most conspicuous effects of mechanization. The reduction of labour is apparent between 1960 and 1973. During this period, the labour input for paddy cultivation declined from 172.0 hours per 10 acres of paddy to 92.7 hours which is equivalent to a 80 hour reduction per 10 acres of paddy. Actually, an even more dramatic reduction of 25 hours per 10 acres occurred between 1970 and 1973 in comparison to the 55 hours decline during the previous 10 year period. When the 25 hour reduction per 10 acres is converted to a work day equivalent of eight hours, farmers with one hectare have a surplus of 31 days for other types of labour. In many households, this surplus was transferred to local wage work by men during the summer to earn cash incomes.

Aguilar , Camacho, et.al. (1983) have conducted a study on consequences of farm mechanisation aspects of technical, economic, output, employment, and income distribution in Cabanatuan city and the town of Guimaba in Nueva and irrigation were selected from each area. A complete census was carried out in each village and the households were stratified according to occupation, level of mechanisation for primary village, and irrigation level. About 300 farms and 50 landless households were selected by stratified random sampling for intensive survey. The house hold census data and information collected for the 1979-80 cropping year. Two approaches

60 were used for the analysis. The first was an arithmetic decomposition model and derived from the output. A second decomposition model was used to investigate the yield effect and derived from the Cobb-Douglas production function. The results of the study that many of characteristics of the eight villages were similar, they very different levels of irrigation and mechanization. Mechanized farms usually produced more, had higher yields and cropping intensity and used less labour per hectare, particularly family labour. However, the evidence suggested that except for labour use, these differences were more likely to be associated with irrigation than with mechanisation.

John Ligard and Sribagyo, (1983) analysed the impact of agricultural mechanization on production and employment in rice areas of West Java. The research sites were selected through a combination of random and purposeful procedures. The distribution of tractors in the province was determined through reference to secondary data on farm area, production, and number of tractors in the 20 districts. The eight sub districts – four from each district with the greatest number of tractors were selected. Then four villages with four or more tractors were selected from each sub district and a block census, covering 200 households was under taken, a stratified random sample of 300 farm and 60 landless labourer households was drawn from the census population and a sub sample of 60 households obtained from that sample. Survey data for the 1979 dry season and 1979-80 wet season were used to evaluate the effect of mechanization on cropping intensity and timelines. ‘t’ test was used to determine the significance of differences in labour use and total labour use per farm between mechanized and non mechanized farms. The results indicated that labour use per hectare is less on mechanized than on non mechanized farms. The study suggested that mechanization has very little impact on cropping intensity. Similarly, any increased yields on mechanized farms could be explained by higher use of inputs other then machinery. Mechanization was clearly demonstrated to result in lower levels of labour use.

61 Khoju (1983) studied the impact of pump irrigation in Jhapa, Morang, Sunsari and Saptariterai districts in the eastern development region of Nepal. The objectives of the study were (i) to determine the production, employment, and income effects of pump irrigation. (ii) to document the land utilization pattern and adoption of high yielding varieties of crops on rainfed and pump irrigated farms. (iii) to study the impact of pump irrigation on input use, crop yields, and crop income per hectare and (iv) to assess the profitability of owning irrigation pumps. A sample of 189 was used for the analysis. Four districts selected and in each district, four village panchayat with the most pumpsets were identified and seven farmers with and seven without pumpsets were randomly selected from each. A covariance analysis was used to isolate the effects of these other variables, and thus to determine the impact of pump irrigation. The results showed that most of the observed differences in cropping intensity, input use, crop yields, and net revenue between the rainfed and pump irrigated farms could be attributed to pump irrigation. Farmers with pump irrigation were able to produce more per unit of time from the same land area, thereby obtaining higher net farm incomes. Pump irrigation increased employment by increasing use of human labour per unit of cultivated land and by employing labour for winter crops made possible by assured irrigation.

Maamum, Sarasutha and Wicks (1983) analysed consequences of small rice farm mechanisation in South Sula Wesi of Indonesia. The two districts for the research were selected through a combination of random and purposive sampling. The sample stratify the population by level of irrigation and mechanisation and 290 sample households were for survey. The preliminary analysis of South Sula Wesi data suggested that mechanisation on its own has no impact on cropping intensity in irrigated areas, but may have a positive impact in rainfed areas. However, benefits might be obtained if mechanisation is included as part of a technology package. Similarly for yields, there is no evidence that mechanisation results directly in increases. Finally mechanisation appears to reduce the level of labour use, particularly

62 family labour. Under these circumstances, mechanisation is likely to result in increased social welfare because the labour displaced by machinery might find employment in other activities or more time for leisure and improving education levels.

Sundaryanto (1983) investigated the effects on farm income and employment, and the feasibility of tubewell investment in three villages in Kediri of East Java in Indonesia. The objectives of the study were (i) to determine the effect of tube wells on cropping pattern, cropping intensity, level of input use, production, farm and labour incomes, and employment (ii) to estimate the benefit cost ratio (B:C) internal rate of return (IRR), and net present value (NPV) of investment in tube wells in both financial and economic terms. The result of the study was after tube wells introduction has increased cropping intensity, yields, and income. The study estimated B:C, IRR, and NPV indicated that tubewell investment is feasible, both economically and financially. Financially the rice-rice-soyabean pattern is much better than the rice- rice-maize pattern. Sensitivity analysis showed tube well investment remained feasible even with the whole investment and operation cost paid by farmers. This was true even with revenue reduced by 25percent. Tube well introduction also resulted in increased employment opportunities and income for farm labourers. The highest labour use was found in the rice-rice-soyabean pattern.

Mike de Klerk (1984) assessed the nature and strength of the link between recent changes in agricultural mechanisation and employment in South Africa. The objectives of the study were to determined that (i) the degree to which mechanization has occurred on maize farms in recent years (ii) how the labour process has changed (iii) changes in the level of employment and the characteristics of farm workers (iv) the causes of mechanization (v) and whether any decline in employment has led to a rise in employment. A survey was conducted at sixty one maize farms in six magisterial districts of the Western Transvail. Information was gathered about harvesting, delivery of the harvest and weeding for the years 1968-81. The farms

63 selected on a statistically non-random basis. The data analysed four years – 1968, 1973, 1977, 1981 spread at more or less equal intervals were focused on. The study concluded that the mechanization has been accompanied by a substantial reduction in employment, mainly of seasonal workers by the transfer of seasonal jobs from workers living in black rural areas to those living on white farms and by the replacement of men by women and children in seasonal teams. Those on whom the burden of having to find alternative employment has fallen most heavily are residents of black rural areas. Households which have relied chiefly on female breadwinners are most likely to have suffered a critical loss of income. The contraction in permanent farm employment manifested itself partly in an exodus of black families from white farms and partly in a decline in the average number of permanent workers per family. Both are likely to have increased the dependence of black families in white rural areas on income from urban sources, despite the increase in the real wages of farm workers that has accompanied mechanization. Though mechanization has probably increased the degree of farmers’ control over the harvesting, delivery and weeding processes, there may, paradoxically, now be greater potential for labour organization.

Dermot shields (1985) made a study on the impact of mechanization on agricultural production in central Luzon of Nueva Ecija in Philippines. The aim of this study was to investigate the differences in Yield, inputs and cropping intensity for alternative mechanization classes in both rain fed and irrigated areas. The study carried out in 1979-80 and the data collected from selected households in eight villages. Four villages were in Guimba district, a predominantly rain fed area, and the remaining four were irrigated and closer to Cabanatuan city. A stratified random sampling procedure was used in the survey. The mechanisation groups were based on land preparation techniques in both the wet and dry seasons. In this study three groups were classified viz., non mechanized farms, partially mechanized farms, and fully mechanized farms. The study therefore focuses on the differences between non-

64 mechanised and partially mechanized farms in the rain fed areas and between partially mechanized and fully mechanized farms in the gravity-irrigated areas. Production function was the statistical tool implemented. The study concluded that the major determinant of yield and cropping intensity for both seasons appears to be irrigation within each irrigation group there is little difference in fertilizer productivity between mechanization classes. The differences in labour productivity are largely due to the fact that the partially mechanized classes are more “highly” mechanized in the irrigated stratum than the partially mechanised farms on the rainfed areas. Few farms in the rain fed areas cultivate in the dry season. There is no evidence that the partially mechanized farms within the rainfed areas are more productive. The non-mechanized farm within the rainfed area cultivate extremely small areas in the dry season about half the area cultivated by the partially mechanized group-thus enabling very intensive practices. From this preliminary analysis, it can be concluded that there is no evidence of a yield effect directly attributable to mechanisation.

Pilar Lim. C, (1985) studied the effects of farm mechanisation on farm income patterns of Central Luzon and Laguna. This study measured the importance of mechanisation as a source of income variation using cross-sectional results from the consequences of small rice farm mechanisation survey. A stratified random sample of 320 rice farm households from eight villages in Cabanatuan and Guimba was used. Stratification is by irrigation (rainfed, irrigated one-crop, irrigated two-crop) and mechanisation (animal, two-wheel tractor, and four-wheel tractor). The income measure used in this study was total household income which is the sum of on-farm, off-farm and non-farm earnings. On-farm income represents returns to crop and livestock production on the farmer’s own farm. Off-farm earnings include income derived from agricultural work on other farms. Non-farm earnings were derived from non-agricultural work such as services, commerce and industry or the practice of a profession. Design-unbiased estimation procedures were used in the calculation of cell means. The study found that the crop year income differences among the

65 mechanisation classes are even more pronounced. The mechanized farms showed a 176 percent differential advantage over the non mechanized farms. Though not significantly different from the mechanized farms, the partially mechanized farms earn less. At given levels of irrigation the partially mechanized and fully mechanized households showed consistently higher mean incomes than the non mechanized farms.

Ryohei Kada and Yukkiko Kada (1985) analysed the impact of new technology on women employment in Japan. The main purpose of this study was to analyse the various impacts of new rice technology (biological–chemical and Mechanical) on women’s employment patterns. The primary data collected by Ryohei kada in Shiga region. A total sample of 239 farm households was taken for main source of analysis. The result of the study indicates that younger women tend to be either working only in non-agriculture or not employed. The highest percentage of not employed in the age group (16-19) of 72 percent was simply a reflection that more and more young girls were enrolled in high school and college educations. In contrast, the older female members of the family (aged 50 and other) tend to be engaged only in agriculture. The middle age group has a higher percentage that was working in both agriculture and non-agriculture. The study concluded that new technology especially modern mechanical technology has substantially reduced the women’s labour input, but that its impact has resulted in the diversification of their work activities, both on- farm and off-farm, rather than the simple reduction of their hours worked in rice cultivation. Compared with urban women in general, the average total labour hours worked by rural women are still much longer. This implies that the reduction of farm labour input was more than offset by increased work hours in off-farm employment.

Sison, Herdt and Bart Duff (1985) investigated the effects of mechanisation of certain farm operations in selected rice-growing areas in the Philippines. The objectives and scope of the study were (i) to develop a working definition of a mechanised rice farm operating under the conditions prevailing in the central Luzon

66 region, Particularly, Nueva Ecija, based on the types of farms within this area. (ii) to determine whether significant differences between mechanised and non mechanized rice farms, as well as among mechanized farm-types (iii) to determine how various factors, including farm machinery, affect labour employment and output of small rice farms in Nueva Ecija. (iv) to indicate the policy implications of these mechanization effects. For this study, the utilization of mechanical power in land preparation, i.e., seed bed preparation, ploughing, harrowing, and leveling, as well as in post production activities, i.e., threshing defines a mechanized rice farm. The project site consists of two municipalities, Cabanatuan city and the town of Guimba, from which eight sample villages, four from each municipality were selected. Covariance analysis and Cobb-Douglas production function were used for this study. Statistical analysis showed that the major effect of mechanical power adoption is the significant reduction in the labour input requirements of farms using two-wheel tractors for land preparation and mechanical threshers for post production operations. Mechanical threshers were found to have the potential of replacing and displacing post production labour. Aside from the adoption of farm machinery, other factors that 'were observed to affect labour utilization were the amount of output produced. Cropping season and managerial capability of the farmer operator. Although the statistical analysis indicated that mechanized farms realized higher levels of rice output than nonmechanised farms, these results are not conclusive as far as attributing the difference solely to mechanisation due to the fact that mechanised farms apply higher levels of fertilizer and chemicals also account for the higher yields attained by these farms, Furthermore, these same farms have better irrigation facilities than nonmechanised farms.

Ghaffar Chaudhry (1986) analysed mechanisation and agricultural development in Pakistan. The main objective of this study was to study the impact of mechanization on agricultural development in Pakistan. The researcher viewed in his study were (i) the nature of mechanical technology in Pakistan (ii) output effects of

67 farm mechanisation (iii) Mechanization and labour displacement (iv) Mechanization and income distribution. The conclusion owes its origin to five basic conditions viz., (i)continuing investments in the tubewell-tractor technology have added tremendously to Pakistan’s productive capacity: (ii) it has basically been a response to the emerging resource constraints such as scarcity of water and labour, especially during the peak demand periods (iii) mechanized cultivation has been cost-reducing and output augmenting (iv) the technology, far from being labour-displacing, has been employment creating as scarcities of labour continue to exist in agriculture despite considerable progress in mechanical technology: and (v) mechanical cultivation has had a favourable impact on income distribution as small farmers and landless agricultural workers, as well as barani and waterlogged areas, have been major beneficiaries of the technology.

Anthony Panin (1995) Studied mechanization effects on smallholder crop production systems in Botswana. Data for this analysis were drawn from surveys of 127 randomly selected farming households in the study area during the 1991 and 1992 cropping seasons. The study area comprises seven villages selected from Barolong and Kgatleng districts in Botswana. The study concentrated on the impact and implications of tractorisation on total crop output, crop income, cropping emphasis and resources utilization. The survey evidence refutes any economic justification for the current use of tractors in the study area by the smallholding farmers. Variance and regression analyses are respectively used to determine the significance of mean differences in the resource use and productivity levels between the two groups of farmers and to estimate, among other variables, the effect of tractor use on crop production income. Descriptive analysis carried out revealed negative net incomes for a considerable number of households using a tractor. Fertilizer was excluded from the analysis since only an insignificant number of households applied it to their farms. The result showed that the use of tractors has a significant negative impact on crop production income and household labour economy. The study concluded that the

68 analyses have provided enough evidence that there is no economic necessity to continuing using tractors, at least in the way they are being used at present by the smallholders.

Aurangzeb, Shaheen Nigar and Munir Khan (2007) found the effect of farm machinery on labour requirements for the wheat crop in the North West Frontier province of Pakistan. The main objectives of the study were to find out (i) the labour displacement effect of agricultural mechanization (ii) marginal physical product (MPP) of labour, animal power and tractor (iii) elasticites of each input in the case of the wheat crop. The field data sample of 200 households were taken for this study. The total population engaged in agriculture 65 percent were using mechanised method and the rest were applying traditional method of cultivations. 130 respondents were randomly selected from the mechanized category and the rest from the traditional. The Cobb-Douglas production function was used for the parameters estimation. The sum of income elasticities of each of the farming system was less than one and so there is a tangible scope for improvement by applying the inputs optimally. The marginal physical product of labour and machinery were higher on mechanized farms. The study explored that labour requirements per hectare. Of the mechanized farms for the crop were 75.5 man-days as against 357.4 man-days for traditional farms. The mechanized farms used both machinery and labour for the cultivation of the wheat crop whereas the traditional farms mainly depended on labour and animal power and use machinery only for threshing purposes. A unit use of machinery reduced the labour requirements by over 3 times. The prices of inputs showed an inverse relation with labour requirements. Both the output and animal power had a positive effect on labour requirements.

Din and Deshmukh et. al, (2007) have described the status of constraints in amenability to agricultural mechanisation with respect to cropping pattern, labour availability and implements. The study indicates that the present production has not sufficient to mitigate the requirement of growing population due to the limited rain

69 fed area for cultivation and low level of mechanization. 79 percent of total farmers have not more than 4 hectare of Land. Buffaloes / Bullocks and agricultural workers were the major source of farm power and the farmers still walk behind the plough that was pulled by a pair of bullock/buffalo. Their potential is under utilized due to non availability of matching implements. Tractor population was low. Farm mechanisation was at a low level due to non-availability of improved farm machinery and trained operators. There were more losses in pre and post harvest handling, processing, drying, storing, packing. The share of human labour and animal power was highest at 57.32 per cent followed by mechanized power per hectare was only 0.40kw. Primitive types and low capacity animal drawn implements were used for agriculture, horticulture and forestry. The study found that there is a great need and effort to increase food production, productivity of land and labour by proper mechanization inputs.

Khale Quzzaman and Karim (2007) analysed the status of agricultural mechanization and its impact on rural environment in Sirajganj district of Bangladesh. The following objectives of the study were (i) to assess the existing mechanisation system in the village (ii) to assess effect of agricultural mechanisation on agricultural and social problem (iii) to know the role of government on agricultural mechanisation and to find out the problems of agricultural mechanisation. The questionnaires were used to record data from randomly selected 30 farmers of the village through interview. The result of the study showed that 80 percent farmers used power tiller and 20 percent farmers used animal draft for their land preparation. 80 percent land was covered by irrigation water of the village. 90 percent farmers used water of shallow tube wells and 10% used water of deep tube wells. 80% farmers sprayed by spray machine and 20 percent farmers by another way for their crops. 10 percent farmers used power tiller for threshing their cereal crops and 90% farmers threshed manually. Mechanisation process created a great impact on socio-economic condition and environment of Bangladesh. Farm mechanisation increased the farm productivity

70 and judicial use of resources. The study stated that many people were jobless which created social problem. The animal draft power was reduced with the increased use of power tiller.

Lagat, Okemwa and et.al (2007) studied the agricultural mechanization and its impact on agricultural output in Uasin Gishu district of Kenya. Questionnaires were administered to one hundred farmers who had been chosen by systematic random sampling from the population. Research instruments used in the study included a self-administered questionnaire, interviews and direct observation/ participation. Open-ended questions were used for interviewing the farmers and the questionnaire focused on the specific issues presented in the hypothesis, namely: agricultural mechanization, servicing and repair of farm machinery, tools and equipment used by the farmers. Kuder-Richardson formula was used to calculate the reliability coefficient. The results obtained from the survey were analysed using the descriptive data and comparisons were made (using chi-Squre) to determine whether there were significant differences between the actual state of agricultural mechanization, services, tools and equipment in the district and those recommended for an ideal agricultural mechanization. The study found that there was stagnation in the level of agricultural mechanisation in the district, which has contributed to the decline in crop yields. It was also found that many mechanics who handle/ repair farm machinery, lack of right tools and equipment and, moreover, many have inadequate relevant technical knowledge with very few of them having had some formal technical training.

Latmany, Shinkai et.al., (2008) studied the impact of farm tractorization in Phaoudom, recognized as one of the poorest districts in Laos. This is aimed at providing a comparative analysis among tractor-using farmers, namely, tractor- owning farmers and non-tractor-owning farmers, and negative effect of tractorization by custom hire on the food security. The analysis uses 2007 cross-sectional survey data on 88 randomly selected rice farming households. Descriptive and variance

71 analyses show that tractor-owning farmers are better in terms of mechanization level, rice and livestock production (larger area and larger herd of animals). The result from regression analysis suggests that tractor-owning farmers have increasing returns to scale while non-tractor-owning farmers have constant returns to scale. Moreover, tractor-owning farmers obtain extra paddy from hiring out their tractor-about 1300 kg in 2007. As a result, they have more annual farm income than non-tractor-owning farmers. About 90 per cent of non-tractor-owning farmers acquired the use of tractor for tillage operation by custom hire, and about 70 per cent of them paid by paddy due to lack of cash. Approximately 30 per cent of total production was paid as the fee- everything included. This affects largely the security of rice consumption of these farmers, and 66 per cent of them ended up rice shortage.

Odey, Adinya, et.al., (2008) studied the effective tractor utilization for agricultural mechanization in central cross river state, Nigeria. A sample of 120 farm families was randomly selected from Central cross river state using stratified random sampling technique. Interview of the 120 farmers was done using structured and semi- structured questionnaires. Data obtained from respondents were analysed using simple percentages and bar diagram. It showed that 9 tractors were available in the study area of which 89 percent of them are owned by the local Government council and 7 percent are owned by individual farmers. 73 percent of the respondents have general awareness of agricultural mechanization. Whereas only 21 percent of them revealed that tractors are used in local government farms. While 40 percent of the respondents stated that tractors are hired to farmers. On the other hand, 63 percent of the respondents emphasized that tractors are not used in their during cultivation. In general, a total of 20 percent of the respondents stated that the available tractors are not functional. The study suggested that more tractors should be purchased by government, co-operated groups and individuals. Moreover, tractors should be hired to farmers at very low cost and as well as improve maintenance and provision of spare parts with the training of more operators and technicians. Finally, agricultural

72 mechanization in Central Cross River state would be enhanced if more awareness is created coupled with the provision of soft loans directly to farmers.

Roy and Gajendra singh (2008) assessed the performance of agricultural mechanisation in Bangaladesh. They observed the implementation of farm mechanisation in six administrative divisions in Bangaladesh. In this analysis they identified the agricultural land area usage, population of different power sources in agriculture in different years and relationship of farm power availability with yield, farm holding size, contribution of agriculture to GDP production, irrigated area with different mechanised irrigation devices, use of fertilizers and pesticides. They concluded that more people would migrate to urban areas for better paid jobs in rural areas, more off-farm jobs would be available shortages of agricultural labourers in rural areas will continue in the future.

Mathias Frufontech (2010) estimated impacts of agricultural mechanization in Ghana. The study found that the increase in the cultivated area and increases in yields of food crops, especially the starchy staples. The total area of food crops has been increasing steadily but it is the area of starchy foods that has been more consistent with an increase of about 480000 ha over a decade. The area for cereals has fluctuated a great deal, and the 2007 area is basically the same as in 1997. Analysis of the yields between two periods, 1997-2002 and 2003-2007 indicates there have been improvements in the yields of both cereals and starchy foods. During the period 1997- 2002 the average cereal yield was 1296 kg/ha while for starchy foods it was 10436 kg/ha. After the start of the FASDEP initiative, the average yields in 2003-2007 increased to 1366 Kg/ha for cereals and 11081 kg/ha for starchy foods. This is the best indicator of the increased productivity of Ghanaian farmers as a result of the implementation of the FASDEP initiative in which agricultural mechanization is a very important component.

73 Olaoye and Rotimi (2010) measured the agriculture mechanisation index and analysis of agricultural productivity in South West, Nigeria. Structured questionnaire was used to establish the socio-economic characteristics, educational level and technical knowledge of the farmers. The inventory of the farm machinery was also established at each of the farm settlements visited. Agricultural mechanisation index was used to evaluate the level of agricultural mechanisation while the level of productivity for each farm settlement was determined as an inverse of the work output of the explicit factors involved in production function (capital or machine and labour). Profitability of activities was measured in terms of Gross margin and of whole farms. This was measured subjectively as net benefits of physical productivity (crop yield) and the returns from the resources used during production activities. The study revealed that low production efficiency, drudgery, under utilization of mechanical power, and uses of old tractors with its attendant constant break down during operation, contributed to low level of mechanisation with the highest level of 40.3% for Ajegunle and least level of 27.6% for Ado-Odo.

Sorat Praweenwongwuthi, Suwit Laohasiriwong and Terry Rambo (2010) researched the impacts of rice combine harvesters on economic and social status of farmers in Northeastern Thailand. The data were collected from both primary and secondary sources. Semi-Structured interview used in this research. Results of the study indicated the manual harvesting has higher costs (1,550 baht/rai) and lower gross returns (3,200 baht/rai) than using a Combine Harvester which costs 1,350 baht/rai and gives a gross return of 3,500 baht/rai. Therefore, the net benefit of using the Combine Harvester is 2,150 baht/rai compared to 1,650 baht/rai for manual harvesting. After widespread using of combine harvesters, these absent household members no need to return home to help their family to harvest the paddy and then went back to their workplace after finished harvesting like before. 48 percent of household’s absent member continues working in the city.

74 Rahman, Monayen Miah, Moniruzzaman and Hossain (2011) found out the effect of Mechanisation on labour use and profitability in wheat cultivation. This study was conducted in three northern districts of Bangaladesh. The findings of the study revealed that less number of labour per hectare is required to complete the production process by mechanised farm compared to traditional farm. Family labour is mostly affected by the mechanization. Animal power and output have positive effect on labour requirement. Power tiller and input costs have adverse effect on labour requirement for wheat cultivation. The yield of wheat under Mechanisation (2.65 t/ha) is higher than that of traditional farms (2.57 t/ha). Total variable cost is significantly higher for traditional farms. Gross margin was found to be higher for mechanized farm (Tk.14.168) compared to traditional farm (Tk. 10.102). High price of power tiller parts was mentioned as a major problem of mechanisation in the study areas. The study concludes that mechanisation has adverse effects on family labour and more research need to be conducted to develop appropriate technology to increase the production of wheat without substituting labour.

Indian Reviews

Martin H Billings and Arjan Singh (1970) assessed the mechanisation and rural employment in Punjab-Haryana. The study analysed the influence of technological changes in farm production methods on employment and income distribution among cultivations and agricultural labourers. In 1965 the acreages under the study indicate that HYV have risen in several districts. Wheat yields especially have risen, causing farm labour to be much more in demand during rabi harvest at a time when the rural labour force as a whole seems to be in decline. As a result average daily farm wages have nearly doubled since 1964. Farmers have responded to labour shortages and costs by substituting a more capital-intensive technology for critical activities where they are normally relied upon non-family labour, or where the yield increasing opportunities are dramatic notably to mechansied pumping. The results of

75 the study were, mechanisation affected the human labour from four activities. There are pumping, ploughing, reaping and threshing. Harvesting, when mechanised, hard hit casual labour and the bulk of the 32, 00,000 man days expected to be displaced.

Martin H, Billings and Arjan Singh (1970) analysed effects of mechanisation on female employment in Punjab and Haryana. The important of the study were (i) female participation rate and the level of development (ii) female work participation pattern (iii) impact of mechanization on female labour. The study concluded the labour-saving mechanical innovation (1) Pump-sets for irrigation (2) Wheat threshers, (3) Tractors (4) Wheat reapers. The study concluded the mechanization were affected the family labour in Haryana, allowing wives and children to devote more time to home and education. The effects of the wheat revolution greatly increase the demand for tractors. The pattern of displacement of human labour by tractors, in large part, reflects the new ploughing operation needs. Tractors provide power for mechanical threshing, pumping water, chaffing fodder and crushing cane: they were also used extensively for transportation of agricultural produce. This cause some decrease in the employment of women. On the other hand, tractors also increased opportunities for greater employment through increased intensity of cropping. The reaper-thresher system has reduced demand for human labour to about one-fifth of that required by the traditional method. These machines have greatly affected female labour in Haryana. The overall impact of the projected pattern of mechanisation reduced the demand for human energy by 27 percent from the high level attained under the use of HYV and Fertilizers. About 33 percent of the labour displacement caused by Pump-sets, 24 percent by wheat threshers, 18 percent by tractors, 12 percent by reapers, 7 percent by corn-shellers, and 6 per cent by power cane-crushers. Overall progressive decline in participation rates of women workers was showing its impact on the improvement of village life. Mechanization affects a whole process of social change in the rural areas.

76 Sharma (1971) examined the impact of technological developments on the normative shifts in cropping pattern in Ludhiana District of Punjab state. The study was attempted to examine the optimal shifts in the existing cropping patterns on the general crop farms of various sizes, as a consequence of the adoption of the improved seed-irrigation-fertilizer-pesticide technology, multiple cropping and progressive Mechanisation of agricultural operations. The sample of farms was obtained by stratifying the holding in the selected villages into small, medium and large groups and selecting ten percent of then randomly from each stratum. This provided a sample of 77 small, 43 medium and large holdings, with a total of 142 holdings. The selected holdings in each size-group were further sub-classified as unmechanised and partly and completely mechanized farms. The normative shifts in the cropping patterns were worked out by developing synthetic farm situations, representing the farming conditions of various categories of unmechanized farms and preparing optimum production plans for each of these synthetic situations by introducing partial and complete mechanization and using the input – output data for kharif and rabi crop enterprises based on the package of recommended practices. These normative plans were worked out through linear programming technique. This profit maximization model also provided for capital borrowing and labour hiring activities, which imposed restrictions due to shortage of capital and labour during the peak periods. The results of the study that the intensity of cropping increased from the existing level of 135.6 to 185.4 per cent on the partly mechanized situation operated with the electronic motor and its equipment and completely mechanized farm organization and to 175.1 percent on the engine operated partly mechanized farm situation. The cropping intensities in the optimum plans worked out to be 200, 200 and 189.7 per cent on these situations respectively, if sugarcane enterprise were given 200 per cent weightage, as discussed earlier. The study concluded that there was little difference in the normative cropping patterns and intensity of cropping on completely mechanized farms operated with various machinery systems at the improved levels of technology. Similarly, these patterns, for the small and medium partly mechanized organizations, showed very

77 little variations when, different power-machine combinations were introduced. On large partly mechanized farm, however, these patterns differed with variation in the machine systems used.

Chawla (1972) studied the impact of new agricultural technology on demand for labour due to substitution of mechanical power for human and animal power of Amritsar District in Punjab. The objective of the study were to (i) to examine the increase in the demand for labour on farm units of different sizes with the induction of new technology (ii) to study the net impact on employment of human labour as a result of substitution of mechanical power for human power and (iii) work out the share of labour costs (casual) in the total variable costs in the pre and post-adoption periods. Amritsar district was composed of four sub-divisions. From each sub- division two villages at random and from each village 15 farmers, five each from small, medium, and large holdings were selected. The samples of 120 farmers were selected. The farmers operating land up to 12.5 acres, between 12.5 and 25 acres and 25 acres above were grouped under small, medium and large category. Budgeting technique was used to estimate the per acre labour requirements variable costs and gross returns in the two periods. Simple regression coefficients and F tests were used to interpret the results statistically. Cobb-Douglas production function was used to estimate marginal value productivities of different inputs. The results of the study were the labour is costly and becomes acutely scarces in peak work load periods, efforts were made to substitute mechanical power for human and draught power. The result was a positive increase in the man-days per acre as a result of machanisation. It is apparent that bullock power was being replaced by mechanical power in terms of performance of difference farms operations. In the post-adoption period mechanical power was used to the extent of 0.28, 5.01, 12.29 hours per sown acre on the small, medium, and large farms. This was accompanied by a decrease in the draft power per sown acre from 76 to 72, from 74 to 44 and from 64 to 10 hours on the small, medium, and large farms. There was however a rise in the use of man-days (hours) on

78 per sown acre basis. Per cropped acre labour input increased from 28.3 (226 hours) to 33(264 hours), from 28.5 (228 hours) to 31 (248hours) and from 26.9 (215 hours) to 29.8 (238 hours) man-days for the small, medium and large farms, respectively. Thus a clear impact of farm mechanisation on human labour was established by this study.

Grewal (1972) attempted to provide answer to the impact of mechanization on farm employment in south western districts of the Punjab state. The study was conducted in 1969-70. Twenty-five observations were taken from each of the bullock and tractor operated populations (farms) obtaining in each type of farming area (region). In the selected blocks, the villages were selected randomly from a list of such villages, which contained tractors. The main hypothesis tested for this study that mechanization leads to reduction in farm employment. This hypothesis was tested by comparing labour input per unit area and per unit time on non mechanized and mechanised farms. The labour utilization on bullock farms compared to mechanized farms declined as the size of bullock farms under comparison increased. At this point of time, mechanization has mainly affected bullock labour utilization. The study showed that the reduction in bullock labour employment was as high as 85.76 per cent on the tractorised farms. Mechanization of such farms might cause some reduction in human labour employment in such operations as tillage, threshing and haulage, etc., but such loss was made up by higher labour use on mechanized farms, resulting from increased cropping intensity and productivity per cropped area.

Ram Iqbal Singh (1972) examined the impact of new agricultural technology and mechanization on labour employment in Kalyanpur Block of the Kanpur District of Uttar Pradesh. The main objectives of the study were: (i) to study the effect of new agricultural technologies on farm labour in different categories of farms, (ii) to examine the effect of farm mechanization on labour employment in different agricultural operations in different categories of farms, (iii) to study the extent of seasonal variability in labour employment on the selected farms under the new phase of agricultural development. The study was undertaken during the period 1971-72. A

79 sample of 67 respondents were randomly interviewed. All the data pertaining to the investigation were collected personally with the help of schedules and questionnaires. The result of the study were (i) the utilization of family labour per hectare was less on the highly progressive farms as compared to the other two categories but the total utilization of farm labour was the highest on the highly progressive farms because of a change in outlook of these farmers to work with tractor and other modern machinery. As a result of an increase in the demand for labour for such agricultural operations as sowing, interculture, harvesting etc., secondly capital investment per hectare on irrigation structure, tractor and other modern farm implements and machinery was calculated. The cost of these items on the highly progressive and progressive farms was estimated. The bullock utilization per hectare was the lowest on the highly progressive farms because of use of tractors but it was higher on the progressive farms as compared to the traditional farms due to an increase in the cropping intensity. Thirdly the pattern of labour use in different months indicated that the variability in labour employment decreased as the level of adoption of modern technology and application of farm machines increased.

Acharya (1973) examined the impact of high yield variety (HYV)and mechanization on the demand for farm labour input in Punjab. The objectives of this study were: (i) to study the impact of high yield variety and mechanisation on the level, seasonal pattern and composition of farm labour input (ii) to examine the shift in the demand function for farm labour input as a consequence of adoption of high yield variety and mechanisation (iii) to study the effect of high yield variety and mechanisation on the relative share of human labour. The conclusion of the study indicates that the adoption of high yield variety has increased human labour employment by 31.7 per cent. The installation of pumping sets has decreased labour use by 18 to 20.3 per cent. The introduction of tractors reduces labour employment by 50.1 per cent. However, the area under the high yield variety to the extent of 35 percent, partially off sets the negative effect of tractorisation on employment.

80 Tractorisation enables the farmers to increase the intensity of cropping by 35.5 percent. Thus the net result was that, though tractorisation have negative effect on human labour employment, the tractor operated farms employment 12.7 percent more labour compared to the non-mechanized non participant farms.

Grewal and Kahlon (1973) researched the impact of introduction of tractors on the employment of draught animals in Punjab. The introduction of tractor on the farm was having its impact on various facets of farm economy, such as employment of human and animal labour, land productivity and cost structure. The data were collected from the Punjab state during 1969-70. The sample was drawn from two categories used. The sample consisted of 125 bullock operated (over-Mechanised) farms and equal number of tractor operated farms (Mechanized). They found that the (i) Per cultivated acre basis, the average employment of bullock labour on mechanised farms was 1-60 days, as compared to 11-24 days on non-mechanised farms. In per cent terms, the average reduction in bullock labour use on tractorized farms was 85.76 (ii) In fact, bullocks completed with milch cattle for folder and farmer’s labour for their up keep. The introduction of tractor on the farm caused reduction in the number of draft cattle required at the farm. Consequently, the farmer could maintain larger number of milch cattle at the farm. The research concluded that tractorisation has led to significant decline in the utilization of draught cattle. However the decrease in physical presence of draught cattle on mechanised farms was much less.

Johl (1973) studied the mechanisation, labour use and productivity in agriculture in the state of Punjab in India. The study recommended (i) the human labour with traditional implements and that with mechanics are two sources supplying two different categories of power (ii) second category of power can be a limiting resource in the under-developed agriculture to keep farm-labour employment and its productivity at a low level. (iii) to demand more of labour and improve its productivity as well as increase returns to other factors of production. According to this study, over a period of four years average cultivated area increased by about 11%,

81 cropped area increased by over 26%, with an over-all intensity of cropping increased from 126.69% in 1966-67 to 144.26% in 1969-70. As a result of this expansion in labour – use on the farms increased by over 58 per cent and tractor power use increased by over 44 per cent during this period. Tractors and pumping sets coupled with wheat threshing machines replaced the bullock-power, reducing its use to less than 28 per cent in 1966-67. These data show a high degree of complementary between mechanical power use and labour employment on these farms. Here the substitution took place only for bullocks

Bal (1974) examined the impact of mechanisation on human labour employment for different farm operations in Punjab. In this study two villages were selected through random sampling technique. The sample of the cultivators along with the information on auxiliary variables, such as cultivated area, number of tractors, tube wells, pump sets and other farm machinery owned by the cultivator was prepared for all the sample villages. These farm holdings were then stratified according to the various stages of mechanisation viz (i) Bullock-operated holdings. (ii) Holdings with bullocks and tube well/oil engines. (iii) Holdings with bullocks and tube well/oil engines and other farm machinery. (iv) Holdings with tractor and tube well/oil engines and other farm machinery. Stratified random sampling technique was used to select the sample. Among the sample of 160 cultivators, 40 cultivators were selected in each mechanisation group at state level. The difference in their performance were measured through co-variance analysis and mean. The study concluded that there was no significant reduction in the employment of permanent, hired labour but the family labour decreases by 60.52 per cent. It was important to note here that mechanisation increased demand for casual hired labour, and as a result of this the intensity of cropping on the mechanised farms is greater than that on the bullock operated farms. The farm operations which are mechanized need more casual labour, thereby indicating that mechanization of farm operations does not reduce employment of

82 human labour. By employing more casual labour, these operations are of shorter duration.

