LAND RESOURCE INVENTORY AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS OF FARM HOUSEHOLDS FOR WATERSHED PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT KANCHAGARAHATTI (4D5B2M1b) MICROWATERSHED Hatthakuni Hobli, Yadgir Taluk & District, Karnataka

Abstract

The land resource inventory of Kanchagarahatti Microwatershed was conducted using village cadastral maps and IRS satellite imagery on 1:7920 scale. The false colour composites of IRS imagery were interpreted for physiography and the physiographic delineations were used as base for mapping soils. The soils were studied in several transects and a soil map was prepared with phases of soil series as mapping units. Random checks were made all over the area outside the transects to confirm and validate the soil map unit boundaries. The soil map shows the geographic distribution and extent, characteristics, classification, behavior and use potentials of the soils in the microwatershed. The present study covers an area of 736 ha in Yadgir taluk & district, Karnataka. The climate is semiarid and categorized as drought-prone with an average annual rainfall of 866 mm, of which about 652 mm is received during south-west monsoon, 138 mm during north-east and the remaining 76 mm during the rest of the year. An area of 66 per cent in the microwatershed is covered by soils and about 20 ha by rock outcrop and 14 per cent others (Habitation and waterbodies). The salient findings from the land resource inventory are summarized briefly below.  The soils belong to 13 soil series and 17 soil phases (management units) and 7 land management units.  The length of crop growing period is about 120-150 days starting from 1st week of June to 4th week of October.  From the master soil map, several interpretative and thematic maps like land capability, soil depth, surface soil texture, soil gravelliness, available water capacity, soil slope and soil erosion were generated.  Soil fertility status maps for macro and micronutrients were generated based on the surface soil samples collected at every 320 m grid interval.  Land suitability for growing 29 major agricultural and horticultural crops was assessed and maps showing the degree of suitability along with constraints were generated.  Entire area is suitable for agriculture in the microwatershed.  About 6 per cent area of the microwatershed has soils that are very shallow (<25 cm), 23 per cent soils are shallow (25-50), 18 per cent are moderately shallow (50-75 cm), 11 per cent are moderately deep (75-100 cm) and 8 per cent soils are deep soils in the microwatershed.  About 38 per cent are sandy, 21 per cent soils are loamy and 7 per cent are clayey soils at the surface.  About 44 per cent is non-gravelly (<15%) and 21 per cent is gravelly (15-35%) soils.  About 34 per cent area of the microwatershed is very low (<50 mm/m), 18 per cent soils are low (51-100 mm/m), 7 per cent are medium (101-150 mm/m) and 8 per cent soils are very high (>200 mm/m) in available water capacity.  About 59 per cent area of the microwatershed has very gently sloping (1-3% slope) lands, 6 per cent area is nearly level (0-1% slope) and 1 per cent has gently sloping (3-5%) soils.  An area of about 1 per cent is severely (e3), 59 per cent area is moderately (e2) and 6 per cent is slightly eroded (e1) soils in the microwatershed.  About an area of <1 per cent in the microwatershed is neutral (pH 6.5-7.3), 38 per cent is slightly alkaline (pH 7.3-7.8) and 27 per cent is moderately alkaline (pH 7.8-8.4) soils.  The Electrical Conductivity (EC) of the soils in the entire cultivated area of the microwatershed is dominantly <2 dsm-1 indicating that the soils are non-saline.  An area of about 2 per cent is low (<0.5%), 33 per cent is medium (0.5-0.75%) and 30 per cent is high (>0.75%) in organic carbon content.  An area of 11 percent is low (<23 kg/ha), 42 per cent is medium (23-57 kg/ha) and 12 per cent is high (>57 kg/ha) in available phosphorus.  An area of about 19 per cent is low (<145 kg/ha) and 47 per cent is medium (145-337 kg/ha) in available potassium.  Entire area is low (<10 ppm) in available sulphur content of the microwatershed.  