V SOCIO ECONOMIC PROFILE OF THE SAMPLE HOUSEHOLDS …shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/8664/12/12_chapter 5.pdf · 147 SOCIO ECONOMIC PROFILE OF THE SAMPLE HOUSEHOLDS In

146

CHAPTER - V

SOCIO ECONOMIC PROFILE OF THE SAMPLE HOUSEHOLDS

147

SOCIO ECONOMIC PROFILE OF THE SAMPLE HOUSEHOLDS

In this chapter an attempt is made to present socio, demographic and

economic profile of sample sugarcane farmers. The discussion includes aspects

such as the distribution of head of households according to their age, size of the

households, literacy, economic aspects like land holdings, details of structure and

value of assets.

5.1. Distribution of the sample households

As pointed out earlier, for purpose of the study 240 sugarcane farmers are

selected of this, 120 farmers are those who process the harvested sugarcane into

Gur (Jaggery) and sell it in the Gur wholesale market. These farmers in this study

for purpose convenience referred as Gur farmers. Another 120 farmers sell the

harvested sugarcane to sugar factories and therefore they are referred as sugar

farmers. The selected farmers are classified into Marginal farmers (0-2.50 acres),

Small farmers (2.51-5.00 acres) and Medium farmers (more than 5 acres) based on

size of own land. The size wise distribution of farmers revealed the predominance

of marginal and small farmers in the sample. Majority of the farmers (91 percent)

are marginal and small farmers. The predominance of marginal and small farmers

in the sample is due to predominance of these groups in Visakhapatnam district.

Table: 5.1 Distribution of Sample Households based on Farm Size

(Figures are acres) S .No Farmers 0-2.50 2.51-5.00 5 and above Total 1 Gur Farmers 59

(49.17) 50

(41.67) 11

(9.16) 120

(100) 2 Sugar armers 81

(67.5) 27

(22.5) 12

(10) 120

(100) Total 140

(58.33) 77

(32.08) 23

(9.58) 240

(100) Source: Primary survey (Figures in brackets are percentage to total)

148

(a). Distribution of households based on size of the family.

The size of the family shows the availability of workforce in the family that

influences the earning capacity and related economic aspects of the family. The

data relating to the size of the family is presented table: 5.2 Basing on the number

of members of selected household, all the households are broadly classified into

three categories, i.e. less than 5 members, 5-7 and 7 members and above. The

average size of the family is estimated at around five members which in

conformity with the general pattern of rural India. Distribution of selected

households into different family size group’s reveals that majority of the families

are in the family size of less than 5 members. Number of households between five

to seven members and above seven members is marginal in both absolute and

relative terms. This table clearly shows that more than half of the farmers, 63.75

per cent have less than 5 family members followed by 27.50 per cent 5-7, and 7

& above by 8.75 per cent. The pattern is almost similar in all size of farm

households. The data reflects that the small families are more in the villages due

practice of small family norm, awareness and understanding of the importance of

the family planning, health consciousness of the children, economical status of the

family and break down of the joint families. There is no striking variation in

family size wise distribution of sample households belonging to two types of

sugarcane cultivation.

149

Table: 5.2 Distribution of the Households by Family Size

S. No Farm size

Family size Less than 5 5-7 7&above Total

Gur Farmers 1 0-2.50 37

(62.71) 19

(32.20) 3

(5.08) 59

(100) 2 2.51-5.00 35

(70.00) 12

(24.00) 3

(6.00) 50

(100) 3 5 and above 5

(45.45) 4

(36.36) 2

(18.19) 11

(100) Sub total 77

(64.17) 35

(29.17) 8

(6.67) 120

(100.00) Sugar Farmers

1 0-2.50 56 (69.14)

20 (24.69)

5 (6.17)

81 (100)

2 2.51-5.00 16 (59.26)

6 (22.22)

5 (18.52)

27 (100)

3 5 and above 5 (41.67)

4 (33.33)

3 (25.00)

12 (100)

Sub total 77 (64.17)

30 (25.00)

13 (10.83)

120 (100.00)

Total 154 (63.75)

65 (27.5)

21 (8.75)

240 (100)

Source: Primary survey (Figures in brackets are percentage to total)

(b). Distribution of Head of the household based on age.

In the context of cultivation, the age of the head of the household is

important because it has bearing on his capacity to work, his preparedness to take

risk and to introduce new cultivation practices etc. In view of this research studies

based in primary data need to focus on this aspect. Taking this esteemed view into

consideration, this study tried to present distribution of head of the household

based on their age.

Table 5.3 presents these details. About 56 per cent of heads of the selected

farmers are in the age group of 35-60years, there is no much difference between

gur farmers and sugar farmers in the age composition of the head of the

150

households as is evident from the data presented in the table. A large concentration

of head of the households in the age group35 to 60 years is an advantage to these

households on household general and economic aspects.

