LAND RESOURCE INVENTORY AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS OF FARM HOUSEHOLDS FOR WATERSHED PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BHIMANHALLI-1 (4D5B1A2c) MICROWATERSHED Yadgir Taluk and District, Karnataka

Abstract

The land resource inventory of Bhimanahalli-1Microwatershed 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 631 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 587 ha in the microwatershed is covered by soils, 29 ha is covered by rock outcrops and 15 ha by others (habitation and water body). The salient findings from the land resource inventory are summarized briefly below.  The soils belong to 10 soil series and 13 soil phases (management units) and 5 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.  About 587 ha area in the microwatershed is suitable for agriculture.  About 8 per cent of area is very shallow (<25 cm), 3 per cent of area is shallow (25- 50 cm), 6 per cent area of the microwatershed has soils that are moderately shallow (50-75 cm), 7 per cent area is moderately deep (75-100 cm), 61 per cent of area is deep (100 - 150 cm) and 8 per cent of area is very deep (>150 cm).  About 12 per cent area in the microwatershed has sandy soils, 54 per cent loamy soils and 27 per cent clayey soils at the surface.  About 70 per cent area in the microwatershed is non gravelly (<15%) and 24 per cent is gravelly (15-35%).  About 69 per cent area of the microwatershed is very high (>200 mm/m) in available water capacity, 7 per cent is medium (101-150 mm/m), 6 per cent is low (51-100 mm/m) and 11 per cent area is very low (<50 mm/m).  Entire area in the microwatershed has very gently sloping (1-3% slope) lands.  Maximum area of about 91 per cent is moderately (e2) eroded and 2 per cent of area is severely (e3) eroded.  An area of about 67 per cent is neutral (pH 6.5-7.3), about 23 per cent is slightly alkaline (pH 7.3-7.8) and 3 per cent are moderately alkaline (pH 7.8-8.4) soil reaction in the microwatershed.  The Electrical Conductivity (EC) of entire soils of the microwatershed is dominantly <2 dsm-1indicating that the soils are non-saline.  Soil organic carbon content is medium (0.5-0.75%) in 46 per cent, high (>0.75%) in 27 per cent and low (<0.50%) in 21 per cent area of the microwatershed.  About 74 per cent of area is medium (23-57 kg/ha), 3 per cent of area is low (<23 kg/ha) and 16 per cent of area is high (>57 kg/ha) in available phosphorus content of the soil.  About 63 per cent is medium (145-337 kg/ha) in available potassium content and 30 per cent of area is high (>337 kg/ha).  Available sulphur is low (<10 ppm) in an area of about 66 per cent and medium (10 - 20 ppm) in 27 per cent of area in the microwatershed.  Available boron is low (<0.5 ppm) in the entire area of the microwatershed.  Available iron is sufficient (>4.5 ppm) in an area of 85 per cent and deficient in an area of 8 per cent 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 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 44 (7) 338 (54) Guava - 44 (7) Maize 44 (7) 338 (54) Sapota - 44 (7) Bajra 44 (7) 338 (54) Pomegranate - 97 (15) Groundnut - 79 (27) Musambi - 97 (15) Sunflower - 97 (15) Lime - 97 (15) Redgram - 347 (53) Amla 97 (15) 35 (6) Bengal gram - 53 (28) Cashew - - Cotton - 97 (15) Jackfruit - 44 (7) Chilli 44 (7) 88 (14) Jamun - - Tomato 44 (7) 35 (6) Custard apple - 132 (21) Brinjal 44 (7) 35 (6) Tamarind - - Onion 44 (7) 35 (6) Mulberry - 44 (7) Bhendi 44 (7) 88 (14) Marigold 44 (7) 88 (14) Drumstick - 44 (7) Chrysanthemum 44 (7) 88 (14) Mango - -  Apart from the individual crop suitability, a proposed crop plan has been prepared for the identified LMUs by considering only the highly and moderately suitable lands for different crops and cropping systems with food, fodder, fibre and other horticulture crops.  Maintaining soil-health is vital for 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 for 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 and 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 Bhimanahalli-1 is located at North latitude 160 56’ 41.915" and 160 55' 40.013" and East longitude 770 13’ 33.442'' and 770 11’ 54.278” covering an area of about 251.41 ha coming unde Motahalli and Khanapur Hosalli villages of Yadagiri taluk.  Socio-economic analysis of Bhimanahalli-1 micro watersheds of Motanahalli subwatershed, Yadgiri taluk & District indicated that, out of the total sample of 35 total respondents, 7 (20.00 %) were marginal, 14 (40.00%) were small and 12 (34.29 %) were Semi medium farmers.  The population characteristics of households indicated that, there were 77 (58.78%) men and 54 (41.22 %) were women.  Majority of the respondents (44.27%) were in the age group of 16-35 years.  