Jodha (1974) viewed the causes and consequences of farm mechanization in Nagpur District of Rajasthan. This study seeks to analyse rapid tractorisation in a dry and, by the standards of the ‘green revolution’ regions, fairly backward area. The result of the study indicated that the land use intensity and employment impact in the dry region represented by the villages studied, the tractor was probably the first modern innovation has significantly added to the adaptability of traditional farming systems to the peculiar agro-climatic conditions of the arid region. It was facilitated the ploughing of a maximum area, at appropriate times, during very short wet periods, with the possible consequences in terms of stability and increase of crop production. Another interesting point that after tractorisation increase in the net sown area, from 65 to 86 per cent of the cultivable area, during 10 years of the selected village. The area under current and old fallow was also declined substantially, indicated an improvement in the land use intensity over a period of time. Increased land use intensity had consequences for the employment situations in the village. No precise figures are available about employment at the two points of time. However, an indirect and partial indication of the increase in demand for labour had from the changes in the wage rates for different farm operations. A more interested phenomenon is that increase in wages for operations – such as weeding to harvesting is greater where tractorisation had no labour displacement effect.

Kusum Chopra (1974) considered the various aspects of tractorisation and consequent changes in factor inputs particularly in the labour input in Punjab. The study was conducted covering 13 villages and 130 tractor owning households in three districts Ludhiana, Hoshiarpur, Ludhiana and Ferozepur and the sample was taken from five blocks in these three districts. The study found that the increase in demand for casual labour may be attributed to several causes, important among which were (i) increase in operated area (ii) increase in level of intensity of cropping (iii) increase

83 in crop yields (iv) changes in cropping pattern, such as increasingly more of cotton, potato, paddy, groundnut etc., being grown all of which are more labour intensive (v) and even allowing for seed-bed preparation which tractors have more on less completely taken over-thus affecting the permanent hired labour for the purpose-the requirement of human labour in harvesting, hoeing water-channeling, cotton-picking, vegetable and fruit picking, groundnut and potato digging decobbing of maize, stripping of sugarcane, etc (vi) changing role of family labour-especially on relatively large holdings on which family members have become more or less ‘organisers’ of their farms (vii) changing role of different categories of labour itself. Since part of the work on the farm was undertaken by tractors, other jobs such as threshing, water channeling, weeding, etc. The study concluded that the farmers are experimenting with bringing larger areas under paddy, toria, sarson, barseem and in some cases even under soyabean. The land-bullock ratio certainly shows an increase after the tractor purchase. Because of the displacement of drought animals, each bullock now serves as a stand-by on relatively larger tracts. The displacement of drought animals has led to an increase in the milch cattle kept by our responding farmers, but this shift is not very significant.

Kahlon (1976) studied the impact of tractorisation in Punjab. The objectives of the study were (i) to measure the impact of tractor mechanisation on farm labour employment, output and productivity in the representative farming areas of the Punjab, and (ii) to examine the private rate of return on tractor investment. Three- stage stratified random sampling was used to select blocks, villages and sample bullock and tractor operated holdings. Two village clusters were selected from each sample block, again with probability proportional to tractor population. A comparison of the frequency distribution of the bullock and tractor operated holdings the sample was 136 bullock operated farms and 136 tractor operated farms holdings in the sample villages gave a comparable size range of the 15-40 acres in the first zone: 15-30 acres in the second zone: 15-56 acres in the third zone: The tractor operated holdings were

84 divided into four groups such: Tractors between 14-20 HP, 25-30 HP, 35-27 HP and 45-60 Horse Power, group respectively. Statistical analysis Cost returns analysis and Cobb-Douglas function were used. The study found that at high levels of cropping intensity, the difference in yield showed much better on the tractor farms as compared with the bullock farms. The higher level of cropping intensity of (a) 175-184 and (b) 185 and above, tractor yields were significantly higher than the yields obtained on the pure bullock farms. The productivity gross output per hectare of the pure bullock farms was lowest of all farm size-groups and productivity on the pure tractor farms was the highest. This was possible because the tractor farms had more acreage under such cash crops as sugarcane and potatoes then the bullock operated farms had. The profit on the pure tractor farms was markedly higher then that of the pure bullock farms, being Rs.2,672.55 and Rs.1,866.23 per hectare respectively. Also the profit on the pure tractor farms was significantly higher than that of the tractor with bullock farms. Thus tractorisation, improved profitability but the maintenance of bullocks along with the tractors resulted in considerable reduction in profits of the tractor plus bullock operated farms. The pattern of employment of human labor per holding showed that family labour was employed more on the pure bullock farms, casual labour was hired more on the pure tractor farms and permanent labour was employed more on the tractor with bullock farms. The pure bullock farms were compared with the pure tractor farms, it was seen that family labour and total labour decreased by 59.53 percent and 1.08 per cent respectively, whereas permanent labour and casual labour increased by 26.85 and 71.96 per cent respectively on the tractor farms.

Mishra, Pandey and Pandey (1976) focused on the economic costs of Bullock and Tractor power use from the four regions of Uttar Pradesh. The data were collected from 309 respondents during the year 1972-73 and 1973-74. The methodology used was open ended questionnaire. Qualitative data and secondary information were taken into account for conclusion. The specific objectives of the study were (i) to estimate the cost of bullock and tractor power at the farm level,

85 (ii) to estimate and compare the cost of draught power needed for operating the state’s net cultivated area exclusively through either bullocks or tractor power and (iii) to study the feasibility of replacing the bullocks by the tractor power in the state. The result of the study suggests that under the existing farming conditions in the state the bullock power is more economical and preferable over the tractor power for the majority of the farmers.

Misra (1976) conducted a study of the impact of tractors on land use, cropping pattern, employment and income of sample farmers. Field data was collected by survey method from 40 bullock operated and tractor operated farms which were purposively selected from Gadarwara tehsil of NariSinghPur district in Madhya Pradesh. He analysed cropping intensity in four bullock operated farms compared to the tractor operated farms. The results indicate that the average intensity of cropping was 105.90 per cent and 114.62 per cent on the bullock and tractor operated farms respectively. The employment of human and bullock labour was worked out for bullock and tractor operated farms. There has been considerable decrease in the employment of both human and bullock labour on the tractor operated farms. The utilisation of bullock labour indicated substantial reduction in its use on the tractor operated farms but the decline in the number of bullocks was not commensurate with it. Tractor introduction reduces cost in the form of reduced human and bullock labour employment. The saving on the tractor operated farms worked out to Rs. 26,442 as a result of reduced human and bullock labour use. On the other land, the expenditure on tractor use was only Rs. 15,000. Thus there was a net saving of Rs. 11,442 due to tractor use as compared to the bullock operated farms.

Namboodini and Padmanabhan (1976) by using benefit cost ratio analysis, estimated tractor technology and bullock technology in Anand taluk of Gujarat state. A sample of 50 farms comprised of 25 tractor owned farms and 25 bullock farms were selected. For the selection of tractor farms, the villages of the taluk were stratified into three groups, viz., villager having 1 to 5 tractors, 5 to10 tractors and

86 more than 10 tractors. The study states that the income generating activities of two farm situation, viz., tractor technology and bullock technology and to assess the profitability obtained through tractorisation. The major aspects of the study were (i) Private benefit-cost analysis of tractor technology and bullock technology at the existing farm situation (ii) the profitability of replacing bullock technology. They found that the benefit-cost ratio in tractor technology was positive with and without custom services as against the negative benefit-cost ratio in bullock technology. The replacement of bullock technology with tractor technology was found profitable even without custom service. They suggested that the tractorisation helped the increased use of inputs, more employment opportunity through extensive as well as intensive utilization of land, expanded output and maximum net return.

Sharma and Sirohi (1980) attempted to find out the effect of farm mechanisation on employment in various types of farms in Alipur block of Delhi. Six villages were randomly selected. The farms of the selected villages were then classified into four resource situation. Viz., (i) Block-operated camel – irrigated farms (ii) Bullock – operated canal plus tube well – irrigated farms (iii) owned tractor – operated canal plus tube well – irrigated farms, and (iv) Hired tractor – operated canal plus tube well – irrigated farms. A qualitative study was conducted in 108 farms. The data were analysed using linear programming and regression techniques. They measure the results (i) owned tractor operated farms resources optimisation alone was not sufficient to increase the labour employment. (ii) Resource optimisation on farms increased the cropping intensity and net returns. Greater farm returns were obtained with slightly lesser amount of labour. Thus the results indicated that if capital is made available and the resources are optimally used for maximising the farm returns, farm mechanisation will not create unemployment of labour.

Bina Agarwal (1981) identified the operations where farm mechanization was likely to have the maximum impact in wheat growing areas of Punjab. The objectives of the study were (i) attributing to a mechanized technique the effects of other

87 techniques or inputs (ii) studying the employment effects without differentiating between different types of labour, i.e., family, permanent and casual labour. The sample of 240 owner-cultivator farms taken from the principal wheat growing areas of the Punjab and covering all its districts, for the crop year 1971-72. The cost- accounting method and ‘t’ values were also computed for this study. The study concluded that differences between operations such as ploughing and sowing in the labour displacement effects of tractor use. It also helped to separate the divergent effect of different types of mechanization, such as the negative labour use effect of tractor ploughing and sowing from the positive effect on labour use of mechanizing irrigation through tube wells. Most important of all it helped to trace the differential effect on different types of labour, and hence to identify the contexts in which mechanization is likely to have the most impact on them.

Chauhan, Singh and Singh (1981) assessed the impact of farm mechanisation on labour use in block Kalyanpur in Kanpur District of Uttar Pradesh. For this study a sample of 60 cultivators, including 30 Mechanized and 30 non-mechanised Cultivators was selected from five randomly selected villages of Kalyanpur block. This study revealed that the cropping intensity was 198.24 per cent on the mechanized farm and 137 per cent on the non-mechanised farm and capital investment (excluding land) per hectare was Rs. 4,418 and Rs. 2,417 in the two categories of farms respectively. This study found input-output ratio were 1:1.75 on the Mechanised farm and 1:1.45 on the non mechanised farm. The total labour utilization per hectare was about 17 per cent higher on the mechanised farm than on the non-mechanised because of higher cropping intensity and more area put under intensive crops by the cultivators on the mechanised farm.

Joshi, Bahl and Jha (1981) investigated direct employment effect of technical change in Uttar Pradesh. They viewed the wide diversity in resource endowments and regional performance of agriculture within the state. This study researched on the total change in agriculture labour employment, irrigation, high-yielding varieties,

88 tractorisation, threshers, cropping intensity, etc., This study suggested two important results (i) the direct effect of technological change in rice-wheat production over the period 1966-78 has been negative, and (ii) the displacement has been substantially higher in western Uttar Pradesh. The research on agricultural Mechanization must explicitly recognize that (labour) cost-reducing efficiency gains clash with overall employment goals.

Singh (1981) found out the extent of demand for labour which has increased after induction of rural electrification. 30 farmers using electrically operated farm machines and 30 farmers who did not use any electrically operated machine were selected randomly from four progressive villages of Ballia district in East Uttar Pradesh. It was observed that at the aggregate level, the human labour employment days per hectare and per farm were higher by 13.91 and 62.80 per cent respectively on electrified farms as compared to the non-electrified farms. The study showed that the increase in labour employment per hectare on small, medium, and large holdings in the electrified category was 18.81, 11.55 and 8.80 per cent respectively over the corresponding size – groups of non – electrified farms. The results of the study indicate that the electrification in agriculture might cause some reduction in human labour employment in threshing, sowing and preparatory, tillage operations but such reduction in labour employment has been compensated by higher use in other operations and because of high intensity of cropping. It was also evident that seasonality in labour utilization is comparatively less on electrified farms than on non- electrified.

Laxminarayan (1982) studied the developing agricultural technology and its effect on farm employment in Punjab agriculture. The secondary data was used for this study. The study indicated that employment opportunities in agricultural due to irrigation and the seed-fertilizer based technology could have been much greater but for extensive mechanisation. The magnitude of the increase in mechanisation can be seen from the fact that the number of tractors in Punjab agriculture increased from

89 5,000 in 1961 to 50,000 in 1975/76. The number of harvest combines is also increased the number for the country as a whole rising from 66 prior to 1970 to 469 in 1978. While the seed-fertilizer based technology increased the absorption of labour, mechanisation tended to work in the opposite direction. For example in the case of paddy harvesting, farmers using combines required only 0.77 man-days per acre while farmers using manual labour required only 0.50 man-days per acre while those using threshers required 9.43 mandays. The labour displacement in this case amounts to 8.95 man-days per acre calculated on a machine basis; the labour displacement per combine is around 2,549 man-days for wheat and 3,683 man-days for paddy cultivation. If the entire Punjab harvesting operation (for farms often acres and above) was carried out by combines, the aggregate displacement would be 51.0 million man- days. As in the case of combines, the use of tractors also leads to displacement of labour. When used for ploughing purposes, tractors involve only 1.19 man-days per acre while bullock ploughing requires 2.84 man-days. The study concluded that mechanisation leads to displacement of labour from many agricultural operations there are no opportunities available within or outside the farm for absorbing the surplus labour thereby created.

Agarwal (1983) examined the impact of farm mechanisation on output and employment and cropping intensity in Punjab State. The analysis is based on data for a sample of 240 farms in the principle wheat growing areas of Punjab. The study considered both the disaggregative and aggregative effects of mechnaisation and provides a disaggregative crop-specific analysis for high yielding variety wheat, where the output and employment implications of using alternative techniques are analysed for each agricultural operation. The study found that the output benefits anticipated from the use of tractors in punjab farms have not been realised in practice. Both crop-specific and farm level results reinforce the conclusion that tractors have a neutral effect on output; in addition, they tend to reduce the requirements for labour time, even if they may not actually displace labourers. Though tractors add to

90 cropping intensity, the effect is insufficient to make any significant impact on farm yield. Tubewells are found to contribute to HYV wheat yield, to cropping intensity and to farm yield; they are also associated with a higher demand for labour relative to canal irrigation in terms of both labour time and number of labourers.

Balishter (1983) estimated the relative factor shares in farm income for the factor operated farms and bullock operated farms. This study was conducted in Bichpuri block of Agra district of Western Uttar Pradesh, Out of 52 villages in the block, four villages were purposively selected. For the selection of arms two separate lists of tractor operated farms were prepared. The sample of 36 tractor operated farms were selected. An equal number of bullock operated farms were also selected. The required data were collected by personal interview method for agricultural year 1981- 82. Cobb-Douglas Production function was used as an analytical tool to estimate the factors were farm income, farm size, irrigated area fertilizer, human labour and bullock labour. The results show that among different factors, the highest contribution to the farm income was made by farm size. The contribution of farm size to farm income was higher in the case of bullock operated farms as compared to the tractor operated farms. He concluded that the share of bullock labour was positive but non – significant in the case of tractor operated farms while it was negative in the case of bullock operated farms.

Krishna Mohan (1985) examined the impact of new technology in Andra Pradesh at macro level on agrarian structure and agricultural production. The data were taken from different publications of Bureau of Economics and statistics, Andra Pradesh. This study was divided into three parts. In the first part, the extent of adoption of new technology in the state was examined by analysing the changes in the use of new inputs. The effect of new technology on agrarian structure was examined in the second section. The third section deals with the impact of new technology on production of different crops with particular emphasis on food grains. The reference periods were so chosen as to represent the pre-new technology period, and post-new

91 technology period. He divided the technology into first phase and the second phase of new technology. As a result of these changes in the output of cereals and pulses, total food grains production has increased very much in the second phase despite a slight fall in the first phase. The new technology, it seems that there is an increase in the proportion of superior cereals. Paddy output has risen from 62 percent of total food grains in the pre new technology period to 69 percent by the end of the second phase. The output of Jowar and Bajra have decreased significantly in the first phase and, though increased in the second phase, they never regained their level of early 1960’s. The other crops whose output has increased in post-new technology period, in addition to paddy, are maize and ragi. While maize output is more than doubled, the change in output of ragi is only marginal. The study concluded that the performance of new technology in the state can be described as something between the extravagant promises of early promoters and gloom of critics. It has neither increased the proletarianisation nor resulted in worsening position of agricultural labourers, though not helped in improving their living conditions. Also it has increased food production but failed in increasing the per capita availability of food grains in the state.

Patil (1985) researched the tractorization and its effect on employment in Ahmednagar district of Maharashtra. Three-stage stratified random sampling was used to select tehsils, villages and the sample bullock-operated and tractor-operated holdings. All the tehsils of the district were ranked on the basis of number of tractors and power threshers. Three tehsils, viz., Shrirampur, Rahuri and Kopargaon having the highest ranking performance with respect to these criteria were selected. In the selected Tehsils, villages were classified into three groups on the basis of tractor and thresher population. Three villages from each group were selected randomly. All the farms of these selected villages were listed and classified as bullock-farms and tractor farms. A sample of 90 tractor operated holdings and equal size of Bullock-operated holdings were selected randomly.

92 All the selected holdings from two categories were divided into three farm size groups, viz., below 6 hectares, 6 to 10 hectares and above 10 hectares so that the number of farms in each size group is neither too small nor too large. The selected holdings were further classified as: (i) Bullock-operated farms (BOF) (ii) Bullock- operated and tractor hiring farms (BOF+THF) (iii) Tractor-Operated farms (TOF) and (iv) Tractor and bullock-operated farms (TOF+BOF). The sampled farmers were personally interviewed and the input - output data were collected with the help of a specially designed schedule for the agricultural year 1979-80. The findings of the study noted a very close association between actual and the estimated change in per hectare employment of human labour for all groups as well as for all farms of tractor owning farms over non-tractor owning farms.

Joshi and Jain (1989) analysed the impact of farm mechanisation on labour employment in well irrigation, in Western Rajasthan. They investigated the substitution of Mechanisation in the place of human and bullock labour in well irrigation. It might lead to displacement of labour. Two tehsils from various districts in western Rajasthan were selected purposively. A list of all the villages of these two tehsils was prepared by arranging the villages in descending order according to the irrigated area under each device. Five villages were selected on the basis of the highest irrigated area as well as the number of different modern devices used. From the selected villages 20 farmers from each device were selected randomly. Thus the sample consisted of 100 farmers. The selected farmers were interviewed personally with the help of pre-tested schedules and questionnaires. The study observed that (i) Human employment opportunities have increased substantially on farms with modern devices due to the higher share of irrigated area, cropping pattern, irrigated cropped area, cropping intensity, etc., (ii) bullock labour employment opportunities have decreased substantially on farms under modern devices compared to indigenous devices. The study concluded that (1) the modern water lifting devices extended the productive use of human labour employment of farmers by inducing more labour

93 intensive cropping pattern and cropping intensity by enhancing the water availability in comparison to indigenous water lifting devices. (ii) Bullock labour employment opportunities declined due to their limited use in operations like ploughing and sowing.

Balishter and Mithlesh (1998) examined the impact of tractor use on cropping pattern, cropping intensity, farm output and human labour employment in a ligrh and Etah districts in Agra division of Uttar Pradesh, selected on the basis of availability of tractor power per hectare (H.P. available per hectare). The study is based on data collected from a random sample of 200 farmer - 100 farmers selected – from ten villages in Tappal block in Aligarh District. With the higher availability of tractor power (1.13 H.P/ha) and an equal number of farmers selected from another ten villages in lowest availability of tractor power (0.39H.P/ha). The selected farmers were grouped under three categories viz., small (upto 2ha), medium (2-4 ha) and large (above 4ha). The sample data were collected by personal interviews and pertained to the year 1992-93. The results of the study indicated that on an average per hectare availability of tractor power on sample farms worked out to 7.24 H.P. in Tappal Block and 6.30 H.P, in Jalesar block. The overall cropping intensity was about 210 per cent in Tappal block and about 204 per cent in Jalesar block. The intensity of cropping on small and medium farms was higher in Tappal block while on large farms it was higher in Jalesar block due to the fact that no sugarcane was grown in the latter. The overall average cost of inputs per cultivated hectare in Tappal block was higher by about 12 percent than in Jalesar block due to more intensive use of machinery, fertilizers and irrigation in the former which are the main components of modern farm technology. Human labour use both per cultivated hectare and per cropped hectare was higher in all farm size-groups in Tappal block than in Jalesar block. Both tractor use and human labour use per cultivated hectare decreased with the increase in farm size in both the blocks. There is positive relation between intensity of tractor use and intensity of human labour use in both the blocks. With the increase in the use of

94 tractor, human labour use also increased in both the blocks. Thus it may be concluded that the impact of tractor use is positive in terms of the degree of commercialization, cropping intensity, productivity, income and also in terms of human employment.

Jahanmohan. and Sundaravaradarajan (1998) studied the impact of tractorisation on labour employment and energy efficiency in Vriddhachalam block of Cuddalore district of Tamil Nadu. The specific objectives of the study were (a) to examine the effect of tractorisation on both human and bullock labour use (b) to find out the resource use efficiency of tractor and non-tractor farms. Multi-stage stratified random sampling technique was used. Data were collected from a sample of 50 tractor farms and 50 non-tractor farms from seven villages in Vriddhachalam Block. The study revealed that after the introduction of tractors, there was displacement of bullocks maintained on tractor farms to the extent of 90 per cent. The major operations like preparatory tillage, stubble removal, bund formation and threshing were done by tractors. On tractor farms displacement of human labour occurred for the first and second season rice crop. The use of human labour on tractor farms increased by 10.53 per cent and 3.66 per cent for sugarcane planted and sugarcane - ratoon crops respectively as compared to non-tractor farms. On tractor farms, 1.11 man-day and 0.31 man-day were displaced for the first and second season crop respectively. The income function revealed that on tractor farms, quantity of nitrogenous fertilizers used and tractor hours hired were significant variables influencing the gross income which is used as a measure of resource use efficiency.

Jangid, Intodia, and Sharma (1998) studied the impact of centrally sponsored schemes for promotion of farm mechanization. This study was undertaken in Udaipur district of southern Rajasthan. The specific objective was to find out whether or not timeliness achieved in various farm operations and the extent of reduction of labour and time taken in performing various agricultural operations by using improved implements promoted through centrally sponsored schemes. The study has taken a sample of 180 farmers. The data were collected using a pre-tested

95 interview schedule by personal interview technique. Most of the beneficiary farmers opined that all the selected implements promoted through various CSS’s (Centrally Sponsored Schemes) have helped them in achieving timeliness in various farm operations. The implements also helped in reducing time (hr hc) and labour (man- days /ha) to the tune of 13 percent in case of improved iron plough to as large as 96 percent in the case of Knapsack hand sprayer. Thus promotion of farm mechanization had positive impact in the study area, which might have helped the farming community in improving production and productivity of various crops.

Sharma, Varghese, and Puran singh Jaitawat (1998) assessed the human workforce, draught animal power and machine power on land in different Agro - Climatic regions of the state of Rajasthan. The objective of the study was to examine the extent of substitution of human labour by the use machine power in place of animal power in crop farming. They estimated only 28.7 percent of the available draught animal power was in use in the state and the remaining 71.3 percent was surplus at the state level, which varies from 67.8 percent in humid south-eastern plains to 81.9 percent in the western dry region of the state. The substitution effect on human labour employment due to tractor in place of bullock has been estimated as 62 per cent which means that mechanization reduces human labour employment in relation to bullock power. In this study proved that the time efficiency in the use of machine power over the bullock power varies from region to region for the same operation and from one operation to another in the same region. The increased use of such machines will add to the extent of under utilization of bullock power and under- employment of farm family labour. Unless the time efficiency gains as a result of mechanization offsets the cost of under-utilization of bullock power and under- employment of farm family labour, mechanization cannot be considered as a viable alternative to traditional sources of farm power for state. Mechanisation must be selective in view of the high rate of substitution taking place for human labour and animal power which have only very limited scope for alternative uses.

96 Singh (1998) attempted to find out the impact of tractorisation on the absorption of human labour in agricultural operation in Jaunpur district of Uttar Pradesh. The reference period of the study was 1997-1998. The study showed that the number of tractor users was the maximum in the large size-group (4 – 10 ha) non- users of tractors belonged to the small size-group with less than 2 hectares. The allocation of area under cereal crops was higher on tractor operated farms than on bullock operated farms. As against this the proportion of area under pulses and oil seeds to cropped area was lower on tractor operated farms. The study revealed that displacement of human labour in agriculture due to tractorisation in the district. The maximum displacement of labour occurred in paddy, followed by pulses and oil seeds due to use of tractors in the kharif season. The per hectare absorption of human labour was comparatively lower in almost all rabi crops on tractor operated farms as compared to bullock operated farms.

The operation wise displacement of human labour use was maximum in threshing, followed by ploughing and sowing on tractor operated farms which worked out to three times less than on bullock operated farms. The magnitude of surplus labour increasing in the agricultural sector because of tractorisation. The need is emphasized for finding employment for them in non-farm activities.

Rajesh and Kombairaju (1999) analysed the female labour participation and examined the impact of technological changes on female labour employment in rainfed agriculture. Following the three-stage stratified random sampling procedure, data were collected from a sample of 300 farmers, selected from 20 villages, ten villages each from Kovilpatti and Aruppukottai blocks in Virudhunagar and Tuticorin districts of Tamilnadu state in India. In the sample farms, the extent of family and hired female labour used per hectare of operational area was estimated for the major crops, namely, cotton, cumbu and cholam. The study indicates that technology adoption had positive impact on female labour employment for all the three crops. Hired female labour increased positively when adoption of technology increased.

97 Since the female labourers had to look after both family work and field work they got lesser employment opportunities when compared to the male labourers.

Gyanendra Singh (2006) investigated the estimation of a mechanisation index and its impact of production and economic factors in India. The major factors that require higher capital investment, viz. fertiliser, irrigation and farm power were selected to assess their impact on yield through multiple linear regressions. The standardised regression coefficient has revealed that irrigation (42%) and farm power (32%) significantly contributed in increasing the yield. Both these inputs use mechanical and electrical energy extensively as a part of mechanisation. An index has been suggested based on the ratio of the cost of use of machinery to the total animate and machinery cost for the estimation of the mechanisation. State level crop wise secondary data have been adopted from the cost of cultivation of principal crops in India for the assessment of the mechanisation index, and to study its impact on the yield, cost of cultivation and deployment of human and animal power. The analysis has revealed that the human labour cost is still the largest component in the cost of cultivation in the wheat crop, which is the most highly mechanised crop in India. The analysis has further revealed that, although 78.5% farm power was contributed by the mechanical sources, the mechanisation index based on cost of use of machinery was 14.5%. In other words, the share of cost of the human and animal energy in the total operational cost was 85.5%. The crop wise mechanisation index varied from a lowest value of 8.22% in sorghum and paddy to a highest value of 30% in wheat. The analysis also revealed that the states having higher mechanisation indices incurred a lower cost of cultivation of the wheat crop on quintal basis due to increased yield. As the level of mechanisation increased, the draught animal usage significantly reduced annually by 6.2%, but use of human labour reduced by only 0.18 percent.

Panghal and Deep Punia (2006) have analysed the problems of the small, Medium, and Large farmers in the changing scenario of farm mechanization. The study was conducted in four villages of Karnal district from eastern zone of Haryana.

98 An inventory of the farmers having at least any two farm machineries among tractor, tubewell, thresher and combine harvester. There are 60 samples selected for this study. The study indicates increasing trend in tractors and tubewells and decreasing trend in the number of draught animals in the state. The last 34 years from 1966-67 to 1999-2000 the number of tractors in the state has increased from 4803 to 192083 and that of tubewells from 25311 to 583705 respectively. During the same period, while number of draught animals in the state has gone down by about 25 per cent. Thus, in agriculture the mechanical power has been replacing the animal Power. In the study main constraints in making maximum use of tractor was non-availability of machines Parts, Spares, tires, tubes, etc. in the village (86.96 %), followed by not having same other, accessories of the machines due to financial handicaps (56.52%), Seasonal work(52.17%), Shortage of working capital/finance to do custom service (39.13%), less number of clients for custom service (21.74%), higher wages of driver/ operator (8.70%) and availability of good operators/drivers (4.35%).

Pradip Banerjee and Giri (2008) have analysed the impact of mechanisation in West Bengal agriculture. They concentrated on the productivity, labour use, cost reduction, possibility and cropping intensity. The findings are that the use of farm mechanisation can increase productivity, can enhance labour use and can help reducing production cost. Totally these advantages of farm mechanisation can be used to compensate losses incurred in production.

Manjunatha and Reddy, et.al (2009) studied on reducing the cost of cultivation in paddy through mechanizing harvesting operations in Gangavathi of Karnataka state. The study were conducted during 2002 to 2005. The parameters computed in the study were (i) labour saving by using the machines computed to manual operations. (ii) Cost of mechanical harvesting per hectare was worked out after taking into consideration the fixed cost, labour cost, fuel cost, field capacity of the equipment and usage of the equipment in hectares per year and was compared with the manual operations. The study found that the vertical conveyor power reaper

99 could be used successfully with a labour saving of about 10 man days per hectare and eliminating the drudgery on the part of labourers. The study also trends that the cost of cultivation of paddy crop could be reduced through mechanization of harvesting operators. Cost of mechanical harvesting was Rs. 420 per ha. as compared Rs.800 per ha in the case of manual harvesting provided the machines are used for their maximum usage of 144 hectares in a year. As the usage of the machine in terms of number of hectare per year decreases, the cost of operation increases. The study concluded that the mechanical harvesting would be economical if they are used on an area of 35 hectare per year and above only. Thus, it is feasible to reduce the cost of harvesting operation of paddy by mechanization to almost half the cost of manual harvesting provided the machines are used for their maximum usage of 144 hectares in a year. Thus, mechanization in paddy is a feasible solution to reduce the cost of harvesting without any yield reduction.

Bidyut Kumar Ghosh (2010) studied the determinants of farm mechanization in modern agriculture of Burdwan district in West Bengal. The study indicated that mechanisation of agriculture is an important factor promoting to higher output of the agricultural farm and thereby increasing the profitability of the farming practices. The specific objectives of this study were (1) status of the farm mechanization among the sample farmers (2) the factor that enable/ or hinders the rural households to mechanise their farming practices. The data were collected during the agricultural year 2005-2006 on random sampling basis from the two sub-divisions (purbasthali and Kalna) of the Burdwan district. These two sub-divisions are agriculturally developed areas of the district.185 sample were selected for this study. The set of explanatory variables determining the level of farm mechanisation and hence its impact on agricultural productivity was examined by applying a logit model analysis. In West Bengal small and marginal farmers dominated the agricultural field as more than 70% of the farmers fall in this category. Also the optimal use of modern agricultural machinery and implement requires comparatively large size of land,

100 which was very much scarce in West Bengal. The average size of land holding of the sample farmers was only 1.73 ha. The evidence showed that the farmers are not well trained to use the modern costly machineries efficiently. It seemed that the modern agricultural implements and machinery have not been used efficiently. All these factors might cause the impact of farm mechanisation on the agricultural productivity to be negative. The study reveals that younger generation are more opt for farm mechanisation than the old block i.e, age-old customs act a hindrance to mechanise the farming practices.

Kumar Nirmal and Suhag et.al. (2010) studied the impact of improved farm technology on agricultural labour, wages and employment in Haryana. The results of the study showed that the machinery displaced the human labour and bullock labour by improved farm technology. Family labour employment was displaced by hired agricultural labourers an progressive over non-progressive farms. It was found that high labour requirement in peak operation periods tends to increase the level of wage rates of hired labour as compared to slack period on all sizes of land holdings of both types of farms that is progressive and non-progressive farms. The low employment in slack period as compared to peak puts a downward pressure on wages.

Prakash Chandra Deogharia (2011) assessed the employment of agriculture labour in mechanized and non mechanized farm. The study took 145 mechanised farms and 63 non mechanized farms of Jharkhand. The respondents were asked about the amount of labour used in different agricultural operations. Labour, both family and hired, was assessed in terms of labour days of 8 hours each. Women and child labour was covered into standard man-days by giving a weightage of 1 man =1.5 women=2 children. Average employment of human labour was worked out per holding, per operational acre and per cropped acre for different size groups of farm of irrigated and unirrigated villages. Per holding, per operational acre and per cropped acre utilization of bullock labour in terms of bullock days (8 hours) was also worked out for the sample farmers. Simple regression coefficients were used to interpret the

101 results statistically. The study found that per operational acre basis, the average utilization of human labour in irrigated villages stood at 44.85 while it was only 30.03 man-days in unirrigated villages. On the basis of per cropped acre the average utilization of human labour worked out to be 43.33 for farmers of irrigated villages while it was 33.80 for unirrigated farmers. The another result indicated that in irrigated villages, one acre of sown area created a demand for labour to the extent of 43.42 man-days while in unirrigated villages, the demand for labour input stood at 31.40 man-days. Thus due introduction of new farm technology, human labour has increased to the extent of 38.28 percent. Coefficients of variation of labour used per cropped acre were (0.11) and (0.17) for farmers of irrigated and unirrigated villages respectively.

Komol Singha, Samsur Jaman MD and Aditya Chavali (2012) studied the tractorisation and agricultural development in India. The study indicated that the technological innovations have had profound effect on agricultural sector in the post- Green Revolution period in India. With the inception of Green Revolution, mechanization process, especially the application of tractor in agriculture sector had intensified. However, in 2000s, the pattern of mechanization has diversified slightly from the intensive tractorisation to other implementation like, irrigation, fertilizer, harvester, energy and others. Using a time series data on tractorisation and agriculture GDP for 43 years, co-integration regression method was employed to understand short run equilibrium between the variables. Further, the Error Correction Model (ECM) result showed that elasticities of mechanization were 10.4 percent and 0.52 percent for the long-run and the short-run respectively. It implies that a positive impact of mechanization on agriculture GDP was found both in the short run and long run.

102 CHAPTER IV

PROFILE OF THE STUDY AREA CHAPTER – IV

PROFILE OF THE STUDY AREA

India is the seventh largest country in the world, consisting of 28 States and 7 Union Territories. Tamil Nadu is the sixth largest State in India and situated in the southern most part of the country. The State of Tamil Nadu is having the boundaries of Bay of Bengal in the East, Andra Pradesh in the North, Karnataka in the North West, Kerala in the West and Indian Ocean in the South. The total Population of Tamil Nadu, according to 2011 census is 72,138,958.

There are 32 districts in Tamil Nadu. Among these Thanjavur is one of the most important district, carrying the greatest historical background of south India. It is not only the Rice Bowl of the South but also the backbone of the agricultural sector in Tamil Nadu. The soul of the Thanjavur district lies in the hands of river Cauvery. Because, the river Cauvery is deciding the performance of economic activities of Thanjavur district.

Thanjavur district is situated in the south east coast of Tamil Nadu. It is located between 9º50’ and 11º25’ of the northern latitude and 78º45’ and 70º25’ of the Eastern longitude. The total area of the district is 3, 39,657 sq.km. out of it nearly 71 percent of the land is used for cultivating the crops like paddy, sugarcane, banana, coconut, flowers etc., It is bounded in the north by the Coloroon River which separates it from perambalur and Thiruchirappalli district and the East is bounded by Thiruvarur and Nagapattinam district and the south by the Palk Strait and pudukkottai district and the west by Pudukkottai and Thiruchirappalli districts.

It can be divided into two distinct regions viz., the deltaic region, the upland area or non-deltaic region. There are no hills in the district. The deltaic region covers the whole northern and eastern portions of the district where the Cauvery with its wide network of branches irrigate more than half of the district. It comprises the

103 whole of Kumbakonam taluk and parts of Thanjavur, Papanasam taluks. The rest of the southern and western areas of the district are non-deltaic or upland region. A good portion of upland regions which was dry has now been brought under irrigation with the help of Grand Anaicut canal, fed by the Cauvery-Mettur Project and by extension of the Vadavar River. Non-deltaic region is also devoid of hills and slopes gradually seawards.

The economy of Thanjavur district purely depends on agriculture and more than 65 percent of population depends on agricultural and its allied activities. So the district is called the Granary of South. Out of the total geographical area of 3396, 57 sq.km the net area under paddy crops 1,31,521 hectare.

It is very famous for its traditional art and crafts. Thanjavur paintings drawn by the Maratian emperors are standing as the best evidence for the high performance of fine arts in the earlier Thanjavur. The district is famous for its exquisite ancient handicrafts-making of bronze icons, Thanjavur art plates, bell- metal castings, bowls, and napkin and powder boxes of metal with beautiful and artistic in-laying and engraving work of motifs well known as "Tanjore swami work".

In the historical era, Thanjavur was the main capital of the earlier Chola kingdom. The king Raja Raja and his son Rajendra I were the famous rulers in the later Chola dynasty. During their periods, Chola dynasty became the strongest and powerful part in south India and Thanjavur became the capital of Chola Kingdom. The Big temple named as Brihadeeswarar Temple built by Raja Raja I is the best example for the high quality of architectural skills of the Cholas during the 11th century. Now UNESCO has announced the big temple as World Heritage Site. Moreover the Saraswathi Mahal Library, Airavatesvara Temple, The Palace of Sarfoji II, are the best witnesses for the historical values of Thanjavur district.

During the period of earlier Chola dynasty the king Karikala built the Grand Anaicut which is oldest one in south India and providing the basic livelihood to the

104 population of Thanjavur district in now a days also. The river Cauvery is the main factor of the Thanjavur district which runs for a distance of 850 kilometers both in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu states draining an area of 31,000 square miles through its major tributaries Hemavathi, Lakshmana thirtha, Kabini, Bhavani, Amaravthi and Noyyal and finally enters the sea at Poompuhar in Tamil Nadu. The river Cauvery has also been named as 'Ponni' because it is yielding 'pon' -Gold in the form of paddy. The Tamil literature portraits the tillers of Thanjavur district as 4Kauvirippudhalvars’, the sons of the Cauvery, as they alone are worthy of this title for the rich production of golden grains in this fertile soil. The geological formation of Thanjavur district is made up of cretaceous, Tertiary and Alluvial deposits and the major area is occupied by the Alluvial and Tertiary deposits. The cretaceous formations occur as a small patch in West and South-West of Vallam. In Thanjavur district brown colored soil was the maximum constituting nearly 65 per cent. Red soil and black soils were found in 19.30 and 15.97 percent of the area respectively.