Table: 5.3 Age composition of the head of the household


(c). Age wise composition of family members:

The age composition of the family members of the selected farmers is

presented in table 5.4. It can be noted from the table that about 38 percent of the

family members are in the age group of 31-60 years and 32.31 percent of the

members in the age group 16-30years. The percentage of the family members

above 60 years of age is very minimal.

S.No Farm size Age Composition Below 35 35-60 Above 60 Total


(27.12) 31

(52.54) 12

(20.34) 59

(100) 2 2.51-5.00 9

(18.00) 27

(54.00) 14

(28.00) 50

(100) 3 5 and above 2

(28.18) 5

(45.45) 4

(36.37) 11

(100) Sub Total 27

(22.50) 63

(52.50) 30

(25.00) 120

(100) Sugar Farmers

1 0-2.50 16 (19.75)

51 (62.96)

14 (17.28)

81 (100)

2 2.51-5.00 5 (18.52)

14 (51.85)

8 (29.63)

27 (100)

3 5 and above 3 (25.00)

6 (50.00)

3 (25.00)

12 (100)

Sub Total 24 (20.00)

71 (59.17)

25 (20.83)

120 (100)

Total Farmers 51 (21.25)

134 (55.83)

55 (22.92)

240 (100)

151

From the data, it is evident that there is concentration of family members in

the age group of 16-60 years for the three categories of farmers for both gur and

sugar farmers. There is no much difference in the age composition of total family

members between gur and sugar farmers. This concentration of family members in

this productive age group helps the family in a number of ways, viz., it supplies

labour to attend cultivation operations, enhance the earning capacity of the

household also.

Table: 5.4 Distribution of the Total Family Members by Age Composition


S. No Farm size

Age Composition 0-15 16-30 31-45 46-60 Above

60 Total


(32.17) 86

(33.33) 60

(23.26) 21

(8.14) 8

(3.10) 258

(100) 2 2.51-5.00 46

(20.09) 77

(33.62) 59

(25.76) 37

(16.16) 10

(4.37) 229

(100) 3 5 and above 10

(13.70) 20

(27.40) 17

(23.29) 21

(28.77) 5

(6.85) 73

(100) Sub total 139

(24.82) 183

(32.68) 136

(24.29) 79

(14.11) 23

(4.11) 560

(100) Sugar Farmers

1 0-2.50 91 (26.22)

118 (34.01)

92 (26.51)

38 (10.95)

8 (2.31)

347 (100)

2 2.51-5.00 33 (24.63)

36 (26.87)

35 (26.12)

20 (14.93)

10 (7.46)

134 (100)

3 5 and above 29 (27.88)

33 (31.73)

22 (21.25)

14 (13.46)

6 (5.77)

104 (100)

Sub total 153 (26.15)

187 (31.97)

149 (25.47)

72 (12.31)

24 (4.10)

585 (100)


370 (32.31)

285 (24.89)

151 (13.19)

47 (4.10)

1145 (100)

152

(d). Age wise sex distribution of family members.

Table 5.5 gives data relating to the sex and age wise distribution of total

family members. The data shows that number of females are relatively lower in all

the age groups. On the whole there are 518 females and 627 males. The sex ratio is

estimated at 830 female for 1000 males for the total sample, sex ratio for Gur

farmers 880:1000 and for Sugar farmers 780:1000. The female population is low

in sugar farmers compared to gur farmers. The pattern of distribution do not shows

much variation among different land size groups. In the gur farmers 0-30 year’s

category female population is more compared to other categories. In sugar

farmers, the age groups 0-15 and above 60 the female population is low compared

to other groups.

153

Table: 5.5 Age-Wise Sex Distribution of All Family Members

S.No Farm size 0-15 16-30 31-45 46-60 60 above Grand total M F M F M F M F M F M F


(30.30) 43

(34.13) 35

(26.52) 51

(40.48) 40

(30.30) 20

(15.87) 12

(9.09) 9

(7.14) 5

(3.79) 3

(2.38) 132

(100) 126

(100) 2 2.51-5.00 16

(13.45) 30

(27.27) 41

(34.45) 36

(32.73) 34

(28.57) 25

(22.73) 19

(15.97) 18

(16.36) 8

(6.72) 2

(1.82) 119

(100) 110

(100) 3 5 and above 6

(12.77) 4

(15.38) 12

(25.53) 8

(30.77) 10

(21.28) 7

(26.92) 14

(29.79) 7

(26.92) 5

(10.64) 0

(0.00) 47

(100) 26

(100) Sub total 62

(20.81) 77

(29.39) 88

(29.53) 95

(36.26) 84

(28.19) 52

(19.85) 45

(15.10) 34

(12.98) 18

(6.04) 5

(1.91) 298

(100) 262

(100) Sugar Farmers

1 0-2.50 50 (26.18)

41 (26.28)

63 (32.98)

55 (35.26)

51 (26.70)

41 (26.28)

20 (10.47)

18 (11.54)

7 (3.66)

1 (0.64)

191 (100)

156 (100)

2 2.51-5.00 19 (25.33)