Available boron is low (<0.5 ppm) in 53 per cent and medium (0.5-1.0 ppm) in about 12 per cent soils.  Available iron content is sufficient (>4.5 ppm) in the entire cultivated area in the microwatershed.  Available manganese and copper are sufficient in all the soils of the microwatershed.  Available zinc is deficient (<0.6 ppm) in the entire cultivated area of the microwatershed.  The land suitability for 29 major crops grown in the microwatershed were assessed and the areas that are highly suitable (S1) and moderately suitable (S2) are given below. It is however to be noted that a given soil may be suitable for various crops but what specific crop to be grown may be decided by the farmer looking to his capacity to invest on various inputs, marketing infrastructure, market price and finally the demand and supply position. Land suitability for various crops in the Microwatershed Crop Suitability Area in ha (%) Crop Suitability Area in ha (%) Highly suitable (S1) Moderately suitable (S2) Highly suitable (S1) Moderately suitable (S2) Sorghum 56 (8) 129 (18) Guava - 34 (5) Maize 34 (5) 150 (20) Sapota - 34 (5) Bajra 34 (5) 150 (20) Pomegranate - 89 (12) Groundnut 34 (5) 95 (13) Musambi 55 (8) 34 (5) Sunflower 55 (8) 34 (5) Lime 55 (8) 34 (5) Redgram - 89 (12) Amla 34 (5) 150 (20) Bengal gram 55 (8) - Cashew - 1 (<1) Cotton 55 (8) 0.4 (<1) Jackfruit - 34 (5) Chilli 34 (5) 150 (20) Jamun - 55 (8) Tomato 34 (5) 95 (13) Custard apple 89 (12) 95 (13) Brinjal 34 (5) 95 (13) Tamarind - 55 (8) Onion 34 (5) 95 (13) Mulberry - 34 (5) Bhendi 34 (5) 150 (20) Marigold 34 (5) 150 (20) Drumstick - 89 (12) Chrysanthemum 34 (5) 150 (20) Mango - -  Apart from the individual crop suitability, a proposed crop plan has been prepared for the identified 7 LMUs by considering only the highly and moderately suitable lands for different crops and cropping systems with food, fodder, fiber and horticulture crops.  Maintaining soil-health is vital to crop production and conserve soil and land resource base for maintaining ecological balance and to mitigate climate change. For this, several ameliorative measures have been suggested to these problematic soils like saline/alkali, highly eroded, sandy soils etc.  Soil and water conservation treatment plan has been prepared that would help in identifying the sites to be treated and also the type of structures required.  As part of the greening programme, several tree species have been suggested to be planted in marginal and submarginal lands, field bunds and also in the hillocks, mounds and ridges. This would help in not only supplementing the farm income but also provide fodder and fuel to generate lot of biomass which would help in maintaining an ecological balance and also contribute to mitigating the climate change. FINDINGS OF THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC SURVEY  The survey was conducted in Kanchagarahatti is located at North latitude 160 50’ 54.027” and 160 48’ 23.674" and East longitude 770 6’ 23.176'' and 770 4’ 18.487” covering an area of about 735.99 ha coming under Kanchagarahalli, Anakasugura, Balajinagar and Tanagundhi villages of Yadagiri taluk.  Socio-economic analysis of Kanchagarahatti micro watersheds of Thanagunda sub-watershed, Yadgiri taluk & District indicated that, out of the total sample of 32 total respondents, 12 (37.50 %) were marginal, 11 (34.38%)were small and 6 (18.75 %) were Semi medium farmers.  The population characteristics of households indicated that, there were 113 (62.78%) men and 67 (37.22 %) were women.  Majority of the respondents (40.56%) were in the age group of 16-35 years.  Education level of the sample households indicated that, there were 52.22 per cent illiterates, 43.33 per cent pre university education and 5.56 per cent attained graduation.  About, 96.88 per cent of household heads practicing agriculture.  Agriculture was the major occupation for 60.00 per cent of the household members.  In the study area, 93.75 per cent of the households possess katcha house.  The durable assets owned by the households showed that, 53.13 per cent possess TV, 56.25 per cent possess mixer grinder, 93.75 per cent possess mobile phones and 15.63 per cent possess motor cycles.  