Generally paddy cultivation in Thanjavur district can be divided into three seasons - Kuruvai, Samba, and Thaladi. The Kuruvai season extends from June-July to September - October. In this season shorter varieties of paddy are raised. In this season cultivation starts at the end of June as soon as water is let out from Mettur dam. Usually the crop is harvested before the onset of the North East monsoon. The samba is from August-September to January - February. Crops in Samba seasons get the benefit of both the monsoons. Long and medium duration fine varieties are raised in the season.

The thaladi crop is raised in the double cropped lands after the Kuruvai harvest. Thaladi crop is sown in October - November and comes to harvest in February - March. Same strains of paddy which are raised as samba and Kuruvai are used in Thaladi also. In this season the duration of the varieties gets shortened by about a fortnight due to exposure of the crop to longer periods of sunshine.

105 The Kuruvai and Samba seasons correspond to khariff season shown as first crop and the Thaladi Season corresponds to “Rabi” season which is shown as the second crop in the revenue record. Due to the non availability of water for the “Rabi” season fanners in Thanjavur especially in the new delta changed their crop from paddy to groundnut. The groundnut season starts in December - January and ends in March - April.

Due to the Cauvery dispute between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka there is uncertain in the opening of Mettur dam is June. The farmers of Thanjavur district depend on ground water. They cultivate triple crops of paddy in old delta. In new delta other than the cultivation of groundnut the area under sugarcane cultivation has increased. They also use the groundnut in the new delta the cultivation of black gram and gingelly have also taken place to a large extent.

Cropping pattern both in old delta and costal area is akin to each other. At the same time new delta’s cropping strategy is different from the old delta. Crops raised in new delta need more money, more efforts, more inputs and water. The capacity of the crops to produce is higher than the other regions crops. Crops raised in old delta (except paddy and garden crops) require less money, less efforts, less inputs and no water at all. They produce less wealth and benefited the farmers at a lesser degree.

Table - 4.1 THANJAVUR DISTRICT AT A GLANCE 1. REVENUE DIVISIONS 3 2. TALUKS 8 3. BLOCKS 14 4. REVENUE VILLAGES 906 5. VILLAGE PANCHAYAT 589 Source: Thanjavur District Office, Thanjavur 2011

Table 4.1 shows the administration of Thanjavur district. The district is divided into eight taluks namely Thiruvidaimarudur, Kumbakonam, Thiruvaiyaru,

106 Papanasam, Thanjavur, orathanadu, pattukkottai, peravurani and further sub-divided into 14 Community development blocks. To facilitate the administration of the district, Thanjavur has divided into 3 revenue divisions. There are 906 revenue villages and 589 village Panchayats in Thanjavur district.

Table – 4.2 SEASON-WISE DISTRIBUTION OF NORMAL RAINFALL IN THANJAVUR DISTRICT (in mm) Sl. Season Month Normal Rainfall Actual Rainfall No. June 39.8 27.2 July 65.0 52.5 South west 1 monsoon August 101.8 108.3 September 111.8 109.0 TOTAL 318.4 297.0 October 183.8 172.7 North East November 219.2 316.3 2 Monsoon December 147.3 55.5 TOTAL 550.3 544.5 January 26.9 2.1 Winter Season February 15.4 0.8 3 TOTAL 42.3 2.9 March 17.3 7.3 Hot Weather April 30.5 9.6 4 Season May 54.3 13.0 TOTAL 102.1 29.9 Year Total 1013.1 874.3 Source: Season and Crop Report: 2010 - 2011, DES, Chennai. District Hand book 2010-2011

107 Table 4.2 shows the season wise distribution of normal rainfall in Thanjavur district. The livelihood of the people in Thanjavur district is mostly depending on agriculture. Further, the agriculture sector in Thanjavur district is mostly depending on the climate and rainfall. Thanjavur district is getting more rainfall from North east Monsoon and south west monsoons. Especially Thanjavur district has been receiving more rainfall during the months October, November, and December due to North East Monsoons. In 2010-11, the nonnal rainfall during this period is 550.3 mm and the actual rainfall is 544.5 mm. The winter season including the month January and February is registering the low rainfall. The actual rainfall 2.9 mm is less than that of the normal rainfall 42.3 mm during the winter season. During 2010-11,Thanjavur district has registered 1013.1 mm normal rainfall and 874.3 mm of actual rainfall. The actual rainfall is always less than that of normal rainfall in all the Seasons.

Table – 4.3 TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS OF THANJAVUR DISTRICT (2011 CENSUS)

Name of the District / State Total Number of Households Thanjavur District Total 605074 District % 3.27% Tamil Nadu State Total 1849303 State % (100.00) Source: Census of India 2011 Statistical Hand Book of Tamil Nadu 2010-11

Table 4.3 shows the number of households in the district. In 2010-11, the total number of households in Thanjavur district is 605074. It consists of 3.27percent of total households in Tamil Nadu state. Thanjavur district consists of 339657 sq. Km. area and the total population is 22,16,138. Among these 10, 96,638 are male and 11, 19,500 are female. The sex ratio in Thanjavur district is high (102).

108 Table – 4.4 AREA, POPULATION, LITERATES SEX WISE OF THANJAVUR DISTRICT (in numbers) Name of Area Population literates the District (Sq.Km.) Persons Male Female Persons Male Female Thanjavur 339657 2216138 1096638 1119500 1476256 814354 661902 District Source: Statistical Hand Book of Thanjavur District 2010-2011

Among the total population of 1476256 persons are literates. The total literacy rate is 66.6 percent. The female literacy rate is very low (59.1 percent) and the male literacy rate is moderate (74.25 percent). Out of 10,96,638 male Population 814354 are literates and 6,61,902 females are literates out of 1119500 female population.

Table – 4.5 POPULATION OF RURAL AND URBAN RATIO OF THANJAVUR DISTRICT RURAL URBAN D

O TOTAL TOTAL GRAND I

R MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL E P

1 726493 741084 1467577 370145 378416 748561 1096638 1119500 2216138 0 0

2 (33) (33) (66) (17) (17) (34) (49) (51) (100.00)

1 765784 786541 1552325 417328 433128 850456 1183112 1219669 2402781 1 0

2 (32) (33) (65) (17) (18) (35) (49) (51) (100.00) Source: District Hand Book 2010 – 2011 Statistical Hand Book of Tamil Nadu 2010-2011

There are no significant changes in the rural and urban population during the ten year periods (2001-11). The total number of population living in rural areas was around 65percent in 2001 and the same number of population is existed in 2011 also. Likewise the urban population was around 35 percent in 2001and the same number of

109 population is existed in 2011 also. There are no changes in composition of rural - urban population in Thanjavur district during the decades 2001-2011.

Table – 4.6 POPULATION BY RELIGION OF THANJAVUR DISTRICT Persons in Sl. Persons in Religion Tamil Percentage (%) NO. District Nadu 1. Hindu 1925677 54985079 86.89 88.11 2. Muslim 163286 3470647 7.37 5.56 3. Christian 124945 3785060 5.64 6.07 4. Sikh 38 9545 0.00 0.02 5. Buddhist 28 5393 0.00 0.01 6. Jain 657 83359 0.03 0.13 7. Other Religion 201 7252 0.01 0.01 8. Religion Not Stated 1306 59344 0.06 0.10 Total Population 2216138 62405679 100.00 100.00 Source: District Statistical Hand Book 2011-2012

Table 4.6 indicates that the majority of the peoples (86.89 percent) belongs to Hinduism. Nearly 19,25,677 peoples belongs to Hinduism. The Muslims and Christians are consisting very low level of population i.e., 7.37percent and 5.64 percent respectively out of total population. The other religions like Jain, Buddhist, and Sikh are not in considerable numbers.

110 Table – 4.7 OCCUPATIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF POPULATION IN THANJAVUR DISTRICT

Thanjavur District Tamil Nadu State Sl. Industrial Category % to % to No. Persons total Persons total workers workers 1. Main Workers 750032 83.60 23757783 85.22 2. Marginal workers 147091 16.40 4120499 14.78 Total workers (1+2) 897123 (100.00) 27878282 (100.00) (a) Cultivators 144942 16.16 5116039 18.35 (b) Agricultural Labourers 410718 45.78 8637630 30.98 (c) Household Industry, Manufacturing, 37986 4.23 1499761 5.38 Processing, Servicing and repairs (d) Other Workers 303477 33.83 12624852 45.29 3. Non Workers 1319015 - 34527397 - Total population 2216138 - 62405679 - Source: Census of India 2011 Statistical Hand Book of Tamil Nadu 2011-2012

The above table shows that the occupational classification of population in Thanjavur district. In Thanjavur district 13,19,015 are non workers, i.e., not engaged with production activities and 8,97,123 peoples are working population. Among these working population, 16.40 percent peoples are marginal workers and 83.6 percent peoples are main workers. The number of marginal workers are 16.4 percent which is more than the state level average 14.78 percent. Among the total workers 45.78 percent of peoples are agricultural labourers which is higher than the state level average of 30.98 percent. The people belong to household industry, manufacturing, servicing and repairs are very low 4.23 percent and the other workers consist of 33.83 percent out of total working population.

111 Table – 4.8 LAND USE PATTERN OF THANJAVUR DISTRICT AND TAMIL NADU STATE (in hectare.) Area in Hectares % to the % to the Sl. Tamil Land Use Thanjavur District State No. Nadu District Geographical Geographical State Area Area 1 Total geographical area 339657 (100.00) 13033116 (100.00) 2 Forests 3390 1.00 2125475 16.3 3 Barren and Uncultivable land 2149 0.63 489253 3.75 4 Land put to non-agrl. Use 81556 24.05 2177034 16.7 5 Culturable waste 12140 4.33 330938 2.53 6 Permanent pastures 1218 0.41 109568 0.84 7 Misc. tree crops and groves 4709 1.48 252080 1.93 8 Current fallow 10836 2.77 1014937 7.78 9 Other fallows 24171 8.81 1580173 12.12 10 Net area sown 199488 56.54 4953658 38.00 Area sown more than once 85824 14.50 799006 6.13 Gross area sown 285312 71.04 5752664 44.13 Source: Season and Crop Reports, DES, Chennai. Statistical Hand Book of Tamil Nadu 2011-2012

In Thanjavur district Net Area Sown is only 56.54 percent i.e., 1,99,488 hectare. This is consisting only 38 percent of the Net sown area in Tamil Nadu state. The total forest area covers only 1 percent in Thanjavur district. Nearly 24.05 percent i.e., 81,556 hectare of land is used to non agricultural uses. The area sown than once in a year is nearly 14.50 percent i.e., 85,824 hectare, which is higher than the state level average of 6.13 percent. The total fallow land includes 11.5 percent out of total geographical area of the district. The overall cropped area is 71.04% (i.e.,2, 85,312 hectare) which is more than the state level average of 44.13 percent.

112 Table – 4.9 SIZE WISE NUMBER OF OPERATIONAL HOLDINGS IN THANJAVUR DISTRICT Sl. Number of operational Holdings Size Class No SC ST Others TOTAL District: Thanjavur 1. Below 0.5 18281 5 147831 166117 2. 0.5-1.0 5274 8 55888 61170 Marginal 23555 13 203719 227287 3. 1.0-2.0 2759 3 37087 39849 Small 2759 3 37087 39849 4. 2.0-3.0 589 3 12124 12716 5. 3.0-4.0 178 - 4619 4797 Semi- 767 3 16743 17513 Medium 6. 4.0-5.0 64 - 2116 2180 7. 5.0-7.5 65 - 1878 1943 8. 7.5-10.0 5 - 619 624 Medium 134 - 4613 4947 9. 10.0-20.0 9 - 383 392 10. 20 and above 1 - 71 72 Large 10 - 454 464 All Sizes 27225 19 262616 289860 Source: Annual Statistical Abstract - 2009.

Table 4.9 explains the size wise number of operational holdings and size wise area of operational holdings in thanjavur district. In Thanjavur District, the total holdings are 289860 which cover 218123 hectares. The average size of holdings is 0.75 he. Nearly 1, 66,117 persons holding less than 0.5 hectare of land. Among these only 5 persons belongs to ST community and 18,281 peoples belongs to SC community. Totally 2, 27.287 persons having marginal holdings (i.e., less than 1 hectare area of land). Out of these on 13 persons belongs to ST community and 23,555 persons belong to SC community. There are no ST community people holding

113 medium and large size of holdings of land. Even the SC community peoples are also not holding considerable level of holdings in large level (i.e., more than 10.0 hectare of land.) . Out of 2, 89,860 persons, only 19 persons are belongs to ST community and having only less than semi-medium size of holdings of land.

Cereals Paddy is the major crops cultivated in Thanjavur district. In 2011, the paddy cultivation accounts 1,66,209 hectare of land which is only 8.72 percent in the total state level area and it producing 4,76,793 tonnes of paddy sharing 8.23 percent in the total Tamil Nadu paddy cultivation level. The productivity of paddy is only 2868 kg per hectare which less than the state productivity level of 3039 Kg. per hectare. After paddy maize accounts 1090 hectare of land and produced 6241 tonnes but sharing only 0.60 percent in the state level. In 2011 the total area used to cultivate cereals are 1, 67,305 hectare out of these 1,66,209 hectare of land was used to cultivate paddy alone.

Pulses The pulses are cultivated only in 34,042 hectare of land and the production land was 13,535 tonnes. The black gram and green gram jointly accounts 34,000 hectare of land and the production level was 13,512 tonnes. The other pulses and cereals are not having considerable amount of production.

The total food grains production consisting pulses and cereals are 4,96,578.6 tonnes and the productivity is 2467 kg per hectare which is little higher than the state level productivity of 2393 kg per hectare. This total production of food grains contributes around 7 percent in the state level production.

114 Table – 4.10 AREA, PRODUCTION AND PRODUCTIVITY OF PRINCIPAL CROPS OF THANJAVUR DISTRICT AND TAMILNADU STATE IN 2010-11 Sl. Thanjavur District Tamil Nadu State No Crop Area Area % Production Produciton Productivity Area Production Productivity (Hect) to State (Tonnes) % to State ( in Kg./Hec) (Hect) (tonnes) (in Kg./Hec) A. CEREALS 1 Paddy 166209 8.72 476793 8.23 2868 1905726 5792415 3039 2 Cholam (Jowar) 2 0.0 2 0.0 100 243465 246981 1014 3 Cumbu (Bajra) 0 0 0 0 0 49482 77369 1564 4 Ragi 4 0.0 8 0.0 200 75650 171096 2262 5 Maize 1090 0.49 6241 0.60 5725 230489 1027536 4458 6 Small Millets 0 0 0 0 0 32228 33533 1040 7 Total Cereals 167305 6.59 483044 6.5 2887 2537040 7348930 2897 B. PULSES 8 Bengal gram 6 0.08 2 0.04 333 7296 4937 677 9 Red gram 23 0.06 15 0.06 652 35751 23671 662 10 Green gram 5157 3.0 1331 2.30 258 171666 57683 336 11 Black gram 28843 9.47 12181 0.09 422 304432 123011 404 12 Horse gram 13 0.02 5 0.02 384 47320 21729 459 13 Other Pulses 0 0 0 0 0 70270 14159 201 14 Total Pulses 34042 5.3 13535 5.52 397 636735 245190 385 Total Food grains 15 201347 6.34 496578.6 6.53 2467 3173775 7594120 2393 (A+B)

115 AREA, PRODUCITON AND PRODUCTIVITY OF PRINCIPAL CROPS OF THANJAVUR DISTRICT AND TAMILNADU STATE IN 2010-11 Sl. Thanjavur District Tamil Nadu State No Productivity Crop Area Area % Production Produciton Area Production Productivity ( in (Hect) to State (Tonnes) % to State (Hect) (tonnes) (in Kg./Hec) Kg./Hec) C. OIL SEEDS 16 Groundnut 7522 1.9 2828.6 3.16 37.60 385509 895638 2323 17 Gingelly 4565 9.4 1734 6.83 379 48189 25387 527 18 Coconut @ 33271 8.11 5221 8.75 156 410149 59656 14545 19 Castor 2 0.03 1 0.05 50 5972 1862 312 20 Sun Flower 9 0.01 11 0.1 1223 8718 10036 1151 D. OTHER CROPS 21 Cotton # 518 0.42 1407 0.57 2716 120765 247930 349 22 Sugarcane ** 8817 2.79 1184908 3.46 13438 315961 34251796 108 23 Tobacco 0 0 0 0 0 5366 8209 1530 24 Chillies 23 0.04 9 0.04 391 53626 21690 404 25 Turmeric 8 0.01 43 0.01 5375 51446 277980 5403 E. VEGETABLE 26 Ladies Finger 70 1.12 588 1.12 840 6229 52302 8396 27 Ginger 5 0.85 49 0.84 980 587 5779 9844 28 Brinjal 91 1.15 910 1.15 1000 7871 78685 9996 Production & Yield rate: * Paddy - In terms of Rice ** Sugarecand - In terms of Cane, yield rate in tonnes per hectare @ Coconut - Production in Lakh nuts, Yield rate in Lakh Nuts per ha # Cotton - Production in Bales of 170 Kg lint each. Source: Department of Economics and Statistics, Chennai - 600 006

116 Oilseeds and other Crops

In Thanjavur district the oil seeds like groundnut, gingelly, coconut and the other crops like sugar, cotton are the major principal crops. Among these coconut accounts 33,271 hectare of land and sugarcane accounts 8,817 hectare of land. The total production of sugarcane in Thanjavur district was 11, 84,908 tonnes in 2010.

The important food crops in the district are paddy, sugarcane, green gram, block gram and banana. The important non-food crops are groundnut, coconut and gingelly. The other crops like chilies, turmeric and the vegetables like ladies finger, ginger, and brinjal are also produced in Thanjavur district in a considerable numbers. The productivity of the sugarcane in Thanjavur district was 13,438 kg per hectare, which is higher than the state productivity of 108 kg per hectare. Likewise the cotton productivity in Thanjavur district 2,716 kg per hectare was also higher than the state productivity of 349 kg per hectare.

Table – 4.11 SOURCES OF WATER SUPPLY IN THANJAVUR DISTRICT 2010-11 (in Numbers) Canals s s l r l i

Tube wells e Wells used s o

r Name of the k w v h ) e

n r t . & Other for Domestic b n a e g s m District / State e T n m e p e

K Wells Purpose only u ( R O L N

Thanjavur 25 638 48265 2260 30726 0 428 District

% to the State 1.11 6.54 15.56 0.14 4.74 0 10.4

Tamil Nadu 2239 9747 310000 1516580 647936 81 41127 State Total Soruce: Department of Economics and Statistics, Chennai.

117 Table – 4.12 SOURCE-WISE NET AREA IRRIGATED OF THANJAVUR DISTRICT 2010-11 (in Hectares) Sources of irrigation Name of the District / Tube Wells Open Other Total State Canals Tanks & Other Wells Sources Wells Thanjavur District 139451 298 31490 935 0 172174 % to the State 18.66 0.05 7.80 0.07 0 5.91 Tamil Nadu State Total 747188 533214 403377 1219282 9068 2912129 Soruce: Department of Economics and Statistics, Chennai. Statistical Hand Book of Tamil Nadu 2010-11

Table – 4.13 AREA SOWN AND IRRIGATED OF THANJAVUR DISTRICT 2010-11. (in Hectares) Name of the Net Area Net Area Gross Area Gross Area Percentage Percentage District / Irrigated Sown Irrigated Sown of (A+B) of (C+D) State (A) (B) (C) (D) Thanjavur 172174 200821 85.74 211810 267280 79.25 District % to the State 5.9 4.58 - 6.32 4.64 - Tamil Nadu 2912129 4953658 58.79 3347557 5752664 58.19 State Total Source: Department of Economics and Statistics, Chennai. Table 4.11 reveals that the sources of water supply in Thanjavur district. In Tamil Nadu, 41,127 tanks are the basic sources of water supply. Out of it, 10.4 percent i.e., 428 tanks are in Thanjavur district. The Canals are also the main sources in Thanjavur district. There are 25 canals covering 638 kilometer length in Thanjavur district. Even though Thanjavur is the rice bowl of Tamil Nadu, there are no reservoirs in the district. But, there are 2260 open wells and 48,265 tube wells and other wells in Thanjavur district. The canal irrigation covers 1,39,451 hectares and tube well, other wells irrigation covers 31,490 hectares of land in Thanjavur district. The main fact is that 29,12,129 hectare of land is irrigated by all water sources in Tamil Nadu. But out of it only 5.91 percent (i.e. 1,72,174 hectare) are in Thanjavur district.

118 Table – 4.14 BLOCK WISE SOWN AREA UNER PADDY CROP District: Thanjavur (in hectares) SI. Sown area Block Name No 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 1 Thanjavur 16089 19085 15733 20641 17040 16759 2 Budalur 11004 13636 11043 14433 11485 11602 3 Thiruvaiyaru 10138 12980 10005 14326 10577 10833 4 Orathanadu 21945 21622 20865 23284 23958 25413 5 Thruvonam 8865 9034 8752 10378 10342 10663 6 Pattukkottai 7953 7815 7525 7639 7607 7986 7 Madukkur 7119 6318 6067 6061 5483 6280 8 Peravurani 7958 7576 7270 8380 8224 7772 9 Sethubavachatram 7202 7020 6500 7570 7359 7747 10 Kumbakonam 9409 9149 8868 9963 9016 9693 11 Thiruvidaimardhur 12248 12448 12737 12469 12034 11568 12 Thiruppanandal 9610 10431 8589 11367 10349 11627 13 Papanasam 4465 4724 4664 6261 6058 5345 14 Ammapet 20896 22406 21609 24023 23406 22920 Source: Irrigation profile, Statistical office, Thanjavur (2005-2011)

The total sown area of paddy in Thanjavur district was 1,54,901 hectares in 2005-2006. It has increased to 1,66,208 hectares during the year 2010-11. But this increase in sown area is not a big number. Among the 14 blocks Orathanadu is consisting more paddy sown area i.e., 25,413 hectares of land and Ammapettai is consisting 22,920 hectares of paddy sown area. The Papanasam block consisting lowest paddy sown area i.e., 5345 hectares of land.

119 Table – 4.15 Details of Vadacheri Panchayat

Hamlet 2 Total Number of wards 4 Total Number of Household 1630 Total area 1219.25 hectares Population (in nos.) Male 2903 Female 2914 Total 5817

Voters (in nos.) Male 1811 Female 1845 Total 3656 Farmers Details Small 226 Medium 212 Large 47 Total 485 Pond 9 Bank 1 Co-Op Society 1 Post Office 1 Elementary School 1 Source: Panchayat Office, Vadacheri

120 Table – 4.16 Details of Vellur Panchayat Hamlet 6 Total Number of wards 4 Total Number of Households 681 Total area 716.82 hectares Population (in nos.) Male 1109 Female 1411 Total 2520 Voters (in nos.) Male 851 Female 956 Total 1807 Farmers Details Small 155 Medium 110 Large 32 Total 297 WET LAND 115 HECTARE 26 ARES DRY LAND 524 HECTARE 41ARES Others 77 HECTARE 15 ARES Pond 13 Bank 1 Co-Op Society 1 Post Office 1 Govt. Higher Secondary School 1 Elementary School 2 Source: Panchayat Office, Vellur

121 Table – 4.17 Details of Pulavangadu Panchayat

Hamlet 1

Total Number of wards 2

Total Number of Households 490

Total area 396 HECTARES 22 ARES Population (in nos.) Male 962 Female 1004 Total 1966 Voters (in nos.) Male 668 Female 744 Total 1412 Farmers Details Small 54 Medium 173 Large 26 Total 253 WET LAND 23,24 HECTARES DRY LAND 279,86 HECTARES Others 93.12 HECTARES Pond Co-Op Society 1 Post Office 1 Middle School 1 Source: Panchayat Office, Pulavangadu

122 Table – 4.18 Details of Annappanpettai Panchayat

Hamlet 3 Total Number of wards 4 Total Number of Households 811 Total area 907 HECTARES 98 ARES Population (in nos.) Male 1276 Female 1248 Total 2524 Voters (in nos.) Male 994 Female 975 Total 1969 Farmers Details Small 142 Medium 188 Large 34 Total 364 WET LAND 767 HECTARES DRY LAND 63 HECTARES Others 77 HECTARES Pond 4 Bank 1 Co-Op Society 1 Post Office 1 Elementary School 1 High School 1 Source: Panchayat Office, Annappanpettai

123 Table – 4.19 Details of Irumbuthalai Panchayat

Hamlet 2 Total Number of wards 9 Total Number of Households Total area 557.6 HECTARES Population (in nos.) Male 1158 Female 1454 Total 2612 Voters (in nos.) Male 799 Female 879 Total 1678 Farmers Details Small 76 Medium 134 Large 32 Total 242 WET LAND 412.36 HECTARES DRY LAND 46.30 HECTARES Others 98.94 HECTARES Pond Bank Co-Op Society 1 Post Office 1 Elementary School 1 Source: Panchayat Office, Irumbuthalai

124 Table – 4.20 Details of Vadapathi Panchayat Hamlet 4 Total Number of wards 6 Total Number of Households 485 Total area 800 HECTARES 36 ARES Population (in nos.) Male 1150 Female 1340 Total 2490 Voters (in nos.) Male 819 Female 911 Total 1730 Farmers Details Small 60 Medium 118 Large 27 Total 205 WET LAND 682.20 HECTARES DRY LAND 118.16 HECTARES Pond 5 Co-Op Society 1 Post Office 1 Elementary School 1 Source: Panchayat Office, Vadapathi The study of profile of the Thanjavur district reveals that there are more potential for the development of agricultural sector and agricultural mechanization in the district. By providing the proper irrigation facilities the district can retain the name of rice bowl of the south and it can increase its productivity.

125 CHAPTER V

ANALYSIS OF PRIMARY DATA AND INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS Chapter - V

ANALYSIS OF PRIMARY DATA AND INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS

This chapter deals with the analysis and interpretation of collected primary data. The primary data for the study has been collected from six village panchayats viz., Annappanpettai, Vadapathi and Irumbuthalai of Ammapettai block and Vellur, Vadacheri, and Pulavan kudikadu of Orathanadu block. This chapter was divided into the three parts such as part-A, part-B and part-C. The first part of this chapter deals with the socio and economic conditions of the sample farmers. The Socio conditions variables such as age, gender, religion, community, marital status, educational qualifications, family type, occupation and other related variable have been dealt with. Regarding their economic conditions, all the relevant economic variables have been taken and analysed to show the economic status of the sample farmers.

Part-B of this chapter deals with awareness, problem and advantages attained by the sample farmers on farm mechanisation. In awareness the availability of farm machineries, Government subsidies, training programmes and other related things are discussed. This part also deals with the problems faced by the sample farmers from the implementation of farm machineries and equipments in their agricultural activities.

The end of this chapter Part-C presents the cost benefit analysis of paddy cultivation by employing mechanised farm practices. A comparative study on the cost benefit of traditional and mechanised method of paddy cultivation was also made.

126 (A) I. Social conditions of the Respondents Table 5.1 Sex-wise classification of the Respondents (Percentages are in bracket) Sl.No Name of the Panchayat Male Female Total 96 02 98 1 Annappanpettai (97.96) (2.04) (100) 54 01 55 2 Vadapathi (98.18) (1.82) (100) 64 02 66 3 Irumputhalai (96.97) (3.03) (100) Ammapettai 214 05 219 Block Total (97.72) (2.28) (100) 72 04 76 4 Vellur (94.74) (5.26) (100) 127 04 131 5 Vadacheri (96.5) (3.05) (100) 68 (-) 68 6 Pulavan kudikadu (100) 00 (100) Orathanadu 267 08 275 Block Total (97.09) (2.91) (100) Over all Total 481 13 494 % (97.37) (2.63) (100) Source: Primary data

The table 5.1 shows the sex wise classification of sample farmers. In the total of 494 respondents, a good majority of (481) respondents are male. They constitute 97.37 per cent to the total respondents. The remaining 13 respondents are female who constitute 2.36 per cent. It is found that 214 farmers are male out of 219 in Ammapettai block. Of them, 44.86 per cent are male farmers living in Annappanpettai Panchayat. Like Ammapettai block, Orathanadu block also has more number of male farmers and they are 267 in number. In this block, Vadacheri has 44.56 per cent of total male farmers, which shows that the majority male farmers are living in this panchayat.

127 Table 5.2 Age-wise classification of the Respondents (Percentages are in bracket) 60 Below Name of the 31-40 41-50 51-60 years Sl.No 30 Total Panchayat years years years & years above 03 20 41 27 07 98 1 Annappanpettai (3.06) (20.40) (41.84) (27.55) (7.15) (100) 00 15 22 16 02 55 2 Vadapathi (00) (27.27) (40) (29.09) (3.64) (100) 02 20 27 16 01 66 3 Irumputhalai (3.03) (30.30) (40.91) (24.25) (1.51) (100) Ammapettai 05 55 90 59 10 219 Block Total (2.28) (25.11) (41.09) (26.94) (4.57) (100) 02 16 35 20 03 76 4 Vellur (2.63) (21.05) (45.05) (26.32) (3.95) (100) 03 26 54 37 11 131 5 Vadacheri (2.29) (19.85) (41.22) (28.24) (8.40) (100) Pulavan 01 13 35 18 01 68 6 kudikadu (1.47) (19.11) (51.47) (26.48) (1.47) (100) Orathanadu 06 55 124 75 15 275 Block Total (2.18) (20) (45.09) (27.28) (5.45) (100) Over all Total 11 110 214 134 25 494 % (2.24) (22.26) (43.31) (27.12) (5.07) (100) Source: Primary data

The table 5.2 shows the age-wise classification of the sample farmers in the study area. Age is one of the social indicator of the sample respondents. Hence the researcher analysed the age wise classification in Ammapettai and Orathanadu blocks. The age of the sample respondents has been classified into five categories as shown in the table and it starts from 21 years to more than 60 years. Out of 494 sample farmers, 214 respondents belong to the age group of 41-50, which is 43.31 per cent of total respondents and it stands the majority of all. It is also seen that 134 respondents belong to the age group of 51- 60 and it constitute 27.12 per cent. Whereas 110 respondents are found in the age group 128 of 31-40 and they are 22.26 per cent in the total respondents. It was found that 25 respondents are in the age group of 60 and above. Besides 21-30 age group consists just 11 respondents and they belong to 2.24 per cent to the total respondents. The Arithmetic mean and Standard Deviation are used to find out age wise classification of respondents by using the following formula,

Where, d = (X – A), f is the frequency. The average age (Arithmetic Mean) is found to be 44.95 years.

Figure 5.2

Age-wise classification

21-30 250 214 31-40 200 s t n e

d 41-50 n o 134 150p s e R

110 f

o 51-60

100N

60 & 50 25 Above 11

0 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 60 & Above

Age

129 Table 5.3 Religion-wise classification

Sl. Name of the Hindu Muslim Christian Total No Panchayat 93 01 04 98 1 Annappanpettai (94.89) (1.02) (4.09) (100) 53 00 02 55 2 Vadapathi (96.36) (00) (3.64) (100) 62 01 03 66 3 Irumputhalai (93.94) (1.51) (4.55) (100) Ammapettai 208 02 09 219 Block Total (94.98) (0..91) (4.11) (100) 72 01 03 76 4 Vellur (94.74) (1.32) (3.94) (100) 125 01 05 131 5 Vadacheri (95.42) (0.76) (3.82) (100) 68 00 00 68 6 Pulavan kudikadu (100) (00) (00) (100) Orathanadu Block 265 02 08 275 Total (96.36) (0.73) (2.91) (100) Over all Total 473 04 17 494

% (95.75) (0.80) (3.45) (100) Source: Primary data

Religion is another indicator of a social feature of the study area. The respondents of this study belong to different religions. Out of 494 sample farmers in the study area, 473 are (95.75 percent) Hindus followed by 17 sample farmers (3.45 per cent) are Christians and only four are (0.80 per cent) Muslim religion. As far as the Hindu is concerned, it was found that more numbers of Hindu farmers were found to be in Orathanadu block and more number of Muslim farmers were found to be in Ammapet block.

130 Table 5.4 Community-wise classification

Sl. Name of the OC BC MBC SC ST Total No Panchayat 02 68 15 13 00 98 1 Annappanpettai (2.04) (69.39) (15.31) (13.26) (00) (100) 00 41 07 07 00 55 2 Vadapathi (00) (74.54) (12.73) (12.73) (00) (100) 00 50 11 05 00 66 3 Irumputhalai (00) (75.76) (16.67) (7.57) (00) (100) Ammapettai 02 159 33 25 00 219 Block Total (0.91) (72.60) (15.07) (11.42) (00) (100) 00 66 05 05 00 76 4 Vellur (00) (86.84) (6.58) (6.58) (00) (100) 01 106 06 16 02 131 5 Vadacheri (0.76) (80.92) (4.58) (12.21) (1.53) (100) 00 45 12 09 02 68 6 Pulavan kudikadu (00) (66.18) (17.65) (13.23) (2.94) (100) Orathanadu 01 217 23 30 04 275 Block Total (0.36) (78.91) (8.36) (10.92) (1.45) (100) Over all Total 03 376 56 55 04 494

% (0.61) (76.11) (11.34) (11.13) (0.81) (100) Source: Primary data

Table 5.4 shows the community wise classification of the sample farmers in the study area. Out of 494 respondents, 376 respondents belong to backward community and it represents 76.11 per cent to total respondents. 56 respondents belong to Most Backward class and they contribute 11.34 %. It is also found that 55 respondents are Scheduled class and their percentage is 11.13. Only four respondents belong to the community of Scheduled Tribes and they constitute only 0.81 per cent to total respondents in the study area. The sample farmers who belong to the other community is three in number. In Ammapettai, out of 219 respondents, 159 respondents belong to BC community, 33 respondents

131 belong to MBC and 25 respondents belong to SC community. In Orathanadu block, out of 275 sample farmers, 217 respondents belong to Backward Community BC, 30 and 23 respondents belong to the SC and MBC communities respectively.

Figure 5.4 Community-wise classification

ST, 4 OC, 3 SC, 55 OC BC MBC MBC, 56 SC ST

BC, 376

132 Table 5.5 Marital status of the respondents

Sl. Name of the Un- Others Married Divorced Total No Panchayat Married Widow Widower 01 95 02 - - 98 1 Annappanpettai (1.02) (96.94) (2.04) (00) (00) (100) - 54 01 - - 55 2 Vadapathi (00) (98.18) (1.82) (00) (00) (100) 02 62 02 - - 66 3 Irumputhalai (3.03) (93.94) (3.03) (00) (00) (100) Ammapettai 03 211 05 - - 219 Block Total (1.37) (96.35) (2.28) (00) (00) (100) - 72 03 - 01 76 4 Vellur (00) (94.73) (3.95) (00) (1.32) (100) 02 125 04 - - 131 5 Vadacheri (1.53) (95.42) (3.05) (00) (00) (100) Pulavan - 67 - 01 00 68 6 kudikadu (00) (98.53) (00) (1.47) (00) (100) Orathanadu 02 264 07 01 01 275 Block Total (0.73) (96.00) (2.55) (0.36) (0.36) (100) Over all Total 05 475 12 01 01 494

% (1.01) (96.15) (2.44) (0.20) (0.20) (100) Source: Primary data

The above table reveals the marital status of the respondents-sample farmers. Of 494 sample farmers, 475 are married farmers and 211 of them belong to Ammapet block and 264 belong to Orathanadu block. Only five sample farmers are unmarried and three of them belong to Ammapet and two of them belong to Orathanadu blocks respectively.

Among the female sample farmers, 12 farmers are widow and only one male farmer is widower. Besides, one divorced farmer forms part of the total sample farmers.

133 Table 5.6 Educational Qualification of the respondents d n a s l y

e e l y r a r t t r a r l c a a e a a i a a n d d r h u Sl. Name of the t n o n e n g i m o d h t i i o s o i c a

No Panchayat T r l s c c e r l H e e e t P I f s S G o r 24 33 18 10 10 03P 98 1 Annappanpettai (24.49) (33.67) (18.38) (10.20) (10.20) (3.06) (100) 09 13 25 03 05 00 55 2 Vadapathi (16.36) (23.64) (45.45) (5.46) (9.09) (00) (100) 15 10 21 17 02 01 66 3 Irumputhalai (22.73) (15.15) (31.81) (25.76) (3.03) (1.52) (100) Ammapettai 48 56 64 30 17 04 219 Block Total (21.92) (25.57) (29.23) (13.70) (7.76) (1.82) (100) 15 15 31 13 01 01 76 4 Vellur (19.73) (19.73) (40.79) (17.11) (1.32) (1.32) (100) 19 27 25 47 08 05 131 5 Vadacheri (14.50) (20.61) (19.08) (35.88) (6.11) (3.82) (100) Pulavan 13 07 40 08 - - 68 6 kudikadu (19.12) (10.29) (58.83) (11.76) (00) (00) (100) Orathanadu 47 49 96 68 09 06 275 Block Total (17.09) (17.82) (34.91) (24.73) (3.27) (2.18) (100) Over all Total 95 105 160 98 26 10 494 % (19.23) (21.25) (32.30) (19.83) (5.26) (2.02) (100) Source: Primary data

Education is one of the most important characteristics that might affect the person’s attitudes and the way of looking and understanding any particular social phenomena. In a way, the response of an individual is determined by his educational status and therefore it becomes imperative to know the educational background of the respondents. Table 5.6 explains the educational qualifications of the respondents in the study area. Out of 494 respondents, 95 respondents are illiterates and they constitute 19.23 percentage of the total sample. 160 respondents got secondary

134 education and the percentage is calculated to be 32.30. Farmers who have got only primary education is 105 in numbers.