14 (23.73)

20 (26.67)

16 (27.12)

19 (25.33)

16 (27.12)

9 (12.00)

11 (18.64)

8 (10.67)

2 (3.39)

75 (100)

59 (100)

3 5 and above 21 (33.33)

8 (19.51)

19 (30.16)

14 (34.15)

10 (15.81)

12 (29.27)

7 (11.11)

7 (17.07)

6 (9.52)

0 (0.00)

63 (100)

41 (100)


63 (24.61)

102 (31.00)

85 (33.20)

80 (24.32)

69 (26.95)

36 (10.94)

36 (14.06)

21 (6.38)

3 (1.17)

329 (100)

256 (100)

Total 152 (24.24)

140 (27.03)

190 (30.30)

180 (34.75)

164 (26.15)

121 (23.36)

81 (12.92)

70 (13.51)

39 (6.22)

8 (1.54)

627 (100)

518 (100)


154

5.2. Literacy levels of head of the households

The education level of the head of household is important since it leads to

more knowledge about cultivation practices, for adoption new technologies in the

agriculture process and to lead life in a better way. In view of these reasons an

attempt is made to analyze the literacy levels of the head of the household.

The distribution of data relating to levels of literacy of Head of the

Household reveals that 17.08 per cent of head of the households had schooling

upto primary education, 45.42 per cent with secondary education and 15.42 per

cent had education up to 10th class (High school). Illiterates are relatively low i.e.

only 22.08 per cent. In case of gur farmers comparatively majority of the head of

the households has schooling up to secondary education. In case of sugar farmers

also the same is noticed. However, the percentage is marginally high for gur

farmers than sugar farmers. Among different size groups, comparatively more

farmers belonging to medium size group have completed secondary and higher

education.

155

Table 5.6 Literacy levels of head of the households

S. No. Farm size Literacy level Illiterates Primary Secondary High School Total


(22.03) 7

(11.86) 31

(52.54) 8

(13.56) 59

(100) 2 2.51-5.00 9

(18.00) 8

(16.00) 26

(52.00) 7

(14.00) 50

(100) 3 5 and above 0

(00.0) 1

(9.09) 7

(63.64) 3

(27.27) 11

(100) Sub total 22

(18.33) 16

(13.33) 64

(53.33) 18

(15.00) 120

(100) Sugar Farmers

1 0-2.50 19 (23.46)

19 (23.46)

29 (35.80)

14 (17.28)

81 (100)

2 2.51-5.00 8 (29.63)

4 (14.81)

10 (37.04)

5 (18.52)

27 (100)

3 5 and above 4 (33.33)

2 (16.67)

6 (50.00)

0 (0.00)

12 (100)


25 (20.83)

45 (37.50)

19 (15.83)

120 (100)


41 (17.08)

109 (45.42)

37 (15.42)

240 (100)


(a). Literacy levels of family members:

Table 5.7 gives details of the distribution of family members based on their levels of literacy. The incidence of illiteracy is found to be high among females in all the size groups than that of males for the total sample. The number of females pursuing education beyond intermediate is less. The per cent of female member in higher education is just 5 per cent. There is no striking difference in the sex wise literacy levels among different category of farmers. In case of gur farmers about 12 percent in case of males and 29 per cent in case of females are illiterates. Among literate males a considerable proportion are in the 7th to 10th class level followed by primary school. In case of females also the same pattern of distribution is noticed. It is interesting to notice that there are members of sample farmers who have completed degree and post graduation course.

156

Table: 5.7 Literacy levels of family members

S.

No. Farm size Literacy level

0-6 7-10 Inter Degree P.G Illiterates Total M F M F M F M F M F M F M F


(21.21) 32

(25.40) 58

(43.94) 41

(32.54) 15

(11.36) 11

(8.73) 10

(7.58) 3

(2.38) 5

(3.79) 0

(0.00) 16

(12.12) 39

(30.95) 132

(100) 126

(100) 2 2.51-5.00 22

(18.33) 26

(23.64) 43

(36.13) 34

(30.91) 15

(12.61) 12

(10.91) 15

(12.61) 8

(7.27) 5

(4.20) 0

(0.00) 19

(15.97) 30

(27.27) 119

(100) 110

(100) 3 5 and

above 25

(53.19) 7

(26.92) 14

(29.79) 6

(23.08) 3

(6.38) 3

(11.54) 3

(6.38) 2

(7.69) 2

(4.26) 1

(3.85) 0

(0.00) 7

(26.92) 47

(100) 26

(!00) Sub total 75

(25.17) 65

(24.81) 115

(38.59) 81

(30.92) 33

(11.07) 26

(9.92) 28

(9.40) 13

(4.96) 12

(4.03) 1

(0.38) 35

(11.74) 76

(29.01) 298

(100) 262

(100) Sugar Farmers

1 0-2.50 52 (27.23)

38 (24.36)

65 (34.03)

55 (35.26)

27 (14.14)

14 (8.97)

18 (9.42)

