Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
TABLE 5
Economics of crop production (per ha) for coconut and grapes in sample farms in
Tamil Nadu, 2007-2008.
Particulars
Coconut
Grapes
Drip villages
Control
villages
Drip villages
Control
villages
Quantity of water applied (M
3
)
3096***
10855
5195***
6757
Quantity of energy consumed
(kWh)
917***
7423
550***
3124
Cost of labor (Rs.)
3733***
12024
17324***
29433
Capital (Rs.)
27510***
32560
50690***
60124
Yield ('00 nuts in coconut and
tones in grapes)
227***
201
22.84***
19.45
Gross income (Rs.)
105443***
86419
246668***
233454
Gross margin (Rs.)
77933***
53859
195978***
173330
Yield per unit of water (nuts/
M
3
or kg/M
3
)
7.3***
1.9
4.7***
3.1
Yield per unit of energy (nuts/
kWh of kg/kWh)
28.6***
2.6
43.7***
6.2
Returns per unit of water (Rs/M
3
)
25***
5
41***
27
Returns per unit of energy (Rs/kWh)
98***
7
378***
55
***, ** and * indicate that the values are significantly different at 1%, 5% and 10% levels
from the corresponding values of control village.
The impact of drip irrigation on resource saving and productivity enhancing was
highly signifi cant in grapes. Since grape cultivation is sensitive to water stress and in-
volves huge labor for irrigation, weeding, training and pruning, the drip could resulted
in signifi cant savings in water and labor, leading to reduction in cost of cultivation
(Table 5).
In grape cultivation, the cost incurred on human labor was Rs. 17,324/ha in drip
farms and Rs. 29,433/ha in control farms with an average reduction of 41% (Table
5). Also, there was a reduction in the cost of cultivation by 15.6% in drip farms over
control farms. The gross margin across farms indicated that the drip farms achieved
relatively higher returns with a given price of output when compared to control farms
mainly due to difference in yield. The physical productivity of water and energy was
Search WWH ::
Custom Search