Regarding the educational qualification of the sample farmers, secondary education was found to be the most common among the sample farmers followed by primary education. The respondents who are illiterates and possessing higher secondary as their educational qualifications are 95 and 98 in numbers. It was found that there are less number of respondents fall under the category of higher education i.e., graduates and professionals.

Figure 5.5

Educational-wise classification

160 160

140 Illiterate

120 s

t 105 Primary

n 95 98 e

d 100 n

o Secondary p

s 80 e R

f 60 Higher o

o Secondary N 40 26 College

20 10 Professional 0 and technical Illiterate Primary Secondary Higher College Professional Secondary and technical

Qualification

135 Table 5.7 Type of the family Sl.No Name of the Panchayat Joint Nuclear Total 19 79 98 1 Annappanpettai (19.39) (80.61) (100) 06 49 55 2 Vadapathi (10.90) (89.10) (100) 08 58 66 3 Irumputhalai (12.12) (87.88) (100) Ammapettai 33 186 219 Block Total (15.07 (84.93) (100) 09 67 76 4 Vellur (11.84) (88.16) (100) 15 116 131 5 Vadacheri (11.45) (88.55) (100) 08 60 68 6 Pulavan kudikadu (11.76) (88.24) (100) Orathanadu 32 243 275 Block Total (11.64) (88.36) (100) Over all Total 65 429 494 % (13.15) (86.85) (100) Source: Primary data

Type of family is another social indicator of this study. 429 respondents out of 494 belong to the nuclear family and they constitute 86.85 per cent in total sample farmers. There are 186 respondents out of 219 in Ammapettai block and 243 respondents out of 275 from Orathanadu block belong to nuclear family and they constitute, 84.93 per cent and 88.36 per cent respectively. The remaining 65 respondents belong to the joint family and it is 13.15 per cent. There are 33 respondents out of 219 in Ammapettai block, 32 respondents out of 275 in Orathanadu block are living in the joint family and they constitute 15.07 per cent and 11.64 per cent respectively. It is inferred from the table that 86.85 per cent of the respondents of the study area live in nuclear family system.

136 Table 5.8 Occupation wise distribution of the respondents Sl. Name of the a b c d e f g Total No Panchayat 25 39 08 13 07 05 01 98 1 Annappanpettai (25.51) (39.80) (8.16) (13.27) (7.14) (5.10) (1.02) (100) 16 21 04 09 01 04 00 55 2 Vadapathi (29.09) (38.19) (7.27) (16.36) (1.82) (2.27) (00) (100) 15 36 02 04 04 05 00 66 3 Irumputhalai (22.73) (54.55) (3.03) (6.06) (6.06) (7.57) (00) (100) Ammapettai 56 96 14 26 12 14 01 219 Block Total (25.57) (44.44) (6.39) (11.87) (5.48) (6.39) (0.46) (100) 28 24 04 16 02 02 00 76 4 Vellur (36.84) (31.58) (5.26) (21.06) (2.63) (2.63) (00) (100) 36 44 08 30 02 11 00 131 5 Vadacheri (27.48) (33.59) (6.11) (22.90) (1.52) (8.40) (00) (100) 6 Pulavan 23 26 01 17 00 01 00 68 kudikadu (33.82) (38.24) (1.47) (25.00) (00) (1.47) (00) (100) Orathanadu 87 94 13 63 04 14 00 275 Block Total (31.64) (34.18) (4.73) (22.91) (1.45) (5.09) (00) (100) Over all Total 143 190 27 89 16 28 01 494 % (28.95) (30.46) (5.46) (18.01) (3.24) (5.67) (0.21) (100) Source: Primary data Note: a. Farmer b. Farmer cum agricultural labour, c. Farmer cum Business d. Farmer cum Non-agricultural Labour e.Farmer Cum Self Employed f.Farmer Cum Govt. Employee g. Others The occupation wise classification of the sample respondents is presented in the table 5.8. Out of 494 sample farmers, 143 sample farmers are looking after their farming business only and in this 56 of them from the Ammapet block and 87 of them from the Orathanadu block. There are 190 sample famers not only doing their farm business but also work in others’ land. Most of them are small farmers. Besides, 89 sample farmers undertake both agricultural works and non-agricultural works. The sample farmers who are business man, self employed and Government employees are 27, 16 and 28 in numbers respectively.

137 Table 5.9 Size of Land Holding

Sl. Name of the Marginal Small Medium Total No Panchayat (0 – 2) Hect. (2 – 4) Hect. (4 - 10) Hect. 52 33 13 98 1 Annappanpettai (53.06) (33.67) (13.27) (100) 36 14 05 55 2 Vadapathi (65.45) (25.46) (9.09) (100) 38 20 08 66 3 Irumputhalai (57.58) (30.30) (12.12) (100) Ammapettai 126 67 26 219 Block Total (57.53) (30.59) (11.88) (100) 39 33 04 76 4 Vellur (51.32) (43.42) (5.26) (100) 69 46 16 131 5 Vadacheri (52.67) (35.12) (12.21) (100) 23 40 05 68 6 Pulavan kudikadu (33.82) (58.82) (7.36) (100) Orathanadu Block 131 119 25 275 Total (47.64) (43.27) (9.09) (100) Over all Total 257 186 51 494

% (52.02) (37.65) (10.32) (100) Source: Primary data

Table 5.9 shows the classification of farmers on the basis of the size of ownership of the land. They are classified into three types viz., i) Marginal farmers ii) Small farmers and iii) Medium farmers. The large farmers with very large holdings of 25 acres and above are virtually nonexistent in the study area. This closely resembles the land ownership pattern of the country.

It shows that the number of marginal landholders is 257 among 494 respondents and they constitute 52.02 per cent to total respondents. 186 respondents have the small size lands and they represent 37.65 per cent in total. The number of respondents in the medium size land holding is 51 and they constitute 10.32 %. It is concluded that the majority of the farmers are marginal farmers. 138 Table 5.10 Farming experience of the farmers Above Sl. Name of the Below 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25 Total No Panchayat 5 years years years years years years 08 07 08 34 20 21 98 1 Annappanpettai (8.16) (7.15) (8.16) (34.69) (20.41) (21.43) (100) 01 06 07 13 18 10 55 2 Vadapathi (1.81) (10.91) (12.73) (23.64) (32.73) (18.18) (100) 02 06 13 20 15 10 66 3 Irumputhalai (3.03) (9.09) (19.69) (30.30) (22.73) (15.16) (100) Ammapettai 11 19 28 67 53 41 219 Block Total (5.02) (8.68) (12.79) (30.59) (24.20) (18.72) (100) 04 08 16 16 20 12 76 4 Vellur (5.26) (10.53) (21.05) (21.05) (26.32) (15.79) (100) 10 19 29 40 15 18 131 5 Vadacheri (7.63) (14.50) (22.15) (30.53) (11.45) (13.74) (100) Pulavan 04 08 10 13 24 09 68 6 kudikadu (5.88) (11.76) (14.72) (19.11) (35.29) (13.24) (100) Orathanadu 18 35 55 69 59 39 275 Block Total (6.55) (12.73) (20.00) (25.09) (21.45) (14.18) (100) Over all Total 29 54 83 136 112 80 494 % (5.87) (10.93) (16.80) (27.53) (22.67) (16.20) (100) Source: Primary data Table 5.10 presents the experience of the sample farmers in agriculture. It was found that 27.53 per cent of the sample farmers having the experience from 15 years to 20 years followed by 22.67 percent of the sample farmers who have the experience from 20 years to 25 years farming. The farmers who have been in this field for 10-15 years and above 25 years are 83 and 80 in numbers. The remaining sample farmers have the experience of below 10 years.

139 Table 5.11 Farming experience of the farmers in mechanized operations Sl. Name of the Below 5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 Above Total No Panchayat years years years years years 25 years 08 07 08 46 19 10 98 1 Annappanpettai (8.16) (7.14) (8.16) (46.94) (19.39) (10.21) (100) 01 06 12 28 05 03 55 2 Vadapathi (1.82) (10.91) (21.82) (50.91) (9.09) (5.45) (100) 02 06 20 23 11 04 66 3 Irumputhalai (3.03) (9.09) (30.30) (34.85) (16.67) (6.06) (100) Ammapettai 11 19 40 97 35 17 219 Block Total (5.02) (8.68) (18.26) (44.29) (15.98) (7.76) (100) 04 08 19 30 12 03 76 4 Vellur (5.26) (10.53) (25.00) (39.47) (15.79) (3.95) (100) 10 19 24 43 21 14 131 5 Vadacheri (7.63) (14.51) (18.32) (32.82) (16.03) (10.69) (100) Pulavan 04 08 13 25 15 03 68 6 kudikadu (5.88) (11.78) (19.11) (36.76) (22.06) (4.41) (100) Orathanadu 18 35 56 98 48 20 275 Block Total (6.55) (12.72) (20.37) (35.64) (17.45) (7.27) (100) Over all Total 29 54 96 195 83 37 494 % (5.87) (10.93) (19.43) (39.47) (16.80) (7.50) (100) Source: Primary data The table 5.11 exhibits the farming experience of the sample farmers in handling with equipments. A good majority of the sample farmers found in the experience category of 15 years to 20 years in handling the farm machines and equipments and 44.29 per cent of them belong to Ammapet block and the remaining 35.64 per cent of them belong to Orathanadu block. Only 5.87 per cent of the total sample farmers are having below five years of experience in handling farm machines and equipments.

140 Table 5.12 Details of Own Housing of the Respondents Sl. Name of the Yes No Total No Panchayat 1 Annappanpettai 95 03 98 2 Vadapathi 55 00 55 3 Irumputhalai 60 06 66 Ammapettai 210 09 219 Block Total (95.89) (4.11) (100) 4 Vellur 75 01 76 5 Vadacheri 126 05 131 6 Pulavan kudikadu 66 02 68 Orathanadu 267 08 275 Block Total (97.09) (2.91) (100) Over all Total 477 17 494

% (96.55) (3.45) (100) Source: Primary data

Table 5.12 presents the details of own housing possessed by the sample farmers. In Ammapet block, 95.89 per cent of the sample farmers have their own houses and the remaining 4.11 per cent do not have their own houses. In Orathanadu block, 97.09 per cent of the sample farmers have their own houses and the remaining 2.91 per cent of them do not possess the same. The sample farmers who are not having their own houses are marginal farmers.

141 Table 5.13 Nature of House of the Respondents

Name of the Sl. No Thatched Tile Concrete Total Panchayat 1 Annappanpettai 21 28 49 98 2 Vadapathi 07 05 43 55 3 Irumputhalai 19 08 39 66 Ammapettai 47 41 131 219 Block Total (21.46) (18.72) (59.82) (100) 4 Vellur 11 12 53 76 5 Vadacheri 39 41 51 131 Pulavan 6 18 16 34 68 kudikadu Orathanadu 68 69 138 275 Block Total (24.73) (25.09) (50.18) (100) Over all Total 115 110 269 494

% 23.27 22.26 54.47 100 Source: Primary data

The table 5.13 reveals the nature of houses of the sample farmers. It was found that more than 50 per cent of the sample farmers have concrete houses and 23.27 per cent of the small farmers have thatched houses. Only 22.26 per cent of the sample farmers are having tile houses.

The number of sample farmers having these three houses was found to be more in Orathanadu block than Ammapet block.

142 (A) II. Economic Conditions of the respondents Table 5.14 Annual income of the sample farmers (in Rs.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 v 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 7 0 o 0 5 5 0 0 1 1 1 2 b 5 7

Sl. Name of the 2 0 1 ------

a - 0

Total 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 t

No Panchayat d 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 n p 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 a 5 0 5 0 5 U 2 5 7 0 2 5 7 1 1 1 1

1 Annappanpettai 01 05 07 19 17 14 15 12 08 98 2 Vadapathi 00 03 04 11 10 07 08 07 05 55 3 Irumputhalai 00 03 05 13 11 10 10 08 06 66 Ammapettai 01 11 16 43 38 31 33 27 19 219 Block Total (0.46) (5.02) (7.30) (19.63) (17.35) (14.16) (15.07) (12.33) (8.68) (100) 4 Vellur 00 04 06 15 13 10 12 10 06 76 5 Vadacheri 01 07 10 26 23 16 20 17 11 131 Pulavan 6 00 04 05 13 12 10 10 08 06 68 kudikadu Orathanadu 01 15 21 54 48 36 42 35 23 275 Block Total (0.36) (5.45) (7.64) (19.64) (17.45) (13.09) (15.27) (12.73) (8.37) (100) Over all Total 02 26 37 97 86 67 75 62 42 494

% 0.40 5.26 7.48 19.65 17.41 13.56 15.18 12.56 8.50 100 Source: Primary data Table 5.14 represents the annual income of the sample farmers. In the present study, income means the gross earning of the farmers from all the sources. From the above table it is found that 2 of 494 respondents are having income below Rs.25000. All the other respondents earn more than Rs.25000 per annum. Among them 26 respondents earn income between Rs.25000 – Rs.50000, 37 respondents earn income between Rs.50000 - Rs.75000, the remaining 97 respondents earn between Rs.75000 - Rs.100000, and 86 respondents earn between Rs.100000 – Rs.125000. There are 67 of 494

143 respondents are having income between Rs.125000 - Rs.150000. A total of 75 respondents earn their income between Rs.150000 – Rs.175000, and 62 respondents earn between Rs.175000 – Rs.200000. There are 42 respondents earn Rs.200000 and above. It is interpreted that more than 50 per cent (246) of the respondents receive their income more than Rs.125000 per annum.

The following statistical formula is used to find out average annual income of the respondents by using Arithmetic mean and standard deviation.

The formula is,

∑fd = A + × c Where, d = (X – A), f is the frequency.N

The average annual income (Arithmetic Mean) is found to be Rs.1,28,390.

Another statistical tool of standard deviation is used to find out the deviation in average annual income using the formula,

S.D 2 ∑ ∑ = − × c The (Standard Deviation) is found to be Rs.49,117.

This value shows significant difference between the annual income of the Ammapettai and Orathanadu block respondents.

144 Table 5.15

Annual expenditure of the farmers (in Rs.) 0 0 0 0 0 e 0 0 0 v - 0 0 5 o 5 0 5 7 b

Sl. Name of the 2 0 - -

a 0

Total o 0 0 t 5

No Panchayat d

0 0 7 n p 0 0 a 5 0 U 2 5 1 Annappanpettai 37 48 09 04 98 2 Vadapathi 20 26 05 04 55 3 Irumputhalai 25 32 06 03 66 Ammapettai 82 106 20 11 219 Block Total (37.45) (48.40) (9.13) (5.02) (100) 4 Vellur 28 37 07 04 76 5 Vadacheri 49 64 13 05 131 6 Pulavan kudikadu 25 33 06 04 68 Orathanadu 102 134 26 13 275 Block Total (37.09) (48.73) (9.45) (4.73) (100) Over all Total 184 240 46 24 494

% 37.24 48.59 9.31 4.86 100 Source: Primary data Table 5.15 exhibits the expenditure made by the sample farmers annually. Of total sample farmers, nearly 50 per cent of them were found to be in the spending category of Rs.25000 to Rs.50000. They are followed by 37.24 per cent of total sample farmers who spend up to Rs.25000. Nearly 15 per cent of the sample farmers were only found to be spend more than Rs.50000 annually.

The following statistical formula is used to find out average annual expenditure of the respondents by using Arithmetic mean and Standard Deviation.

145 The formula is,

Where, d = (X – A), f is the frequency.

The average annual expenditure (Arithmetic Mean) is found to be Rs. 32,945.

Another statistical tool of standard deviation is used to find out the deviation in average annual expenditure using the formula,

S.D

The Standard Deviation is found to be Rs. 19,685. This value shows significant difference between the annual income of the Ammapettai and Orathanadu block respondents. Figure 5.7 Annual Expenditure - wise classification

240 250 Upto 25000

200 184

s 25000 - 50000 t n e

d 150 n

o 50000 - 75000 p s e

R 100

f o

. 75000 - and o 46 N above 50 24

0 Upto 25000 25000 - 50000 50000 - 75000 75000 - and above

Expenditure

146 Table 5.16 Savings of the respondents Sl. Name of the Yes No Total No Panchayat 1 Annappanpettai 77 21 98 2 Vadapathi 43 12 55 3 Irumputhalai 52 14 66 Ammapettai 172 47 219 Block Total (78.54) (21.46) (100) 4 Vellur 60 16 76 5 Vadacheri 103 28 131 6 Pulavan kudikadu 53 15 68 Orathanadu 216 59 275 Block Total (78.55) (21.45) (100) Over all Total 388 106 494

% 78.5 21.5 100 Source: Primary data

Savings of a person indicates his economic status. The table 5.16 shows the savings of the respondents of Ammapettai and Orathanadu block. Among the total 494 respondents, 388 respondents save and they contribute is 78.5. In Ammapettai block 172 respondents out of 219 save and their percentage is 78.54. In Orathanadu block, 216 respondents out of 275 save and they constitute 78.55. It is concluded that nearly three - fourth of the respondents save out of their income.

147 Table 5.17

Amount of Savings of the farmers (in Rs.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 v 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 7 0 o 0 5 5 0 0 1 1 1 2 b 5 7

Sl. Name of the 2 0 1 ------

a - 0

Total 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 t

No Panchayat d 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 n p 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 a 5 0 5 0 5 U 2 5 7 0 2 5 7 1 1 1 1 1 Annappanpettai 17 19 15 12 09 02 01 02 - 77 2 Vadapathi 10 10 08 06 06 01 01 01 - 43 3 Irumputhalai 12 13 08 08 07 01 01 02 - 52 Ammapettai 39 42 31 26 22 04 03 05 172 - Block Total (22.67) (24.42) (18.02) (15.12) (12.79) (2.33) (1.74) (2.91) (100) 4 Vellur 14 14 10 09 08 02 01 02 - 60 5 Vadacheri 21 24 20 16 14 03 02 03 - 103 6 Pulavan kudikadu 12 12 10 08 07 01 02 01 - 53 Orathanadu 47 50 40 33 29 06 05 06 216 - Block Total (21.76) (23.15) (18.52) (15.27) (13.43) (2.78) (2.31) (2.78) (100) Over all Total 86 92 71 59 51 10 08 11 - 388

% 22.16 23.71 18.21 15.20 13.14 2.57 2.06 2.87 - 100 Source: Primary data The table 5.17 gives the details of savings made by the sample farmers in the study area. The saving amount is classified into many categories. It starts with below Rs. 25000 to Rs.200000 and above. It was found that a good majority of the sample farmers fall under the first three categories of saving amount and the number of sample farmers become small if the size of saving amount increases. None of the respondents was found in the category of saving which is Rs. 200000 and above.

The large farmers and medium farmers save a substantial amount of saving since their income is large. The marginal and small farmers save small amount as they have many expenditure commitment. 148 Table 5.18 Savings avenues of the respondents Keeping Sl. Name of the Co-op. Post Banks Insurance cash Others Total No Panchayat bank office in hand 1 Annappanpettai 23 09 01 13 25 06 77 2 Vadapathi 13 05 02 07 13 03 43 3 Irumputhalai 16 11 02 08 11 04 52 Ammapettai 52 25 05 28 49 13 172 Block Total (30.23) (14.53) (2.91) (16.28) (28.49) (7.56) (100) 4 Vellur 18 07 01 10 21 03 60 5 Vadacheri 30 12 03 17 34 07 103 Pulavan 6 15 18 02 09 05 04 53 kudikadu Orathanadu 63 37 06 36 60 14 216 Block Total (29.17) (17.13) (2.78) (16.67) (27.78) (6.47) (100) Over all Total 115 62 11 64 109 27 388 % 29.67 15.97 2.83 16.49 28.09 6.95 100 Source: Primary data The table 5.18 presents different saving avenues available to the sample farmers. Agriculture is a gambling of monsoon. Hence farmers necessarily have to save money for their life. Nearly 78.54 per cent of the farmers, who are under the study, have known the benefits of saving. They used to save in the places like banks, post offices, insurance companies etc. The table 5.19 shows the various avenues of savings of the farmers. There are six saving avenues as mentioned in the table. The avenue of savings of 115 respondents out of 388 is banks. There are respondents out of 172 in Ammapettai block, 63 respondents out of 216 in Orathanadu block, save with the banks. The percentages of farmers who save money in banks are 30.23 and 29.17 respectively. Only 11 respondents out of 388 possess saving account with the post offices and their percentage is 2.83. Banks and co-operative banks are the predominant saving avenues followed by the insurance companies.

149 Table 5.19 Loans availed by the sample respondents Sl. Name of the Yes No Total No Panchayat 1 Annappanpettai 58 40 98 2 Vadapathi 33 22 55 3 Irumputhalai 39 27 66 Ammapettai 130 89 219 Block Total (59.36) (40.64) (100) 4 Vellur 45 31 76 5 Vadacheri 78 53 131 6 Pulavan kudikadu 40 28 68 Orathanadu 163 112 275 Block Total (59.27) (40.73) (100) Over all Total 293 201 494

% 59.31 40.69 100 Source: Primary data Getting Loan is an important indicator for any growing society. For agricultural operations loans take a pivotal role. Hence, the investigator has taken the data on loan details of the respondents. There are 293 respondents out of 494 got loans and they constitute to be 59.31 per cent to the total respondents. In Ammapettai block 130 respondents out of 219 availed loans and they formed 59.36 per cent. In Orathanadu block, 163 respondents out of 275 got loans and they constitute 59.27 per cent in total respondents of Orathanadu block. It is concluded that nearly 60 per cent of the total farmers availed loans for agricultural operations.

150 Table 5.20 Sources of Borrowing l y k d a e i s n n s n c e a a s s r o

r v r e b k i s e

Sl. Name of the e t . d m n d

h a Total p m l n a l n t e o

No Panchayat a e e o B - m i c L o o R r o F C C L

1 Annappanpettai 19 32 02 04 01 58 2 Vadapathi 08 21 01 03 - 33 3 Irumputhalai 10 22 01 05 01 39 Ammapettai 37 75 04 12 02 130 Block Total (28.46) (57.69) (3.08) (9.23) (1.54) (100) 4 Vellur 09 30 03 02 01 45 5 Vadacheri 29 45 02 02 - 78 6 Pulavan kudikadu 13 22 02 01 02 40 Orathanadu 51 97 07 05 03 163 Block Total (31.29) (59.51) (4.29) (3.07) (1.84) (100) Over all Total 88 172 11 17 05 293 % (30.03) (58.70) (3.75) (5.80) (1.71) 100 Source: Primary data The table 5.20 shows various sources of borrowings available to the sample farmers. Of the total sample farmers, more than 55 per cent availed their loans and advances from the cooperative banks and 30 per cent of the total sample farmers availed their loans from the commercial banks. There are some other sources which attract small number of farmers. It was found that more number of the sample farmers availed their loans and advances from the cooperative bank since there is chance for waiver of principal amount or interest or both.

151 Table 5.21 Possession of Cattles

Sl. Name of the Yes No Total No Panchayat 1 Annappanpettai 28 70 98 2 Vadapathi 16 39 55 3 Irumputhalai 19 47 66 Ammapettai 63 156 219 Block Total (28.77) (71.23) (100) 4 Vellur 23 53 76 5 Vadacheri 25 106 131 6 Pulavan kudikadu 26 42 68 Orathanadu 74 201 275 Block Total (26.91) (73.09) (100)

Over all Total 137 357 494

% 27.73 72.27 100 Source: Primary data Cattle population is one of the main sources of income to the rural people. Table 5.21 exhibits the details of cattle animals, owned by Small farmers in the study area. It is obvious that out of 494 respondents, 357 respondents do not possesses cattle, who represent 72.27 per cent in the farmers total. Remaining 137 respondents owned cattle and the percentage of these respondents is 27.73. The same has been found in both the blocks. In Ammapettai, only 63 out of 219 respondents have their own cattle. In Orathanadu block only 74 out of 275 respondents possess cattle. The cattle animals such as coats, cows provide supplement income to the sample farmers.

152 Table 5.22 Possession of Farm machineries and Equipments Sl. Marginal Small Medium Total Name of the Panchayat No. Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 1 Annappanpettai 36 16 15 18 13 - 64 34 2 Vadapathi 22 14 09 05 05 - 36 19 3 Irumputhalai 25 13 08 12 08 - 41 25 Ammapettai 83 43 32 35 26 0 141 78 Block Total (65.87) (34.13) (47.76) (52.24) (100) (0) (64.38) (35.62) 126 67 26 219 % (57.54) (30.59) (11.87) (100) 4 Vellur 11 28 21 12 04 - 36 40 5 Vadacheri 21 48 41 05 16 - 78 53 6 Pulavan kudikadu 09 14 24 16 05 - 38 30 Orathanadu 41 90 86 33 25 0 152 123 Block Total (31.30) (68.70) (72.27) (27.73) (100) (0) (55.27) (44.73) 131 119 25 275 % (47.64) (43.27) (9.09) (100) 124 133 118 68 51 0 293 201 Over all Total (48.25) (51.75) (63.44) (36.56) (100) (0) (59.31) (40.69) 257 186 51 494 % (52.03) (37.65) (10.32) (100)

Source: Primary data Note: Yes - indicates possessing machineries No - indicates not possessing machineries

153 Table 5.22 exhibits number of farmers who are holding farm machineries and equipments in Ammapettai and Orathanadu blocks. Out of 494 respondents, 293 are having machineries and equipments for agricultural purposes, who represents 59.31 per cent of total farmers. The remaining 40.69 per cent of total farmers do not possess these machineries. It shows that 64.38 per cent of Ammapettai farmers hold the machineries and equipments whereas only 55.27 per cent of Orathanadu farmers possess the machineries and equipments. This explains that Ammapettai farmers have adequate knowledge, skill and wealth to use and buy the machineries and equipment for agricultural purposes when compared to Orathanadu farmers.

The table explains that 65.87 per cent marginal farmers of Ammapettai block hold machineries and equipments whereas marginal farmers in Orathanadu who possess machineries and equipments is 31.30 per cent. This shows that Ammapettai block farmers have known for using machineries and equipments in agricultural field. Of total respondents, 257 marginal farmers and 124 farmers hold machineries and equipments. It reflects that 52.03 per cent of total farmers hold 48.25 per cent of farm machineries and equipments. 186 small farmers among 494 total farmers, hold 40.27 per cent of total farm machineries and equipments. 51 medium farmers out of 494 total farmers hold 10.32 per cent of total machineries and equipments. It is also inferred from the table that out of 131 marginal farmers only 41 marginal farmers hold machineries and equipments, the remaining 90 farmers do not hold machineries and equipments which means that though marginal farmers of Orthanadu block are large in numbers than Ammapettai block the percentage of holding machineries and equipment is lesser than Ammapettai block.

It is also noted that 65.87 per cent of marginal farmers of Ammapettai hold machineries and equipments whereas only 31.30 per cent of marginal farmers hold machineries and equipments which means that the marginal farmers of

154 Ammapettai seem to be in higher economic status to buy machineries and equipments than that of Orathanadu marginal farmers. It shows that out of 67 small farmers in Ammapettai only 32 farmers hold machineries and equipments, which becomes 47.76 per cent holding machineries and equipments. Out of 119 small farmers of Orathanadu block, 86 small farmers hold machineries and equipments which is 72.27 percentage of total holding of machineries and equipments.

It is inferred from the table that the small farmers in Orathanadu block may have awareness to use machineries and equipments and may have adequate economic background to buy machineries and equipments when compared to the small farmers of Ammapettai block. The table shows further that farmers of both Ammapettai and Orathanadu blocks hold machineries and equipments which means medium farmers have enough knowledge to utilize machineries and equipments and have adequate economic back ground to buy them. It is concluded that marginal farmers of Ammapettai block hold more machineries and equipments than Orathanadu block which is due to adequate knowledge to use machineries and equipments and adequate economic background to buy machineries and equipments for the farm work. The small farmers of Orathanadu block hold large numbers of machineries and equipments than small farmers of Ammapet block. The medium farmers in both the blocks are in better position in buying and using machineries and equipments than small and marginal farmers. At the outset, the farmers of Ammapettai block hold 48.12 per cent of machineries and equipments where as the farmers of Orathanadu block hold 51.88 per cent of machineries and equipments, even though Ammapettai block has 64.38 per cent of total farmers. But in Orathanadu block 59.31 per cent of total farmers hold 51.88 per cent of total machineries and equipments. It shows that these farmers have more knowledge and resources to buy and use the machineries and equipments.

155 Table 5.23 Farm Machineries and Equipments of the Marginal farmers (0 - 2 hect.) (in Nos.) Sl. Name of the a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Total No Panchayat 1 Annappanpettai 05 02 01 05 - - - - 02 05 11 - - - - 01 02 02 36 2 Vadapathi 01 01 - 04 - - - - 05 03 06 - - - - 02 01 01 24 3 Irumputhalai 02 - - 02 - - - - 03 04 04 - - - - 02 01 01 19 Ammapettai 08 03 01 11 10 12 21 05 04 04 79 ------Block Total (10.13) (3.80) (1.27) (13.92) (12.66)(15.19) (26.58) (6.33) (5.06) (5.06) (100) 4 Vellur 03 01 01 03 - - - - 04 04 08 - - - - 02 02 - 28 5 Vadacheri 06 03 01 07 - - - - 06 07 11 - - - - 01 04 03 49 6 Pulavan kudikadu 02 01 - 02 - - - - 05 05 06 - - - - 01 01 01 24 Orathanadu 11 05 02 12 15 16 25 04 07 04 101 ------Block Total (10.89) (4.95) (1.99) (11.88) (14.85)(15.84) (24.75) (3.96) (6.93) (3.96) (100) Over all Total 19 08 03 23 - - - - 25 28 46 - - - - 09 11 08 180 % 10.56 4.44 1.67 12.78 - - - - 13.89 15.55 25.56 - - - - 05 6.11 4.44 100 Source: Primary data

Notes: a. Tractor, b. Iron Plough, c. Disc Plough d. Power Tillers, e. Line Maker f. Paddy Transplanter, g. Machine Weeder, h. Duster, i. Oil Engine Pump Sets, j. Electrical Pump Sets, k. Jet Motor, l. Power Sprayers, m. Crusher Equipment, n. Harvester, o. Combine Harvester, p. Thresher. q. Trailer, r. Other.

156 The table 5.23 shows the farm machineries and equipments held by the marginal farmers in the study area. The table indicates that 18 types of farm machineries and equipments are available in Ammapettai and Orathanadu blocks but only 10 types of them are used by the marginal farmers. The Equipments such as (E) Line Maker, (F) Paddy Transplanter, (G) Machine Weeder, (H) Duster, (L) Power Sprayers, (M) Crusher Equipment, (N) Harvester, (O) Combine Harvester are not at all used by these farmers. Among 180 machineries and equipments, 23 power tillers, 19 tractors and 46 jet motors are being used by the farmers of Ammapettai and Orathanadu blocks.

Totally 79 farm machineries and equipments are found in Ammapettai block. Among them 11 are power tillers and 8 are tractors which form 13.92 per cent and 10.13 per cent of total machineries and equipments respectively. The same scenario can be found in Orathanadu block where of 101 machineries and equipments 12 are power tillers and 11 are tractors used by the farmers of this block, which is 11.88 per cent and 10.89 per cent of total machineries of equipments respectively. In Ammapettai and Orathanadu block 21 and 25 jet motors contributed to this total. The calculated percentage is 26.58 and 24.75 respectively. The above data clearly shows that jet motors occupies the prime place in agricultural activities of Ammapettai and Orathanadu blocks.

157 Table 5.24

Farm Machineries and Equipments of the Small farmers (2 - 4 hect.) (in Nos.) Sl. Name of the A b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Total No Panchayat 1 Annappanpettai 10 08 02 09 - - - - 06 08 18 01 - - - 06 08 03 79 2 Vadapathi 04 04 01 05 - - - - 03 05 06 - - - - 04 03 01 36 3 Irumputhalai 06 06 02 07 - - - - 03 03 08 - - - - 02 05 01 43 Ammapettai 20 18 05 21 12 16 32 01 12 16 05 158 ------Block Total (12.66)(11.39) (3.16) (13.29) (7.60) (10.13)(20.25) (0.63) (7.60) (10.13) (3.16) (100) 4 Vellur 06 05 01 05 - - - - 07 04 11 - - - - 04 06 01 50 5 Vadacheri 13 11 02 12 - - - - 05 09 16 02 - - - 04 09 04 87 6 Pulavan kudikadu 06 04 01 03 - - - - 05 05 07 01 - - - 02 05 02 41 Orathanadu 25 20 04 20 17 18 34 03 10 20 07 178 ------Block Total (14.04)(11.24) (2.25) (11.24) (9.55) (10.11)(19.10) (1.69) (5.62) (11.23) (3.93) (100) Over all Total 45 38 09 41 - - - - 29 34 66 04 - - - 22 36 12 336 % 13.39 11.31 2.68 12.20 - - - - 8.63 10.12 19.64 1.19 - - - 6.55 10.71 3.57 100 Source: Primary data Notes: a. Tractor, b. Iron Plough, c. Disc Plough d. Power Tillers, e. Line Maker f. Paddy Transplanter, g. Machine Weeder, h. Duster, i. Oil Engine Pump Sets, j. Electrical Pump Sets, k. Jet Motor, l. Power Sprayers, m. Crusher Equipment, n. Harvester, o. Combine Harvester, p. Thresher. q. Trailer, r. Other.

158 Table 5.24 shows the farm machineries and equipments of the Small farmers in the study area. The table indicates that 18 types of farm machineries and equipments available in Ammapettai and Orathanadu blocks but only 11 types of them are used by the small farmers. They are (A) Tractor, (B) Iron Plough,(C) Disc Plough (D) Power Tillers, (E) Oil Engine Pump Sets, (J) Electrical Pump Sets, (K) Jet Motor, (L) Power Sprayers, (P) Thresher and (Q) Trailer are only used by these farmers. Among 336 machineries and equipments, 41 power tillers, 45 tractors and 66 jet motors are being used by the farmers of Ammapettai and Orathanadu blocks.

Totally 158 farm machineries and equipments are found in Ammapettai block. Among them 21 power tillers and 20 tractors which form 13.29 per cent and 12.66 per cent of total machineries and equipments. The same scenario can be found in Orathanadu block where out of 178 machineries and equipments 20 are power tillers and 25 are tractors used by the farmers of this block, which is 11.24 per cent and 14.04 per cent of total machineries of equipments respectively. In Ammapettai and Orathanadu block 32 and 34 jet motors contributed to this total. The calculated percentage is 20.25 and 19.10 respectively. The above data clearly shows that jet motors occupy the top position in agricultural activities of Ammapettai and Orathanadu blocks.

159 Table 5.25 Farm Machineries and Equipments of the Medium farmers (4 - 10 hect.) (in Nos.) Sl. Name of the A b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Total No Panchayat 1 Annappanpettai 06 05 02 08 - 02 02 - 02 09 19 02 - 01 - 03 06 04 71 2 Vadapathi 05 03 02 05 - 01 - - 01 06 11 01 - - - 01 04 02 42 3 Irumputhalai 03 02 01 06 - 01 01 - 01 05 09 01 - - - 02 03 03 38 Ammapettai 14 10 05 19 04 03 04 20 39 04 01 06 13 09 151 - - - - Block Total (9.27) (6.62) (3.31) (12.58) (2.65) (1.99) (2.65) (13.25)(25.83)(2.65) (0.66) (3.97) (8.60) (5.97) (100) 4 Vellur 07 04 02 03 - 01 (1.99) - - 05 13 01 - - - 02 06 02 46 5 Vadacheri 09 07 03 06 - 03 01 - 03 09 24 01 - 01 - 03 07 03 80 6 Pulavan kudikadu 04 03 01 04 - - - - 01 08 16 01 - - - 01 03 02 44 Orathanadu 20 14 06 13 04 01 04 22 53 03 01 06 16 07 170 - - - - Block Total (11.76) (8.24) (3.53) (7.65) (2.35) (0.59) (2.35) (12.94)(31.18)(1.76) (0.59) (3.53) (9.41) (4.12) (100) Over all Total 34 24 11 32 - 08 04 - 08 42 92 07 - 02 - 12 29 16 321 % 10.59 7.48 3.43 9.97 - 2.49 1.25 - 2.49 13.08 28.66 2.18 - 0.62 - 3.74 9.04 4.98 100 Source: Primary data Notes: a. Tractor, b. Iron Plough, c. Disc Plough d. Power Tillers, e. Line Maker f. Paddy Transplanter, g. Machine Weeder, h. Duster, i. Oil Engine Pump Sets, j. Electrical Pump Sets, k. Jet Motor, l. Power Sprayers, m. Crusher Equipment, n. Harvester, o. Combine Harvester, p. Thresher. q. Trailer, r. Other.

160 Table 5.25 explains the farm machineries and equipments held and used by the medium farmers in the study area. The table points out that 18 types of farm machineries and equipments are available in Ammapettai and Orathanadu blocks but only 14 of them are used by the medium farmers. The farm machineries such as (E) Line Maker (H) Duster, (M) Crusher Equipment, and (O) Combine Harvester are not at all used by these farmers. Among 321 machineries and equipments, 32 power tillers, 34 tractors and 92 jet motors are being used by the farmers of Ammapettai and Orathanadu blocks.