5 (3.21)

1 (0.52)

1 (0.64)

28 (14.66)

43 (27.56)

191 (100)

156 (100)

2 2.51-5.00 18 (24.00)

15 (25.42)

20 (26.67)

12 (20.34)

8 (10.67)

2 (3.39)

11 (14.67)

2 (3.39)

1 (1.33)

0 (0.00)

17 (22.67)

28 (47.46)

75 (100)

59 (100)

3 5 and above

18 (28.57)

9 (21.95)

16 (25.40)

11 (26.83)

9 (14.29)

5 (12.20)

6 (9.52)

3 (7.32)

2 (3.17)

0 (0.00)

12 (19.05)

13 (31.71)

63 (100)

41 (100)


62 (24.22)

101 (30.70)

78 (30.47)

44 (13.37)

21 (8.20)

35 (10.64)

10 (3.91)

4 (1.22)

1 (0.39)

57 (17.33)

84 (32.81)

329 (100)

256 (!00)


127 (24.52)

216 (34.45)

159 (30.69)

77 (12.28)

47 (9.07)

63 (10.05)

23 (4.44)

16 (2.55)

2 (0.39)

92 (14.67)

160 (30.89)

627 (100)

518 (100)


157

5.3. Occupation status of the head of the household

Occupation status of head of the family influences the family income and

its sources, the social and economic conditions of the family, standard of the living

of family members. The occupations noticed during course of data collection are

grouped into two categories. Agriculture and Non-agriculture based. Number of

people who has exclusive non agriculture occupation are very insignificant. At the

same time it is noticed that few farmers pursuing both agriculture and non

agricultural for earning. These details are given in table 5.8.

Occupation wise classification of workers and Head of the Household is

attempted on the basis of main occupation. This is because in rural India the

workers take up any sort of work (both Agriculture and Non-Agriculture) for their

livelihood. Many a time a worker take up more than one occupation for their

earning and living. In view of this occupational wise classification of workers is

attempted on the basis on main occupation. There are two norms to decide main

occupation. (1) Main occupation is that wherein the worker gets employed for

majority of days in a calendar year. (2) Another way to decide the main

occupation is taking income as the base. The occupation which contributes a major

proportion to total income of worker is the main occupation. This study considered

the first norm. Attempt is made here to discuss occupation status of head. These

details are given in table 5.8.

Out of 240 sample household 50.00 percent head of the sample household

are depending on agriculture alone followed by agriculture labour 25.42 percent,

Non-Agriculture Labour 20.42 percent, about 4 per cent are taking some self

employment activity. The proportion of farmers depending upon agricultural

activity is same in both type of cultivation as is evident from the details given in

table 5.8.

158

Table: 5.8 Occupation status of the head of the Gur & Sugar Farmer


(a). Occupation wise distribution of workers

Table 5.9 to 5.11 presents details of occupational wise distribution of

workers of the sample farmers. The data ascertained on this aspect shows that

there are limited non-agricultural occupations available in the studied villages. Out

of 411 male workers, 193 (47 per cent) are pure cultivators, another 27 per cent

work as agricultural labourers. Thus altogether 74 per cent of male workers are

exclusively depending on cultivation for their livelihood. The important non

agricultural activity that is providing employment to workers is Mahatma Gandhi

S.No Farm size Cultivation Agriculture Labour

Non Agricultural

Labour

Self Employment

Others Total

Gur farmers 1 0-2.50 34

(57.63) 21

(35.59) 4

(6.78) 0

(0.00) 0

(0.00) 59

(100) 2 2.51-5.00 19

(38.00) 16

(32.00) 12

(24.00) 2

(4.00) 1

(2.00) 50

(100) 3 5 and

above 7

(63.64) 1

(9.09) 0

(0.00) 3

(27.27) 0

(0.00) 11

(100) Sub total 60

(50.00) 38

(31.67) 16

(13.33) 5

(4.17) 1

(0.83) 120

(100) Sugar farmers

1 0-2.50 34 (41.98)

18 (22.22)

29 (35.80)

0 (0.00)

0 (0.00)

81 (100)

2 2.51-5.00 18 (66.67)

5 (18.52)

4 (14.81)

0 (0.00)

0 (0.00)

27 (100)

3 5 and above

8 (66.67)

0 (0.00)

0 (0.00)

4 (33.33)

0 (0.00)

12 (100)


23 (19.17)

33 (27.50)

0 (0.00)

0 (0.00)

120 (100)

Total 120 (50.00)

61 (25.42)

49 (20.42)

0 (0.00)

1 (0.42)

240 (100)

159

National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. The distribution pattern of female

workers does not show much difference as is observed for male workers. The

analysis of occupation wise distribution of workers is separately made of Gur and

Sugar farmers. The details given in table 5.10 and 5.11, the data do not reveal

considerable difference between two types of cultivation. Thus, efforts made by

the government, to divert labour from agriculture do not show much influence.

