ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES OF WELL IRRIGATED AGRICULTURAL FARMS IN HARD ROCK AREAS OF KARNATAKA

S. RAVEESHA¹*, R.D. BARKER², K.L. VASUDEV³, N. KUSAGUR^4
1Department of Agricultural Economics, College of Horticulture, Hiriyur, 577598, University of Agricultural and Horticultural Sciences, Shivamogga, 577201, India
²ZAHRS, Hiriyur, 577598, University of Agricultural and Horticultural Sciences, Shivamogga, 577201, Karnataka, India
³College of Horticulture, Hiriyur, 577598, University of Agricultural and Horticultural Sciences, Shivamogga, 577201, Karnataka, India
⁴ZAHRS, Mudigere, Chikkamangalore, 577132, University of Agricultural and Horticultural Sciences, Shivamogga, 577201, Karnataka, India
* Corresponding Author : poonaravi1@gmail.com

Received : 01-11-2020     Accepted : 26-11-2020     Published : 30-11-2020
Volume : 12     Issue : 22       Pages : 10398 - 10403
Int J Agr Sci 12.22 (2020):10398-10403

Keywords : Groundwater, Bore well, Agricultural farms, Farmers, Investment and Return
Academic Editor : Bajaj Gagan
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Authors are thankful to Department of Agricultural Economics, College of Horticulture, Hiriyur, 577598, University of Agricultural and Horticultural Sciences, Shivamogga, 577201, Karnataka, India
Author Contribution : All authors equally contributed

Groundwater development in the case of hard rock areas is threatened by uncertainties inter alia nature of rock type, type of aquifer, number and type of wells per unit of utilizable groundwater. However, groundwater is the major source of irrigation in Karnataka especially in rain fed south-eastern districts of Kolar, Bengaluru, Tumakuru and Chitradurga. It is the key component in agricultural development in these areas. In this study, the Economic perspectives of well irrigated Agricultural farms are studied in Tumakuru district in hard rock areas of Karnataka State. The study area is covered the parts of central Dry-Zone of Karnataka comes under the Hemavathy river basin. Tumkur district has emerged as the most over-exploited district in terms of groundwater extraction and use was selected for the study. Simple averages, ratio measures, percentages and proportions are computed in order to draw meaningful inferences and to facilitate comparison of the average farm situation in Irrigation wells located under tank command (GWTI) i.e., System tank, Irrigation wells located under canal command (GWCI) and Irrigation wells located under sole irrigation, i.e., located neither under tank or canal command (GWSI). The proportionate of working to failed well was 1.22: 1 in case of GWSI farms, it was 4: 1 and 4.62:1 in case of GWTI and GWSI farms respectively. Thus, prima facie GWTI and GWCI farmers have greater access to groundwater irrigation compared to GWSI farmers. Thus, the proportion of functioning wells in System tanks (GWTI and GWCI) is 80 percent compared to 55 percent in GWSI. This result confirms the importance of the water linkage through channels for recharging groundwater. This study apparently is a pointer towards the role of channel water linkage in promoting ground water recharge. The farms served by System Tank (GWTI) and Canal command (GWCI) have registered the highest net returns compared with farms in GWSI. This indicates the supremacy of the performance of GWTI and GWCI in heralding agricultural development due to recharge from irrigation tank and canal commands

1. Palanisami K. (1991) paper presented at workshop organized by IFPRI, Ootacamund, Tamil Nadu.
2. Arya S.L., Koushal R.C. and Grewal S.S. (1994) Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 49(4), 591-600.
3. Karunakaran K.K. and Palanisami K. (1998) The Indian Economic Review, 33(2), 207-217.
4. Zene Abraha (2000) M.Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad.
5. Anonymous (1996-2001) Potential linked plan of Tumkur District, published by NABARD, Bangalore.
6. Chandrakanth M.G. and Diwakara H. (2001) Ford Foundation Report, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore.
7. Nagaraj N., Chandrashekar H. and Yatheesh H.S. (2003) Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 58(3), 438-447.
8. Rajendra A. (2003) MSc (Agri.) Thesis, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore.
9. Lokesh G. B. (2004) PhD Thesis, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore.
10. Govind B., Singh R.K. and Singh B. (2004) Agricultural Economic Research Review, 17(12), 125-130.
11. Somaratne P.G., Jayakody P., Molle F. and Jinapala K. (2005) Colombo, Srilanka, IWMI. 46. (Working paper 92).
12. Dinesh K.M. (2005) Economic and Political weekly, 48, 3074-3083.
13. Chaitra B.S. and Chandrakanth M.G. (2005) Water Policy, 7, 597-611.
14. Anonymous (2008) Ground Water Information Booklet, Tumkur District, Karnataka, South Westren Region, Bangalore.