LAND RESOURCE INVENTORY AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS OF FARM HOUSEHOLDS FOR WATERSHED PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT MUNDAL-1 (4D5B1I2d) MICROWATERSHED Yadgir Taluk and District, Karnataka

Abstract

The land resource inventory of Mundal-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 490 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 443 ha in the microwatershed is covered by soils, 5 ha by railway line, 8 ha by rock outcrops and 33 ha by others (habitation and water body). The salient findings from the land resource inventory are summarized briefly below.  The soils belong to 9 soil series and 11 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.  An area about 91 per cent in the microwatershed is suitable for agriculture.  About 21 per cent area of the microwatershed has soils that are deep to very deep (100- >150 cm), 38 per cent soils are moderately deep (75-100), whereas 5 per cent soils are moderately shallow (50 -75 cm) and 27 per cent soils are shallow (25 -50 cm) in the microwatershed.  About 45 per cent area in the microwatershed has sandy soils, 21 percent soils are loamy and 24 per cent clayey soils at the surface.  Maximum area of about 89 percent soils are non gravelly (<15%) and about 1 percent soils are gravelly (15-35%) in the microwatershed.  About 20 per cent area of the microwatershed is very high (>200 mm/m) in available water capacity, 6 percent soils are medium (51-100), 38 per cent soils are low (51-100 mm/m) and 27 per cent area is very low (<50 mm/m) available water capacity.  Entire cultivated area in the microwatershed has very gently sloping (1-3% slope) lands.  An area of about 83 per cent area is moderately (e2) eroded and 7 percent soils are slightly eroded (e1) lands.  An area of about <1 per cent soils are slightly acid (pH 6.0 -6.5), about 32 per cent soil are neutral (pH 6.5-7.3) and 58 per cent soil are slightly to very strongly alkaline (pH 7.3->9.0), soils.  The Electrical Conductivity (EC) of the soils in the entire cultivated area of the microwatershed is dominately <2 dsm-1 indicating that the soils are non-saline.  An area of about 42 per cent is low (<0.5%) and 49 percent is medium (0.50- 0.75%) in organic carbon content.  Available phosphorus content is medium (23-57 kg/ha) in the entire cultivated area of the microwatershed.  An area of about 18 percent is high (>337kg/ha) and 73 percent is medium (145- 337kg/ha) in available potassium.  An area of about 24 percent is medium (10-20ppm), 60 percent area is low (<10ppm) and 6 per cent high (>20ppm) in available sulphur  Available boron is low (<0.5 ppm) in a maximum area of about 62 per cent and medium (0.5-1.0 ppm) in about 29 per cent soils.  Available iron content is sufficient (>4.5 ppm) in an area of 62 per cent and deficient (<4.5 ppm) in about 29 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 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 176(36) 136(28) Guava - 7(1) Maize 49(10) 151(31) Sapota - 161(33) Bajra 162(33) 151(31) Pomegranate - 288(59) Groundnut - 161(33) Musambi 94(19) 284(40) Sunflower 66(14) 222(45) Lime 94(19) 284(40) Redgram - 288(59) Amla 103(21) 209(43) Bengal gram 127(26) 73(15) Cashew - 49(10) Cotton 101(21) 99(20) Jackfruit - 161(33) Chilli - 312(64) Jamun - 101(21) Tomato 49(10) 175(36) Custard apple 169(35) 143(29) Brinjal 57(12) 256(52) Tamarind - 101(21) Onion 46(10) 185(38) Mulberry - 161(33) Bhendi 7(1) 305(62) Marigold - 312(64) Drumstick - 288(59) Chrysanthemum - 312(64) Mango - 7(1)  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 Mundal-1 is located at 16047’57.577’’ to 160 45’44.961’’ and East longitude 770 6’21.991’’ to 7705’11.137’’ covering an area of about 487.74 ha coming under Mudhanala, Bheemanagara and Yadgiri B villages of Yadagiri taluk.  Socio-economic analysis indicated that, out of the total sample of 40 respondents, 5 (12.5%) were landless, 22 (55%) were marginal, 7 (17.5%) were small farmers and 6 (15%) were semi medium farmers.  The population characteristics of households indicated that, there were 122 (58.94%) men and 85 (41.06%) women among the sampled households.  The average family size of landless farmers’ was 4, marginal farmers’ was 5.5, small farmers’ was 5.6 and semi medium farmers’ was 4.5.  Majority of the respondents 52 (25.12%) people were in 0-15 years of age, 86 (41.55%) were in 16-35 years of age, 55 (26.57%) were in 36-60 years of age and 14 (6.76%) were above 61 years of age.  