This dependence on agriculture by majority of workers affects the average and

marginal productivity of labour which will be discussed in forth coming chapters.

Table: 5.9

Occupation wise distribution of workers total sample

S.No

Farm size Cultivation Agriculture Labour

Non Agricultural

Labour

Self Employment

Others Total Workers

Males 1 0-2.50 88

(35.48) 86

(34.68) 58

(23.59) 16

(6.45) 0

(0.00) 248

2

2.51-5.00 84 (64.62)

20 (15.38)

12 (9.23)

12 (9.23)

2 (1.54)

130

3

5 and above

21 (63.64)

4 (12.12)

0 (0.00)

7 (21.21)

1 (3.03)

33

Sub total

193 (46.96)

110 (26.76)

70 (17.03)

35 (8.52)

3 (0.73)

411

Females 1 0-2.50 15

(19.23) 33

(42.31) 29

(37.18) 1

(1.28) 0

(0.00) 78

2

2.51-5.00 15 (41.67)

11 (30.56)

9 (25.00)

0 (0.00)

1 (2.78)

36

3

5 and above

3 (100)

0 (0.00)

0 (0.00)

0 (0.00)

0 (0.00)

3

Sub total

33 (28.21)

44 (37.61)

38 (32.48)

1 (0.85)

1 (0.85)

117

Total 226 (42.80)

154 (29.17)

108 (20.45)

36 (6.82)

4 (0.76)

528


160

Table: 5.10 Occupation wise distribution of workers – Gur Farmers

S.No

Farm size

Cultivation

Agriculture Labour

Non Agricultural Labour

Self Employmen

t

Others

Total Worker

s Males

1

0- 2.50 41 (42.71)

40 (41.67)

10 (10.42)

5 (5.21)

0 (0.00)

96

2

2.51-5.00

54 (64.29)

12 (14.29)

5 (5.95)

12 (14.29)

1 (1.19)

84

3

5 and above

9 (42.86)

4 (19.05)

0 (0.00)

7 (33.33)

1 (4.76)

21

Sub total

104 (51.74)

56 (27.86))

15 (7.46)

24 (11.94)

2 (1.00)

201

Females 1

0-2.50 4 (12.12)

19 (57.58)

9 (27.27)

1 (3.03)

0 (0.00)

33

2

2.51-5.00

11 (50.00)

6 (27.27)

4 (18.18)

0 (0.00)

1 (4.55)

22

3

5 and above

0 (0.00)

0 (0.00)

0 (0.00)

0 (0.00)

0 (0.00)

0

Sub total

15 (27.27)

25 (45.45)

13 (23.64)

1 (1.82)

1 (1.82)

55

Total 119 (46.48)

81 (31.64)

28 (10.94)

25 (9.77)

3 (1.17)

256


161

Table: 5.11

Occupation wise distribution of workers – Sugar Farmers S.No

Farm size Cultivation

Agriculture Labour

Non Agricultural Labour

Self Employment

Others

Total Worker

s Males

1 0-2.50 47 (30.92)

46 (30.26)

48 (31.58)

11 (7.24)

0 (0.00)

152

2 2.51-5.00

30 (65.22)

8 (17.39)

7 (15.22)

0 (0.00)

1 (2.17)

46

3

5 and above

12 (100)

0 (0.00)

0 (0.00)

0 (0.00)

0 (0.00)

12


54 (25.71)

55 (26.19)

11 (5.24)

1 (0.48)

210

Females 1 0-2.50 11

(24.44) 14

(31.11) 20

(44.44) 0

(0.00) 0

(0.00) 45

2 2.51-5.00

4 (28.57)

5 (35.71)

5 (35.71)

0 (0.00)

0 (0.00)

14

3

5 and above

3 (100)

0 (0.00)

0 (0.00)

0 (0.00)

0 (0.00)

3


19 (30.65)

25 (40.32)

0 (0.00)

0 (0.00)

62

Total 107 (39.34)

73 (26.84)

80 (29.41)

11 (4.04)

1 (0.37)

272


5.4. Structure and value of Households assets

The structure and value of assets indicate economic status of a

household. To know the economic profile of the sample farmer households, an

analysis of asset structure and their value is necessary. Giving due

consideration to this aspect, data has been ascertained from sample farmers

regarding the assets they possess and their current value. All the assets

reported to be possessed by the households are grouped into seven categories

a) House value b) Furniture value c) Agriculture land value d) Non

162

Agricultural land value e) Agriculture equipment value f) Live stock value g)

others etc., Table-5.12 present these details.

In case of marginal farmers, the average value of assets is estimated at

Rs.15,36.376. The major asset value is agriculture land, i.e. 85.63 and

followed by residential house 9.17, 1.89 per cent with non agriculture land

and 1.22 per cent with live stock value and others value is 0.95 per cent. The

furniture, agriculture equipment and others value is very minimal. In case of

small farmers, the major asset value is agriculture land, i.e. 83.03 and

followed by residential house value, agriculture equipment value and non

agriculture land value. In case of medium farmers, the major asset value is

agriculture land 86.56 per cent followed by house, non agriculture land value

and agriculture equipment value.

