SOCIO ECONOMIC PROFILE OF THE SAMPLE HOUSEHOLDS

CHAPTER - V SOCIO ECONOMIC PROFILE OF THE SAMPLE HOUSEHOLDS 46

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.. Distribution of the sample households As pointed out earlier, for purpose of the study 24 sugarcane farmers are selected of this, 2 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 2 farmers sell the harvested sugarcane to sugar factories and therefore they are referred as sugar farmers. The selected farmers are classified into Marginal farmers (-2.5 acres), Small farmers (2.5-5. 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 (9 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. Distribution of Sample Households based on Farm Size (Figures are acres) S.No Farmers -2.5 2.5-5. 5 and above Total Gur Farmers 59 (49.7) 5 (4.67) (9.6) 2 2 Sugar armers 8 (67.5) 27 (22.5) 2 () 2 Total 4 (58.) 77 (2.8) 2 (9.58) 24 47

(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, 6.75 per cent have less than 5 family members followed by 27.5 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. 48

Table: 5.2 Distribution of the Households by Family Size S. No Family size Farm size Less than 5 5-7 7&above Total Gur Farmers -2.5 7 (62.7) 9 (2.2) (5.8) 59 2 2.5-5. 5 (7.) 2 (24.) (6.) 5 5 and above 5 4 2 (45.45) (6.6) Sub total 77 5 (64.7) (29.7) Sugar Farmers -2.5 56 2 (69.4) (24.69) 2 2.5-5. 6 6 (59.26) (22.22) 5 and above 5 4 (4.67) (.) Sub total 77 (64.7) (25.) Total 54 65 (6.75) (27.5) (b). Distribution of Head of the household based on age. (8.9) 8 (6.67) 5 (6.7) 5 (8.52) (25.) (.8) 2 (8.75) 2 (.) 8 27 2 2 (.) 24 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. presents these details. About 56 per cent of heads of the selected farmers are in the age group of 5-6years, there is no much difference between gur farmers and sugar farmers in the age composition of the head of the 49

households as is evident from the data presented in the table. A large concentration of head of the households in the age group5 to 6 years is an advantage to these households on household general and economic aspects. Table: 5. Age composition of the head of the household S.No Farm size Age Composition Below 5 5-6 Above 6 Total Gur Farmers -2.5 6 (27.2) (52.54) 2 (2.4) 59 2 2.5-5. 9 (8.) 27 (54.) 4 (28.) 5 5 and above 2 5 4 (28.8) (45.45) Sub Total 27 6 (22.5) (52.5) Sugar Farmers -2.5 6 5 (9.75) (62.96) 2 2.5-5. 5 4 (8.52) (5.85) 5 and above 6 (25.) (5.) Sub Total 24 7 (2.) (59.7) Total Farmers 5 4 (2.25) (55.8) (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 8 percent of the family members are in the age group of -6 years and 2. percent of the members in the age group 6-years. The percentage of the family members above 6 years of age is very minimal. (6.7) (25.) 4 (7.28) 8 (29.6) (25.) 25 (2.8) 55 (22.92) 2 8 27 2 2 24 5

From the data, it is evident that there is concentration of family members in the age group of 6-6 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 Age Composition Farm size -5 6- -45 46-6 Above 6 Gur Farmers -2.5 8 86 6 2 8 (2.7) (.) (2.26) (8.4) (.) 2 2.5-5. 46 77 59 7 (2.9) (.62) (25.76) (6.6) (4.7) 5 and above 2 7 2 5 (.7) Sub total 9 (24.82) -2.5 9 (26.22) 2 2.5-5. (24.6) 5 and above 29 (27.88) Sub total 5 (26.5) Total Farmers 292 (25.5) (27.4) (2.29) 8 6 (2.68) (24.29) Sugar Farmers 8 92 (4.) (26.5) 6 5 (26.87) (26.2) 22 (.7) (2.25) 87 49 (.97) (25.47) 7 285 (2.) (24.89) (28.77) 79 (4.) 8 (.95) 2 (4.9) 4 (.46) 72 (2.) 5 (.9) (6.85) 2 (4.) 8 (2.) (7.46) 6 (5.77) 24 (4.) 47 (4.) Total 258 229 7 56 47 4 4 585 45 5

(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 58 females and 627 males. The sex ratio is estimated at 8 female for males for the total sample, sex ratio for Gur farmers 88: and for Sugar farmers 78:. 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 - year s category female population is more compared to other categories. In sugar farmers, the age groups -5 and above 6 the female population is low compared to other groups. 52

