M L Sharma

Omprakash Parganiha

P M Paraye

V K Soni

CiteSeerX

Indian  Res. J.  Ext. Edu.  9 (3),  September, 2009 95
Migration Effect of Agricultural Labourers on
Agricultural Activities
Omprakash Parganiha1, M.L. Sharma2, P.M. Paraye3 and V.K. Soni4
1 &4.  SMS (Agril. Ext.), 3. Programme Coordinator, KVK, Bhatapara,  2. Asso. Prof., Deptt. of Ext., IGAU, Raipur
Corresponding author Email: extensionop@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
Agriculture has been the base of Indian economy. Agricultural labourers constitute the vital input in the agricul-
ture production. Human resources are very important. Agricultural labourers are migrating to different parts of the
country for earning their livelihood and in this way there is in-equilibrium between labour demand and supply.
Migration of labour is still a major problem, which has to be resolved for stabilizing production of a particular
region. Under certain circumstances, intensification of cultivation may increase the rate of labour absorption in
agriculture. To find out the effect of migration on different agricultural activities, the present investigation was
carried out in the eight selected villages of two blocks viz., Palari and Simga of Raipur district of Chhattisgarh
during the year 2001-2002. A total of 80 migrant and 40 non-migrant farmers were selected randomly and person-
ally interviewed with the help of structured interviewed schedule. Data were analyzed with the help of suitable
statistical analysis. Majority of migrants (72.50%) occupied only less than 1 ha land and majority of non-migrants
(52.50%) occupied 2.1-5 ha of land. About 16.25, 7.50 and 3.75 per cent migrants were found as small, medium and
big farmers, respectively. As for as crops grown by respondents was concerned during kharif season, majority of
migrants and non-migrants were growing paddy crop in maximum part of their arable land about 79.98% and
79.11% of there land respectively. Whereas, in case of rabi crops, majority of the migrants used to grow lathyrus crop
in about 50.57% of their cropped land, but non-migrants were growing gram and summer paddy in their maximum
part of land. Regarding the productivities of the crops, the significant difference was found for kharif season crops
i.e. paddy, pigeonpea, maize, til, vegetables. Whereas, significant difference was noted in rabi for the productivity of
gram among the migrant and non-migrant respondents. In case of knowledge and adoption it was found that non-
migrants had more knowledge and adoption of different agricultural practices.
Key words: Land holding; Knowledge; Adoption; Cropping pattern; Productivity;
Agricultural labour migration is an increasingly
important aspect of livelihoods in rural areas of
Chhattisgarh. Such migration can no longer be viewed
merely as an adjunct to an essentially agrarian way of
life, but has to be seen as integral to the coping, survival
and livelihood strategies of rural farming families.
Agricultural labourers constitute the vital input in the
agriculture production. Agricultural labourers are
migrating to different parts of the country for earning
their livelihood and in this way there is in-equilibrium
between labour demand and supply. Migration of labour
is still a major problem, which has to be resolved for
stabilizing production of a particular region.
In the changing world, in most of the countries the
increase in labour supply exceeds the increase in demand
for it, which results in severe unemployment, India is
one of them. At present it is facing a problem of surplus
labour force of 35 per cent in rural sector. This huge
surplus labour force is mainly motivated to migrate within
the country with the desire to improve their economic
and social condition. Besides unequal distribution and
lacking of resources in the village is key factor in
inducing migration. Though migration is a common
problem everywhere in the world. Sunny (2001)
viewed that probably the number of migrant workers
are larger in India than any other Asian country.
The effects of migration on rural employment are
highly contextual. A wide range of variables interact
and influence the cross-effects of workforce loss,
financial transfers, investments, asset acquisitions and
demographic changes. In densely populated regions, out
migration may be a way to alleviate underemployment
in agriculture and protect the livelihoods of the farmers
who remain behind. Seasonal migration allows for
96 Indian  Res. J.  Ext. Edu.  9 (3),  September, 2009
a better deployment of labour, since those who are
underemployed during the agricultural lean season can
find work in towns or in other areas, thereby increasing
their incomes. On the other hand, more lasting out
migration can deprive rural areas of critical agricultural
labour during farming seasons. To an extent, remittances
can compensate for the negative impact of out migration
by allowing hired labour to replace the labour force lost.
Out-migration can also cause the drain of skills and the
loss of innovative community members from rural areas.
In Chhattisgarh, 82.56 per cent population lives in
20,376 villages. About 80 per cent population of the state
is practicing farming. There are 16 districts, the