Comparatively sugar farmers have better housing, furniture, livestock and

others facilities than gur farmers. For Gur farmers’ agriculture land value is high

and agriculture equipment value also high in gur marginal and medium farmers

compare to sugar farmers. The non agriculture land value is high in sugar small

and medium farmers compare to gur farmers.

163

Table: 5.12 Structure and value of Households assets

S.No Farm/asset Gur Farmers Sugar Farmers Total Farmers 0-2.50 Average Average Average

1 House value 122661 (7.61) 159205 (10.90) 140933 (9.17) 2 Furniture value 5442 (0.34) 7233 (0.50) 6337.5 (0.41) 3 Agri land value 1394387 (86.49) 1236704 (84.67) 1315546 (85.63) 4 Non Agri land value 44354 (2.75) 13580 (0.93) 28967 (1.89) 5 Agri-equip value 15661 (0.97) 6765 (0.46) 11213 (0.73) 6 Livestock value 16100 (1.00) 21360 (1.46) 18730 (1.22) 7 Others 13500 (0.84) 15800 (1.08) 14650 (0.95)

Total 1612105 (100) 1460647 (100) 1536376 (100) 2.51-5.00

1 House value 272500 (8.08) 312778 (10.54) 292639 (8.94) 2 Furniture value 13449 (0.40) 12967 (0.44) 13208 (0.40) 3 Agri land value 3099608 (91.88) 2334444 (78.70) 2717026 (83.03) 4 Non Agri land value 39216 (1.16) 127778 (4.31) 83497 (2.55) 5 Agri-equip value 109500 (3.25) 128814 (4.34) 119157 (3.64) 6 Livestock value 22380 (0.66) 24800 (0.84) 23590 (0.72) 7 Others 21750 (0.64) 24670 (0.83) 23210 (0.71)

Total 3373403 (100) 2966251 (100) 3272327 (100) 5 and above

1 House value 492857 (6.72) 555000 (7.56) 523929 (7.05) 2 Furniture value 30714 (0.42) 76400 (1.04) 53557 (0.72) 3 Agri land value 6428571 (87.69) 6440000 (87.68) 6434286 (86.56) 4 Non Agri land value 0 (0.00) 400000 (5.45) 200000 (2.69) 5 Agri-equip value 228181 (3.11) 118333 (1.61) 173257 (2.33) 6 Livestock value 18440 (0.25) 19100 (0.26) 18770 (0.25) 7 Others 32450 (0.44) 36000 (0.49) 34225 (0.46)

Total 7331213 (100) 7344833 (100) 7433024 (100) Source: Primary survey (Figures in brackets are percentage to total)

164

(a). Possession of Agriculture equipment

A farming household possessing agricultural equipment is self reliant and

can carry out agricultural operations timely against a farmer who has to hire in the

equipment. Table 5.13 gives data relating to possession agricultural equipment by

the sample households.

In case of marginal farmers, out of 25 bore wells 13 bore wells belongs to

gur farmers and 12 bore wells belongs to sugar farmers in selected areas. Irrigation

and ploughing equipment are the important agriculture equipment possessed by

majority sample farmers as is evident from the data given in table – 5.13. Crushing

machines are owned by Gur farmers only as this is necessary to extract juice from

harvested sugarcane and to manufacture Gur.

In small farmers category, out of 44 bore wells, 31 bore wells belong to

gur farmers and followed by ploughing, tractors, bullock cart and 20 crushers were

using by gur farmers. In medium farmers, out of 12 bore wells 7 bore wells and 6

crushers belong to the gur farmers and 5 bore wells belong to the sugar farmers,

and followed by tractors and bullock carts. It clearly indicates that the marginal

farmers using traditional practices and they have traditional agricultural

equipments. Small farmers have more agriculture equipment comparative than the

marginal and medium farmers.

165

Table: 5.13

Possession of Agriculture equipment

Source: Primary survey

(Figures in brackets are percentage to total)

S.No Farm/asset Gur Farmers

Sugar Farmers

Total Farmers

0-2.50 1 Tractor 0

(0.00) 0

(0.00) 0

(0.00) 2 Bore well 13

(52.00) 12

(48.00) 25

(100) 3 Ploughing 11

(47.83) 12

(52.17) 23

(100) 4 Bullock cart 9

(39.13) 14

(60.87) 23

(100) 5 Crusher 8

(100) -- 8

(100) 2.51-5.00

1 Tractor 7 (53.85)

6 (46.15)

13 (100)

2 Bore well 31 (70.45)

13 (29.55)

44 (100)

3 Ploughing 7 (50.00)

7 (50.00)

14 (100)

4 Bullock cart 4 (40.00)

6 (60.00)

10 (100)

5 Crusher 20 (100)

20 (100)