Table: 5.5 Age-Wise Sex Distribution of All Family Members S.No Farm size -5 6- -45 46-6 6 above Grand total M F M F M F M F M F M F Gur Farmers -2.5 4 4 5 5 4 2 2 9 5 2 26 (.) (4.) (26.52) (4.48) (.) (5.87) (9.9) (7.4) (.79) (2.8) 2 2.5-5. 6 (.45) (27.27) 4 (4.45) 6 (2.7) 4 (28.57) 25 (22.7) 9 (5.97) 8 (6.6) 8 (6.72) 2 (.82) 9 5 and above 6 4 2 8 7 4 7 5 47 26 (2.77) Sub total 62 (2.8) (5.8) 77 (29.9) (25.5) 88 (29.5) -2.5 5 (26.8) 4 (26.28) 2 2.5-5. 9 4 (25.) (2.7) 5 and above 2 8 (.) (9.5) Sub total 9 6 (27.6) (24.6) Total 52 4 (24.24) (27.) 6 (2.98) 2 (26.67) 9 (.6) 2 (.) 9 (.) (.77) (2.28) (26.92) 95 84 52 (6.26) (28.9) (9.85) Sugar Farmers 55 5 4 (5.26) (26.7) (26.28) 6 9 6 (27.2) (25.) (27.2) 4 2 (4.5) (5.8) (29.27) 85 8 69 (.2) (24.2) (26.95) 8 64 2 (4.75) (26.5) (2.6) (29.79) 45 (5.) 2 (.47) 9 (2.) 7 (.) 6 (.94) 8 (2.92) (26.92) 4 (2.98) 8 (.54) (8.64) 7 (7.7) 6 (4.6) 7 (.5) (.64) 8 (6.4) 7 (.66) 8 (.67) 6 (9.52) 2 (6.8) 9 (6.22) (.) 5 (.9) (.64) 2 (.9) (.) (.7) 8 (.54) 298 9 75 6 29 627 262 56 59 4 256 58 5

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 7.8 per cent of head of the households had schooling upto primary education, 45.42 per cent with secondary education and 5.42 per cent had education up to th class (High school). Illiterates are relatively low i.e. only 22.8 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. 54

Table 5.6 Literacy levels of head of the households S. No. Farm size Literacy level Illiterates Primary Secondary High School Total Gur Farmers -2.5 (22.) 7 (.86) (52.54) 8 (.56) 59 2 2.5-5. 9 (8.) 8 (6.) 26 (52.) 7 (4.) 5 5 and above 7 (.) (9.9) (6.64) Sub total 22 6 64 (8.) (.) (5.) Sugar Farmers -2.5 9 9 29 (2.46) (2.46) (5.8) 2 2.5-5. 8 4 (29.6) (4.8) (7.4) 5 and above 4 2 6 (.) (6.67) (5.) Sub total 25 45 (25.8) (2.8) (7.5) Total Farmers 5 4 9 (22.8) (7.8) (45.42) (a). Literacy levels of family members: (27.27) 8 (5.) 4 (7.28) 5 (8.52) (.) 9 (5.8) 7 (5.42) 2 8 27 2 2 24 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 2 percent in case of males and 29 per cent in case of females are illiterates. Among literate males a considerable proportion are in the 7 th to th 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. 55

S. No. Farm size -2.5 28 2 2.5-5. 22 5 and above Sub total 75 (25.7) -2.5 52 (27.2) 2 2.5-5. 8 (24.) 5 and 8 above (28.57) Sub total 88 (26.75) Total Farmers 6 (26.) Table: 5.7 Literacy levels of family members Literacy level -6 7- Inter Degree P.G Illiterates Total M F M F M F M F M F M F M F Gur Farmers 2 58 4 5 5 6 9 2 26 (2.2) (25.4) (4.94) (2.54) (.6) (8.7) (7.58) (2.8) (.79) (.) (2.2) (.95) 26 4 4 5 2 5 8 5 9 9 (8.) (2.64) (6.) (.9) (2.6) (.9) (2.6) (7.27) (4.2) (.) (5.97) (27.27) 25 7 4 6 2 2 7 47 26 (5.9) (26.92) (29.79) (2.8) (6.8) (.54) (6.8) (7.69) (4.26) (.85) (.) (26.92) (!) 65 (24.8) 8 (24.6) 5 (25.42) 9 (2.95) 62 (24.22) 27 (24.52) 5 (8.59) 65 (4.) 2 (26.67) 6 (25.4) (.7) 26 (4.45) 8 (.92) 55 (5.26) 2 (2.4) (26.8) 78 (.47) 59 (.69) (.7) 26 (9.92) 28 (9.4) Sugar Farmers 27 4 8 (4.4) (8.97) (9.42) 8 2 (.67) (.9) (4.67) 9 5 6 (4.29) (2.2) (9.52) 44 2 5 (.7) (8.2) (.64) 77 47 6 (2.28) (9.7) (.5) (4.96) 5 (.2) 2 (.9) (7.2) (.9) 2 (4.44) 2 (4.) (.52) (.) 2 (.7) 4 (.22) 6 (2.55) (.8) (.64) (.) (.) (.9) 2 (.9) 5 (.74) 28 (4.66) 7 (22.67) 2 (9.5) 57 (7.) 92 (4.67) 76 (29.) 4 (27.56) 28 (47.46) (.7) 84 (2.8) 6 (.89) 298 9 75 6 29 627 262 56 59 4 256 (!) 58 56

