Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
and Rs. 163,048/ha in control farms. It clearly shows that drip method of irrigation has
resulted in an increase of 22% of gross margin over the control. As the adoption of
drip irrigation saves considerable water and energy, the water and energy productivity
is signifi cantly more in drip farms than the control villages where the fl ood irrigation
is followed (Table 4). For instance, the water productivity has been worked out to be
7.4 kg/M
3
of water in drip farms and 4.9 kg/M
3
of water in control villages. Signifi cant
difference in energy productivity has also been noticed. The returns per unit of wa-
ter and energy have shown that drip farms have signifi cantly higher returns over the
control. Thus, one could conclude that the drip adoption would be a viable technology
with signifi cant bearing on the private profi ts.
TABLE 4
Economics of crop production (per ha) for banana in sample farms in Tamil Nadu,
2007-2008.
Particulars
Drip villages
Control villages
Quantity of water applied (M
3
)
8,979***
12,669
Quantity of energy consumed (kWh)
2,219***
8,294
Cost of labor (Rs.)
9,761***
31,487
Capital (Rs.)
80,369***
104,351
Yield (tons)
60.34***
57.79
Gross income (Rs.)
280,602***
267,400
Gross margin (Rs.)
200,232***
163,048
Yield per unit of water (kg/M
3
)
7.4***
4.9
Yield per unit of energy (kg/kWh)
28.6***
7.2
Returns per unit of water (Rs/M
3
)
23.8***
13.3
Returns per unit of energy (Rs/kWh)
92.3***
19.8
Notes:
***, ** and * indicate that values are significantly different at 1%, 5% and 10% levels, re-
spectively, from the corresponding values of control village.
The economics of coconut cultivation in drip and control villages has revealed
that the cost saving due to reduction in labor was 69% (Table 5) Similarly, the cost of
cultivation was considerably lower under the drip method, registering a reduction of
15.5%.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search