Comparative study on the economic efficiency of different sources of irrigation in Chittur development block
Loading...
Files
Date
1990
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Department of Agricultural Economics, College of Horticulture, Vellanikkara
Abstract
A study was conducted in Chittur Development Block to compare the economic efficiencies of different sources of irrigation in the area. Kunnamkattupathy Village in the Block was purposively selected for this. The objectives were to (a) compare the principal sources of Irrigation with respect to their adequacy and influence over cropping pattern# (b) to estimate the cost and technical co-efficients on farms (c) to develop optimal plans- for farms differing with respect to source of irrigation and (d) to suggest means for optimal use of irrigation water. Stratified random sampling was the technique used to select farms and pretested schedule was used to gather information from the farmers of the village. The study area had four different systems of irrigation, viz.,canal, canal + well, well and spout fed well. Relevent data were collected from twenty samples each of canal fed, well fed and rainfed farms and fifteen samples each of canal with well and spout fed well irrigated farms, by personal interview.
Average area per farm was 6.04 acres with canal fed farms having the lowest area# of 3.59 acres and spout fed well irrgated farms having the highest average area of 8.18 acres. Farms of the sample area were evenly distributed between the black loam and red loam soils. Paddy was the dominant crop being cultivated in irrigated farms and groundnut was the dominant one in rainfed farms. Season wise cropped area indicated a general pattern of paddy 1st crop and groundnut Iand crop in the Irrigated farms. Rainfed farms concentrated on low water requiring crops, rather than paddy.
Cropping intensity in irrigated farms was 177.20% while that of rainfed farms was only 158.31%. Most of the farmers deriving benefit of canal water either directly or indirectly felt that their water requirement was being met adequately while majority of farmers depending ground water alone felt that their requirement of water is being met only partially.
Description
PG
Keywords
null