5.. 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. () 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 24 sample household 5. percent head of the sample household are depending on agriculture alone followed by agriculture labour 25.42 percent, Non-Agriculture Labour 2.42 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. 57

Table: 5.8 Occupation status of the head of the Gur & Sugar Farmer S.No Farm size -2.5 4 (57.6) 2 2.5-5. 9 (8.) 5 and above Cultivation Agriculture Labour 7 (6.64) Sub total 6 (5.) -2.5 4 (4.98) 2 2.5-5. 8 (66.67) 5 and above 8 (66.67) Sub total 6 (5.) Total 2 (5.) 2 (5.59) 6 (2.) (9.9) 8 (.67) Gur farmers (a). Occupation wise distribution of workers Non Agricultural Labour 4 (6.78) 2 (24.) (.) 6 (.) Sugar farmers 8 (22.22) 5 (8.52) (.) 2 (9.7) 6 (25.42) 29 (5.8) 4 (4.8) (.) (27.5) 49 (2.42) Self Employment (.) 2 (4.) (27.27) 5 (4.7) (.) (.) 4 (.) (.) (.) Others (.) (2.) (.) (.8) (.) (.) (.) (.) (.42) Total 59 5 2 8 27 2 2 24 Table 5.9 to 5. 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 4 male workers, 9 (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 58

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. and 5., 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. S.No Farm size Table: 5.9 Occupation wise distribution of workers total sample -2.5 88 (5.48) 2 2.5-5. 84 (64.62) 5 and 2 above (6.64) 9 Sub total (46.96) Cultivation Agriculture Labour -2.5 5 (9.2) 2 2.5-5. 5 (4.67) 5 and above Sub total (28.2) Total 226 (42.8) Non Agricultural Labour Males 86 58 (4.68) (2.59) 2 2 (5.8) (9.2) 4 (2.2) (.) 7 (26.76) (7.) Females 29 (42.) (7.8) 9 (.56) (25.) (.) (.) 44 8 (7.6) (2.48) 54 8 (29.7) (2.45) Self Employment 6 (6.45) 2 (9.2) 7 (2.2) 5 (8.52) (.28) (.) (.) (.85) 6 (6.82) Others (.) 2 (.54) (.) (.7) (.) (2.78) (.) (.85) 4 (.76) Total Workers 248 4 78 6 7 528 59

S.N o 2 Table: 5. Occupation wise distribution of workers Gur Farmers Farm size Cultivatio n - 2.5 4 (42.7) 2.5-54 5. (64.29) 5 and 9 above (42.86) 4 Sub total (5.74) Agricultu re Labour Non Agricultur al Labour Males 4 (4.67) (.42) 2 5 (4.29) (5.95) 4 (9.5) (.) 56 5 (27.86)) (7.46) Females 9 9 (57.58) (27.27) 6 4 (27.27) (8.8) (.) (.) 25 (45.45) (2.64) 8 28 (.64) (.94) -2.5 4 (2.2) 2 2.5-5. (5.) 5 and above (.) 5 Sub total (27.27) Total 9 (46.48) Self Employmen t 5 (5.2) 2 (4.29) 7 (.) 24 (.94) (.) (.) (.) (.82) 25 (9.77) Other s (.) (.9) (4.76) 2 (.) (.) (4.55) (.) (.82) (.7) Total Worker s 96 84 2 2 22 55 256 6