Totally 151 farm machineries and equipments are found in Ammapettai block. Among them 19 are power tillers and 14 tractors which form 12.58 per cent and 9.27 per cent of total machineries and equipments. The same scenario can be found in Orathanadu block where out of 170 machineries and equipments 13 are power tillers and 20 are tractors used by the farmers of this block, which is 7.65 per cent and 11.76 per cent of total machineries of equipments. In Ammapettai and Orathanadu block 39 and 53 jet motors contributed to this total. The calculated percentage is respectively 25.83 and 31.18.

161 Table 5.26 Number of Farm Machineries and Equipments held by overall respondents (in Nos.) Sl. Name of the A b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Total No Panchayat 1 Annappanpettai 21 15 05 22 - 02 02 - 10 22 48 03 - 01 - 10 16 09 186 2 Vadapathi 10 08 03 14 - 01 - - 09 14 23 01 - - - 07 08 04 102 3 Irumputhalai 11 08 03 15 - 01 01 - 07 12 21 01 - - - 06 09 05 100 Ammapettai 42 31 11 51 04 03 26 48 92 05 01 23 33 18 388 - - - - Block Total (10.82) (7.99) (2.84) (13.15) (1.03) (0.77) (6.70) (12.37)(23.71)(1.29) (0.25) (5.93) (8.51) (4.64) (100) 4 Vellur 16 10 4 11 - 01 - - 11 13 32 01 - - - 08 14 03 124 5 Vadacheri 28 21 06 25 - 03 01 - 14 25 51 03 - 01 - 08 20 10 216 6 Pulavan kudikadu 12 08 02 09 - - - - 11 18 29 02 - - - 04 09 05 109 Orathanadu 56 39 12 45 04 01 36 56 112 06 01 20 43 18 449 - - - - Block Total (12.47) (8.69) (2.67) (10.02) (0.89) (0.22) (8.02) (12.47)(24.94)(1.34) (0.22) (4.46) (9.58) (4.01) (100) Over all Total 98 70 23 96 - 08 04 - 62 104 204 11 - 02 - 43 76 36 837 % 11.71 8.36 2.75 11.47 - 0.96 0.48 - 7.41 12.42 24.37 1.31 - 0.24 - 5.14 9.08 4.30 100 Source: Primary data Notes: a. Tractor, b. Iron Plough, c. Disc Plough d. Power Tillers, e. Line Maker f. Paddy Transplanter, g. Machine Weeder, h. Duster, i. Oil Engine Pump Sets, j. Electrical Pump Sets, k. Jet Motor, l. Power Sprayers, m. Crusher Equipment, n. Harvester, o. Combine Harvester, p. Thresher. q. Trailer, r. Other.

162 Table 5.26 explains that 837 farm machineries and equipments are held by 293 farmers of Ammapettai and Orathanadu blocks. Among them, 204 are jet motors, 104 electrical pump sets and 98 are tractors which stand first, second and third positions in the utilization of machineries and equipments by the farmers. The jet motors occupy 24.37 per cent of all machineries and equipments.

It is also shown in the table that Orathanadu farmers give priority to jet motors like Ammapettai farmers which form 24.94 per cent and 23.71 per cent of total machineries and equipments respectively. Both Ammapettai and Orathanadu blocks’ farmers give priority to jet motors and electrical pump sets for exploring water for cultivation. Other than pumps, these farmers used to purchase tractors as shown in the table that they possess 98 tractors out of 837 total machineries and equipments. It is noteworthy that Orathanadu farmers use more jet pumps, electrical pumpsets and tractors than Ammapettai farmers.

Harvester, machine weeder, paddy transplanter, power sprayers and power tiller are some of the machineries which occupy 0.24 %, 0.48 %, 0.96 %, 1.31 %, and 11.47 % of total machineries respectively. Hence it is interpreted that jet motors, electrical pumpsets and tractors dominate more than other machineries and equipments for agricultural purposes in both Ammapettai and Orathanadu blocks.

163 Table 5.27 Bullock Drawn Implements (in Nos.)

Sl. Name of the a b c d e f g h i Total No Panchayat 1 Annappanpettai 33 - - 15 - - - - - 48 2 Vadapathi 19 - - 07 - - - - 26 3 Irumputhalai 19 - - 08 - - - - - 27 Ammapettai 71 30 101 ------Block Total (70.30) (29.70) (100) 4 Vellur 26 - - 12 - - - - - 38 5 Vadacheri 43 - - 21 - - - - - 64 Pulavan 6 20 - - 05 - - - - - 25 kudikadu Orathanadu 89 38 127 ------Block Total (70.08) (29.92) (100) Over all Total 160 - - 68 - - - - 228 % 70.17 - - 29.83 - - - - - 100 Source: Primary data Notes: a. Plough (Wooden) b.Disc Harrow c.Tropicultor d.Land Leveler e.Seed Drills f.SeedCum Fertilizer Drill g.Row paddy Seeder h.ConoWeeder i.others

Table 5.27 shows the bullock drawn implements of the farmers in the study area. The table indicates 9 types of implements are available in Ammapettai and Orathanadu blocks. They are a)Plough (Wooden) (b)Disc Harrow (c)Tropicultor d) Land Leveler (e)Seed Drills (f)Seed Cum Fertilizer Drill (g)Row paddy Seeder (h)ConoWeeder. But only 2 types of them are used by the farmers. They are Wooden Plough and Land Leveler. Among 228 bullock drawn implements, 160 wooden plough and 68 land leveler are being used by the farmers of Ammapettai and Orathanadu blocks.

Totally 101 bullock drawn implements are found in Ammapettai block. Among them, 71 are wooden plough and 30 are land leveler which form 70.30 per cent and 29.70 per cent of total bullock drawn implements. The same scenario is found in Orathanadu block where out of 127 bullock drawn implements 89 are wooden plough and 38 land leveler used by the farmers of this block, which is 70.08 per cent and 29.92 per cent of total machineries of equipments respectively. 164 (B) I. AWARENESS ON FARM MECHANISATION Table 5.28 Awareness about the government subsidy for buying agricultural machines

Sl. Name of the Panchayat Yes No Total No 1 Annappanpettai 92 06 98 2 Vadapathi 52 03 55 3 Irumputhalai 62 04 66 Ammapettai 206 13 219 Block Total (94.06) (5.94) (100) 4 Vellur 71 05 76 5 Vadacheri 122 09 131 6 Pulavan kudikadu 64 04 68 257 18 275 Orathanadu Block Total (93.45) (6.55) (100) Over all Total 463 31 494 % 93.72 06.28 100 Source: Primary data The table 5.28 shows the awareness about the subsidy given by the Government. In Ammapettai block, 206 respondents out of 219 respondents got awareness on farm machines and subsidies given by the Government. They contribute 94.06 per cent to total sample farmers in this block. Majority of farmers in three panchayats in this block got awareness. Similarly, in Orathanadu block, 93.45 per cent of the sample farmers out of 275 farmers got awareness on the subsidy. Like that of Ammapettai block, in this block too, a majority of farmers were found to be in selected three panchayats under the category of awareness. Only 6.55 per cent of the sample farmers in the Orathanadu block fall under the unawareness category.

Mass media such as television, news papers, radio and the co operative societies play a crucial role in creating awareness regarding the subsidies which are available to the farmers.

165 Table 5.29 Awareness on the amount of subsidy

Sl. No Name of the panchayat Yes No Total

1 Annappanpettai 01 97 98 2 Vadapathi 00 55 55 3 Irumputhalai 00 66 66 Ammapettai 01 218 219 Block Total (0.46) (99.54) (100) 4 Vellur 01 75 76 5 Vadacheri 02 129 131 6 Pulavan kudikadu 00 68 68 03 272 275 Orathanadu Block Total (0.73) (99.27) (100) Over all Total 04 490 494 % 0.80 99.20 100 Source: Primary data

The table 5.29 provides the details of amount provided by the Government as subsidy towards buying the farm machines. From the table it is understood that only a few farmers are well aware of the subsidy amount and majority of them are not fully aware of the amount of subsidy which the Government provides to them. In all the selected panchayats of Ammapettai block and Orathanadu block, 99 per cent of the farmers are not fully aware of the size of amount which is provided by the Government as farm subsidy for buying the farm machines and equipments. In general, farmers are not much interested in knowing the amount of subsidy. Because, they pay final price for the machines that they purchase and they know that this price is offered after deducting subsidy. Only less than one per cent of the total farmers are aware of the amount of farm subsidy.

166 Table 5.30 Awareness about the department which provides agricultural subsidy

Sl. Name of the Panchayat Yes No Total No

1 Annappanpettai 02 96 98

2 Vadapathi 01 54 55

3 Irumputhalai 01 65 66 Ammapettai 04 215 219 Block Total (1.83) (98.17) (100) 4 Vellur 02 74 76

5 Vadacheri 04 127 131

6 Pulavan kudikadu 02 66 68 Orathanadu 08 267 275 Block Total (2.91) (97.09) (100) Over all Total 12 482 494

% 2.42 97.58 100 Source: Primary data Table 5.30 pictures the awareness among the sample farmers on the department which provides agricultural subsidy. A total of 219 sample farmers in Ammapettai block and 275 sample farmers in Orathanadu block were studied in this regard. Of them, 98.17 per cent of the sample farmers in Ammapettai block are not aware of the department which provides subsidy for purchasing of agricultural machines. The same is the case in Orathanadu block where 97.09 per cent of the sample farmers are not aware of the concerned department which provides the subsidy. Only a few sample farmers are aware of it. The ignorance prevailing even among the literate farmers regarding the concerned department which provides the subsidy.

167 Table 5.31 Awareness on the availability of agricultural machines for rent Sl. Name of the Panchayat Yes No Total No 1 Annappanpettai 30 68 98 2 Vadapathi 17 38 55 3 Irumputhalai 20 46 66 Ammapettai 67 152 219 Block Total (30.59) (69.41) (100) 4 Vellur 23 53 76 5 Vadacheri 40 91 131 6 Pulavan kudikadu 21 47 68 84 191 275 Orathanadu Block Total (30.55) (69.45) (100) Over all Total 151 343 494 % 30.56 69.44 100 Source: Primary data Table 5.31 portrays the awareness about the lending of farm machines by the Government for rent. Small farmers are not affording of buying their farm machines on their own. For their benefits, Government lends these machines for rent. In Ammapettai block, 30.59 per cent of the sample farmers are aware of this. The remaining 69.41 per cent of the sample farmers are not aware of this. The Orathanadu block also witnessed the same thing. The farmers who do not aware about Government’s lending of farm machines in this block is 69.45 per cent and the remaining 30.55 per cent of the farmers in this block are not aware of this. Small farmers in these blocks avail this when they prepare their land for cultivation. This substantially reduces the cost of cultivation and also saves their considerable time.

168 Table 5.32 Awareness on different types of agricultural machines available for rent Sl. Name of the Panchayat Yes No Total No 1 Annappanpettai 08 90 98 2 Vadapathi 04 51 55 3 Irumputhalai 05 61 66 Ammapettai 17 202 219 Block Total (7.76) (92.24) (100) 4 Vellur 06 70 76 5 Vadacheri 10 121 131 6 Pulavan kudikadu 05 63 68 21 254 275 Orathanadu Block Total (7.64) (92.36) (100) Over all Total 38 456 494 % 07.69 92.31 100 Source: Primary data

Table 5.32 reveals the awareness among the sample farmers about different types of agricultural machines which are lend for rent. A variety of agricultural machines are available for rental purpose. These machines are used right from the preparation of land for cultivation to harvesting the crops. In Ammapettai block, only 7.76 per cent of the sample farmers got aware of this and 92.24 per cent of them are not aware this. Almost the same condition prevails in Orathanadu block.

Medium and small farmers in these blocks have their own agricultural machines and marginal farmers are not able to have them on their own. Since the prices of agricultural machines are high, they are not affording of buying them. In order to avail the farm equipments, the Government lends agricultural machines to the farmers especially to the small farmers. The medium farmers also avail this during the busy cultivation seasons.

169 Table 5.33 Awareness about the amount of rent Sl. Name of the Yes No Total No Panchayat 1 Annappanpettai 02 96 98 2 Vadapathi 02 53 55 3 Irumputhalai 02 64 66 Ammapettai 06 213 219 Block Total (2.74) (97.26) (100) 4 Vellur 02 74 76 5 Vadacheri 03 128 131 6 Pulavan kudikadu 02 66 68 Orathanadu Block 07 268 275 Total (2.55) (97.45) (100) Over all Total 13 481 494 % 02.63 97.37 100 Source: Primary data Table 5.33 conveys the awareness among the farmers about the amount of rent charged by the Government. A total of 6 sample farmers (2.74 per cent) in Ammapettai block out of 219, know the amount of rent for agricultural machines which are charged by the Government and 97.26 per cent of them do not know the exact amount of rent for the same. Whereas in Orathanadu block, out of 275 sample farmers, only 2.55 per cent of them know the size of rent charged towards the agricultural machines and 97.45 per cent of them do not know this.

Apart from the Government lending of farm machineries, some farmers who own the agricultural machines lend them for rent. But they charge high amount of rent than the Government. The hike in petroleum products, wages of the machine operators, hike in prices of agricultural machines are some important factors for charging the higher amount of rent.

170 Table 5.34 Awareness on Institutional loan facilities Sl. Name of the Panchayat Yes No Total No 1 Annappanpettai 05 93 98 2 Vadapathi 02 53 55 3 Irumputhalai 02 64 66 Ammapettai 09 210 219 Block Total (4.10) (95.90) (100) 4 Vellur 03 73 76 5 Vadacheri 06 125 131 6 Pulavan kudikadu 04 64 68 Orathanadu Block 13 262 275 Total (4.72) (95.28) (100) Over all Total 22 472 494 % 02.22 97.78 100 Source: Primary data Table 5.34 provides the details of awareness among the sample farmers in the select blocks about the financial institutions which provide loans and advances towards purchasing of agricultural machines. More than 95 per cent of the sample farmers in both the blocks do not get awareness about the loans and advances and the lending agencies. This is known to only four per cent of the sample respondents in these blocks.

Whenever the farmers who aware these facilities go for buying the agricultural machines on their own, they approach the officials concerned, friends, nearby farmers and thereby they come to know the details of financial support and various sources of finance for buying the agricultural machines. The district level urban cooperative banks, cooperative societies, some nationalized banks and private sector banks offer agriculture loans to the farmers for buying the agricultural machines and these details are put up in the banks’ notice boards and advertisements. 171 Table 5.35 Awareness on training and usage

Sl. No Name of the Panchayat Yes No Total

1 Annappanpettai - 98 98

2 Vadapathi 01 54 55

3 Irumputhalai - 66 66 Ammapettai 01 218 219 Block Total (0.46) (99.54) (100) 4 Vellur 01 75 76

5 Vadacheri - 131 131

6 Pulavan kudikadu 02 66 68 03 272 275 Orathanadu Block Total (1.09) (98.91) (100) Over all Total 04 490 494 % 0.80 99.20 100 Source: Primary data Table 5.35 shows the awareness attained by the sample farmers in Ammapettai and Orathanadu block about the training offered by the Government on usage of agricultural machines. Almost all the sample farmers, except one or two, do not know about the training programmes which are conducted by the Government on the usage of agricultural machines.

Farmers know the training programme provided by the Government through agricultural extension officers, media and friends.

172 Table 5.36 Training attended by the sample farmers

Sl. Name of the Panchayat Yes No Total No 1 Annappanpettai 03 95 98 2 Vadapathi 02 53 55 3 Irumbuthalai 02 64 66 Ammapettai 07 212 219 Block Total (3.20) (96.80) (100) 4 Vellur 03 73 76 5 Vadacheri 08 123 131 6 Pulavan kudikadu 03 65 68 14 261 275 Orathanadu Block Total (5.09) (94.91) (100) Over all Total 21 473 494 % 04.25 95.75 100 Source: Primary data

Table 5.36 gives the details of training taken by the sample respondents towards the functions and operations of agricultural machines. Out of 219 sample farmers in Ammapettai block, 96.80 per cent of them are not getting training and they are not able to operate their agricultural machines on their own. It is 94.91 per cent in the case of Orathanadu block. Only a few respondents attended the training programmes and are able to operate their agricultural machines on their own.

Busy schedule over the agricultural activities, communication gap, unwilling to attend the training programme are major causes found in this regard.

173 Table 5.37 Awareness on repairing the agricultural machines

Sl. No Name of the Panchayat Yes No Total

1 Annappanpettai 06 92 98

2 Vadapathi 04 51 55

3 Irumbuthalai 04 62 66 Ammapettai 14 205 219 Block Total (6.39) (93.61) (100) 4 Vellur 05 71 76

5 Vadacheri 08 123 131

6 Pulavan kudikadu 05 63 68 Orathanadu Block 18 257 275 Total (6.55) (93.45) (100) Over all Total 32 462 494

% 06.47 93.53 100 Source: Primary data Table 5.37 portrays the awareness prevailing among the selected farmers of Ammapettai and Orathanadu blocks over the knowledge of repairing the agricultural machines. In both the blocks, 93 per cent of them did not get any awareness about the knowledge of repairing the same. Only seven per cent of them got knowledge of repairing the farm machineries.

This is because of the fact that most of the farmers appoint farm operators and they do not want to show much interest in knowing the repairing of agricultural machines. However, it requires mechanical and electrical knowledge.

174 Table 5.38 Awareness on usage of agriculture machines during plantation activities

Name of the Sl. No Yes No Total Panchayat 1 Annappanpettai 32 66 98 2 Vadapathi 18 37 55 3 Irumbuthalai 21 45 66 Ammapettai 71 148 219 Block Total (32.42) (67.58) (100) 4 Vellur 25 51 76 5 Vadacheri 42 89 131 6 Pulavan kudikadu 22 46 68 Orathanadu Block 89 186 275 Total (32.36) (67.64) (100) Over all Total 160 334 494 % 32.38 67.62 100 Source: Primary data Table 5.38 conveys the awareness among the sample farmers to use their agricultural machines during the time of plantations. The method and process of plantations for every crop differ from one another. The preparation of land for a particular plantation needs a set of operating methods of farm machineries. In Ammapettai block, more than 65 per cent of the sample farmers are not aware of this and this is the same case in Orathanadu block. The new generation farmers in these blocks got awareness on using their agricultural machines during plantations periods.

175 Table 5.39 Awareness about insuring the agriculture machines

Name of the Sl. No Yes No Total Panchayat

1 Annappanpettai 03 95 98

2 Vadapathi 02 53 55

3 Irumbuthalai 02 64 66 Ammapettai 07 212 219 Block Total (3.20) (96.80) (100) 4 Vellur 03 73 76

5 Vadacheri 04 127 131

6 Pulavan kudikadu 03 65 68 Orathanadu 10 265 275 Block Total (3.64) (96.36) (100) Over all Total 17 477 494

% 03.44 96.56 100 Source: Primary data Table 5.39 conveys the awareness among the farmers over the insurance and related matters regarding the agricultural machines. There is need for insuring the agricultural machines since they meet accident at any time. Out of 219 same farmers in Ammapettai block, 96.80 per cent of them do not have any awareness over the insurance of farm machineries. This is followed by 3.20 per cent of them got awareness on this.

In Orathanadu block, 96.36 per cent of the sample farmers do not have any awareness about this and only 3.64 per cent of them are aware of this.

176 Table 5.40 Awareness on machine power in accordance with the productivity

Name of the Sl. No Yes No Total Panchayat

1 Annappanpettai 04 94 98 2 Vadapathi 04 51 55 3 Irumbuthalai 06 60 66 Ammapettai 14 205 219 Block Total (6.39) (93.61) (100) 4 Vellur 05 71 76 5 Vadacheri 08 123 131 6 Pulavan kudikadu 02 66 68 Orathanadu 15 260 275 Block Total (5.45) (94.55) (100) Over all Total 29 465 494

% 05.87 94.13 100 Source: Primary data Table 6.40 gives the details of awareness attained by the farmers in the select blocks over the selection of agricultural machines with different capacities. More than 90 per cent of the sample farmers in these blocks do not have any awareness and only the remaining sample farmers got awareness.

The selection of a particular capacity of a agricultural machines depends upon the scale of cultivation, degree of farm mechanization, cost of the machines. Even a farmer buys higher capacity of agricultural machineries, he lend them to others as excess capacity usage.

177 Table No 5.41 Ammapettai Block Overall Awareness Results

Subsidy Rental Rent for Amount of Offering Amount of Table Name given by machineries different Loan facility subsidy dept. rent Govt. (Govt.) machineries Name of the s s s s s s s o o o o o o Sl. o e e e e e e e N N N N N N Panchayat N Y Y Y Y Y Y No Y

1 Annappanpettai 92 06 01 97 02 96 30 68 08 90 02 96 05 93

2 Vadapathi 52 03 00 55 01 54 17 38 04 51 02 53 02 53

3 Irumbuthalai 62 04 00 66 01 65 20 46 05 61 02 64 02 64

Total 206 13 01 218 04 215 67 152 17 202 06 213 09 210

% 94.06 5.94 0.45 99.55 1.83 98.17 30.59 69.41 7.76 92.24 2.74 97.26 4.10 95.90

Total Respondents 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 Source: Primary Data

178 Table No 5.41 (Cont.,)

Ammapettai Block Overall Awareness Results

Awareness Training Usage Repairing Insurance Selection Table Name on govt. already different Total knowledge awareness of capacity Training availed machineries s s s s s s o o o o o Sl. Name of the o e e e e e e Yes No N N N N N N Y Y Y Y Y No Panchayat Y

1 Annappanpettai - 98 03 95 06 92 32 66 03 95 04 94 185 1089

2 Vadapathi 01 54 02 53 04 51 18 37 02 53 04 51 108 607

3 Irumbuthalai - 66 02 64 04 62 21 45 02 64 06 60 126 732

Total 01 218 07 212 14 205 71 148 07 212 14 205 419 2428

% 0.46 99.54 3.20 96.80 6.39 93.61 32.42 67.58 3.20 96.80 6.39 93.61 14.72 85.28 Total 219 219 219 219 219 219 2847 Respondents Source: Primary Data

179 The table 5.41 conveys the overall results of awareness on farm mechanization among the select farmers in Ammapettai block. A total of 219 sample farmers were chosen in this block. Regarding the subsidy given by the Government towards purchase of farm machineries and equipments, 206 sample farmers (94.06 per cent) got awareness on it and it is 218 farmers (99.55 per cent) do not have awareness on the size of amount of subsidy given by the Government. Similarly 98.17 per cent of the sample farmers in this block do not know the department which provides the subsidy. 30.59 per cent and 69.41 per cent of the sample farmers who got awareness and not about the rental machineries provided by the Government respectively. More than 90 per cent of the sample farmers did not get awareness about the different amounts of rent for different machines. The availability of loan facility to buy the agricultural machines is known to only 4.10 per cent of the sample farmers and the remaining are not aware of it.

Almost all the sample farmers except one are not aware of the training offered by the Government and only 3.20 per cent of the sample farmers got training already. 14 sample farmers (6.39 per cent) have the knowledge of repairing the farm equipments and machineries. A total of 71 farmers (32. 42 per cent) got awareness on using different types of machines and at the same time 3.20 per cent of the farmers only got the awareness on insuring the agricultural machines. The farmers who got awareness and not regarding the selection of capacity of the agricultural machines contribute 6.39 per cent and 93.61 per cent to the total sample farmers respectively.

180 Table No 5.42 Orathanadu Block - Overall Awareness Results Subsidy Rental Rent for Amount of Offering Amount of Table Name given by machineries different Loan facility subsidy dept. rent Govt. (Govt.) machineries Sl. s s s s s s s

Name of the o o o o o o o e e e e e e e

No N N N N N N N Panchayat Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

1 Vellur 71 05 01 75 02 74 23 53 06 70 02 74 03 73

2 Vadacheri 122 09 02 129 04 127 40 91 10 121 03 128 06 125

3 Pulavan kudikadu 64 04 00 68 02 66 21 47 05 63 02 66 04 64

Total 257 18 03 272 08 267 84 191 21 254 07 268 13 262

% 93.45 6.55 0.73 99.27 2.91 97.09 30.55 69.45 7.64 92.36 2.55 97.45 4.72 95.28 Total 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 Respondents Source: Primary Data

181 Table No 5.42 (Cont.,)

Orathanadu Block Overall Awareness Results Awareness Training Usage Repairing Insurance Selection Table Name on govt. already different Total knowledge awareness of capacity Training availed machineries s s s s s s

Sl. Name of the o o o o o o e e e e e e Yes No N N N N N N No Panchayat Y Y Y Y Y Y

1 Vellur 01 75 03 73 05 71 25 51 03 73 05 71 150 838

2 Vadacheri - 131 08 123 08 123 42 89 04 127 08 123 257 1446

3 Pulavan kudikadu 02 66 03 65 05 63 22 46 03 65 02 66 135 749

Total 03 272 14 261 18 257 89 186 10 265 15 260 542 3033

% 1.09 98.91 5.09 94.91 6.55 93.45 32.36 67.63 3.64 96.36 5.45 94.54 15.16 84.84

Total Respondents 275 275 275 275 275 275 3575 Source: Primary Data

182 Table 5.42 presents the level of awareness among the sample farmers about the farm mechanization in Orathanadu block. A total of 275 sample farmers were chosen for this analysis. As far as awareness on farm mechanization and agricultural machines usage is concerned a variety of awareness criteria have been used. In the case of subsidy given by the Government towards the purchase of farm machineries, 93.45 per cent of the farmers got awareness on this but only 0.73 per cent of the farmers know the size of the amount of subsidy. Only 2.91 per cent of the farmers got awareness on the Government department which provides subsidy. The number of respondents who got awareness on machineries that are lent for rent by the Government is 84(30.55 per cent). The number for different types of rent for different machineries is 21 (7.64 per cent). Of the sample farmers, just 2.55 per cent of them know about the size of rent amount. The loan facility is known to only 13 farmers (4.72 per cent). Similarly, only three sample farmers in this block got awareness on the training programme conducted by the Government on usage of farm machines and 14 sample farmers are having the knowledge of repairing the farm machines and 89 are well versed in using different agricultural machines. 10 (3.64 per cent) and 15 sample farmers (5.45 per cent) got awareness on insuring the machineries and selection of right type of capacity of the machineries respectively.

183 Table No 5.43 Overall Awareness Results Subsidy Rental Rent for Amount of Offering Amount of Table Name given by machineries different Loan facility subsidy dept. rent Govt. (Govt.) machineries s s s s s s s o o o o o o Sl. Name of the o e e e e e e e N N N N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y No Panchayat Y 1 Annappanpettai 92 06 01 97 02 96 30 68 08 90 02 96 05 93 2 Vadapathi 52 03 00 55 01 54 17 38 04 51 02 53 02 53

3 Irumbuthalai 62 04 00 66 01 65 20 46 05 61 02 64 02 64 Ammapettai 206 13 01 218 04 215 67 152 17 202 06 213 09 210 Block Total 4 Vellur 71 05 01 75 02 74 23 53 06 70 02 74 03 73

5 Vadacheri 122 09 02 129 04 127 40 91 10 121 03 128 06 125

6 Pulavan kudikadu 64 04 00 68 02 66 21 47 05 63 02 66 04 64 Orathanadu 257 18 02 273 08 267 84 191 21 254 07 268 13 262 Block Total Total 463 31 3 491 12 482 151 343 38 456 13 481 22 472

% 93.72 6.28 0.60 99.40 2.43 97.57 30.57 69.43 7.69 92.31 2.63 97.37 2.22 97.78 Total 494 494 494 494 494 494 494 Respondents Source: Primary Data

184 Table No 5.43 (Cont.,) Overall Awareness Results Awareness Training Usage Repairing Insurance Selection of Table Name on govt. already different Total knowledge awareness capacity Training availed machineries s s s s s s o o o o o Sl. Name of the o e e e e e e Yes No N N N N N N Y Y Y Y Y No Panchayat Y 1 Annappanpettai - 98 03 95 06 92 32 66 03 95 04 94 185 1089 2 Vadapathi 01 54 02 53 04 51 18 37 02 53 04 51 108 607 3 Irumbuthalai - 66 02 64 04 62 21 45 02 64 06 60 126 732 Ammapettai 01 218 07 212 14 205 71 148 07 212 14 205 419 2428 Block Total 5 Vellur 01 75 03 73 05 71 25 51 03 73 05 71 150 838 6 Vadacheri - 131 08 123 08 123 42 89 04 127 08 123 257 1446 7 Pulavan kudikadu 02 66 03 65 05 63 22 46 03 65 02 66 135 749 Orathanadu 03 272 14 261 18 257 89 186 10 265 15 259 542 3033 Block Total Total 4 490 21 473 32 462 160 334 17 477 29 465 961 5461 % 0.81 99.19 4.06 95.94 6.48 93.52 32.39 67.61 3.44 96.56 5.87 94.13 14.96 85.04 Total 494 494 494 494 494 494 6422 Respondents Source: Primary Data

185 Table 5.43 presents the overall awareness about the agricultural machines and their usages. The Government provides subsidies to the farmers to purchase the agricultural machines. The sample farmers are well aware about this. In Ammapettai block, 94.06 per cent of the sample farmers got awareness about this. This is 93.72 per cent in Orathanadu block. But they do not have any awareness about the size of the subsidy amount. More than 99 per cent of the sample farmers in both the blocks do not get awareness about the amount of subsidy which the Government provides. Similarly, a majority of them, 98.17 per cent in Ammapettai and 97.09 per cent in Orathanadu, are not aware of the department which distributes the subsidy to purchase the agricultural machines. Only a few of them got awareness over this. These agricultural machines are provided by the Government for rent also. This is known to 69.45 per cent of the sample farmers in Orathanadu block. However, more than 90 per cent of the farmers in both the blocks do not get any awareness about the types of agricultural machines which the Government provides to the farmers. The rent charged by the Government for different types of agricultural machines is known to only three per cent of the sample farmers. But the farmers can avail loans provided by the banks and financial institutions towards purchase of the agricultural machines. Just 4 per cent of the sample farmers in both the blocks got awareness regarding this. Expect a few farmers, almost all the farmers taken in this study do not know about the training which is offered by the Government in this regard. Only a few got training to operate the agricultural machines.

Similarly more than 93 per cent of the sample farmers do not get any awareness on the repairing the agricultural machines and related knowledge. But more than 32 per cent of them in both the blocks got the knowledge of using the agricultural machines in during plantations. Regarding the awareness about the insuring the agricultural machines, just 3.5 per cent of the sample farmers in these blocks got awareness. The selection of agricultural machines should be in accordance with the demand for them on the basis of the scale of operation. The selection awareness is not seen among the 93 per cent of the sample farmers in Ammapettai and Orathanadu block respectively. As a whole, most of the farmers in this study are not aware of various aspects of the agricultural machines.

186 Testing of Hypothesis: 1

Ho: There is no significant difference in the awareness level on mechanization between the farmers of Ammapettai and Orathanadu Blocks in Thanjavur district.

To test the differences in awareness level between the farmers of two blocks of Ammmapet and Orathanadu in Thanjavur district, Chi-square test is applied. The test statistic is

( − ) = The calculated value: The table value = 0.4

Since .5 = 3.84, The calculated Chi-square value< .5is = 0.24 and the table value is = 3.84. .5 Since the calculated value is less than the table value, the null hypothesis is accepted. It is thus inferred that there is no difference in awareness level of mechanization between the farmers of Ammapettai and Orathanadu blocks in Thanjavur District.

187 (B) II. PROBLEMS OF FARM MECHANISATION Table 5.44 Problems of availability of the agriculture machineries in time

Sl.No Name of the Panchayat Yes No Total 1 Annappanpettai 64 34 98 2 Vadapathi 35 20 55 3 Irumbuthalai 43 23 66 Ammapettai 142 77 219 Block Total (64.84) (35.16) (100) 4 Vellur 52 24 76 5 Vadacheri 88 43 131 6 Pulavan kudikadu 46 22 68 Orathanadu 186 89 275 Block Total (67.63) (32.36) (100) Over all Total 328 166 494 % 66.40 33.60 100 Source: Primary data Table 5.44 reveals the problems of availability of the agricultural machineries in time. Out of 219 sample farmers in Ammapettai block, 64.84 per cent of the farmers opined that they have not availed farm machineries in time. Of these, 64 farmers are from Annappanpettai panchayat, 35 farmers are from Vadapathi panchayat of Ammapettai block. When compared to Orathanadu block, though there is smaller difference among the farmers towards the availability of farm machineries, there is no significant difference between these two blocks in this regard. As a whole 66.40 per cent of the sample farmers do not avail the farm machineries in time and the remaining 33.60 per cent of the farmers availed them at proper juncture.

There is greater demand for these machines during cultivational seasons and therefore some of the farmers are not able to avail these machineries in time.

188 Table 5.45 Problems of availability of the agriculture subsidy without any difficulties

Sl.No Name of the Panchayat Yes No Total 1 Annappanpettai 91 07 98 2 Vadapathi 49 06 55 3 Irumbuthalai 61 05 66 Ammapettai 201 18 219 Block Total (91.78) (8.22) (100) 4 Vellur 70 06 76 5 Vadacheri 122 09 131 6 Pulavan kudikadu 62 06 68 254 21 275 Orathanadu Block Total (92.36) (7.64) (100) Over all Total 455 39 494 % 92.11 7.89 100 Source: Primary data Table 5.45 exhibits the problems of availability of agricultural subsidies towards farm machineries and its related difficulties. More than 90 per cent of the farmers face the difficulties in getting farm subsidies in both Ammapettai and Orathanadu block. There is a set of formalities to avail this subsidy. Farmers, who want to avail this, can approach the officials concerned, and they show the ways to avail them. Moreover, many conventional record keeping and process of providing farm subsidies have been outdated and now they practice a computer based processing system. This avoids the undue delay from the officer’s side. Therefore, there is no much difficulty in getting farm subsidies.

189 Table 5.46 Problems of availability of operators of agriculture machines during the cultivation time

Sl. No Name of the Panchayat Yes No Total

1 Annappanpettai 81 17 98 2 Vadapathi 44 11 55 3 Irumbuthalai 54 12 66 Ammapettai 179 40 219 Block Total (81.74) (18.26) (100) 4 Vellur 62 14 76 5 Vadacheri 110 21 131 6 Pulavan kudikadu 56 12 68 Orathanadu 228 47 275 Block Total (82.91) (17.09) (100) Over all Total 407 87 494 % 82.39 17.61 100 Source: Primary data Table 5.46 conveys the Problems of availability of farm machine operators during the cultivation time. More than 80 per cent of the sample farmers in both Ammapettai and Orathanadu blocks do not easily avail the farm machines operators during the cultivation time. The farmers do not know the technical features of the farm machines and therefore they require a minimum amount of knowledge to operate them. Therefore they hire farm machine operators. Only 18.26 per cent and 17.09 per cent of the farmers in Ammapettai and Orathanadu blocks do not suffer from the non-availability of farm operators respectively. During cultivation time, the demand for such operators would be high and the farmers in this study area face difficulty in getting the operators.

190 Table 5.47 Problems of Availability of the repairing mechanics in time

Sl. No Name of the Panchayat Yes No Total 1 Annappanpettai 93 05 98 2 Vadapathi 54 01 55 3 Irumbuthalai 65 01 66 Ammapettai 212 07 219 Block Total (96.80) (3.20) (100) 4 Vellur 74 02 76 5 Vadacheri 126 05 131 6 Pulavan kudikadu 66 02 68 Orathanadu 266 09 275 Block Total (96.73) (3.27) (100) Over all Total 478 16 494 % 96.76 3.24 100 Source: Primary data Table 5.47 gives the details of problems in availability of the repairing engineers in time. Regarding Ammapettai block, out of 219 sample farmers, 212 farmers (96.80 per cent) from the selected three panchayats opined that there is problem in the availability of repairing engineers to repair the farm machines. This is 96.73 per cent in the case of Orathanadu block. Only 3 per cent of the farmers in both the blocks get them in time.

This is due to the availability of the operators from faraway places and their busy schedule of works. During the cultivation season, they would be greatly demanded and they are limited in number. All these factors lead to non-availability of the operators in time. But, the farmers themselves repair some parts on their own.

191 Table 5.48 Opposition from the agricultural labourers for using the mechanics in agriculture machines

\Sl. No Name of the Panchayat Yes No Total

1 Annappanpettai - 98 98 2 Vadapathi 01 54 55 3 Irumbuthalai - 66 66 Ammapettai 01 218 219 Block Total (0.46) (99.54) (100) 4 Vellur - 76 76 5 Vadacheri 01 130 131 6 Pulavan kudikadu 01 67 68 02 273 275 Orathanadu Block Total (0.73) (99.27) (100) Over all Total 03 491 494 % 0.61 99.39 100 Source: Primary data

Table 5.48 presents the details of opposition comes from the agricultural labourers for using agricultural machines in the farm activities. Almost all the sample farmers except a few in both the blocks pointed out that the agricultural labourers did not show their opposition for using farm machines. Even farmers use their farm machines, it leads to technological unemployment to certain extent and it affects the opportunities available to the agricultural labourers in farm works. They easily find alternative employment in some other industries. However, some sorts of agricultural works have to be done with the help of labourers manually. Therefore, there is no opposition from the labourers’ for using farm machines in agricultural activities in the select blocks.