5 and above 1 Tractor 4

(66.67) 2

(33.33) 6

(100) 2 Bore well 7

(58.33) 5

(41.67) 12

(100) 3 Ploughing 0

(0.00) 0

(0.00) 0

(0.00) 4 Bullock cart 0

(0.00) 2

(100) 2

(100) 5 Crusher 6

(100) 0 6

(100)

166

(b). Details of Land holdings

Table 5.14 gives details of land holding. The average size operational land

holding of all sample farmers is estimated at 3.60 acres. The minimum holding is

0.79 and the maximum is 11.47. Leased in land by the sample farmers exceeds

that of leased out land. Data relating to operational holding of the sample farmers

is given in table 14. The average size of holding of marginal farmers is estimated

at 2.39 acres (<1 hectare). The total own land of all marginal farmers is about 275

acres. About 74 acres of land is taken under lease cultivation. The range of own

land of this category of farmers is 0.79 acres to 2.50 acres.

The average operational holding of small farmers is estimated at 4.39 acres.

The range of the own land of farmers belonging to this category is 2.57 acres to 5

acres. While the operational holding of the medium size farmers is 8.38 acres, the

range is 5.93 acres to 11.47 acres.

Operational holding of gur and sugar farmers is given in tables 5.15-5.16.

Among the three categories of farmers the operational holding size is

comparatively high for sugar farmers. This is noticed for the total farmers also.

Another important point that can be observed from the table is the marginal

farmers are taking land under lease which is more than that of the other two

categories of farmers to reap economics of scale less. This can be attributed to

small size of own land by the marginal farmers and with the given family labour;

they are inclined to leased in land. Probably the marginal farmers are of the

opinion that this additional land that is leased in may help them to get adequate

employment to their family labour and adds to their household income.

167

Table: 5.14 Structure of Land Holdings of the Gur & Sugar Farmers

(land in acres) S .No Land Structure 0-2.50 2.51-5.00 5 and above Total

Total farmers 1 Own Land 275.49

(82.45) 308.60 (91.36)

229.85 (119.19)

813.94 (94.12)

2 Leased-in 73.95 (22.13)

67.20 (19.89)

10 (5.19)

151.15 (17.48)

3 Leased out 15.30 (4.58)

38 (11..25)

47 (24.38)

100.30 (11.60)

4 Total Operational holding

334.14 (100)

337.80 (100)

192.85 (100)

864.79 (100)

5 Average Size of holdings

2.39 4.39 8.38 3.60


Table: 5.15

Structure of Land Holdings of the Gur Farmers (land in acres)

S .No Land Structure 0-2.50 2.51-5.00 5 and above Total Gur Farmers

1 Own Land 91.77 (77.40)

173.6 (82.51)

75.75 (105.57)

341.12 (85.13)

2 Leased-in 33.3 (28.08)

39.8 (18.92)

6 (8.36)

79.1 (19.74)

3 Leased out 6.5 (5.48)

3 (1.43)

10 (13.94)

19.5 (4.87)

4 Total Operational holding

118.57 (100)

210.4 (100)

71.75 (100)

400.72 (100)

5 Average Size of holdings

2.01 4.21 6.52 3.34


168

Table: 5.16 Structure of Land Holdings of the Sugar Farmers

(land in acres) S .No Land Structure 0-2.50 2.51-5.00 5 and above Total

Sugar Farmers 1 Own Land 183.72

(85.23) 135

(105.97) 154

(135.48) 472.82 (95.32)

2 Leased-in 40.65 (18.86)

27.40 (21.51)

4 (4.30)

72.05 (14.52)

3 Leased out 8.8 (4.08)

35 (27.47)

37 (39.78)

80.80 (9.84)

4 Total Operational holding 215.57 (100)

127.40 (100)

121.10 (100)

464.07 (100)

5 Average Size of holdings 2.66 4.72 10.09 3.87 Source: Primary survey (Figures in brackets are percentage to total)

5.5. Distribution of operational holding into irrigated and un-irrigated The distribution of operational holding into irrigated and un irrigated area is

given in tables 5.17-5.19. 90 per cent of the operational holding of the sample

households is irrigated. Even for the un-irrigated area farmers are drawing water

from tanks through motors and pipes. However this is not a reliable source for

sugarcane cultivation. Sugarcane cultivation requires water heavily, when the

sample farmers probed on this aspect the response is that the sugarcane is grown

on un-irrigated area lieing close to tank. Therefore, there is possibility of getting

water at least for 4-5 months. However, the yield is generally get affected on this

land.

There is no variation in the composition of operated holding in different

categories of farmers. In case of gur cultivating farmers the irrigated area

constitutes about 97 percent of the operated area for the total farmers. Among the

three categories of farmers irrigated area for small farmers it is cent percent of the

operated holding. While for the marginal farmers the irrigated area is 93 percent of

the operated holding.

169

In case of sugar farmers a different picture is noticed them that of gur

farmers about 85 percent operational holding is irrigated. Among the three

categories of farmers the proportion of irrigated area to total operational holding

vary between 77 percent to 90 percent.

