146 CHAPTER - V SOCIO ECONOMIC PROFILE OF THE SAMPLE HOUSEHOLDS
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
Source: Primary survey (Figures in brackets are percentage to total)
(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
Gur Farmers 1 0-2.50 16
(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
Source: Primary survey (Figures in brackets are percentage to total)
S. No Farm size
Age Composition 0-15 16-30 31-45 46-60 Above
60 Total
Gur Farmers 1 0-2.50 83
(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)
Total Farmers 292 (25.50)
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
Gur Farmers 1 0-2.50 40
(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)
Sub total 90 (27.36)
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)
Source: Primary survey (Figures in brackets are percentage to total)
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
Gur Farmers 1 0-2.50 13
(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)
Sub total 31 (25.83)
25 (20.83)
45 (37.50)
19 (15.83)
120 (100)
Total Farmers 53 (22.08)
41 (17.08)
109 (45.42)
37 (15.42)
240 (100)
Source: Primary survey (Figures in brackets are percentage to total)
(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
Gur Farmers 1 0-2.50 28
(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)
Sub total 88 (26.75)
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)
Total Farmers 163 (26.00)
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)
Source: Primary survey (Figures in brackets are percentage to total)
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
Source: Primary survey (Figures in brackets are percentage to total)
(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)
Sub total 60 (50.00)
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
Source: Primary survey (Figures in brackets are percentage to total)
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
Source: Primary survey (Figures in brackets are percentage to total)
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
Sub total 89 (42.38)
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
Sub total 18 (29.03)
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
Source: Primary survey (Figures in brackets are percentage to total)
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
Source: Primary survey (Figures in brackets are percentage to total)
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
Source: Primary survey (Figures in brackets are percentage to total)
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
S. No Farm size Irrigated Un irrigated Total 1 0-2.50 118.57
(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
Source: Primary survey (Figures in brackets are percentage to total)
S. No Farm size Irrigated Un irrigated Total 1 0-2.50 215.57
(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
Source: Primary survey (Figures in brackets are percentage to total)
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
Source: Primary survey (Figures in brackets are percentage to total)
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.