192 Table 5.49 Damage of straw by using the machines in agriculture activities

Sl.No Name of the Panchayat Yes No Total

1 Annappanpettai 84 14 98 2 Vadapathi 44 11 55 3 Irumbuthalai 51 15 66 Ammapettai 179 40 219 Block Total (81.74) (18.26) (100) 4 Vellur 55 21 76 5 Vadacheri 88 43 131 6 Pulavan kudikadu 51 17 68 Orathanadu Block 199 76 275 Total (72.36) (27.64) (100) Over all Total 378 116 494 % 76.52 23.48 100 Source: Primary data Table 5.49 shows the damages to the by-products of agricultural output especially straw in the case of paddy while employing the farm machines. In Ammapettai block, out of 219 sample farmers, 179 farmers (81.26 per cent) opined that there is such damage. Similarly in Orathanadu block, 199 sample farmers (72.36 per cent) told that the damage is there while employing farm machines and the remaining sample respondents (27.64 per cent) did not agree with this.

The amount of damage of paddy straw is low when the farmers adopt conventional practices of extraction of paddy and it is high in places where farm machines are used in large scale.

193 Table 5.50 Soil quality damage in using agriculture machines

Sl.No Name of the Panchayat Yes No Total 1 Annappanpettai 21 77 98 2 Vadapathi 13 42 55 3 Irumbuthalai 06 60 66 Ammapettai 40 179 219 Block Total (18.26) (81.74) (100) 4 Vellur 13 63 76 5 Vadacheri 27 104 131 6 Pulavan kudikadu 09 59 68 Orathanadu 49 226 275 Block Total (17.82) (82.18) (100) Over all Total 89 405 494 % 18.01 81.09 100 Source: Primary data Table 5.50 presents the damage of soil quality by using agricultural machines in the study area. The quality of soil damage is concerned with the dislocation of the surface soil from one place to another place while preparing the land for cultivation. There is existence of damage of soil in the Ammapettai block according to 18.26 per cent of the sample farmers and the remaining farmers have opined that there is no such a kind of soil damage by employing farm machines. In Orathanadu block, 17.82 per cent of the sample farmers experienced the soil damage and other farmers did not experience. As a whole, only 18.01 per cent of the sample farmers said that the soil is damaged as they employ farm machines.

194 Table 5.51 Agricultural machines used for all seasons

Sl.No Name of the Panchayat Yes No Total

1 Annappanpettai 17 81 98 2 Vadapathi 08 47 55 3 Irumbuthalai 02 64 66 Ammapettai 27 192 219 Block Total (12.33) (87.67) (100) 4 Vellur 07 69 76 5 Vadacheri 18 113 131 6 Pulavan kudikadu 15 53 68 Orathanadu 40 235 275 Block Total (14.55) (85.45) (100) Over all Total 67 427 494 % 13.56 86.44 100 Source: Primary data Table 5.51 reveals the usage of agricultural machines in all seasons. The details of usage of agricultural machines are given in the above table 5.27. A good majority of the sample farmers in both the selected blocks and panchayats viewed that the farm equipments and machines are not used by the farmers in all seasons. Only a few respondents use them in all seasons. On account less amount of availability of water in the canals in these blocks, number of cultivational terms shrinkled from three terms to one term.

On those days, farmers in these areas enjoyed availability of water for all the seasons in a year. But, the scene is different today. The availability of water can be used for only one term of cultivation. Therefore, the farm equipments and machines are utilized during that season only. A few farmers having bore-well use them for all seasons of cultivation in these blocks.

195 Table 5.52 Problems in the availability of required spare parts from nearby shops

Sl.No Name of the Panchayat Yes No Total 1 Annappanpettai 95 03 98 2 Vadapathi 52 03 55 3 Irumbuthalai 66 - 66 Ammapettai 213 06 219 Block Total (99.09) (0.91) (100) 4 Vellur 75 01 76 5 Vadacheri 127 04 131

6 Pulavan kudikadu 66 - 68 Orathanadu 268 02 275 Block Total (99.27) (0.73) (100) Over all Total 490 04 494

% 99.2 0.8 100 Source: Primary data Table 5.52 presents the availability of spare parts to the farm machines and equipments. More than 99 per cent of the samples farmers both in Ammpettai and Orathanadu blocks do not get the required spare parts for their farm machines and equipments from the nearby shops.

All the spare parts are made available to the farmers from their nearest towns. Otherwise the farmers need to travel from the village whenever the repairs occur in their machines. It breaks the vigor of work and it leads to discontinuity in the productive process of agriculture.

196 Table 5.53 Problem of accident in using agriculture machines

Sl.No Name of the Panchayat Yes No Total 1 Annappanpettai 07 91 98 2 Vadapathi 01 54 55 3 Irumbuthalai 03 63 66 Ammapettai 11 208 219 Block Total (5.02) (94.98) (100) 4 Vellur 01 75 76 5 Vadacheri 04 127 131 6 Pulavan kudikadu 01 67 68 Orathanadu 06 269 275 Block Total (2.18) (97.82) (100) Over all Total 17 477 494

% 03.44 96.56 100 Source: Primary data

Table 5.53 gives the details of accident met by the sample farmers while operating their farm machines. A vast majority of the sample farmers in both the blocks pointed out that there is no problem of accident while operating farm machines. Only a few respondents pointed out that there is problem of minor accident while operating the farm machines.

They also pointed out that there is chance of accident while operating harvesting machine especially paddy harvesting machine which should be operated very carefully. All other farm equipments and machines are simple and health friendly when they are in use.

197 Table 5.54 Problems of availability of fuel

Sl.No Name of the Panchayat Yes No Total

1 Annappanpettai 09 89 98 2 Vadapathi 07 48 55 3 Irumbuthalai 05 61 66 Ammapettai 21 198 219 Block Total (9.59) (90.41) (100) 4 Vellur 04 72 76 5 Vadacheri 19 112 131 6 Pulavan kudikadu 07 61 68 Orathanadu 30 245 275 Block Total (10.91) (89.09) (100) Over all Total 51 443 494 % 10.33 89.67 100 Source: Primary data Table 5.54 conveys the availability of continuous supply of fuel for operating the agricultural machines. Nearly 10 per cent of the sample farmers in both the blocks said that there are some problems in the continuous availability of fuel for agricultural activities and 90 per cent of the sample farmers said that the fuel is available continuously without any difficulty.

198 Table 5.55 Problems of unemployment in using agricultural machines

Name of the Sl. No. Yes No Total Panchayat 1 Annappanpettai 19 79 98 2 Vadapathi 08 47 55 3 Irumbuthalai 14 52 66 Ammapettai 41 178 219 Block Total (18.72) (81.78) (100) 4 Vellur 11 65 76 5 Vadacheri 16 115 131 6 Pulavan kudikadu 09 59 68 Orathanadu 36 239 275 Block Total (13.09) (86.91) (100) Over all Total 77 417 494 % 15.59 84.41 100 Source: Primary data Table 5.55 exhibits the level of unemployment prevailing in the select blocks of the study by using agricultural machines. In the case of Ammapettai block, the unemployed labourers were found to be more in the panchayats of Annappanpettai, Irumbuthalai and Vadapathi panchayat registered a low level of unemployment. A total of 41 sample respondents (18.72 per cent) in the block state that there is incident of unemployment due to the arrival of agricultural machines in the farm practices. But more than 81 per cent of the total sample farmers in this block stated that there is no unemployment problem due to implementation of the mechanical process in the field. The same is the picture in Orathanadu block.

199 Table 5.56 Female labourers and agriculture machines

Sl.No Name of the Panchayat Yes No Total 1 Annappanpettai 59 39 98 2 Vadapathi 33 22 55 3 Irumbuthalai 40 26 66 Ammapettai 132 87 219 Block Total (60.27) (39.73) (100) 4 Vellur 46 30 76 5 Vadacheri 79 52 131 6 Pulavan kudikadu 41 27 68 Orathanadu Block 166 109 275 Total (60.36) (39.64) (100) Over all Total 298 196 494 % 60.32 39.68 100 Source: Primary data Table 5.56 reveals the reduction of female work force in the agricultural activities in the select blocks of the study area by employing agricultural machines. It was found that more than 60 per cent of works of female workers were reduced substantially. The female labourers generally perform light works such as weeding, harvesting, extracting, and planting and so on. After implementing farm mechanization, they are freed from these works.

200 Table 5.57 Male labourers usage and agriculture machines

Sl.No Name of the Panchayat Yes No Total

1 Annappanpettai 67 31 98 2 Vadapathi 38 17 55 3 Irumbuthalai 45 21 66 Ammapettai 150 69 219 Block Total (68.49) (31.51) (100) 4 Vellur 52 24 76 5 Vadacheri 90 41 131 6 Pulavan kudikadu 47 21 68 189 86 275 Orathanadu Block Total (68.73) (31.27) (100) Over all Total 339 155 494 % 68.62 31.38 100 Source: Primary data Table 5.57 conveys the reduction of male labourers in the agricultural activities due to implementation of farm machines. Regarding the labour force, the male agricultural labour works reduced upto 68.49 per cent in Ammapettai block and it is 68.73 per cent in Orathanadu block. A lot of heavy works which can be performed by the male agricultural labourers are substituted by the farm machines.

201 Table 5.58 Problem in the use the machinery in small and marginal lands

Sl.No Name of the Panchayat Yes No Total 1 Annappanpettai 57 41 98 2 Vadapathi 32 23 55 3 Irumbuthalai 39 27 66 Ammapettai 128 91 219 Block Total (58.45) (41.55) (100) 4 Vellur 45 31 76 5 Vadacheri 76 55 131 6 Pulavan kudikadu 40 28 68 Orathanadu 161 114 275 Block Total (58.55) (41.45) (100) Over all Total 289 205 494

% 58.50 41.50 100 Source: Primary data Table 5.58 gives the picture of difficulties faced by the operators of farm machines on small and marginal lands. According to 128 sample farmers (58.45 per cent) in Ammapettai block it is very difficult to use farm machines on small and marginal land. They face hardship while operating their machines especially when they bring their machines from one holding to another. Besides, some lands are already cultivated and the lands which are to be used by farm machines are land locked. The same view was expressed by the sample farmers in Orathanadu block. But more than 40 per cent of the sample farmers in both the blocks opined that there is not much difficulties in operating farm machines in the small and marginal lands.

202 Table 5.59 Problem in the maintenance and repairing cost of agriculture machines

Sl.No Name of the Panchayat Yes No Total 1 Annappanpettai 52 46 98 2 Vadapathi 34 21 55 3 Irumbuthalai 36 30 66 Ammapettai 122 97 219 Block Total (55.71) (44.29) (100) 4 Vellur 41 35 76 5 Vadacheri 79 52 131 6 Pulavan kudikadu 34 34 68 Orathanadu 154 121 275 Block Total (56.00) (44.00) (100) Over all Total 276 218 494 % 55.88 44.12 100 Source: Primary data Table 5.59 portrays the cost of maintenance and repairing the agricultural machines used by the sample respondents. More than 55 per cent of the sample farmers in select blocks stated that there has been an increasing cost of maintenance and repairing the farm machines and this is not so according to 44.29 per cent of the sample farmers in Ammapettai block and 44 per cent in Orathanadu block.

Though there is a variety of factors which are responsible for this, a continuous rise in the diesel and diesel products are said to be the prime reason for this. The cost of maintenance and cost of spare parts are also increasing at an alarming rate due to general inflation prevailing in the economy. All these push up the cost of maintenance and repairing the agricultural machineries.

203 Table 5.60 Problem of irrigation

Sl.No Name of the Panchayat Yes No Total

1 Annappanpettai 42 56 98 2 Vadapathi 18 37 55 3 Irumbuthalai 32 34 66 Ammapettai 92 127 219 Block Total (42.00) (58) (100) 4 Vellur 24 52 76 5 Vadacheri 38 93 131 6 Pulavan kudikadu 22 46 68 Orathanadu 84 191 275 Block Total (30.54) (69.46) (100) Over all Total 176 318 494 % 35.63 64.37 100 Source: Primary data Table 5.60 conveys the rate of migrated people from the agricultural land to other field such as manufacturing and service industries in nearby cities and towns for earning their livelihood. There is existence of migration of agricultural labourers in both the blocks. This was echoed by 42 per cent of the sample farmers in Ammapettai block and 30.54 per cent of the sample farmers in Orathanadu block. According to 127 farmers in Ammapettai block (58 per cent) and 191 farmers in Orathanadu block (69.46 per cent), there is no such migration and there is some sort of internal migration within the same industry (Agriculture).

Regarding the migration, more labourers in these blocks are migrated not because of agricultural machines but because of continuous failure of monsoon resulted in the insufficient water for the cultivation.

204 Table 5.61 Environmental pollution and agriculture machineries

Sl.No Name of the Panchayat Yes No Total

1 Annappanpettai 34 64 98 2 Vadapathi 23 32 55 3 Irumbuthalai 26 40 66 Ammapettai 83 136 219 Block Total (37.90) (62.10) (100) 4 Vellur 19 57 76 5 Vadacheri 32 99 131 6 Pulavan kudikadu 17 51 68 Orathanadu 68 207 275 Block Total (24.73) (75.27) (100) Over all Total 151 343 494

% 30.57 69.43 100 Source: Primary data Table 5.61 presents the environmental pollution caused by using the agricultural machines. Nearly 38 per cent of the agricultural labourers in Ammapettai block opined that there is existence of environmental pollution due to implementing farm machines and this was agreed by 24.73 per cent in the Orathanadu block. But 62.10 per cent of the sample farmers in Ammapettai block and 75.27 per cent of the sample farmers in Orathanadu block pointed out that there is environmental pollution problem.

The frequent uses of the farm machines may create environmental pollution but these farm machines are used only in the cultivation season. Therefore the environmental problem is low when compared to other sectors.

205 Table 5.62 Ammapettai Block - Overall problems Results of Farm Mechanisation

n d

e e l f s y y y f s l n

t s r t t s t g s s

o g t o e i i i i a t o

r r r e r y

s a i l l l

i n i n i i i u t e e e u a o t i d r n l e r w m e i t i r m e b b b q g o r m p o o e s e s u a i

a d a e f u a a a n a s l o h m i

c o r l l l e n i r Table Name a b i r t o r d i a i i i i t b s c

i t r

e g p f m f p u l s e l a a a b e c o h f i a i p e a n s p w s i S r v v v a a c a r e p o o l d D a O P U s v A A A S m A s s s s s s s s s s

Sl. Name of the o o o o o o o o o o e e e e e e e e e e N N N N N N N N N N No Panchayat Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 1 Annappanpettai 64 34 91 07 81 17 93 05 - 98 84 14 21 77 17 81 95 03 07 91 2 Vadapathi 35 20 49 06 44 11 54 01 01 54 44 11 13 42 08 47 52 03 01 54 3 Irumbuthalai 43 23 61 05 54 12 65 01 - 66 51 15 06 60 2 64 66 - 03 63

Total 142 77 201 18 179 40 212 07 01 218 179 40 40 179 27 192 213 06 11 208

% 64.84 35.16 91.78 8.22 81.74 18.26 96.80 3.20 0.46 99.54 81.74 18.26 18.26 81.74 12.33 87.67 97.26 2.74 5.02 94.98 Total 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 Respondents Source: Primary Data

206 Table 5.62 (Cont.,) Ammapettai Block - Overall problems Results of Farm Mechanisation

t l t

e f l f r s a g l n c r

t o o u

e a n n

e u n n i n n c

o y s s a

h o f r o o t e m o m m e e g b t i i i i g i n o i s l b

y l e t t l t

a a n t e i l m n a g l p o i c c e l e t i a

l n l p b b n l

o n s i d u u u u Table Name r Total n e e

p l a o o o f e e i l o a c g d d l r l g i r r o i i

a a e p e e i R f m a n m h P r a f d v i e m i m m R R a c v s n

m n n e f n D a u f A I E o U s s s s s s s s

Sl. Name of the o o o o o o o o e e e e e e e e Yes No N N N N N N N N No Panchayat Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 1 Annappanpettai 09 89 19 79 55 43 63 35 55 43 52 46 39 59 34 64 879 885 2 Vadapathi 07 48 08 47 30 25 32 23 28 27 34 21 18 37 22 33 480 510

3 Irumbuthalai 05 61 14 52 36 30 40 26 38 28 36 30 30 36 24 42 574 614

Total 21 198 41 178 121 98 135 84 121 98 122 97 87 132 80 139 1933 2009

% 9.59 90.41 18.72 81.28 55.25 44.75 61.64 38.36 55.25 44.75 55.71 44.29 39.73 60.27 36.53 63.47 49.04 50.96 Total 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 3942 Respondents Source: Primary Data

207 In Ammapettai block, out of 219 sample farmers, 64.84 per cent of them are facing the problem with the availability of machineries in time. Apart from this, 91.78 per cent of the sample farmers face a problem of difficulty in getting subsidy from the Government. This is followed by 81.74 per cent of the farmers who face the problem of availability of farm machine operators. There is also a problem of availability of repairing engineers and this type of problem is faced by 96.80 per cent of the farmers. There is no opposition from the labourers for the farm mechanization. Besides, the problem of damage of straw and soil are experienced by 81.74 per cent and 18.26 per cent of the sample farmers respectively. 97.26 per cent and 5.02 per cent of the sample farmers, face the problem of non-availability of spare parts and problem of accident respectively. But more than 90 per cent of the sample farmers do not face the problem of availability of fuel. There is reduction of female labourers and male labourers according to 55.25 per cent and 61.64 per cent of the sample farmers respectively. These agricultural machineries cannot be used very easily in small holdings of land and this type of problem is faced by 55.25 per cent of the sample farmers. The problems such as increasing cost of maintenance, migration and environment pollution are there according to 55.71 per cent 39.73 per cent and 36.53 per cent of the sample farmers respectively.

208 Table No 5.63 Orathanadu Block - Overall problem Results of Farm Mechanisation

s e l f s y y y f s

l n e

t t t s t s g s

o g i t o e i i i a t o d

r r r r s y

a i

l l l

r e i n n e l i i i t e e e a u o t i r n d e i l w m e r i t i r m e b b b o g r m m p i o o a s n e s u a i

i a d a f u a a a n a s i l o h i t v u

c o r l l l e i r Table Name a b t o r d i a i i i t h b s c i r q

e g p f f m p A u e s n c l e a c a a b o f e a i i p e a s n p w s i S a r v a v v a r r p e o o l d D O P U s A A A m S s s s s s s s s s s

Sl. Name of the o o o o o o o o o o e e e e e e e e e e N N N N N N N N N N No Panchayat Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

1 Vellur 52 24 70 06 62 14 74 02 - 76 55 21 13 63 07 69 75 01 01 75

2 Vadacheri 88 43 122 09 110 21 126 05 01 130 88 43 27 104 18 113 127 04 04 127 Pulavan 3 46 22 62 06 56 12 66 02 01 67 51 17 09 59 15 53 66 02 01 67 kudikadu Total 186 89 254 21 228 47 266 09 02 273 194 81 49 226 40 235 268 07 06 269

% 67.64 32.36 92.36 7.64 82.91 17.09 96.73 3.27 0.73 99.27 70.55 29.45 17.82 82.18 14.55 85.45 97.45 2.55 2.18 97.82 Total 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 Respondents Source: Primary Data

209 Table No 5.63 (Cont.,) Orathanadu Block - Overall problem Results of Farm Mechanisation

t t

e f l f r s a g l n c r

t o o u

e n a n

e u n n i n n c

o y s s a

h o f r o o t e m o m m e e b g t i i i i g i n o i l s b

y l e t t l t

a n t e i m l n a g l p o c c i e l e t a i

l n p l b n b l

o n s i u u d u u Table Name r Total e n e

p l a o o o f e e l i o a c g d d l r l g r i r o i i

a a e p e e i R f m a n m h r a P d f v i e m i m m R R a c v s n

m n n e f n D a u f A I E o U s s s s s s s s

Sl. Name of the o o o o o o o o

e e e e e e e e Yes No N N N N N N N N No Panchayat Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

1 Vellur 04 72 11 65 46 30 52 24 45 31 41 35 24 52 19 57 651 717

2 Vadacheri 19 112 16 115 79 52 90 41 76 55 79 52 38 93 32 99 1140 1218 Pulavan 3 07 61 09 59 41 27 47 21 40 28 34 34 22 46 17 51 kudikadu 590 634 Total 30 245 36 239 166 109 189 86 161 114 154 121 84 191 68 207 2381 2569

% 10.91 89.09 13.09 86.91 60.36 39.64 68.73 31.27 58.55 41.45 56 44 30.55 69.45 24.73 75.27 48.10 51.90 Total 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 4950 Respondents Source: Primary Data

210 Table 5.63 gives the details of problems faced by the sample farmers in Orathanadu block towards farm mechanization. Of them, 67.64 per cent and 92.36 per cent of the farmers face the problem of non-availability of farm machines and difficulty in getting subsidies respectively. There is also problem of non-availability of repairing engineers according to 82.91 per cent and 96.73 per cent respectively. In Orathanadu block, there is no problem of labourers who oppose the farm mechanization. Like Ammapettai block, Orathanadu block also witnessed the problem of damage of straw (70.55 per cent) and problem of soil damage (17.82 per cent). 14.55 per cent of the sample respondents, face problem of using the agricultural machines in all the seasons and 97.45 per cent of the sample respondents face the problem of non-availability of required spare parts. Only 2.18 per cent of them face the problem of accident while using their machineries. The problems such as non-availability of fuel and unemployment among people are not severe. More than 50 per cent of the sample farmers opined that there is reduction of male and female labourers due to farm mechanization. Similarly more than 50 per cent of the farmers felt that there is problem of using agricultural machineries in small holdings and the problem of increasing cost of maintenance. Besides there is problem of migration and environmental pollution to some extent.

211 Table No 5.64 Overall problems results of Farm Mechanisation

t s u n d r

i e e l o e f y s y y f s l n r t t t t g s s r s o h g o t e i i i i a o

r e r

s r t a i l l l

u i n i i n i u i i t e e a o t i r n o l e r w m e i t m e b q b b g r w p o o e s e b a u i

d a e f a a a a a s n l m i

r c a o l l l n e i a r y r Table Name i d i a l i i i i t s b

c t r

e p g m f l p d e s a e l a a c o h i i f a i e p a s p n s i v r v v a c s m a r p e o o d a D o b O P U v s A A A S r u f m A S

Sl. s s s s s s s s s s

Name of the o o o o o o o o o o e e e e e e e e e e N N N N N N N N N N No Panchayat Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 1 Annappanpettai 64 34 91 07 81 17 93 05 - 98 84 14 21 77 17 81 95 03 07 91 2 Vadapathi 35 20 49 06 44 11 54 01 01 54 44 11 13 42 08 47 52 03 01 54 3 Irumbuthalai 43 23 61 05 54 12 65 01 - 66 51 15 06 60 2 64 66 - 03 63 Ammapettai 142 77 201 18 179 40 212 07 01 218 179 40 40 179 27 192 213 06 11 208 Block Total 4 Vellur 52 24 70 06 62 14 74 02 - 76 55 21 13 63 07 69 75 01 01 75 5 Vadacheri 88 43 122 09 110 21 126 05 01 130 88 43 27 104 18 113 127 04 04 127 6 Pulavan kudikadu 46 22 62 06 56 12 66 02 01 67 51 17 09 59 15 53 66 02 01 67 Orathanadu 186 89 254 21 228 47 266 09 02 273 194 81 49 226 40 235 268 07 06 269 Block Total Total 328 166 455 39 407 87 478 16 03 491 373 121 89 405 67 427 481 13 17 477 % 66.40 33.60 92.11 7.89 82.39 17.61 96.76 3.24 0.61 99.39 75.51 24.49 18.02 81.98 13.56 86.44 97.37 2.63 3.44 96.56 Total 494 494 494 494 494 494 494 494 494 494 Respondents Source: Primary Data

212 Table No 5.64 (Cont.,) Overall problems results of Farm Mechanisation

l t

t e f l g f r s a l n c

r t o n o

u e a n e

i n n u n n c

y o s s a

r h f o o m t e o m o i m e e t g b i i i g n i o i s

l y l e l t t b a t

a n t e i m l n g l o p e c c i l a t e i p a

n l b n l b l n o i s u u u d u e r

n Table Name e Total

p l a o o o f e i l o r c a e g d d l g

i r r l o i i a a e p e e i R f m n m d a a h r P f e v i m i m m R R a c n v s

n n m e f a n D u f A I E o U s s s s s s s s

Sl. Name of the o o o o o o o o e e e e e e e e Yes No N N N N N N N N Y No Panchayat Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 1 Annappanpettai 09 89 19 79 55 43 63 35 55 43 52 46 39 59 34 64 879 885 2 Vadapathi 07 48 08 47 30 25 32 23 28 27 34 21 18 37 22 33 480 510 3 Irumbuthalai 05 61 14 52 36 30 40 26 38 28 36 30 30 36 24 42 574 614 Ammapettai 21 198 41 178 121 98 135 84 121 98 122 97 87 132 80 139 1933 2009 Block Total 4 Vellur 04 72 11 65 46 30 52 24 45 31 41 35 24 52 19 57 651 717 5 Vadacheri 19 112 16 115 79 52 90 41 76 55 79 52 38 93 32 99 1140 1218 Pulavan 6 07 61 09 59 41 27 47 21 40 28 34 34 22 46 17 51 kudikadu 590 634 Orathanadu 30 245 36 239 166 109 189 86 161 114 154 121 84 191 68 207 2381 2569 Block Total Total 51 443 77 417 287 207 324 170 282 212 276 218 171 323 148 346 4314 4578 % 10.32 89.68 15.59 84.41 58.10 41.90 65.59 34.41 57.08 42.92 55.87 44.13 34.62 65.38 29.96 70.04 48.52 51.48 Total 494 494 494 494 494 494 494 494 8892 Respondents Source: Primary Data

213 The table 5.64 explains the problems of farm mechanization which are experienced by the sample farmers in select blocks of the study. Regarding the availability of the agricultural machineries in time, more than 30 per cent each of the sample farmers both in Ammapettai and Orathanadu block, suffered from the non availability of the agricultural machineries in time. Besides, though Government provides subsidy towards purchase of farm machines, more than 90 per cent of the sample farmers in these blocks face hardships in getting these subsidies. Most of the farmers operate their agricultural machineries with the help of machine operators during the cultivation time. In spite of availability of operators, 18 per cent of the sample farmers in Ammapettai block and 17 per cent of the sample farmers in Orathanadu block suffered from the non availability of machine operators. Farm machines some times are out of order due to some technical errors. This errors and faults are attended by the repairing engineers and more than 3 per cent of the farmers each in both the blocks face difficulties in getting them.

Even though mechanization of agriculture in these blocks create technological unemployment, more than 99 per cent of the sample farmers both in Ammapettai and Orathanadu block do not show their opposition for farm mechanization. But a substantial portion of straw is damaged by the machines during the time of harvesting. This problem is faced by 81 per cent of the farmers in Ammapettai block and 72 per cent of the farmers in Orathanadu block. But there is no damage of soil quality by using the agricultural machineries according to 81 per cent and 82 per cent in Ammapettai and Orathanadu block respectively. There are three term paddy cultivational practices adopted by the sample farmers. More than 85 per cent of the sample farmers in both the blocks opined that the agricultural machineries can used for all the seasons. Whenever the farm machineries get repaired, there is need for some sorts of spare parts. But

214 these spare parts are not available nearby shops and 99 per cent of farmers in both the blocks faced the problems of non availability of sufficient spare parts locally. Only a few sample farmers faced the problem of accidents with the farm machineries. 90 per cent of farmers viewed that there is no problem of getting fuel for operating the agricultural machineries.

Even though there is high degree of farm mechanization, there is no problem of unemployment according to 81 per cent of the sample farmers in Ammapettai block and 86 per cent of the sample farmers in Orathanadu block. But there is substantial reduction of manual works performed by male and female labourers on account of farm mechanization. More than 60 per cent of manual works of male and female were reduced. But their manual works were not reduced to a greater extent according to 30 per cent of the sample farmers in both the blocks. The implementation of agricultural machineries in the large size of lands does not create difficulties and this is viewed by 58 per cent of the sample farmers in both the blocks. As far as cost of maintenance and repairing of farm machineries is concerned, more than 50 per cent of the sample farmers in both the blocks considered that it is increasing, more than 50 per cent of the sample farmers opined that there is increasing rate of migrated people due to farm mechanization. Regarding the environmental pollution, the mechanization of farming activities do not create any environmental pollution and this is supported by 62 per cent of the sample farmers in Ammapettai block and 75 per cent of the sample farmers of Orathanadu block.

215 Testing of Hypothesis: 2

Ho: There is no significant difference in the Problems in mechanization between the farmers of Ammapettai and Orathanadu Blocks in Thanjavur district.

To test the differences in Problems level between the two blocks of Ammapet and Orathanadu in Thanjavur district, Chi-square test is applied.

The test statistic is

( − ) = Here, the calculated value: = 0.7 The table value

.5 = 3.84

Since the calculated value < is less.5 than the table value, the null hypothesis is accepted. And there is no difference in Problem level between the two blocks of Ammapettai and Orathanadu.

216 (B) III. ADVANTAGES OF FARM MECHANISATION Table 5.65 Agricultural production and agricultural machineries

Name of the Sl.No Yes No Total Panchayat 1 Annappanpettai 39 59 98 2 Vadapathi 22 33 55 3 Irumbuthalai 26 40 66 Ammapettai 87 132 219 Block Total (39.73) (60.27) (100) 4 Vellur 30 46 76 5 Vadacheri 52 79 131 6 Pulavan kudikadu 27 41 68 Orathanadu 109 166 275 Block Total (39.64) (60.36) (100) Over all Total 196 298 494

% 39.67 60.33 100 Source: Primary data

Table 5.65 reveals the advantages of farm mechanization towards agricultural production. A total of 87 respondents (39.73 per cent) opined that the agricultural production is increased by adopting farm mechanization in Ammapettai block and the remaining 132 respondents (60.27 per cent) in this block opined that there is no such increase in agricultural production by adopting farm mechanization. More or less the same opinion has been given by the sample respondents in Orathanadu block, where 109 sample farmers (39.64 per cent) agreed that there is increase in agricultural production and the remaining did not agree with this.

The benefits of farm mechanization would be more effective while cultivating the multiple crops and crop rotation. But, in delta district, the same crop is cultivated repeatedly and therefore, the farm mechanization gives only the standard increase in the agricultural production. 217 Table 5.66 Work burden of agricultural labourers and agricultural machines Name of the Sl.No Yes No Total Panchayat 1 Annappanpettai 87 11 98 2 Vadapathi 43 12 55 3 Irumbuthalai 59 07 66 Ammapettai 189 30 219 Block Total (86.30) (13.70) (100) 4 Vellur 67 09 76 5 Vadacheri 116 15 131 6 Pulavan kudikadu 60 08 68 Orathanadu 243 32 275 Block Total (88.36) (11.64) (100) Over all Total 432 62 494

% 87.44 12.56 100 Source: Primary data

Table 5.66 presents the reduction in the work burden of agricultural labourers by using agricultural machines. More than 85 per cent of the sample farmers in the selected panchayats of Ammapettai and Orathanadu block stated that there is substantial reduction of manual labourers and the work burden by employing agricultural machines. Only a few sample farmers (30 in Ammapettai block and 32 in Orathanadu block) stated that the work burden is not reduced to the possible extent by employing agricultural machines. As a whole the number of sample farmers who stated that the work burden is reduced to the considerable extent is 432 in number and they contributed 87.44 per cent in the total respondents. By employing agricultural machines, a substantial portion of manual labour is replaced and substituted by the agricultural machines. The agricultural machines not only reduce the work burden but also it speed up the cultivation process.

218 Table 5.67 Profit and agricultural machines

Sl.No Name of the Panchayat Yes No Total

1 Annappanpettai 47 51 98 2 Vadapathi 29 26 55 3 Irumbuthalai 32 34 66 Ammapettai 108 111 219 Block Total (49.31) (50.69) (100) 4 Vellur 36 40 76 5 Vadacheri 62 69 131 6 Pulavan kudikadu 32 36 68 Orathanadu 130 145 275 Block Total (47.27) (52.73) (100) Over all Total 238 256 494

% 48.18 51.82 100 Source: Primary data

Table 5.67 gives the details of increase in amount of profit due to implementation of agricultural machines. Nearly 50 per cent of the sample farmers in both the blocks told that there had been considerable increase in the amount of profit on account of implementing the farm mechanization practices. The remaining sample farmers did not tell that there is increase in the amount of profit.

There are possibilities of speedier process of agricultural activities in the case of mechanized farming. It reduces a solid amount of cost of cultivation and finally the total cost of cultivation is reduced. On the other hand, the amount of yield is also increased to this effect. All these factors boost up the amount of profit to the considerable extent. The amount of profit increased was found to be more in the case of large farmers and less in the case of small farmers.

219 Table 5.68 Reduction in the labourer problems by using agriculture machines

Sl.No Name of the Panchayat Yes No Total

1 Annappanpettai 68 30 98 2 Vadapathi 38 17 55 3 Irumbuthalai 46 20 66 Ammapettai 152 67 219 Block Total (69.41) (30.59) (100) 4 Vellur 53 23 76 5 Vadacheri 91 40 131 6 Pulavan kudikadu 47 21 68 Orathanadu 191 84 275 Block Total (69.45) (30.55) (100) Over all Total 343 151 494 % 69.4 30.6 100 Source: Primary data Table 5.68 presents the reduction of labour problems by employing the farm machines. Out of 219 sample farmers in Ammapettai block, 152 (69.41 per cent) farmers viewed that there is reduction of labour problems in the agricultural activities and the remaining sample farmers viewed that there is no such reduction labour problems. In Orathanadu block, out of 494 sample farmers, 343 (69.45 per cent) farmers felt that the labour problems were reduced due to the implementation of farm mechanization. As a whole 69.4 per cent of total farmers of the study opined that the labour problem was reduced.

A large amount of labour force should be injected into the farm activities if we go for all works manually. It leads to some sorts of labour problems. All these problems can be avoided by employing farm machines and even if there is problem, it would be the minimum.

220 Table 5.69 Area of cultivation and farm mechanisation

Sl. No Name of the Panchayat Yes No Total

1 Annappanpettai 17 81 98 2 Vadapathi 9 46 55 3 Irumbuthalai 11 55 66 Ammapettai 37 182 219 Block Total (16.89) (83.11) (100) 4 Vellur 13 63 76 5 Vadacheri 23 108 131 6 Pulavan kudikadu 12 56 68 Orathanadu 48 227 275 Block Total (17.45) (82.55) (100) Over all Total 85 409 494 % 17.2 82.8 100 Source: Primary data

Table 5.69 portrays the increase in area of cultivation due to implementation of farm mechanization. A total of 37 sample farmers (16.89 per cent) and 182 sample farmers (83.11 per cent) in Ammapettai block said that the area of cultivation increased and not increased respectively. In Orathanadu block, 17.45 per cent of the sample farmers said that the area of cultivation has increased and the remaining 82.55 per cent of the sample respondents opined that the area of cultivation has not increased. They bring all their lands under cultivation already.

221 Table 5.70 Quick operation of agricultural works and agricultural machines Sl.No Name of the Panchayat Yes No Total 1 Annappanpettai 82 16 98 2 Vadapathi 45 10 55 3 Irumbuthalai 54 12 66 Ammapettai 181 38 219 Block Total (82.65) (17.35) (100) 4 Vellur 64 12 76 5 Vadacheri 109 22 131 6 Pulavan kudikadu 58 10 68 Orathanadu 231 44 275 Block Total (84.00) (16.00) (100) Over all Total 412 82 494 % 83.40 16.60 100 Source: Primary data Table 5.70 shows the speed of agricultural activities on account of agricultural machines. Out of 494 sample farmers in both the blocks, more than 80 per cent of the sample farmers in these blocks enjoyed the speedier operation of agricultural works due to farm machines. The time requires for cultivation is minimized and a huge amount of works can be done within limited period of time. The implementation of farm mechanization in the activities such as ploughing and harvesting fetch fruitful results to the farmers. The preparatory works for the cultivation of paddy in an acre is minimized when compared to the manual works for the same. Similarly, harvesting of paddy and related other works are done easily and quickly without any delay. But, 17.35 per cent of sample farmers in Ammapettai block and 16 per cent in the Orathanadu block have not experienced such speedier process of agricultural activities. They opined that the inordinate delay in preparing the machines for the operation and there are some technical difficulties arise while operating these machines.

222 Table 5.71 Crop rotation and agricultural machines Sl.No Name of the Panchayat Yes No Total 1 Annappanpettai 22 76 98 2 Vadapathi 12 43 55 3 Irumbuthalai 23 43 66 Ammapettai 57 162 219 Block Total (26.03) (73.97) (100) 4 Vellur 17 59 76 5 Vadacheri 30 101 131 6 Pulavan kudikadu 15 53 68 Orathanadu 62 213 275 Block Total (22.55) (77.45) (100) Over all Total 119 375 494 % 24 76 100 Source: Primary data Table 5.71 gives the details of crop rotation being practiced by the sample respondents. The crop rotation is concerned with the cultivation of different crops alternatively. On account of farm mechanization, the crop rotation is being practiced according to 26.03 per cent of the sample farmers in Ammapettai block and 22.55 per cent of the sample farmers in Orathanadu block. The remaining farmers opined that the crop rotation does not depend upon the farm mechanization but it depends upon the crops to be cultivated and their gestation periods.