Table: 5.17 Distribution of operation holding into irrigated and un irrigated

Total Farmers Source: Primary survey (Figures in brackets are percentage to total)

Table: 5.18 Distribution of operation holding into irrigated and un-irrigated

Gur Farmers Source: Primary survey (Figures in brackets are percentage to total)

S. No Farm size Irrigated Un irrigated Total 1 0-2.50 334.14

(91.31) 31.79 (8.69)

365.93

2 2.51-5.00 337.80 (89.53)

39.50 (10.47)

377.30

3 5 and above 192.85 (89.34)

23.00 (10.66)

215.85

4 Total 864.79 (90.17)

94.29 (9.83)

959.08


(93.31) 8.50

(6.69) 127.07

2 2.51-5.00 210.40 (99.53)

1.00 (0.47)

211.40

3 5 and above 71.75 (98.63)

1.00 (1.37)

72.75

4 Total 400.72 (97.45)

10.50 (2.55)

411.22

170

Table: 5.19 Distribution of operation holding into irrigated and un irrigated

Sugar Farmers Source: Primary survey (Figures in brackets are percentage to total)

(a). Irrigation particulars of land holdings

The source wise distribution of the irrigated area reveals that bore wells are

the important source of irrigation for the total sample farmers and also for gur and

sugar farmers. One interesting observation is prevalence of conjunctive irrigation

(Canals plus Wells) in the study area. Among the three categories of farmers the

conjunctive irrigation is comparatively high of medium farmers than the other two

categories as is evident from tables.

Table: 5.20 Source wise distribution of Irrigated area-Total Farmers

S. No Farm size Canals Bore well Tube well Canals + wells Total 1 0-2.50 89.67

(26.84) 181.41 (54.29)

8.5 (2.54)

54.56 (16.33)

334.14

2 2.51-5.00 70.50 (20.87)

213.40 (63.17)

0 (0.00)

53.9 (15.96)

337.80

3 5 and above 0 (0.00)

139 (72.08)

0 (0.00)

53.85 (27.92)

192.85

4 Total 160.17 (18.52)

533.81 (61.73)

8.5 (0.98)

168.31 (19.46)

864.79



(90.25) 23.29 (9.75)

238.86

2 2.51-5.00 127.40 (76.79)

38.50 (23.21)

165.9

3 5 and above 121.10 (84.63)

22.00 (15.37)

143.10

4 Total 464.07 (84.71)

83.79 (15.29)

547.86

171

Table: 5.21 Source wise distribution of Irrigated area-Gur Farmers

S. No Farm size Canals Bore well Tube well Canals + wells Total

1 0-2.50 29 (24.46)

72 (60.72)

0 (0.00)

17.57 (14.82)

118.57

2 2.51-5.00 29.50 (14.02)

153 (72.72)

0 (0.00)

27.9 (13.26)

210.40

3 5 and above 0 (0.00)

48 (66.90)

0 (0.00)

23.75 (33.10)

71.75

4 Total 58.50 (14.60)

273 (68.13)

0 (0.00)

69.22 (17.27)

400.72


Table: 5.22

Source wise distribution of Irrigated area-Sugar farmers

S. No Farm size Canals Bore well Tube well Canals + wells Total 1 0-2.50 60.67

(28.14) 115.41 (53.54)

2.5 (1.16)

36.99 (17.16)

215.57

2 2.51-5.00 41 (32.18)

60.4 (47.41)

0 (0.00)

26 (20.41)

127.40

3 5 and above 0 (0.00)

91 (75.14)

0 (0.00)

30.1 (24.86)

121.10

4 Total 101.67 (21.91)

266.81 (57.49)

2.5 (0.54)

93.09 (20.06)

464.07


Conclusion

The selected farmers are classified into marginal, small and medium

farmers based on size of land. The operational holding is high for sugar farmers.

Bore wells are the main source of irrigation for all categories of farmers.

Conjunctive (bore wells + canal) irrigation is an important source of irrigation for

all categories of farmers for both gur and sugar farmers. In the study area about

56 percent of head of the households are in the age group of 35 to 60. Most of the

172

family members in the productive age group (16-60), it supplies labour to attend

cultivation operations, enhance the earning capacity of the household also. In the

study area the female population is low in both type of sugarcane cultivation i.e. it

is 880:1000 for gur farmers and 780:1000 for sugar farmers. The secondary and

higher education is high in medium size farmers. In the study are altogether 74

percent of male workers are exclusively depending on cultivation for their

livelihood and Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act

providing employment to Non agricultural labourers. In case of assets sugar

farmers have better housing, furniture and livestock also. In the study area small

farmers have more agriculture equipment in both gur and sugar farmers.

Documents

V SOCIO ECONOMIC PROFILE OF THE SAMPLE HOUSEHOLDS …shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/8664/12/12_chapter 5.pdf · 147 SOCIO ECONOMIC PROFILE OF THE SAMPLE HOUSEHOLDS In