population of Chhattisgarh is 20,795,956 (Census 2001)
this is about 2 per cent of total population of country.
The geographical area of this state is 135,194 sq.km.,
which is 4.1 per cent of total area of country. There is
majority of tribles and out of total scheduled tribes (in
country) population, 8 per cent are living in this state.
The literacy rate of Chhattisgarh is 65.18 per cent (77.18
per cent male and 52.40 per cent female). (Census C.G.
2001).
There is large number of small and marginal farmers
having low agricultural productivity and extremely low
level of investment in agriculture, specifically in irrigation.
Rice is grown in about 90 per cent of cultivable land of
which just about 20 per cent is under irrigation. Thus,
the region is paddy dominated and known as the “bowl
of paddy”. Due to poor irrigation facilities, the region is
mono-cropped and in such a condition any improvement
in the economy of agricultural labourers/farmers is
become very difficult. On one hand, farmers have no
crop at their own field after paddy and on other hands
they are unable to get works as hired labour at other
farms due to absence of second crop in the region. In
spite of the several schemes of employment especially
for the marginal farmers and landless labourers, people
are increasingly migrating from this region in search of
a job to raise their level of income. Present study
conducted To study the cropping patterns of migrant
and non-migrant respondents and their effact on
productivity of different crops
METHODOLOGY
The present study was conducted on Raipur
district of Chhattisgarh and four stage of sampling
procedure was done for selection of district. Out of 16
districts one district was selected in first stage. In the
second stage two blocks were selected, four villages
from selected blocks were purposively selected on the
third stage. At last fourth and final stage was conducted
for the selection of respondents from each selected
village a representative sample of 10 migrant and 5 non-
migrant respondents were selected randomly. In this
way total 80 migrants and 40 non-migrants were
considered. This selection method was done by simple
random sampling method for the purpose of the study.
To asses the level of knowledge and adoption of the
respondents about agricultural practices, two devices
was developed and responses of the respondents were
recorded on a four point (complete, medium, partial and
nil. 3, 2, 1 and 0 scores respectively) continuum scale
for knowledge and three point (complete, partial and
nil. With 2, 1 and 0 scores respectively) continuum scale
for adoption respectively. Knowledge and adoption index
were worked out to asses the level of knowledge and
adoption of each respondents with the help of following
equations.
O
(1) KI = × 100
 S
Where,
KI = Knowledge index of a respondents
O  = Total scores obtained by respondents
S  = Total obtainable score
      O
(1) AI = × 100
 S
Where,
AI = Adoption  index of a respondents
O  = Total scores obtained by respondents
S  = Total obtainable score
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Land Holding : The data compiled in Table 1 reveals
that majority of migrants (72.50%) occupied only less
than 1 ha land and majority of non-migrants (52.50%)
occupied 2.1-5 ha of land. About 16.25, 7.50 and 3.75
per cent migrants were found as small, medium and big
farmers, respectively. Whereas, the percentage of non-
migrants for land holding were found 12.50, 27.50 and
7.50 per cent as marginal, small and big, respectively.
Similar findings were reported by Prajapati (1991),
Gupta and Prajapati (1998) and Mishra (2000).
Indian  Res. J.  Ext. Edu.  9 (3),  September, 2009 97
Table 1: Distribution of the respondents
according to their land holding
Migrants Non-migrants
       Categories  (n=80)      (n=40)
f % f %
Marginal (<1ha) 58 72.50 05 12.50
Small (1-2 ha) 13 16.25 11 27.50
Medium (2.1-5 ha) 06 7.50 21 52.50
Big (>5ha) 03 3.75 03 7.50
Cropping Pattern: The data in Table 2 indicates that
in kharif  season all migrants and non-migrants were
growing paddy crop. Out of total respondents, 8.75
migrants and 20 per cent non-migrants were growing
pigeonpea crop, In rabi season, majority of migrants
(13.75%) were growing lathyrus crop followed by
linseed (6.25%). In case of non-migrants, majority of
respondents (47.50%) were growing gram followed by
lathyrus (20%).
Table 2: Distribution of the respondents according to major
crops grown to their area
Migrants Non-migrants
           Crops  (n=80)      (n=40)
f % f %
Kharif
Paddy 80 100.00 40 100.00
Pigeonpea 07 8.75 08 20.00
Maize 05 6.25 06 15.00
Urd 06 7.50 07 17.50
Miner millets 06 7.50 04 10.00
Til 03 3.75 05 12.50
Soybean 02 2.50 03 7.50
Vegetables 05 6.25 06 15.00
Rabi
Gram 04 5.00 19 47.50
Wheat 00 0.00 05 12.50
Lathyrus 11 13.75 08 20.00
Linseed 05 6.25 05 12.50
Vegetables 02 2.50 05 12.50
Summer paddy 00 0.00 07 17.50
Extent of knowledge and adoption of respondents
about agricultural practices: Fig.1 shows the
comparison between migrants and non-migrants in
respect of their knowledge and adoption about
agricultural practices. It was found that non-migrants
had more knowledge and adoption of different