223 Table No 5.72 Ammapettai Block Overall advantages Results of Farm Mechanisation Reduction Reduction Increase Increase in Increase Speedier Crop Table Name of work of labour in area of Total production in profit operations rotation burden problem cultivation s s s s s s s

Sl. o o o o o o o e Name of the Panchayat e e e e e e Yes No N N N N N N N Y No Y Y Y Y Y Y 1 Annappanpettai 39 59 87 11 89 09 68 30 17 81 82 16 22 76 404 282 2 Vadapathi 22 33 43 12 44 11 38 17 09 46 45 10 12 43 213 172 3 Irumbuthalai 26 40 59 07 53 13 46 20 11 55 54 12 23 43 272 190 Total 87 132 189 30 186 33 152 67 37 182 181 38 57 162 889 644 % 39.73 60.27 86.30 13.70 84.93 15.07 69.41 30.59 16.89 83.11 82.65 17.35 26.03 73.97 57.99 42.01

Total Respondents 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 1533 Source: Primary Data The table 5.72 portrays the advantages of farm mechanization in Ammapettai block. 219 sample farmers were selected and their opinions towards advantages of farm mechanization were recorded. On account of farm mechanization, the amount of production has increased to a considerable extent and this is viewed by 60.27 per cent of the sample farmers and there is reduction of manual works according to 86.30 per cent of the sample farmers. Similarly the amount of profit has also increased (according to 84.93 per cent) and the labour problems were reduced to possible extent. Through the farm mechanization is being practiced in this block, the area of cultivation is not increased so much. A notable advantage of farm mechanization in this block is there is a speedier operation of agricultural works and there is no such advantage of crop rotation.

224 Table No 5.73 Orathanadu Block Overall advantages Results of Farm Mechanisation Reduction Reduction Increase in Increase in Increase in Speedier Crop Table Name of work of labour area of Total production profit operations rotation burden problem cultivation s s s s s s s

Sl. Name of the o o o o o o o e e e e e e e Yes No N N N N N N N Y No. Panchayat Y Y Y Y Y Y 1 Vellur 30 46 67 09 61 15 53 23 13 63 64 12 17 59 305 227 2 Vadacheri 52 79 116 15 106 25 91 40 23 108 109 22 30 101 527 390 3 Pulavan kudikadu 27 41 60 08 55 13 47 21 12 56 58 10 15 53 274 202 Total 109 166 243 32 222 53 191 84 48 227 231 44 62 213 1106 819 % 39.64 60.36 88.36 11.64 80.73 19.27 69.45 30.55 17.45 82.55 84 16 22.55 77.45 57.45 42.55 Total Respondents 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 1925 Source: Primary Data The table 5.73 reveals the advantages of farm mechanization in Orathanadu block. Out of 275 sample farmers, more than 60 per cent of them opined that the amount of production is not increased to a desirable extent due to farm mechanization. But they clearly pointed out that the work burden reduced substantially (88.36 per cent of the sample farmers). At the same time more than 80 per cent of the sample farmers said that the profit increased to a greater extent by practicing the farm mechanization. Nearly 70 per cent of the farmers viewed that the labour problems are reduced and the net cultivable area has not been increased due to farm mechanization. A major advantage of the farm mechanization is speedier operations of agricultural works and this save time and money. The crop rotation is being done to a smaller limit.

225 Table No 5.74 Overall advantages Results of Farm Mechanisation Reduction Reduction Increase in Increase in Increase in Speedier Crop Table Name of work of labour area of Total production profit operations rotation burden problem cultivation s s s s s s s o o o o o o Sl. Name of the o e e e e e e e Yes No N N N N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y No Panchayat Y 1 Annappanpettai 39 59 87 11 89 09 68 30 17 81 82 16 22 76 404 282 2 Vadapathi 22 33 43 12 44 11 38 17 09 46 45 10 12 43 213 172 3 Irumbuthalai 26 40 59 07 53 13 46 20 11 55 54 12 23 43 272 190 Ammapettai 87 132 189 30 186 33 152 67 37 182 181 38 57 162 889 644 Block Total 5 Vellur 30 46 67 09 61 15 53 23 13 63 64 12 17 59 305 227 6 Vadacheri 52 79 116 15 106 25 91 40 23 108 109 22 30 101 527 390 7 Pulavan kudikadu 27 41 60 08 55 13 47 21 12 56 58 10 15 53 274 202 Orathanadu 109 166 243 32 222 53 191 84 48 227 231 44 62 213 1106 819 Block Total Over all Total 196 298 432 62 408 86 343 151 85 409 412 82 119 375 1995 1463

% 39.68 60.32 87.45 12.55 82.59 17.41 69.43 30.57 17.21 82.79 83.40 16.60 24.09 75.91 57.69 42.31

Total Respondents 494 494 494 494 494 494 494 3458 Source: Primary Data

226 The main aim of every agricultural activity is to achieve the maximum amount of yield. Farm mechanization though it reduces a solid amount of manual works, the agricultural production is not increased to a desirable limit. Out of the sample farmers, 60.27 per cent of the sample farmers in Ammapettai block said that there is no increase in agricultural production by using agricultural machines and it is 60.36 per cent in the case Orathanadu block. A major benefit of farm mechanization is reduction of manual labour and work burden. More than 85 per cent of the sample farmers each in Ammapettai and Orathanadu block said that the agricultural machineries reduce the work burden to a greater extent. It is commonly viewed that the farm mechanization increases the amount of profits to the farmers. But according to more than 50 per cent of the sample farmers in these blocks told that the amount of profit is not increased even by applying the agricultural machines. Nearly 50 per cent of the farmers are in view of there is no any change in the amount of profit. The labour force is substituted by the farm machines and nearly 70 per cent of the sample farmers in these blocks pointed out that the problems of labourers reduced considerably.

Farm mechanization facilitated to increase the area of vegetation and this is viewed by 37 sample farmers in Ammapettai block and 48 sample farmers in Orathanadu block. The farm mechanization also brings small holdings of land into land consolidation and there by economies of scale in cultivation is derived. On account of mechanization of farm activities, there is possibility of speedier process of agricultural works. More than 80 per cent of sample farmers opined like this. Since the study area falls in the delta region, the paddy cultivation is being done for two or three times successively. Therefore the crop rotation is very small.

227 Testing of Hypothesis: 3

Ho: There is no significant difference in the opinion about advantages level between the two blocks of Ammapettai and Orathanadu in Thanjavur district.

To test the differences in the opinion about advantages level between the two blocks of Ammapettai and Orathanadu in Thanjavur district, Chi- square test is applied.

The test statistic is

( − ) = The calculated value: The table value = 0. 08

.5 = 3.84

< .5 Since the calculated value is less than the table value, the null hypothesis is accepted.

And there is no difference in the opinion about advantages level between the two blocks of Ammapettai and Orathanadu.

228 Table 5.75 Mechanisation of agriculture attracted more youths in agriculture

Sl.No Name of the Panchayat Yes No Total 1 Annappanpettai 01 97 98 2 Vadapathi - 55 55 3 Irumbuthalai - 66 66 Ammapettai 01 218 219 Block Total (0.46) (99.54) (100) 4 Vellur 02 74 76 5 Vadacheri 01 130 131 6 Pulavan kudikadu 05 63 68 Orathanadu 08 267 275 Block Total (2.91) (97.09) (100) Over all Total 09 485 494 % 01.82 98.18 100 Source: Primary data The table 5.75 exhibits the details of mechanization of agriculture and if attraction towards youth into agricultural activities. It was found that 99.54 per cent of the sample farmers in Ammapettai block and 97.09 per cent of the sample farmers in Orathanadu block said that youths in these blocks were not attracted by the farm mechanization practices and only a few sample farmers responded that youths are attracted.

There are so many reasons behind this. Even though farm mechanisation brings a fruitful profit to the farmers, the cultivation has decreased due to non- availability of sufficient water for cultivation. The three term cultivation practice reduced into one- term in many parts of these blocks. There is no round the year employment opportunities in the farm activities. Therefore, youths are not much attracted and they switch over to some other business and employment.

229 Table 5.76 Increase in the amount of wage of agriculture labourers

Sl.No Name of the Panchayat Yes No Total

1 Annappanpettai 74 24 98 2 Vadapathi 51 04 55 3 Irumbuthalai 47 19 66 Ammapettai 172 47 219 Block Total (78.54) (21.46) (100) 4 Vellur 68 08 76 5 Vadacheri 106 25 131 6 Pulavan kudikadu 61 07 68 Orathanadu 235 40 275 Block Total (85.45) (14.55) (100) Over all Total 407 87 494 % 82.38 17.62 100 Source: Primary data The table 5.76 conveys the increase in the wages of agricultural labourers amidst the implementation of farm machines. Though the farm machines are employed in the cultivational practices, there are certain works are being carried out with the help of agricultural labourers. Besides, the small farmers are mostly employ agricultural labourers instead of agricultural machines.

There are 78.54 per cent of the sample farmers in Ammapettai block, viewed that the wages of agricultural labourers have been increasing and in the case of Orathanadu block, it is 85.45 per cent. Only 21.46 per cent of the sample farmers in Ammapettai block and 14.55 per cent of sample farmers in Orathanadu block fall under the category of “no”.

230 Table 5.77 Interest of the people in agriculture activities after the application of agricultural machineries

Sl.No Name of the Panchayat Yes No Total

1 Annappanpettai 43 55 98 2 Vadapathi 40 15 55 3 Irumbuthalai 31 35 66 Ammapettai 114 105 219 Block Total (52.05) (47.95) (100) 4 Vellur 41 35 76 5 Vadacheri 73 58 131 6 Pulavan kudikadu 26 42 68 Orathanadu 140 135 275 Block Total (50.91) (49.09) (100) Over all Total 254 240 494 % 51.41 48.59 100 Source: Primary data The table 5.77 portrays the interest of the people in agricultural activities due to farm machines and their implementation. It was found that more than 50 per cent of the sample respondents in both the blocks considered that people show their interest in farm activities after the arrival of machines for farming purposes. This is because of the fact that these farm machines make agricultural activities very easy and speedier operations are also possible. But at the same time very close to 50 per cent of the sample farmers viewed that the people do not show their interest in this regard. The large and medium farmers and their family members showed their interest in cultivation operations due to the economy of scale arising in their lands. But the small and marginal farmers do not show their interest much.

231 Table 5.78 Mechanization of agriculture and the usage of cattle population in agriculture

Sl.No Name of the Panchayat Yes No Total

1 Annappanpettai 93 5 98

2 Vadapathi 52 3 55 3 Irumbuthalai 63 3 66 Ammapettai 208 11 219 Block Total (94.98) (5.02) (100) 4 Vellur 73 3 76 5 Vadacheri 125 6 131 6 Pulavan kudikadu 65 3 68 Orathanadu 263 12 275 Block Total (95.64) (4.36) (100) Over all Total 471 23 494 % 95.35 4.65 100 Source: Primary data Table 5.78 shows the impact of mechanization of agricultural activities on the usage of cattle population in the study area. In the case of Ammapettai blocks, all the selected panchayats shows that there is a substantial amount of reduction of cattle population due to arrival of agricultural machines. The cattle population especially bull and buffalo and their usage were reduced to a greater extent. Because, these cattle populations work were replaced by the agricultural machines. But, the farmers rear other types of cattle such as cows, goats for the commercial purpose.

The cost of maintenance of the cattle population and the cost of mechanized cultivation changed the scenario and the cattle population’ usage finally reduced.

232 Table 5.79 Opportunities for youths in the agricultural activities

Sl.No Name of the Panchayat Yes No Total

1 Annappanpettai 01 97 98 2 Vadapathi - 55 55 3 Irumbuthalai 02 64 66 Ammapettai 03 216 219 Block Total (1.37) (98.63) (100) 4 Vellur 04 72 76 5 Vadacheri 03 128 131 6 Pulavan kudikadu 05 63 68 Orathanadu 12 263 275 Block Total (4.36) (95.64) (100) Over all Total 15 479 494 % 3.03 96.97 100 Source: Primary data The table 5.79 presents the opportunities available for youth in the agricultural activities. It was found that 98.63 per cent of the sample farmers in Ammapettai block viewed that there is no chance for attracting youth in the agricultural activities and the same view is perceived by the 95.64 per cent of the sample respondents in Orathanadu block. The continuing non-availability of adequate water for cultivation, increasing cost of cultivation are said to be the prime reasons for this.

233 Table 5.80 Method of cultivation

Sl. No Name of the Panchayat Traditional SRI Both Total 1 Annappanpettai 09 77 12 98 2 Vadapathi 06 40 09 55 3 Irumbuthalai 04 59 03 66 Ammapettai 12 183 24 219 Block Total (5.48) (83.56) (10.96) (100) 4 Vellur 07 60 09 76 5 Vadacheri 13 104 14 131 6 Pulavan kudikadu 09 50 09 68 Orathanadu Block 29 214 32 275 Total (10.54) (77.82) (11.64) (100) Over all Total 41 397 56 494 % 8.30 80.37 11.33 100 Source: Primary data Table 5.80 presents the method of rice cultivation adopted by the sample farmers. As far as Ammapettai block is concerned, out of 219 sample farmers, 5.48 per cent of them adopting traditional pattern of cultivation of paddy and 83.56 per cent of them adopting System of Rice Intensification method and it was found that 10.96 per cent of the sample farmers in Ammapettai block adopting both the method of cultivation.

Regarding Orathanadu block, out of 275 sample farmers, 10.54 per cent of them adopting the traditional method and 77.82 per cent of the respondents adopt System of Rice Intensification method. The farmers who are practicing both the methods are 32 in number and they contribute 11.64 per cent in the total sample farmers. As a whole, more than 80 per cent of the total sample farmers of the both the blocks are practicing System of Rice Intensification cultivation method. The number of farmers who fall under the traditional cultivation of paddy were found to be a very few in number.

234 Table 5.81 Type of Irrigation Facilities Sl. Name of the a b c d e f Total No Panchayat 1 Annappanpettai 58 - - 11 29 - 98 2 Vadapathi 34 - - 05 16 - 55 3 Irumbuthalai 40 - - 06 20 - 66 Ammapettai 132 22 57 219 - - - Block Total (60.27) (10.05) (31.67) (100) 4 Vellur 45 - - 08 23 - 76 5 Vadacheri 79 - - 12 40 - 131 6 Pulavan kudikadu 40 - - 08 20 - 68 Orathanadu 164 28 123 275 - - - Block Total (59.64) (10.18) (68.33) (100) Over all Total 296 - - 50 180 - 494 % 59.91 - - 10.12 36.44 - 100 Source: Primary data Note: a.Canal, b.Tanks, c.Wells, d.Diesel Pump, e.Electric Pump, f.Others

Table 5.81 reveals the type of irrigation facilities available to the sample farmers. Though there are a variety of irrigation facilities, the major irrigation facilities are found in the study area are canal irrigation, diesel pump and electric pump. In the case of Ammapettai block, there are 132 sample farmers (60.27 per cent) availing their water directly from the canals and this is followed by 57 sample farmers (31.67 per cent) using electric pump for their irrigation. Only 22 farmers (10.05 per cent) were found to be in the category of diesel pump users. This is the same case and more or less equal for Orathanadu block. Out of 275 sample respondents, the irrigation facilities such as canals, electric pump and diesel pump are availed by 59.64 per cent, 68.33 per cent and 10.18 per cent respectively. Since the study area falls under delta region, most of the farmers avail their water directly from the canals. The farmers in both the blocks do not pay any electricity tariff to the Government since the Government provides 100 per cent electricity subsidy to all types of farmers not only in the study area but also in Tamilnadu.

235 Table 5.82 Comparative statement of the Cost of paddy Cultivation - Traditional versus Mechanized methods (Per acre) Field Traditional Mechanized Sl. Operations No Name of the a b c d e f g h Total a b c d e f g h Total Panchayat 1 Annappanpettai 1900 1050 1600 1550 1500 4500 350 2300 14750 1600 1400 850 650 1300 5900 400 1700 13800

2 Vadapathi 2000 1100 1550 1400 1650 4800 500 2400 15400 1500 1450 975 600 1200 6200 300 1800 14025

3 Irumbuthalai 1950 1150 1700 1600 1800 4300 650 2450 15600 1600 1350 950 550 1300 6400 350 1750 14250 Ammapettai 1950 1100 1616.7 1516.7 1650 4533.3 500 2383.3 15250 1566.67 1400 925 600 1266.67 6166.66 350 1750 14025 Block Average 4 Vellur 1900 1150 1650 1600 1750 5200 400 2450 16100 1400 1400 1100 700 1400 6500 450 1650 14600

5 Vadacheri 1950 1100 1600 1550 1500 4600 350 2300 14950 1500 1525 925 700 1300 5850 400 1750 13950

6 Pulavan kudikadu 1850 1150 1600 1600 1650 5100 400 2400 15750 1550 1450 875 650 1200 6000 550 1700 13975 Orathanadu 1900 1133.34 1616.68 1583.33 1633.33 4966.66 383.33 2383.33 15600 1483.33 1458.33 966.67 683.33 1300 6116.67 466.67 1700 14175 Block Average Overall Average 1925 1116.67 1616.68 1550 1641.67 4749.98 441.67 2383.31 15425 1525 1429.17 945.83 641.67 1283.33 6141.66 408.33 1725 14100

Source: Primary data

Notes: a. Main field preparation b. Sowing, c. Nursery Pulling d. Transplantation e. Weeding f. Manures/ Fertilizers/chemicals, g. Irrigation, h. Harvesting and Threshing.

236 Table 5.82 shows the comparative statement of the cost of paddy cultivation between traditional and mechanized methods. The total cost of paddy cultivation through traditional method (overall average) is shown as Rs.15,425 per acre whereas by mechanized method, the cost is Rs.14,100 per acre which means Rs.1325 per acre is lesser in the cost of production through mechanized method than traditional method.

The cost for main field preparation, sowing, nursery pulling, transplantation, weeding, irrigation activities are higher in traditional method than mechanized method. It is to be highlighted that the cost for manure/ fertilizers seems to be higher in mechanized method as shown (overall average) Rs.6141.66 per acre than traditional method. Hence it is interpreted from the data that except for sowing and manuring, the cost of paddy cultivation through mechanized method is lesser than traditional method. The same scenario is found in both Orathanadu and Ammapettai blocks.

The table further states that the cost of paddy cultivation through traditional method in Ammapettai block is Rs.15250 per acre. The cost of production by mechanization method is being Rs.14025 which shows that the cost of production by mechanization is lesser than traditional method. The same condition is found in Orathanadu block also. The cost of production by traditional method is Rs.15600 whereas the cost of production through mechanized method is Rs.14175. It shows again that mechanization brings lesser cost of production than traditional one.

237 Table 5.83 Comparative statement of the income of paddy Cultivation Traditional versus Mechanized method (Per acre)

Field Traditional Mechanized Sl. Operations No Name of the a b c d Total a b c d Total Panchayat 1 Annappanpettai 31 33 25110 750 25860 32 29 25920 675 26595 2 Vadapathi 30 32 24300 700 25000 30 28 24300 675 24975 3 Irumbuthalai 29 31 23490 725 24215 30 29 24300 650 24950 Ammapettai 30 32 24300 725 25025 30.67 28.67 24840 666.67 25506.67 Block Average 4 Vellur 28 29 22680 650 23330 29 27 23490 650 24140 5 Vadacheri 30 31 24300 750 25050 31 30 25110 700 25810 6 Pulavan kudikadu 29 30 23490 700 24190 31 30 25110 700 25810 Orathanadu 29 30 23490 700 24190 30.33 29 24570 683.33 25253.33 Block Average Overall Average 29.5 31 23895 712.5 24607.5 30.5 28.83 24705 675 25380

Source: Primary data Notes: a. Grain Yield (in Bags 60kgs) b. Straw Yield (in bales) c. Grain Value d. Straw Value e. Gross Income

Mechanization of farms not only increases production and productivity, but also reduces drudgery and increases labour productivity. This results in increased savings and income to the farmer. Table 5.83 indicates the comparative statement of the income from paddy cultivation through traditional and mechanized methods. The data shows that 238 Rs.25,380 per acre has been incurred as overall average income through mechanized method whereas Rs.24,607.50 per acre is incurred through traditional method. It seems that Rs.772.50 is the benefit through the mechanization of cultivation which means only 3.1 per cent is more than the income through traditional method.

Table 5.86 further explains that the total income through traditional method in Ammapettai block seems to be Rs.25025 but it increases to Rs.25506.67 through mechanized cultivation in the same block. The same situation is being seen in Orathanadu block also. The income through traditional method has been Rs.24190 but it increases to Rs.25253.33 by mechanized method. So, mechanization gives more income than traditional method of paddy cultivation in both Ammapettai and Orathanadu blocks.

It is also interesting to note that the cost of production in traditional method is lesser than mechanized method. But the income through mechanized method of cultivation in both the blocks seems to be higher. It is interesting to note that the increase of grain yield per acre through mechanization is only one bag of grain which weighs 60 Kgs. of grain. Mechanisation does not give so much of increase in grain yield. It is found that the increase of grain yield is only “negligible”.

It is also seen from the table that the yield of straw is 2.17 bales per acre which is more in traditional method. Because of more grain value through mechanized method the income from paddy cultivation found to be little more than the traditional method.

239 Table 5.84 Comparative statement of the Profit of paddy Cultivation Traditional versus Mechanized Method (Per acre)

Field Operations Traditional Mechanized Sl. Name of the No Cost Income Profit Total Cost Income Profit Total Panchayat 1 Annappanpettai 14750 25860 11110 13800 26595 12795 2 Vadapathi 15400 25000 9600 14025 24975 10950 3 Irumbuthalai 15600 24215 8615 14250 24950 10700 Ammapettai 15250 25025 9775 14025 25506.67 11481.67 Block Average 4 Vellur 16100 23330 7230 14600 24140 9540 5 Vadacheri 14950 25050 10100 13950 25810 11860 6 Pulavan kudikadu 15750 24190 8440 13975 25810 11835 Orathanadu 15600 24190 8590 14175 25253.33 11078.33 Block Average Overall Average 15425 24607.5 9182.5 14100 25380 11280

Source: Primary data

240 Table 5.84 explains the comparative statement of the profit from paddy cultivation through traditional and mechanized methods. The cost of production in traditional method of farming overall average is being Rs.15,425 per acre and the profit overall average becomes Rs.9182.5 per acre whereas the cost of production in mechanized method overall average is Rs.14,100 per acre and the profit is being Rs.11,280 per acre which means Rs.2097.50 per acre is more benefitted through mechanization. The cost of production in Annappanpettai panchayat through traditional method is lesser (Rs.14,750 per acre) than all other panchayats but the profit seems to be higher in this panchayat (Rs.11,110 per acre). Moreover, the cost of production through mechanized method in Annappanpettai seems to be lesser (Rs.13,800 per acre) than any other panchayats and the profit also becomes more than all other panchayats (Rs.12,795 per acre).

This table explains further that the profit incurred through traditional method is Ammapettai block seems to be Rs.9775 whereas Rs.11481.67 has been incurred through mechanized method in the same block. It shows that the mechanization in the field brings more profit than traditional one. The same scenario can be found in Orathanadu block, there is also the profit incurred through traditional method is Rs.8596 whereas the profit through mechanization is being Rs.11078.33 in this block. It is again representing the benefit of mechanization of paddy cultivation in Orathanadu block.

On contrary to this, the cost of production in Vellur panchayat of Orathanadu block is Rs.16,100 per acre whereas the profit becomes Rs.7230 which shows the lesser profit than any other panchayats. Hence this table clearly explains that if the cost of production is higher, the lesser will be the profit. Mechanization incurs lesser cost of production but it leads to give better profit than traditional method.

241 Testing of Hypothesis: 4 Ho: There is no significant difference between the traditional and mechanized methods of cost of cultivation among Ammapettai and Orathanadu block in Thanjavur district.

To test the differences in cost of cultivation between traditional and mechanized methods of Ammapettai and Orathanadu blocks in Thanjavur district, t - test is applied.

The formula for ‘t’ test:

1 − t = 2 2 × + 1 1 1 + The calculated value:

The table value = 3.49

.5 Since, = .96 HO is Rejected.

= 3.49 > .5 = .96 By applying the formula of ‘t’ test, the significance level has been calculated. The calculated ‘t’ value is 3.49. It is greater than the table value (1.96) at the significance level of 0.05 percent. Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected and it is concluded that there is a significant difference between the traditional and mechanized method in cost of cultivation among Ammapettai and Orathanadu block in Thanjavur district.

242 Testing of Hypothesis: 5

Ho: There is no significant difference in income between traditional and mechanized methods among the farmers of Ammapettai and Orathanadu blocks in Thanjavur district.

To find out the differences of average income between the farmers of Ammapettai and Orathanadu Blocks in Thanjavur district, t - test is applied.

The formula for ‘t’ test:

1 − t = 2 2 × + 1 1 1 + The calculated value:

= 0.9 The table value

.5 = .96 Since HO = Accepted.

= 0.9 .5 It is found out from the

There is no significant difference in income between the farmers of Ammapettai and Orathanadu block in Thanjavur district.

243 Testing of Hypothesis: 6

Ho: There is no significant difference in profit between the traditional and mechanized methods of cultivation in Ammapettai and Orathanadu Blocks of Thanjavur District.

To test the differences in profit between the farmers of Ammapettai and Orathanadu Blocks in Thanjavur district, t- test is applied.

The test statistic is

1 − t = 2 2 × + 1 1 1 + The calculated value:

The table value = .80

Since, .5 = .96 Ho = Accepted.

= .80 < .5 = .96 It is found out that the calculated ‘t’ value is 1.80 and it is lesser than the table ‘t’ value (1.96) at 0.05 level of significance. Hence, the null hypothesis is accepted and it is concluded that

There is no significant difference in profit between the farmers of Ammapettai and Orathanadu blocks of Thanjavur district through Mechanisation.

244 Testing of Hypothesis: 7

Ho: There is no significant correlation between cost and profit in traditional and mechanized methods of cultivation in Ammapettai and Orathanadu blocks of Thanjavur District.

To test the significant correlation between cost and profit in Traditional and Mechanized methods of cultivation in Ammapet and Orathanadu Blocks in Thanjavur district, the analysis is carried out by using SPSS software and results are found out.

The test statistic is,

Descriptive Statistics (TRADITIONAL METHOD) Mean Std. Deviation N Cost 1.5425 504.72765 6 Profit 9.1825 1372.36930 6

Correlations (TRADITIONAL METHOD)

Cost Profit

Pearson Correlation 1 -.983** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 Cost Sum of Squares and Cross- 1.274 -3.406 products Covariance 2.548 -6.812 Pearson Correlation -.983** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 Profit Sum of Squares and Cross- -3.406 9.417 products Covariance -6.812 1.883 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

245 Descriptive Statistics (MECHANISED METHOD) Mean Std. Deviation N Cost 1.4100 285.04386 6 Profit 1.1280 1132.47958 6

Correlations (MECHANISED METHOD) Cost Profit Pearson Correlation 1 -.956** Sig. (2-tailed) .003 Cost Sum of Squares and 4.062 -1.543 Cross-products Covariance 8.125 -3.086 Pearson Correlation -.956** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .003 Profit Sum of Squares and -1.543 6.413 Cross-products Covariance -3.086 1.283 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Here, the calculated value: In Traditional method and − 0.98 In Mechanized method = Since the calculated ‘r’ value is lesser than the table ‘r’ value at 0.01 − 0.9 level of significance, the null hypothesis is accepted. = Hence there is no significant correlation between cost and profit in traditional and Mechanised methods of cultivation in Ammapettai and Orathanadu blocks of Thanjavur District.

It is concluded that, There is negative correlation between the cost and profit in traditional and mechanized methods of cultivation of Ammapettai and Orathanadu blocks in Thanjavur District.

246 Testing of Hypothesis: 8 Ho: There is no significant correlation between production and profit in Traditional and Mechanised methods of cultivation in Ammapettai and Orathanadu blocks of Thanjavur District. To test the significant correlation between production and profit in Traditional and Mechanised methods of cultivation in Ammapet and Orathanadu Blocks in Thanjavur district, the analysis is carried out by using SPSS software and results are found out.

The test statistic is Descriptive Statistics (TRADITIONAL METHOD) Mean Std. Deviation N Cost 1.7700 62.92853 6 Profit 9.2075 1357.42311 6

Correlations (TRADITIONAL METHOD) Cost Profit Pearson Correlation 1 .993** Sig. (1-tailed) .000 Cost Sum of Squares and 19800.000 4.240 Cross-products Covariance 3960.000 8.481 N 6 6 Pearson Correlation .993** 1 Sig. (1-tailed) .000 Profit Sum of Squares and 4.240 9.213 Cross-products Covariance 84810.000 1.843 N 6 6 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).

247 Descriptive Statistics (MECHANISED METHOD) Mean Std. Deviation N Production 1.8300 62.92853 6 Profit 1.1280 1132.47958 6

Correlation for (MECHANISED METHOD) Cost Profit Pearson Correlation 1 .994** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 Cost Sum of Squares and 1.980 3.543 Cross-products Covariance 3960.000 7.086 Pearson Correlation .994** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 Profit Sum of Squares and 3.543 6.413 Cross-products Covariance 7.086 1.283 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Here, the calculated value: In Traditional method and 0.99 In Mechanized method = Since the calculated ‘r’ value is greater than the table ‘r’ value at 0.01 = 0.99 level of significance, the null hypothesis is rejected. Hence, it is concluded that, There is positive correlation between the production and profit in traditional and mechanized methods of cultivation in Ammapettai and Orathanadu blocks of Thanjavur District.

248 CHAPTER VI

FINDINGS, SUGGESTIONS AND CONCLUSION CHAPTER- VI

Findings, Suggestions and Conclusion

The summary of the important findings and meaningful conclusions drawn on the basis of the research work have been precisely presented in this chapter. To assess the utilization of farm mechanization, a field study has been conducted in the selected panchayats of Ammapettai, and Orathanadu block in Thanjavur District of Tamil Nadu. The findings based on the primary data analysis are summarized below.

Findings based on Primary Data Analysis: 1. A total of 494 farmers were taken as sample respondents. Of them 95% are male farmers and only 2.5% are female farmers. 2. Since agriculture involves a strong physical works, the farmers ranging from 30 years old to 60 years old were taken for analysis. A good majority of the sample farmers are Hindus. There is no concentration of other religious farmers in agricultural activities in the study area. 3. Among the sample farmers, three-fourth of them belong to backward community followed by the most backward and Scheduled Caste farmers. A vast majority of the sample farmers are married and among the female farmers, a few are widows. 4. Regarding the educational qualifications of the sample farmers, secondary and primary education was found to be the most common among them. There are also farmers with higher education but they are limited in numbers. Besides, nearly 20% of the sample farmers are illiterates. 5. As far as the family type of the sample farmers is concerned, more than 85 % of them belong to nuclear type family and the remaining belong to joint families. 6. Almost all the sample farmers except a few are having their own houses and more than 50% of them were found have the concrete houses.

249 7. It was found that a majority of sample respondents are full time farmers, farmers cum agricultural labourers and farmers cum non agricultural labourers. Only a few of the farmers are looking after other jobs. 8. The present study covered maximum of marginal farmers and they contribute 52% of the total respondents. The small farmers and the medium farmers occupy the remaining places. 9. The small farmers of the present study are having different years of farming experiences. Of them, farmers having experiences of 15 years to 25 years were found to be more in number. They have the maximum experiences of employing farm equipments. 10.The main source of income to the sample farmers in this study is agriculture along with the some other sources. A substantial number of farmers in this study fall in the income range between Rs. 75000 to Rs.200000. Regarding their annual expenditure, nearly 50 % of the sample farmers lie in the range between Rs.25000 to 50000 followed by a good number of sample farmers who spend upto Rs.25000 annually. This expenditure includes both family as well as agricultural expenditures. 11.Regarding saving the sample farmers save a certain amount annually. But the amount of saving was found to be very low among the maximum number of farmers in this study. 12.Banks, Cooperative Banks, and Post offices are the main financial institutions in which the farmers save their money. They are good at banking habits now than before. But a solid amount is kept by them as perfect liquidity with them in order to meet the routine agricultural expenditures and other contingency expenditures. They save for many purposes and the main purposes are old age security, meeting medical expenditures and children’s educational expenditures. 13.Though they save, they borrow loans and advances for various purposes. In spite of many purposes, the most purposes of borrowing loans and advances are purchase of machineries and for the purpose of crop cultivation. They borrowed

250 maximum of loans and advances from the cooperative banks and commercial banks. 14.Since the sample farmers in this study area employ farm machines and equipments in more amount, they do not possesses cattles. If they possesses, they are milch animals. 15.Regarding the possession of farm machineries and equipments, all the medium farmers owned them and more than 60% of the small farmers have their own farm machineries and equipments. The number of marginal farmers who are having own farm machineries and equipments were found to be below 50%. 16.The sample farmers in this study employ a variety of farm machineries and equipments. Of them jet motors, electric pump sets, tractors and power tillers are the equipments held by maximum number of farmers both in Ammapet and Orathanadu block. Apart from these bullock drawn equipments are used by the farmers and wooden plough and land leveler are the most common.

Findings regarding the level of Awareness on farm mechanization: 17.It was found that more than 90% of the sample farmers in both Ammapet and Orathanadu block got awareness about the subsidy which is given by the government towards buying of agricultural machineries. But at the same time almost all the sample farmers in both the blocks do not get awareness about the amount of subsidy. 18.It was concluded that nearly 70% of the small farmers in the study area do not have awareness on the availability of agricultural machines meant for rental purposes. The vast majority of the sample farmers in the study area are not aware of different types of agricultural machines available for rental purposes. 19.Similarly, they did not get awareness not only on the amount of rent but also on the institutional loan facilities.

251 20.All the sample famers except a few do not get awareness on training facilities and their usages. Only a few number of sample farmers in both the blocks attended the training programmes. 21.Nearly 70% of the sample farmers in the study area are not aware of the usage of agricultural machines during the plantation activities and more than 90% of them do not know how to repair the agricultural machines. 22.Even though the sample farmers employ the agricultural machines, maximum of them are not aware of machine power and productivity. They do not know about insuring the agricultural machines. 23.It is inferred that there is no significant difference among the sample farmers of Ammapet and Orathanadu blocks on the awareness of the level of farm mechanisation and Chi-square test confirmed this hypothesis.

Findings regarding impact of farm mechanization 24.There are many problems found in association with the farm mechanisation in the study area. More than 60% of the sample farmers in the study area face the problems of availability of agricultural machineries in time. At the same time, more than 90% of the sample farmers face hardship in getting the subsidy amount without any difficulties. 25.A good number of the sample farmers in both the blocks of study area face the problems of availability of operators of agricultural machineries during the cultivation time and availability of repairing mechanics in time. 26.The agricultural machineries cannot be used for all the seasons according to 85% of the sample farmers in the study area. There is severe problem of availability of required spare parts from nearby shops and there is no severe problem of availability of fuel. There is no problem of accident when the machines are in use. 27.By using the agricultural machines, there are certain amount of damages occur to the crops and soil. A maximum number of sample farmers pointed out that there is

252 damage for straw and there is no such damage to the soil quality. There is no opposition from the agricultural labourers for farm mechanisation. 28.It is concluded that there is problem of unemployment among the village people to a limited extent. More than 60% of the sample farmers agreed that there is reduction of both male and female agricultural labourers due to farm mechanisation. 29.More than 50% of the sample farmers in the study area face the problem of difficulties in using the agricultural machineries on small and marginal lands. They also state that there is problem of increasing maintenance and repairing cost of farm machineries. 30.The farm mechanisation affects the environment and cause for environment pollution. But it is the minimum as per 30% of the sample farmers both in Ammapet and Orathanadu block of the study area. 31.Regarding the problems of farm mechanisation, there is no significant difference between problems faced by the sample farmers of Ammapet and Orathanadu blocks. The Chi-square test confirmed this hypothesis.

Findings regarding advantages of farm mechanization 32.It is found that more than 60% of the sample farmers in the study area opined that the farm mechanisation has not increased the agricultural production to desirable limits. At the same time, the mechanisation of farm activities reduced work burdens of agricultural labourers and farmers to a considerable extent. 33.The farm mechanisation increased the amount of profit up to a particular limit but the amount of profit is not increased substantially. 34.The farm mechanisation reduced the labour problems in agricultural activities and this has not increased the net area of cultivation. 35.The main benefit of farm mechanisation that is it speeds up the agricultural activities and reduces the cost. The crop rotation is not benefitted much from the

253 farm mechanisation. Though the farm mechanisation has many features it does not attract more youths in the agricultural sectors. 36.The wage of agricultural labourers increased and the farm mechanisation reduced the usage of cattle population to a greater extent. 37.It is inferred that there is no significant difference between the advantages availed from farm mechanisation between the farmers of Ammapet and Orathanadu block. The Chi-square test confirmed this hypothesis.

Cost – Benefit results: 38.Among the total sample farmers majority of the farmers adopt SRI (System of Rice Intensification method of paddy cultivation and few of them adopt both the traditional and SRI method of paddy cultivation. 39.The researcher compared the total cost of paddy cultivation incurred under traditional method with the mechanized method. It is found that all the items of total cost are found to be low under the mechanisation method when compared to traditional method. 40.Regarding the income arising from the traditional and mechanized methods, the total income was found to be more under the mechanisation method when compared to traditional method. 41.The only point is the value of straw is high under the traditional method of paddy cultivation. It was low in the mechanisation method of paddy cultivation. This is because of the fact that during the harvesting, the amount of damage to straw is the maximum in the mechanisation method. 42.It is concluded that the amount of profit is maximum under the farm mechanisation than the traditional cultivation. This is because the total cost of paddy cultivation is low under the mechanisation method and it is high under the traditional method of paddy cultivation.