Education level of the sample households indicated that, there were 31.30 per cent illiterates, 62.59 per cent pre university education and 8.40 per cent attained graduation.  About, 68.57 per cent of household heads practicing agriculture and 17.14 per cent of the household heads were engaged as agricultural labourers.  Agriculture was the major occupation for 48.85 per cent of the household members.  In the study area, 77.14 per cent of the households possess katcha house and 5.71 per cent possess pucca house.  The durable assets owned by the households showed that, 80.00 per cent possess TV, 65.71 per cent possess mixer grinder, 100.00 per cent possess mobile phones and 34.29 per cent possess motor cycles.  Farm implements owned by the households indicated that, 17.14 per cent of the households possess plough, 5.71 per cent possess bullock cart and 5.71 per cent possess sprayer.  Regarding livestock possession by the households, 8.57 per cent possess local cow and 2.86 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 14.33 each, while the hired labour (men) availability was 1.55.  Further, 0.00 per cent of the households opined that hired labour was inadequate during the agricultural season.  Out of the total land holding of the sample respondents 100.00 per cent (55.71 ha) of the area is under dry condition and the remaining 0.00 per cent area is irrigated land.  The major crops grown by sample farmers are Red gram, Cotton and Maizeand cropping intensity was recorded as 99.99 per cent. 2  Out of the sample households 100.00 percent possessed bank account and 62.86 per cent of them have savings in the account.  About 40.00 per cent of the respondents borrowed credit from various sources.  Among the credit borrowed by households, 21.74 per cent have borrowed loan from commercial banks and 91.30 per cent from co-operative/Grameena bank.  Majority of the respondents (100.00%) have borrowed loan for agriculture purpose.  Regarding the opinion on institutional sources of credit, 100.00 per cent of the households opined that credit helped to perform timely agricultural operations.  The per hectare cost of cultivation for Red gram, Cotton and Maize was Rs.32334.05, 19534.56 and 20220.29 with benefit cost ratio of 1:1.40, 1: 1.60 and 1: 1.80 respectively.  Further, 2.86 per cent of the households opined that dry fodder was adequate.  The average annual gross income of the farmers was Rs. 96394.29 in microwatershed, of which Rs. 56365.71 comes from agriculture.  Sampled households have grown 23 horticulture trees and 93 forestry trees together in the fields and back yards.  About 71.43 per cent of the households shown interest to cultivate horticultural crops.  Households have an average investment capacity of Rs. 1114.29 for land development.  Source of funds for additional investment is concerned, 28.57 per cent depends on bank loan for land development activities.  Regarding marketing channels, 88.57 per cent of the households have sold agricultural produce to the local/village merchants, while, 5.71 per cent have sold in regulated markets.  Further, 25.71 per cent of the households have used tractor for the transport of agriculture commodity.  Majority of the farmers (28.57%) have experienced soil and water erosion problems in the watershed and 91.43 per cent of the households were interested towards soil testing.  About, 0.00 per cent of farmers practicing summer ploughing as soil and water conservation practice.  Fire was the major source of fuel for domestic use for 68.57 per cent of the households and 31.43 per cent households has LPG connection.  Piped supply was the major source for drinking water for 100.00 per cent of the households.  Electricity was the major source of light for 100.00 per cent of the households.  In the study area, 57.14 per cent of the households possess toilet facility. 3  Regarding possession of PDS card, 100.00 per cent of the households possessed BPL card.  Households opined that, the requirement of cereals (100.00%), pulses (100.00%) and oilseeds (37.14%) are adequate for consumption.  Farming constraints experienced by households in the micro watersheds were lower fertility status of the soil (91.43%) wild animal menace on farm field (91.43%), frequent incidence of pest and diseases (91.43%), inadequacy of irrigation water (94.29%), high cost of fertilizers and plant protection chemicals (94.29%), high rate of interest on credit (94.29%), low price for the agricultural commodities (94.29%), lack of marketing facilities in the area (88.57%), inadequate extension services (94.29%) and lack of transport for safe transport of the agricultural produce to the market (94.29%).