agricultural practices like land preparation, improved
variety, seed treatment, nursery preparation, fertilizer
application, fungicide and insecticide application etc.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Agricultural Activities
K
n
o
w
le
d
g
e 
(%
)
Migrants Non-migrants
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Agricultural Activities
A
do
pt
io
n 
(%
)
Migrants Non-migrants
Fig.1: Effect of migration on knowledge and adoption of
various agricultural activities
Agricultural activities: 1- Land preparation, 2-Improved
variety, 3-Seed treatment, 4-Sowing, 5-Nursery preparation,
6-Weeding, 7-fertilizer application, 8-Irrigation,  9-Weedicide
application, 10-Insecticide application,  11-Fungicide
application, 12-Harvesting,  13-Storage/marketing.
Level of knowledge and adoption of selected
practices of rice production technology: Table 3
indicated that the majority of migrants (53.75%) had
low level of knowledge while, 38.75 and 2.5 per cent
had very low and medium level of knowledge,
respectively. But majority of non-migrants (47.50%) had
medium level of knowledge while, 32.50, 17.50 and 2.5
per cent had low, high and very low level of knowledge
98 Indian  Res. J.  Ext. Edu.  9 (3),  September, 2009
Table 3: Distribution of the respondents according
to their level of knowledge and adoption of the
selected practices of rice production technology
    Extent of knowledge/adoption
        Particulars Very low Low Medium High
(<25%) (25-50%) (50.1-75%) (>75%)
Level of knowledge
Migrants 31 43 06 00
(38.75) (53.78) (7.50) (0.00)
Non-migrants 01 13 19 07
(2.50) (32.50) (47.50) (17.50)
Level of adoption
Migrants 25 55 00 00
(31.25) (68.75) (0.00) (0.00)
Non-migrants 03 14 23 00
(7.50) (35.00) (57.50) (0.00)
Table 4: Effect of migration on productivity of
major crops grown
   Migrants Non-migrants
         Crops     (n=80)       (n=40) ‘z’/‘t’
P S.D. P   S.D. value
Kharif
Paddy 25.50 6.47 29.60 7.70 2.98*
Pigeonpea 5.71 1.88 11.09 3.09 3.72*
Maize 4.00 1.62 6.25 1.11 2.66*
Urd 4.10 2.29 7.86 1.72 1.16
Miner millets 1.28 2.78 3.43 2.13 0.03
Til 3.40 1.33 5.00 0.88 2.50*
Soybean 2.40 0.88 17.50 2.50 1.06
Vegetables 1.80 1.85 7.29 0.51 2.90*
Rabi
Gram 4.53 0.59 7.44 1.97 2.76*
Wheat 0.00 0.00 19.75 1.85 -
Lathyrus 3.92 1.31 4.12 1.41 0.42
Linseed 3.75 0.88 4.50 0.68 1.34
Vegetables 5.62 0.88 7.75 1.85 1.31
Summer paddy 0.00 0.00 44.27 8.98 -
P= Productivity (q/ha)
*  Significant at 0.05 level of probability
‘z’ test applied for paddy crop
about agricultural practices. It was reveals that the
majority of migrants (68.75%) had low level of adoption,
while rest had very low level of adoption. On other hand,
majority of non-migrants (57.50%) had medium level
of adoption while, 35 and 7.5 per cent had low and very
low level of adoption, respectively.
Effect of migration on productivity of different
crops: To determine effect of migration on agriculture
‘z’ and ‘t’ test was applied and results are summarized
in Table 4. It reveals that there was significant
difference between migrants and non-migrants in
productivities of crops like paddy, pigeonpea, maize, til
and vegetable in kharif  season and only gram in rabi
season.
CONCLUSION
Out-migration is greater in the poorly developed
agricultural areas, and particularly high amongst the
landless farmers. It is concluded that non-migrants had
more knowledge and adoption about different agricultural
practices and also production and productivity of different
crops was higher as compare to migrants. Only few
farmers were growing second crop after rice, therefore
a major group of small and marginal farmers were free
during rabi and summer and did not have work so they
migrated elsewhere for job and this seasonal migration
is main cause of lacking of agricultural labourers.
Basically, Chhattisgarh is the agrarian state. Most of
the farmers earn their livelihood from agriculture. With
less mechanization agriculture is totally based on
manpower. That is why agricultural activities and
production are affected due to migration. So there is
need to check this migration and improve their livelihood
system and which can be possible through study
thoroughly and steadily thinking over the reasons
responsible for the same.
REFERENCES
1. Gupta, S.P. and Prajapati, B.L. (1998). Migration of agricultural labourers in Chhattisgarh region of Madhya Pradesh.
Ind.  J.  Labour Econ. 41(4) : 15-17.
2. Mishra, S.K. (2000). Study on gender dimensions in rice based farming system. Unpublished  M.Sc.(Ag) Thesis, IGAU,
Raipur (C.G.).
3. Prajapati, B.L.(1991). Socio-economic aspects of rural migration: A case study of  Bhatapara block of Raipur District of
Madhya Pradesh. Unpublished M.Sc.(Ag) Thesis, IGAU, Raipur (C.G.).
4. Sunny, D. (2001). An enquiry into the migration of educated women of Kerala state, Ind. J. Soc. Dev. 1(1): 105-126.


Migration effect of Agricultural Labourers on Agricultural Activities

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=B765FC1D8CEC281788F140B55AA701B0?doi=10.1.1.1076.7377&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Migration effect of Agricultural Labourers on Agricultural Activities

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

CiteSeerX