254 Suggestions: On the basis of the above findings, the researcher gives the following suggestions: 1. The implementation of farm mechanisation is more viable and economical for the large scale farming but it is costlier for the small farmers. The scale of economies can generally be harvested in the case of large scale agricultural activities whereas these economies are not arising in the small farm practices. Therefore, in order to implement the effective farm mechanisation in the small scale farmings, steps can be taken for consolidation of small holdings.

2. A lot of farm machineries and equipments are needed for cultivational purposes. But, these farm machineries and equipments are available at huge cost. Therefore, the farmers, especially small and marginal farmers are not able to afford to buy them. For which, they can avail loans and advances from the banks. It is suggested that steps should be taken to provide these loans through more number of banks and financial institutions.

3. Even the farm mechanisation fetches some fruitful results in the agriculture in the study area, there is possibilities of crop failure due to natural calamities and other risk factors. During these situations, the farmers suffer from the repayment of their loans and related difficulties. Therefore, the researcher suggested that whenever the crop failure occurs, the banks and financial institutions should come forward to reduce or waiver of interest amount charged by them. It is also suggested that a short term loan can be converted into medium term or long term loans during these situation.

4. The farm mechanisation involves employing a variety of farm machineries and equipments. Though the farmers in the study area are easy to operate them, sometimes they face certain technical problems in handlings these equipments. Therefore, the demonstration works can be done by the agricultural officers in the farmers’ land itself.

255 5. It is suggested that all farmers should be given the sufficient amount of information on farm subsidies, the size of subsidy amount and other related information.

6. The problems and issues regarding the usage of farm machineries and equipments can be solved by conducting effective training programmes. Though the authority concerned conduct the periodical training programmes, only a limited number of farmers attend the training. Steps should be taken to include all the farmers to attend the training programme.

7. During busy cultivation periods, some farm machineries and equipments are not available for rent. This leads to facing severe hardships by the farmers in the study area. Therefore, adequate number of different types of farm mechineries and equipments can be made available during the busy agricultural seasons.

8. Using farm machineries in harvesting activities leads to damage of both final products and by-products. New technology can be innovated and introduced to avoid such damages.

9. Farm mechanisation results in unemployment of agricultural labourers to certain extent. These unemployed agricultural labourers especially male agricultural labourers can be given proper training to make them as farm machine operators in order to avoid their unemployment. This would facilitate them to earn the regular income just as agricultural workers.

10.There are agricultural colleges and research institutions in the nearby the study areas. A special arrangement should be made to take the farmers to these institutions to visit the farm practices adopted by these institutions on their lands by employing farm machines and equipments. This would give them a strong knowledge and experiences in the mechanisation of agricultural activities.

256 11.There is incidents of minor accidents with the farm machineries. Defense mechanism can be provided with the equipments to avoid such accidents. It is also suggested that the user friendly farm equipments can be handled.

Conclusion India is an agrarian country. More than 60 per cent of the total population engages in the agricultural activities either directly or indirectly. Since the agriculture is predominant one in the Indian economy, a lot of progress has been made in the agricultural activities. Number of measures has been taken to improve the agricultural production. Of them, the farm mechanisation is the most significant one. The green revolution introduced in the sixties helped a lot to promote the mechanisation of agricultural activities by introducing a variety of farm machines and equipments. The traditional and conventional farm practices are more expensive on one side and there was no scope for increasing the amount of the yield. The farm mechanisation gives not only a good profit to the farmers but also it fetches many economies of scale in the agricultural activities.

They face many problems while using their farm machines and equipment though they give many advantages to them. But these problems are easily solved on their own. Farmers in this study area adopting farm mechanisation enjoy the least - cost benefits than the farmers who are adopting the traditional farm practices. Since the farm mechanisation reduces the total costs to some extent, the amount of profits are high. This is because of the fact that the farm mechanisation gives more amount of yield and at the same time it reduces the costs. This cannot be seen in the traditional paddy cultivation method. It is concluded that the paddy cultivation farmers the sample respondents in this study area benefited much by adopting farm mechanisation in their cultivation activities than the farmers who are adopting the traditional one. If the above said suggestions are accomplished, the farm mechanisation would not only give the fruitful results to the farmers but also the entire agricultural world would flourish.

257 BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS 1. Bhagaban Swain (2002), Adoption of new Technology: Production Efficiency and Agrarian Relations, Kalpaz Publications – Delhi. 2. Bina Agarwal. B, (1983) “Mechanisation in Indian Agriculture: An Analytical Study Based on the Punjab, Allied Publishers, Issue 6 of Monograph in economics, Delhi School of Economics. Delhi. 3. Chander Bhan (1987), Farm Mechanisation and Social Change, Northern Book Centre - New Delhi. 4. Debashis Sarkar and Debajit Roy (2013), Effect of farm mechanisation on agricultural growth and comparative economics of labour and Machinery in west Bengal. Agro - Economic research centre, Visva - Bharati Santiniketan. 5. Diwa Kumari Singh (1993), Technological Change and Agricultural Development, Deep and Deep Publications - New Delhi. 6. Gyanedra Singh (1997), Data book on Mechanisation and Agro- Processing since independence, Central Institute of Agriculture Engineering, Bhopal. 7. Harbans Singh Sindhu (1991), Agricultural Development and Rural Labour: A Case Study of Punjab and Haryana, Concept Publishing Company, Delhi. 8. Indian Society of Agricultural Engineers (1978), Farm Mechanization, Problems & Prospects: Proceedings of the Symposium, ISAE North Chapter Ludhiana. 9. Jain T.R. & Ohri V.K (2006) “Indian Economy, Issues in Economic Development & Planning In India And Sectoral Aspects Of Indian Economy” V.K. Publications, New Delhi-2. 10. Jyotiprasad Bhattachariee, (1949), Mechanisation of Agriculture in India: Its Economics, Visva-Bharati Sriniketan. 11. Kahlon. A.S, Sharma. A.C and Deb. P.C (1974), Organisational and institutional implications of rapid growth and commercialization of Punjab Agriculture, Punjab Agricultural University. 12. Kochupurackal Narayanapillai and Sasidharan Nair (1980),Technological Changes in Agriculture: Impact on Productivity and Employment, Vision Books - Delhi. 13. Kulkarni, (2009), Mechanization of Agriculture - Indian Scenario, Paper presented at the conference on the Technical Committee of APCAEM (21- 24 November), New Delhi. 14. Ministry of Agriculture (2012), Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, New Delhi. 15. Narasimha Rao. P (2003), Economic Efficiency and farm Mechanisation, Serials Publications - Delhi. 16. Nwosu. A.C (1989), Agricultural Mechanisation in Nigeria: assessing the Strategies and technologies for land preparation, Nigerian Institute of Social and Economic Research. 17. RBI (2011), Handbook of Statistics on Indian Economy, Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai. 18. Sandhu. A.N and Mahajan.R.K (1985), Technological Change and Agricultural Development in India, Himalaya Publishing House- Bangalore. Journals

1. Abercrombie K.C, (1972), Agricultural Mechanisation and Employment in Latin America, International Labour Review, Vol-106, No.1, PP.11- 45. 2. Acharya S.S. (1973), “Green Revolution and Farm Employment,” Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol-23, No.3, PP.30-45. 3. Aguilar A.M, Camacho E.C, Generalla A.C, Moran P.B, Sison J.F, Tany, and Wicks J.A (1983), Consequences of small rice farm mechanisation in the Philippines. Consequences of Small Farm Mechanisation project working paper - 49. Los Banons Laguna. PP.152-164. 4. Akhil Alha and Bijoyata Yonzon (2011), Recent Developments in Farm Labour Availability in India and Reasons behind its Short Supply, Agricultural Economics Research Review, Vol-24, PP.381-390. 5. Anthony Panin (1995), Empirical Evidence of Mechanization Effects on Smallholder Crop Production Systems in Botswana, Agricultural Systems, Vol- 47, No.2, PP. 199–210. 6. Aurangzeb, Shaheen Nigar & Munir Khan (2007), “Labour requirement model for the wheat crop under mechanised and traditional farming systems in the NWFP: A case study of Peshawar District,” Sarhad Journal of Agriculture, Vol-23, No.1, PP. 177-186. 7. Bal, (1974), ‘Impact of Mechanisaiton on farm labour employment’, Agricultural Situation in India, Vol - 29, No.6, PP. 385-390. 8. Balishter (1983), Impact of Technological change on factor shares in farm income, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics. Vol - 38 No. 3, PP.450 9. Balishter and Mithlesh K.M (1998), Impact of tractor use in agriculture - A study in Agra Division of Uttar Pradesh. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics. Vol - 53, No.3, PP. 302-303. 10. Barton. D, (1999), Options for power tillers and draught animals on small farms. Project, Workshop on Options for Farm Power Use in Primary Cultivation on Small Farms, Vol. 2. Mymensingh: Bangladesh Agricultural University. 11. Bector Visha, Singh Surendra and Sharda Ajay, (2008), “Status & Recent Trends of Tractor Power in Indian Agriculture”, Agricultural Engineering Today, Vol-32, Issue-1, PP.16-26. 12. Bernsten. R.H., (1981), ‘Effects of mini – tractor mechanization on employment and labour use intensity: South Sulawesi and west Java, The Consequences of Small rice, The consequences of small rice farm mechanization 1project, working paper No.32. 13. Bidyut Kumar Ghosh (2010), ‘Determinants of Farm Mechanisation in Modern Agriculture: A Case study of Burdwan Districts of West Bengal. International Journal of Agricultural Research, Vol-5, No.12, PP. 1107-1115. 14. Bina Agarwal (1981), “Agricultural Mechanisation and labour use: a disaggregated approach,” International labour Review, Vol-120, No.1, PP.115-127. 15. Bina Agarwal (1984), “Tractors, Tubewells and cropping intensity in the Indian Punjab”, The Journal of Development studies. Vol-20, No.4, PP.290- 302. 16. Chauhan, Y.S. Singh D.S. and Singh T.R., (1981), ‘Impact of Farm Mechanisation on Labour use in Block Kalyanpur, District Kanpur’, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol - 36, No.2, PP.56. 17. Chawla. J.S, (1972), Green Revolution, mechanization and Rural Employment: A case study in District Amritsar, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol -27, No.4, PP.198-206. 18. Chisango Future Fortune T and Dzama Tawanda, (2012), An assessment of agricultural mechanisation index and evaluation of agricultural productivity of some fast track resettlement farms in Bindura District of Mashonaland and Central Province: Zimbabwe, International Journal of Social Science & Interdisciplinary Research, Vol - 2, No.7, PP. 62-82. 19. Clayton Eric S. (1974), A note on Farm Mechanization and Employment in Developing Countries. International Labour Review. Vol -110, No.1, PP.57- 61. 20. Dermot shields (1985), “The impact of Mechanisation on Agricultural production in selected villages of Nueva Ecija,” Journal of Philippine Development, Vol - 12, No.1, PP. 182-197. 21. Din. M, Deshmukh.P.S. and Ravisankar N. (2007), Farm Mechanisation in Andaman and Nicobar Island, Agricultural Mechanisation in Asia, Africa and Latin America, Vol-38, No.1, PP.78-82. 22. Ganapathy. S and Karunanithi. R, (2005), “Farm Mechanisation in Lalgudi Taluk of Southern India”, Agricultural Mechanisation in Asia, Africa and Latin America, Vol-36, No.1, PP.71-75. 23. Ghaffar Chaudhry.M (1986), Mechanisation and agricultural development in Pakistan, The Pakistan Development Review, Vol-25, No.4, PP.431-449. 24. Grewal S.S (1972), “Impact of Mechanisation on farm employment in the Punjab”, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol-27, No. 4, PP.214-219. 25. Grewal S.S. and Kahlon A.S., (1973), ‘Impact of Tractorisation on Draft Animals’, Agricultural Situation in India, Vol-27, No.1, PP. 735-737. 26. Gyanendra Singh (2006), ‘Estimation of a Mechanisation Index and its Impact of production and Economic Factors-a case study in India, Biosystems Engineering journal, Vol-93, No.1, PP.99-106. 27. Hiroyuki Takeshima and Sheu Salau, (2012), Agricultural Mechanisation and the Smallholder Farmers in Nigeria, International Food Policy Research Institute, Nigeria Strategy Support Program, Policy Note No.22. 28. Ibrahim Soliman, (1992), Agricultural Mechanisation and Economic Efficiency of Agricultural Production in Egypt, International Conference on Agricultural Engineering and Rural Development, Vol-1, PP. 54-59. 29. Jahanmohan K.R. and Sundaravaradarajan (1998), Impact of Tractorisation on Employment and Resource use: A study in Cuddalore District of Tamil Nadu. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics. Vol – 53, No. 3, PP. 299-300. 30. Jangid. B.L., Intodia. S.L., and Sharma V.P., (1998), Impact of centrally sponsored schemes for promotion of farm mechanization. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics. Vol – 53, No.3, PP. 503-504. 31. Jerome F. Sison, RobertW. Herdt and Bart Duff (1985), The effects of small farm mechanisation of employment and output in selected Rice-Growing areas in NUEVA ECIJA, Philippines, Journal of Philippine development, Vol- 12, No.1, PP.30-82. 32. Jodha.N.S (1974), A case of the Tractorisation, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol- 9, No.52, P. A111 - A118. 33. Joginder Singh, (2010), Scope, Progress and Constraints of Farm Mechanisation in India, Indian Agricultural Statistics Research Institute, New Delhi, PP. 48-56. 34. Johl S.S, (1973), ‘Mechanisation Labour use and productivity in Agriculture’, Agricultural Situation in India, Vol-23, No.1, PP.3-15. 35. John Ligard and SriBagyo. A (1983), The impact of agricultural mechanization on production and employment in rice areas of west java. Bulletion of Indonesian economic studies. Vol -19, No.1, PP.165-175. 36. Jonathan Kuje Yohanna, Ango Usman Fulani and Williams Akama, (2011), “A Survey of Mechanisation Problems of the Small Scale (Peasant) Farmers in the Middle Belt of Nigeria”, Journal of Agricultural Science, Vol.3, No.2, PP.262-266.

37. Joshi and Jain, (1989), ‘Impact of Mechanisaition on labour employment in well Irrigation, Western Rajasthan’, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol - 44, No.4, PP. 436-443. 38. Joshi, P.K., Bahl D.K. and Jha, D., (1981), ‘Direct employment effect of technical change in Uttar Pradesh agriculture’ Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol - 36, NO.2, PP.1-6. 39. Kahlon A.S. (1976), Impact of Mechanisation on Punjab Agriculture with special reference to Tractorisation, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol -31, No.4, PP.54-70. 40. Kenji Kenneth Oshiro (1982), Mechanisation of paddy cultivation in Japan and its effects on farm households, The science reports of tohoku University, 7th series, Geography Journal, Vol-32, No.1, PP.1-13. 41. Khale Quzzaman and Karim (2007), Study of Agricultural Mechanization and its impact on rural environment, Journal of Innovation and Development Strategy, Vol - 1, No.1, PP.37- 40. 42. Khoju M.R (1983), Economics of Pump Irrigation in Eastern Nepal. Consequences of small-farm Mechanisation project, Working paper - 49 Los Banos, Laguna. PP.95-105. 43. Komol Singha, Samsur Jaman MD and Aditya Chavali (2012), ‘Tractorisation and Agricultural Development in India, Journal of Global Economy, Vol-8, No.4, PP. 285-294. 44. Krishna Mohan .P (1985), New Technology and its impact on agrarian structure and agricultural production – The case of Andra Pradesh, Agricultural Situation in India, Vol-40, No.2, PP. 85-93 45. Kumar Nirmal, Suhag K.S, Kumar Jagdish, Chand Prem, Singh Ram (2010), Agricultural technologies: Impact on labour employment and wages in green revolution belt of India, Journal of Progressive Agriculture, Vol -1, No.1. 46. Kusum Chopra (1974), Tractorisation and changes in Factor inputs: A Case study of Punjab, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol - 9, No. 52, PP. A119 - A128. 47. Lagat C.K, Okemwa P, Dimo H, Kipkurui.L and Korir J.K (2007), ‘The State of Agricultural Mechanisation in Uasin Gishu District, Kenya, and its Impact on Agricultural Output.” Agricultural Engineering International: the CIGR E Journal, Vol-IX, No.8, PP.1-10. 48. Laxminarayan. H (1982), The impact of Agricultural Development on employment: A case study of Punjab, The Developing Economics, Vol-20, No.1, PP. 40-51. 49. Lingard .J and Wicks .J.A (1982), ‘The Impact of Mechanising small scale rice production in the Philippines, Indonesia and Thailand: Some Empirical Evidence, Working paper No.59, The consequences of Small Rice Farm Mechanisation Project, International Rice Research Institute and the Agricultural Development Council. 50. Maamum Y., Sarasutha I.G.P., Hafsah. J., Bernsten R., Sinaga R., and Wicks J.(1983), consequences of small rice farm mechanization in South sula Wesi. Consequences of Small Farm Mechanisation project working paper - 44. Los Banons Laguna. PP.177-184. 51. Manjunatha. M.V, Masthana Reddy.B.G., Shashidhar, S.D. and Joshi. V.R., (2009), ‘Field performance evaluation of vertical conveyor paddy reaper, Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Science, Vol-22, No.1, PP.140-142. 52. Martin H Billings and Arjan Singh (1970), Mechanisation and Rural Employment with some implications for Rural income Distribution, Economic and political weekly, Vol - 3, No.31, PP.A61-A71. 53. Martin H, Billings and Arjan Singh (1970), “Mechanization and the Wheat Revolution, Effects on Female Labour in Punjab”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol- 5, No.52, PP. A169 - A174. 54. Mathias Frufontech (2010), ‘Impacts of agricultural mechanization approach in Ghana, Agricultural Mechanisation in Mali and Ghana: Strategies, Experiences and Lessons for sustained impacts, FAO, (7), PP. 35-40. 55. Mike de Klerk (1984), Seasons that will never return: The impact of farm mechanization on employment, Incomes and population distribution in the Western Transvail, Journal of Southern African Studies, Vol-11, No.1, PP.1- 23. 56. Mishra, D.K. Pandey, R.N. and Pandey, V.K., (1976), ‘Economic costs of Bullock and Tractor power use in Uttar Pradesh Agriculture, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol - 31, No.3, PP. 193-199. 57. Misra,S.P., (1976), ‘Impact of Tractorisation: A Study in a Tehsil of Madhya Pradesh’, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol - 31, No.3, PP. 237. 58. Mufti. A.I and Khan. A.s, (1995), Performance Evaluation of Yanmar Paddy Transplanter in Pakistan, Agricultural Mechanisation in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, Vol-26, No.1, PP.31-36. 59. Namboodini N.V and Padmanabhan K., (1976), ‘Farm Tractorisation - A Benefit - cost analysis, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol - 31, No.3, PP. 199-207. 60. Nkakini. S.O, Ayotamuno.M.J, Ogajib.S.O.T, and Probert. S.D (2006), Farm Mechanisation Leading to more effective energy utilization for cassava yam cultivation in rivers state, Nigeria, Applied Energy, Vol-83, No.12, PP. 1317- 1325. 61. Odey SO, Adinya ID, Oniah MO, and Nsor ME (2008), ‘Effective tractor Utilization for agricultural mechanization in central cross river state, Nigeria, Global Journal of Engineering Research, Vol-7, No.1, PP.37- 42. 62. Olaoye, J.O. and Rotimi, A.O. (2010), “Measurement of Agricultural mechanisation index and analysis of agricultural productivity of some farm settlements in South West, Nigeria”, Agricultural Engineering International: the CIGR Ejournal. Vol-XII, PP.1-18. 63. Panghal B.S. and Deep Punia, (2006), ‘Emerging problems of farm mechanization in Karnal District of Haryana State’, Agricultural Science Digest, Vol-26, No.4, PP.253-256. 64. Patil A.S (1985), “Tractorization and its Effect on Employment: A case study in Ahmednagar District,” Indian Journal of Industrial Relations. Vol – 20, No.3, PP. 261-267. 65. Phonesavanh Latmany, Shoji Shinkai, Kazuhiko Hotta, Teruaki Nanseki, (2008), Agricultural Mechanisation in Rural Area of Lao PDR : A Case Study of Farm Tractorization, Journal of the Faculty of Agriculture, 66. Pilar Lim. C, (1985), ‘Effects of Agricultural Mechanisation on Farm Income Patterns, Journal of Philippine Development, Vol-12, No.1, PP. 198- 210. 67. Pradip Banerjee and Giri A.K. (2008), Impact of Tractorisation on farming in India with Special Reference to the state of west Bengal. Agricultural Mechanisation in Asia, Africa, Latin America. Vol -39, No.1, PP.71-76. 68. Prakash Chandra Deogharia (2011), ‘Employment of Agriculture Labour in Mechanised and Non Mechanised farm, Southern Economist, Vol-50, No.15, PP.39-43. 69. Rahman, M.S. Monayen Miah, M.A., Moniruzzaman and Hossain, S. (2011), Impact of Mechanization on labour use for wheat cultivation in Northern Bangaladesh. The Journal of Animal & Plant Sciences. Vol - 21, No.3, PP. 589- 594. 70. Rajesh R and Kombairaju S (1999), ‘Impact of Technological change on Women Employment in Dry land Agriculture, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol-54, No.3, PP.302-303. 71. Ram Iqbal Singh, (1972), “Impact of new agricultural Technology and Mechanisation on Labour Employment”, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol - 27, No.4, PP. 210-214. 72. Rijk. A.G, (1989), Agricultural Mechanization Policy and Strategy. Asian Productivity Organization, Tokyo. 73. Roy K.C and Gajendra singh (2008), Agricultural Mechanisation in Bangaladesh. Agricultural Mechanisation in Asia, Africa, Latin America. Vol- 39, No.2, PP.83-93. 74. Ryohei Kada and Yukkiko Kada (1985), The changing role of women in Japanese agriculture: The impact of new rice technology on women’s employment, women in rice farming, International Rice Research Institute, September (26-30) PP.37-53. 75. Shahraki. J, Shahrakizad. A, Yaghoubi. M, and Esfandiari.M, (2012), “A Survey on the Level of Mechanisation Development in Sistan and Baluchestan, Iran”, Journal of Applied Sciences Research, Vol-8, No.4, PP.2267-2271. 76. Sharma A.C, (1971), “Impact of Technological Developments on the Normative Shifts in cropping Patterns”, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol-27, No.4, PP.158-165. 77. Sharma, B.W.and Sirohi, A.S., (1980), ‘Labour Employment implications of Farm Mechanisation and multiple cropping in Alipur Block (Delhi)’, Agricultural Situation in India, Vol - 35, No.7, PP. 541-544. 78. Sharma. A.C, (1972), “A Survey of Farm Mechanisation in Ludhiana I.A.D.P. District,” Indian Journal of Economics, Vol-LIII, No.29, PP.161-175. 79. Sharma. P.M, Varghese. K.A., and Puran singh Jaitawat (1998), Employment effect of Machine Power use in crop farming in different Agro-Climatic regions of Rajasthan. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics. Vol-53, No.3, PP. 295-296. 80. Singh Joginder, (2005), Scope, Progress and Constraints of Farm Mechanization in India. Status of Farm Mechanization in India. New Delhi: Indian Agricultural Statistics Research Institute, Pages 48-56. 81. Singh, D.K (1998), Impact of Tractorisation on the Absorption of human labour in Agricultural operations in Jaunpur District of Uttar Pradesh, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics. Vol-53, No.3, PP.306. 82. Singh, D.K., (1981), ‘Impact of Rural Electrification on Labour Employment in rural areas of Ballia District in east Uttar Pradesh’, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol -36, No.2, PP.50. 83. Singh, Roshan and Singh. B. B, (1972), Farm Mechanization in Western Uttar Pradesh: Problems of Farm Mechanization, Indian Society of Agricultural Economics Seminar Series No. 9. 84. Soltani G.R. (1974), The effects of farm Mechanisation on labour utilization and its social implications, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol-29, No.1, PP. 39-50. 85. Som Prasad Pudasaini (1979), ‘Farm Mechanisation, Employment, and Income, in Nepal: Traditional and Mechanised Farming in Bara District. IRRI Research Paper Series, No.38. 86. Sorat Praweenwongwuthi, Suwit Laohasiriwong and Terry Rambo .A (2010), Impacts of Rice Combine Harvesters on Economic and social of Farmers in a village of the Tung Kula Ronghai Region, Research journal of Agriculture and Biological Sciences, Vol-6, No.6, PP.778-784. 87. Sudaryanto. I (1983), Effect of tubewells on income and employment: A case study in three village in Kediri, East Java, Indonesia. Consequences of small- farm mechanisation-Los Banos, Laguna, Philippines, PP. 107-118. 88. Tewari. V.K, Ashok Kumar. A, Satya Prakash Kumar and Brajesh Nare, (2012), Farm Mechanisation Status of West Bengal in India, Research Journal of Agricultural Science and Review, Vol-1, No.6, PP.136-146. 89. Verma. S.R, (2008), Impact of Agricultural Mechanisation on Production, Productivity, Cropping Intensity, Income Generation and Employment of Labour, Status of Farm Mechanization in India, Indian Agricultural Statistics Research Institute, New Delhi PP. 133-153. 90. Vishal Bector, Suremdra Singh, Ajay Sharda and Amitabh Bansal (2008), Status and Recent Trends of Tractor Power in Indian Agriculture, Agricultural Engineering Today Vol-32, No.1, PP.16-26. 91. William C. Merrill (1975), ‘The Impact of Agricultural Mechanisation on employment and food production, Occasional Paper no.1, Economics and Sector Planning Division. Washington. Websites 1. Agricultural Census http://www.Agcensus.nic.in 2. Agriculture and Rural Development http://web.worldbank.org Agriculture Engineering Department of 3. http://www.aed.tn.gov.in Tamil Nadu 4. Central Agricultural University http://www.cau.org.in Department of Agricultural Research and 5. Education http://dare.nic.in 6. Department of Agriculture & Cooperation http://agricoop.nic.in Department of Animal Husbandry, 7. http://dahd.nic.in Dairying & Fisheries 8. Department of Fertilizers http://www.fert.nic.in 9. Directorate of Economics and Statistics http://eands.dacnet.nic.in 10. Directorate of Rice Research Institute http://www.drricar.org Food and Agriculture Organization of the 11. United Nations www.fao.org 12. Indian Agricultural Research Institute http://www.iari.res.in 13. Indian council of Agricultural Research http://www.icar.org.in Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Ltd 14. http://www.iffco.coop.in (IFFCO) 15. Indian Institute of Social Sciences http://www.iiss.nic.in 16. International Rice Research Institute http://www.irri.org 17. Ministry of Agriculture Portal http://www.dacnet.nic.in 18. Ministry of water resources http://www.wrmin.nic.in APPENDICES QUESTIONNAIRE `

APPENDIX – I Sample No:

AN ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF MECHANISATION IN PADDY CULTIVATION IN THANJAVUR DISTRICT OF TAMILNADU

Research Supervisor: Research Scholar: Dr.R. RAJENDRAN A. THANGAVEL Associate Professor & Head of the Department Department of Economics PG & Research Department of Economics Government Arts College (Auto) Government Arts College (Autonomous), Kumbakonam - 612 001 Kumbakonam - 612 001.

Panchyat & Village : Block : AMMAPET Taluk : District : THANJAVUR

(A) I. SOCIAL ASPECTS Name of the Respondent 1. & Address :

2. Sex : Male Female

3. Age ( In years) : 15-29 30-44 45-59 60-74 75 & above 4. Educational Qualification :

Illiterate Primary Secondary Higher Secondary College and above Professional (or) Technical Others 5. Community : OC BC MBC SC/ST

6. Religion : Hindu Muslim Christian Others

7. Marital Status Married Unmarried Widowed Divorced Others

1 `

8. Present Occupation : Farmer Farmer Cum Agricultural Labour

Farmer Cum Business Farmer Cum Non - Agricultural Labour

Farmer Cum Private-Employed Farmer Cum Govt. Employee

Others

9. Is your Employment with in the village : Yes No

11. Type of Family : Joint Nuclear

12. Size of the Family :

13. Family Particulars Name of the Sl. Relationship to Educational family Age Sex Occupation Income No the HHH Qualification members 1 2 3 4 5 6

14. Place of Residence : Rural Urban Semi-Urban

15. Experience in Farming Activities < 5 Year 5-10 Years 10-15 Years

15-20 Years 20-25 Years >25 Years

16. How many years have you been < 5 Years 5-10 Years 10-15 Years farming in the Mechanized Operations? 15-20 Years 20 > Years >25 Years

2 `

(A) II. ECONOMIC CONDITIONS: II (a). INCOME AND EXPENDITURE PATTERN IN 2011-2012 1. Source of Income of the respondent: Annual Income Sl. No. Source Amount (Rs.) 1 Agriculture 2 Allied activities 3 Salary 4 Wages 5 Business 6 From other Assets Total

2. Expenditure of the respondent: Annual Expenditure Sl. No Item Amount (Rs.) 1 Food 2 Clothing 3 Medical/Health 4 Education 5 Interest for loan 6 Fuel 7 Communication 8 Social Function 9 Recreation 10 Housing 11 Sundry Others Total

3 `

II (b). SAVINGS AND LOANS OF THE FAMILY 1. Do you have any savings? Yes / No If yes, how much you have saved so far (Rs.)......

2. Source of Savings Commercial Banks Insurance Post Office Keeping cash in Hand Others

3. What is the purpose of your savings? Children's Education Children’s Marriage Old age Security To meet out Medical expenses Religious Ceremonies Purchase of Land Purchase of Machinery Others

4. Do you have any loans? Yes/No If yes, how much have you borrowed? Rs……………

5. Purpose of Borrowing: Consumer durable Farm capital Crop Production Livestock Business Education Jewel Marriage Housing Interest Health Others

6. Sources of Borrowing: Commercial Banks Local Money Lenders Friends and Relatives Co-operative bank Others

4 `

II (c). ASSET POSITION 1. Are you living in your own house? Yes No If yes, nature of the house of the respondent Thatched house Concrete house Tiled house Others Value :

2. Particulars of Land holding (in acres) Sl. Ownership Pattern Total Area of Type of Land No Owned Leased In Leased Out Operation 1 Wet 2 Dry Total 3. Land ownership Details Upto 5 acres 5 to10 acres above 10 acres 4. Investment of Farm Machineries and Equipments I. POWER DRAWN IMPLEMENTS No. of Sl. Year of Current value Items Machineries/ No. Purchase of Assets (Rs.) Equipments 1 Tractor 2 Power Tillers 3 Paddy Transplanter 4 Harvester 5 Combine Harvester 6 Thresher 7 Power Sprayers 8 Jet Motor 9 Oil Engine Pump Sets 10 Electrical Pump Sets 11 Iron Plough 12 Disc Plough 13 Line Maker 14 Machine Weeder 15 Duster 16 Crusher Equipment 17 Trailer 18 Others Specify 5 `

II. BULLOCK DRAWN IMPLEMENTS Sl. No. of Year of Current value of Items No. Implements Purchase Assets (Rs.) 1 Plough (Wooden) 2 Disc Harrow 3 Tropicultor 4 Land Leveller 5 Seed Drills 6 Seed Cum Fertilizer Drill 7 Row Paddy Seeder 8 Cono Weeder 9 Others

5. Have you got any cattle animals? Yes No

If yes, type of the cattle animals

Sl. Live Stock Items Nos. Value No. 1 Milch animals (Cow/Buffaloe) 2 Goat 3 Fowl 4 Bullock (Pair) 5 Sheep 6 Poultry Birds etc., Total Value Rs.

Total Value of family assets Rs......

6 `

II (d). MISCELLANEOUS 1. What type of Crops you have cultivated: Main: ______others: ______2. What type of Cultivation Method you have followed Traditional SRI Both 3) Which Bank does Provide Loan for Land Extension service for agriculture in your area? Co-op society Commercial Banks Land Development Agricultural Extension Banks Services Private Banks Others 4) Irrigation Facilities in your farm operations Tanks Canal Diesel Pump Well Electric Pump Others 5) Is Electricity Power Supply provided in your farm operations? Yes No If yes, Available fully Partially Available Fully Available for No Electricity domestic Purposes

6) Do you have free electricity Power Supply for your Yes No farm Operations?

7) Is any one of the members migrating from your family? Yes No If yes, kindly state reasons______

8. Are you member in Social Participation? Yes No If yes, which Social activities? Panchayat Board Panchayat Union Farmer’s Association Co-operative Society Water Shed Management Self Help Groups Others

7 `

(B) I. AWARENESS IN MECHANIZATION OF AGRICULTURE 1. Do you know about the subsidies given by the government towards buying agricultural machines? Yes No 2. Do you know the amount of subsidy given by the government? Yes No 3. Do you know the department which provides agricultural subsidy? Yes No 4. Do you know the fact that the Government lends the agricultural machines for rent? Yes No 5. Do you know that the types of agricultural machines which are lend for rent? Yes No

6. Do you know the amount of rent? Yes No

[ 7. Do you know the institutions providing loans and advantages to purchase agriculture machines? Yes No

8. Do you know that government training on usage of agriculture machines? Yes No 9. Have you got any training to operate the machines by yourself ? Yes No 10. Do you know about the repairing of agriculture machines? Yes No 11. Have you got any knowledge on usage of agriculture machines in the plantations? Yes No

12. Do you know the Precautionary measures which operating the power sprayers? Yes No 13. Do you know about the insuring the agriculture machines? Yes No 14. Do you know the selection of agriculture machines according to your need? Yes No

8 `

15. Sources of information about the application of agriculture machines in paddy cultivation Sl.No. Sources Yes 1. Phamplets/ handpits(Notice)/ wall posters 2. Newspapers/ periodicals/ magazines 3. Radio 4. Television 5. Workshops/ Demonstrations/ Discussion/ Meetings 6. Agricultural Exhibition 7. Guidance from the agriculture officers 8. Speeches with others 9. Internet/ Website 10. Others services

(B) II. PROBLEMS OF MECHANIZATION IN AGRICULTURE 16. Can you avail the Government agriculture machineries for rent in time? Yes No 17. Can you avail the agriculture subsidy for buying machineries without any difficulty? Yes No 18. Are there any machinery operators available in your village at the time of cultivation? Yes No 19. Can you avail the repairing engineers in time? Yes No 20. Is there any opposition from the agricultural labourers for using the agriculture machines? Yes No 21. Is there any damage for cattle straw by using the machines in agricultural activities? Yes No 22. Is there any damage in soil quality by using the agricultural machines? Yes No 23. Are there any agricultural machines which can be used for all seasons? Yes No 24. can you get any required spare parts from near by shops? Yes No 25. Is there any problems of accident in using agricultural machines? Yes No 26. Can you avail the continuous supply of fuel for operating the agricultural machines? Yes No 27. Do you consider that there is unemployment among the village people by using the agricultural machines? Yes No

9 `

28. Is there any reduction of female labourers in using agricultural machines? Yes No 29. Is there any reduction of male labourers by using agriculture machines? Yes No 30. Is there any difficulty in using the machinery in small and marginal lands? Yes No 31. Is there any increasing in the maintenance and repairing cost of agriculture machines? Yes No 32. Is there any increase in the rate of migrating people in using agricultural machineries? Yes No 33. Is there any environmental pollution in using agricultural machineries? Yes No (B) III. ADVANTAGES OF FARM MECHANISATION 34. Is there any increase in agricultural productivity by using agricultural machineries? Yes No 35. Is there any reduction in the usage of water due to mechanization? Yes No 36. Is there any reduction in the work burden of agricultural labourers by using agricultural machines? Yes No 37. Can you modify any new techniques in your agricultural machineries Yes No 38. Is there any increase in the amount of profit by applying agricultural machines? Yes No 39. Is there any reduction in the labourer’s problems by using agricultural machines? Yes No 40. Is there any increase in the area of cultivation by using agricultural machineries? Yes No 41. Is there any quick operation of agricultural works in using agricultural machines? Yes No 42. Can you adopt crop rotation even though by using agricultural machines? Yes No 43. Does the mechanization of agriculture attract more youth in agriculture? Yes No 44. Is there any increase in the amount of wages of agricultural labourers due to increasing usage of machineries? Yes No

10 `

45. Do your interest improve in agriculture activities Yes No after the application of agricultural machineries? 46. Does the mechanization of agriculture reduce the usage of cattle population in agriculture? Yes No 47. Is there any opportunities to increase the involvement of youths in the agricultural activities? Yes No 48. Your opinion on consequences of using machines in agriculture: …………………………………………………………………………… …..………………………………………………………………………… 49. What type of agricultural machines do you expect in paddy cultivation? ……..……………………………………………………………………… ………..…………………………………………………………………… (C) I. Comparative cost of cultivation in Traditional and Mechanized method (Rs/ per acre) Traditional Mechanized Sl. Field Operations No. Amount (Rs.) Amount (Rs.) 1 Nursery preparation 2 Seeds 3 Nursery Pulling 4 Main field preparation 5 Sowing/ Transplantation 6 Manures/Fertilizers/chemicals 7 Irrigation 8 Weeding 9 Harvesting and Threshing Total (C) II. Comparative Income of cultivation in Traditional and Mechanized method (Rs/ per acre ) Sl. Parameter Traditional Mechanized No. 1 Grain yield (kg/ha) 2 Straw yield (Kg/ha) 3 Grain value (Rs/ha) 4 Straw value (Rs/ha) 5 Gross income (Rs/ha) 6 Total cost of cultivation (Rs/ha) Net income (Rs/ha)

11 `