Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Authors: Lohar, N.S.
Editor: Dhongade, M. P
Publisher: Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri.
Language: en
Type: Thesis
Pages: 197pp
Agrotags: null
Keywords: Lift Irrigation
Abstract: Present investigation was undertaken with a view to examine the comparative economics of the three types of lift irrigation schemes i.e. the lift irrigation schemes run by co-operative irrigation societies, co-operative sugar factories and private individuals. Kolhapur District in Maharashtra which is well-known for the development of co-operation was selected for the present study. Four lift irrigation schemes from each of the three categories of lifts were selected. Fifteen beneficiaries and 15 non-beneficiaries from each of the lifts were selected randomly. Thus, the total sample consisted of 180 beneficiaries and 180 non-beneficiaries. The operating costs capital investments and benefit cost-ratios for the three types of lifts were analysed. The average capital investment worked out to Rs.4,12,188, Rs.5,51,737 and Rs.1,65,962 per lift irrigation scheme for co-operative lifts, sugar factory lifts and private lifts, respectively. Among the three types of lift irrigation schemes, the co-operative lfft irrigation schemes were most profitable with the benefit cost ratio of 2.41. The impact of lift irrigation schemes was studied from different angles. The cropping pattern of the beneficiaries revealed that sugarcane was the principal crop covering 50.56, 51.16 and 45.28 per cent of the total cropped area in co-operative lifts, sugar factory lifts and private lifts, respectively. The cropping intensity on the farms of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries was 118.84 and 106.48, per cent, respectively. The average per hectare yields of jowar, paddy and groundnut crops commonly grown by both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries showed that the yields were substantially higher for the beneficiaries. The yields of these crops were higher by 177 per cent, 121 per cent and 82 per cent, respectively in comparison with those of the non-beneficiaries. The beneficiaries of the co-operative lifts had relatively higher net income from the crop enterprises. Similarly, the income from livestock was relatively more amongst the beneficiaries of the lifts. In case of non-beneficiaries, because of rainfed farming the use of family labour was higher, while in the lift irrigated area, the use of hired labour was found to be far more. Thus, the comparison of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries, in respect of these factors clearly indicated that the economic conditions of the beneficiaries was far better as compared to that of non-beneficiaries. The co-operative lifts were found to be more efficient and profitable as indicatd by the benefit cost ratio and rate of return criterion. The standard of living of the beneficiaries of lifts was found to be better as compared to non-beneficiaries. The problems of the lift irrigation schemes and the beneficiaries were also studied. It was revealed that the majority of the co-operative lifts had relatively less problems in the initial period of organising the lifts. Majority of the co-operative sugar factory lifts required more time for completion of construction work. The analysis of the problems faced by the lift irrigation schemes in the supply of electricity revealed that the major complaint was about the high electricity charges, it was followed by the problem of irregular supply of electricity. The analysis brings about many policy implications. Among the three types of lift irrigation schemes, the co-operative lifts were observed to be the most profitable. This suggests that the co-operative lift irrigation schemes should be encouraged by the Government of Maharashtra.
Description: Ph.D.
Subject: Agricultural Economics
Issue Date: 1989
Appears in Collections:Thesis

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
383_E.pdfAgricultural Economics6.59 MBAdobe PDFView/Open

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.