Education level of the sample households indicated that, majority there were 47.83 per cent illiterates, 10.14 per cent of them had primary school, 10.63 per cent of them had Middle school education, 19.81 per cent of them had high school, 6.28 per cent of them had PUC, 4.83 per cent of them had degree and 0.48 per cent of them had masters education.  About, 12.50 per cent of household heads were practicing agriculture, 85 per cent of the household heads were agricultural laborers and 2.50 per cent of the household heads were government services.  Agriculture was the major occupation for 5.8 per cent of the household members, 46.86 per cent were agricultural labourers, 0.48 per cent were general labour, 1.45 per cent were government service, 1.93 per cent were were private service, 28.5 per cent student and 2.90 per cent were housewives and children.  100 per cent of the population in the micro watershed has not participated in any local institutions.  In the study area, 15 per cent of the households possess thatched, 40 per cent of the households possess katcha house and 45 per cent of the households possess pucca/RCC.  The durable assets owned by the households showed that, 70 per cent of the households possess TV, 42.5 per cent of the households possess mixer/grinder and motor cycle, 7.5 per cent of the households possess refrigerator, 2.5 per cent of the households posses auto and 87.5 per cent of the households possess mobile phones.  Farm implements owned by the households indicated that, 25 per cent each of the households possess bullock cart, 35 per cent each of the households possess 2 plough and weeder, 2.50 per cent of the households possess seed/fertilizer drill, sprinkler and harvester, and 12.5 per cent of the households possess sprayer.  Regarding livestock possession by the households, 30 per cent of the households possess bullocks, 5 per cent of the households possess local cow, buffalo, goat and poultry birds, 2.50 per cent of the households possess crossbreed cow, sheep and pigs.  The average own labour men available in the micro watershed was 1.75, average own labour (women) available was 1.44, average hired labour (men) available was 8.3 and average hired labour (women) available was 8.55.  Out of the total land holding of the sample respondents 32.43 ha (95.25%) of dry land and 1.62 ha (4.75%) of irrigated land.  Marginal farmers possess 11.85 ha (100%) of dry land. Small farmers possess 9.9 ha (100%) of dry land.  Semi medium farmers possess 10.68 ha (86.83%) of dry land and 1.62 ha (13.17 %) of irrigated land.  There were 1 functioning and de-functioning bore wells in the micro watershed. There were 1 functioning and de-functioning open wells in the micro watershed.  Bore well and open well was the major irrigation source in the micro water shed for 2.5 per cent of the farmers.  The major crops have grown cotton (10.62%), green gram (6.83 ha), horse gram (0.46 ha), jowar (3.44 ha), marry gold (0.13 ha), paddy (0.94 ha), red gram (7.06 ha), sorghum (1.2 ha).  The cropping intensity in micro watershed was found to be 97.36 per cent.  The sample households possessed 82.50 per cent of the households have bank account and 50 per cent have savings.  About 15 per cent of the households have availed credit from different sources.  The sample households have borrowed 25 per cent from commercial and cooperative bank, 6.25 per cent of the households have borrowed from friends/relatives and SHGs/CBOs.  The average credit amount borrowed by households in micro-watershed was Rs. 30,875.  The households possessed, 83.33 per cent of the households borrowed from institutional sources for the purpose of agricultural production.  The households possessed, 50 per cent of the households borrowed from Private sources for the purpose of agricultural production.  The households possessed, 50 per cent of the households fully paid and do not repay their loan from institutional sources.  The households possessed, 25 per cent opined that the loan amount borrowed from helped to perform timely agricultural operations, 12.5 per cent opined that the loan amount borrowed from easy accessibility of credit and forced to sell the 3 produce at low price to repay loan in time and 37.5 per cent opined that the loan amount borrowed from higher rate of interest.  