S.N o Table: 5. Occupation wise distribution of workers Sugar Farmers Farm size Cultivatio n -2.5 47 (.92) 2 2.5-5. (65.22) 5 and 2 above Sub total 89 (42.8) Agricultur e Labour Non Agricultur al Labour Males 46 48 (.26) (.58) 8 7 (7.9) (5.22) (.) (.) 54 55 (25.7) (26.9) Females -2.5 (24.44) 4 (.) 2 (44.44) 2 2.5-4 5 5 5. (28.57) (5.7) (5.7) 5 and above (.) (.) Sub total 8 9 25 (29.) (.65) (4.2) Total 7 7 8 (9.4) (26.84) (29.4) Self Employment (7.24) (.) (.) (5.24) (.) (.) (.) (.) (4.4) Other s (.) (2.7) (.) (.48) (.) (.) (.) (.) (.7) Total Worker s 52 46 2 2 45 4 62 272 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 6

Agricultural land value e) Agriculture equipment value f) Live stock value g) others etc., Table-5.2 present these details. In case of marginal farmers, the average value of assets is estimated at Rs.5,6.76. The major asset value is agriculture land, i.e. 85.6 and followed by residential house 9.7,.89 per cent with non agriculture land and.22 per cent with live stock value and others value is.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. 8. 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. 62

Table: 5.2 Structure and value of Households assets S.No Farm/asset Gur Farmers Sugar Farmers Total Farmers -2.5 Average Average Average House value 2266 (7.6) 5925 (.9) 49 (9.7) 2 Furniture value 5442 (.4) 72 (.5) 67.5 (.4) Agri land value 9487 (86.49) 2674 (84.67) 5546 (85.6) 4 Non Agri land value 4454 (2.75) 58 (.9) 28967 (.89) 5 Agri-equip value 566 (.97) 6765 (.46) 2 (.7) 6 Livestock value 6 (.) 26 (.46) 87 (.22) 7 Others 5 (.84) 58 (.8) 465 (.95) Total 625 46647 5676 2.5-5. House value 2725 (8.8) 2778 (.54) 29269 (8.94) 2 Furniture value 449 (.4) 2967 (.44) 28 (.4) Agri land value 9968 (9.88) 24444 (78.7) 27726 (8.) 4 Non Agri land value 926 (.6) 27778 (4.) 8497 (2.55) 5 Agri-equip value 95 (.25) 2884 (4.4) 957 (.64) 6 Livestock value 228 (.66) 248 (.84) 259 (.72) 7 Others 275 (.64) 2467 (.8) 22 (.7) Total 74 296625 27227 5 and above House value 492857 (6.72) 555 (7.56) 52929 (7.5) 2 Furniture value 74 (.42) 764 (.4) 5557 (.72) Agri land value 642857 (87.69) 644 (87.68) 644286 (86.56) 4 Non Agri land value (.) 4 (5.45) 2 (2.69) 5 Agri-equip value 2288 (.) 8 (.6) 7257 (2.) 6 Livestock value 844 (.25) 9 (.26) 877 (.25) 7 Others 245 (.44) 6 (.49) 4225 (.46) Total 72 7448 7424 6

(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. gives data relating to possession agricultural equipment by the sample households. In case of marginal farmers, out of 25 bore wells bore wells belongs to gur farmers and 2 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.. 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, bore wells belong to gur farmers and followed by ploughing, tractors, bullock cart and 2 crushers were using by gur farmers. In medium farmers, out of 2 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. 64

Table: 5. Possession of Agriculture equipment S.No Farm/asset Gur Farmers -2.5 Tractor (.) 2 Bore well (52.) Ploughing (47.8) 4 Bullock cart 9 (9.) 5 Crusher 8 2.5-5. Tractor 7 (5.85) 2 Bore well (7.45) Ploughing 7 (5.) 4 Bullock cart 4 (4.) 5 Crusher 2 5 and above Tractor 4 (66.67) 2 Bore well 7 (58.) Ploughing (.) 4 Bullock cart (.) 5 Crusher 6 Sugar Farmers Total Farmers (.) (.) 2 25 (48.) 2 2 (52.7) 4 2 (6.87) -- 8 6 (46.5) (29.55) 7 (5.) 6 (6.) 44 4 2 2 6 (.) 5 2 (4.67) (.) (.) 2 2 6 65

(b). Details of Land holdings Table 5.4 gives details of land holding. The average size operational land holding of all sample farmers is estimated at.6 acres. The minimum holding is.79 and the maximum is.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 4. The average size of holding of marginal farmers is estimated at 2.9 acres (< 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.79 acres to 2.5 acres. The average operational holding of small farmers is estimated at 4.9 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 8.8 acres, the range is 5.9 acres to.47 acres. Operational holding of gur and sugar farmers is given in tables 5.5-5.6. 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. 66