Farm implements owned by the households indicated that, 56.25 per cent of the households possess plough and 21.88 per cent possess bullock cart.  Regarding livestock possession by the households, 3.13 per cent possess local cow and 6.25 per cent possess buffalo.  The average labour availability in the study area showed that, own men and women labour availability in the micro watershed was 14.00 each, while the hired labour (men) availability was 1.32.  Further, 3.13 per cent of the households opined that hired labour was inadequate during the agricultural season.  In the study area, about 1.67 per cent of the respondents migrated from the micro watershed in search of jobs with an average distance of 1800.00 kms for about 8.00 months.  Out of the total land holding of the sample respondents 86.57 per cent (36.15 ha) of the area is under dry condition and the remaining 8.96 per cent area is irrigated land. 2  There were 1.00 live bore wells and 1.00 dry bore wells among the sampled households.  Bore/open well was the major source of irrigation for 3.13 per cent of the households.  The major crops grown by sample farmers are Red gram, Jowar, Cotton, Groundnut and 0 and cropping intensity was recorded as 100.00 per cent.  Out of the sample households 93.75 percent possessed bank account and 93.75 per cent of them have savings in the account.  About 96.88 per cent of the respondents borrowed credit from various sources.  Among the credit borrowed by households, 40.00 per cent have borrowed loan from commercial banks and 60.00 per cent from co-operative/Grameena bank.  Majority of the respondents (100.00%) have borrowed loan for agriculture purpose.  The per hectare cost of cultivation for Red gram, Jowar, Cotton and Groundnut was Rs.21638.12, 44304.47, 40345.78 and 49788.04 with benefit cost ratio of 1:0.80, 1: 0.30, 1: 0.70 and 1: 0.70 respectively.  Further, 59.38 per cent of the households opined that dry fodder was adequate.  The average annual gross income of the farmers was Rs. 35265.63 in microwatershed, of which Rs. 19171.88 comes from agriculture.  Sampled households have grown 1 horticulture trees and 92 forestry trees together in the fields and back yards.  Households have an average investment capacity of Rs. 8406.25 for land development, Rs.1531.25 for adoption of improved crop production activities.  Source of funds raised from own sources for land development was 84.38 per cent and for improved crop production was 56.25 per cent.  Regarding marketing channels, 90.63 per cent of the households have sold agricultural produce to the local/village merchants.  Further, 90.63 per cent of the households have used tractor for the transport of agriculture commodity.  Majority of the farmers (93.75%) have experienced soil and water erosion problems in the watershed and 84.38 per cent of the households were interested towards soil testing.  Fire was the major source of fuel for domestic use for 71.88 per cent of the households and 40.63 per cent households has LPG connection.  Piped supply was the major source for drinking water for 96.88 per cent of the households.  Electricity was the major source of light for 100.00 per cent of the households.  In the study area, 62.50 per cent of the households possess toilet facility.  Regarding possession of PDS card, 100.00 per cent of the household’s possessed BPL card. 3  Households opined that, the requirement of cereals (59.38%), pulses (56.25%) and are adequate for consumption.  Farming constraints experienced by households in the micro watersheds were lower fertility status of the soil (93.75%) wild animal menace on farm field (43.75%), frequent incidence of pest and diseases (25.00%), inadequacy of irrigation water (71.88%), high cost of fertilizers and plant protection chemicals (81.25%), high rate of interest on credit (50.00%), low price for the agricultural commodities (78.13%), lack of marketing facilities in the area (40.63%), inadequate extension services (46.88%), lack of transport for safe transport of the agricultural produce to the market(40.63%).