The households possessed, 100 per cent opined that the loan amount borrowed from forced to sell the produce at low price to repay loan in time.  The per hectare cost of cultivation for Cotton, Green gram, Red gram, Horse gram, Jowar, paddy and Sorghum was Rs. 28607.12, 94010.18, 49250.98, 53641.09, 33369.24, 81933.24 and 24536.53 with benefit cost ratio of 1:3.05, 1:0.94, 1:2.04, 1:0.61, 1:1.36, 1:0.59 and 1:1.08, respectively.  Further, 20 per cent of the households opined that dry fodder was adequate, 7.50 per cent of the households opined that dry fodder was inadequate, 10 per cent of the households opined that green fodder was adequate and 5 per cent of the households opined that green fodder was inadequate.  The average annual gross income was Rs. 87,545.45 for marginal farmers, for small farmers it was Rs. 139,428.57 and semi medium farmers it was Rs. 109,583.33.  The average annual expenditure is Rs. 7,982.72. For marginal farmers it was Rs. 6,505.92, for small farmers it was Rs. 6,442.18and for semi medium farmers it was Rs. 21,847.22.  Sampled households have planted 2 coconut trees in their field to cultivate horticultural crops.  Households have planted 1 eucalyptus and tamarind, 49 neem and 4 banyan trees in their field and also 1 neem trees in their backyard to cultivate forest species.  Households have an average investment capacity of Rs. 1,150 for land development, Rs. 125 for irrigation facility, Rs.600 for improved crop production and Rs.225 for improved livestock management.  Source of funds for additional investment is concerned; loan from bank was the source of additional investment for 7.32 per cent for land development and 2.44 per cent for improved crop production and improved livestock managemnet.  Own funds was the source of additional investment for 12.2 per cent for land development, 7.32 per cent for improved crop production and 2.44 per cent for improved livestock management.  Soft loan was the source of additional investment for 2.44 for irrigation facility and improved livestock management.  Regarding marketing channels, 2.50 per cent of the farmers sold their produce to agent/traders and cooperative marketing society, 70 per cent of the farmers sold their produce to local/village merchant and 17.50 per cent of the farmers sold their produce to regulated market.  Further, 22.50 per cent of the households have used truck and 70 per cent of the households used tractor as a mode of transportation. 4  Majority of the households 67.5 per cent have shown incidence of soil and water erosion problems.  The household possess, (85%) were interested towards soil testing. and 12.5 per cent of the households used LPG as a source of fuel.  piped supply was the major source of drinking water for 95 per cent and 5 per cent of the households used used bore well in the micro watershed.  Electricity was the major source of light for 100 per cent of the households. In the study area, 40 per cent of the households possess toilet facility.  Regarding possession of PDS card, 100 per cent of the households possessed BPL card.  cereals were adequate for 92.5 per cent of the households, pulses were adequate for 90 per cent, oilseeds were adequate for 17.5 per cent, vegetables were adequate for 52.5 per cent, milk were adequate for 82.5 per cent and egg were adequate for 65 per cent and meat were adequate for 32.5 per cent of the households.  Cereals were inadequate for 7.5 per cent of the households, pulses were inadequate for 10 per cent, oilseed were inadequate for 82.5 per cent, vegetables were inadequate for 47.5 per cent, fruits were inadequate for 97.5 per cent, milk were inadequate for 17.50 per cent, egg were inadequate for 32.5 per cent and meat were inadequate for 67.5 per cent of the households.  Farming constraints experienced by households in the micro watersheds were lower fertility status of the soil and wild animal menace on farm field was the constraint experienced by 90 per cent of the households, frequent incidence of pest and diseases and Lack of transport for safe transport of the Agril produce to the market (87.5%), Inadequacy of irrigation water (35 %), high cost of fertilizer and plant protection chemicals, high rate of interest on credit and Low price for the agricultural commodities (82.5%), lack of marketing facilities in the area (62.5%), inadequate extension service (15%), less rainfall (12.5%) and Source of Agri-technology information (7.5%).