Table: 5.4 Structure of Land Holdings of the Gur & Sugar Farmers (land in acres) S.No Land Structure -2.5 2.5-5. 5 and above Total Total farmers Own Land 275.49 (82.45) 8.6 (9.6) 229.85 (9.9) 8.94 (94.2) 2 Leased-in 7.95 (22.) 67.2 (9.89) (5.9) 5.5 (7.48) Leased out 5. (4.58) 8 (..25) 47 (24.8). (.6) 4 Total Operational holding 4.4 7.8 92.85 864.79 5 Average Size of holdings 2.9 4.9 8.8.6 Table: 5.5 Structure of Land Holdings of the Gur Farmers (land in acres) S.No Land Structure -2.5 2.5-5. 5 and above Total Gur Farmers Own Land 9.77 (77.4) 7.6 (82.5) 75.75 (5.57) 4.2 (85.) 2 Leased-in. (28.8) 9.8 (8.92) 6 (8.6) 79. (9.74) Leased out 6.5 (5.48) (.4) (.94) 9.5 (4.87) 4 Total Operational holding 8.57 2.4 7.75 4.72 5 Average Size of holdings 2. 4.2 6.52.4 67

Table: 5.6 Structure of Land Holdings of the Sugar Farmers (land in acres) S.No Land Structure -2.5 2.5-5. 5 and above Total Sugar Farmers Own Land 8.72 5 54 472.82 (85.2) (5.97) (5.48) (95.2) 2 Leased-in 4.65 (8.86) 27.4 (2.5) 4 (4.) 72.5 (4.52) Leased out 8.8 (4.8) 5 (27.47) 7 (9.78) 8.8 (9.84) 4 Total Operational holding 25.57 27.4 2. 464.7 5 Average Size of holdings 2.66 4.72.9.87 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 5.7-5.9. 9 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 9 percent of the operated holding. 68

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 9 percent. Table: 5.7 Distribution of operation holding into irrigated and un irrigated Total Farmers S. No Farm size Irrigated Un irrigated Total -2.5 4.4 (9.) 2 2.5-5. 7.8 (89.5) 5 and above 92.85 (89.4) 4 Total 864.79 (9.7).79 (8.69) 9.5 (.47) 2. (.66) 94.29 (9.8) 65.9 77. 25.85 959.8 Table: 5.8 Distribution of operation holding into irrigated and un-irrigated Gur Farmers S. No Farm size Irrigated Un irrigated Total -2.5 8.57 8.5 27.7 (9.) (6.69) 2 2.5-5. 2.4. 2.4 (99.5) (.47) 5 and above 7.75. 72.75 (98.6) (.7) 4 Total 4.72 (97.45).5 (2.55) 4.22 69

Table: 5.9 Distribution of operation holding into irrigated and un irrigated Sugar Farmers S. No Farm size Irrigated Un irrigated Total -2.5 25.57 2.29 28.86 (9.25) (9.75) 2 2.5-5. 27.4 8.5 65.9 (76.79) (2.2) 5 and above 2. 22. 4. (84.6) (5.7) 4 Total 464.7 (84.7) 8.79 (5.29) 547.86 (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: 5.2 Source wise distribution of Irrigated area-total Farmers S. No Farm size Canals Bore well Tube well Canals + wells Total -2.5 89.67 8.4 8.5 54.56 4.4 (26.84) (54.29) (2.54) (6.) 2 2.5-5. 7.5 2.4 5.9 7.8 (2.87) (6.7) (.) (5.96) 5 and above 9 5.85 92.85 (.) (72.8) (.) (27.92) 4 Total 6.7 (8.52) 5.8 (6.7) 8.5 (.98) 68. (9.46) 864.79 7

Table: 5.2 Source wise distribution of Irrigated area-gur Farmers S. No Farm size Canals Bore well Tube well Canals + wells Total -2.5 29 72 7.57 8.57 (24.46) (6.72) (.) (4.82) 2 2.5-5. 29.5 5 27.9 2.4 (4.2) (72.72) (.) (.26) 5 and above 48 2.75 7.75 (.) (66.9) (.) (.) 4 Total 58.5 (4.6) 27 (68.) (.) 69.22 (7.27) 4.72 Table: 5.22 Source wise distribution of Irrigated area-sugar farmers S. No Farm size Canals Bore well Tube well Canals + wells Total -2.5 6.67 5.4 2.5 6.99 25.57 (28.4) (5.54) (.6) (7.6) 2 2.5-5. 4 6.4 26 27.4 (2.8) (47.4) (.) (2.4) 5 and above 9. 2. (.) (75.4) (.) (24.86) 4 Total.67 (2.9) 266.8 (57.49) 2.5 (.54) 9.9 (2.6) 464.7 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 5 to 6. Most of the 7

family members in the productive age group (6-6), 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 88: for gur farmers and 78: 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. 72