LAND RESOURCE INVENTORY AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS OF FARM HOUSEHOLDS FOR WATERSHED PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT VOJENAHALLI-1 (4D4A1X1c) MICROWATERSHED Koppal Taluk and District, Karnataka

Abstract

The land resource inventory of Vojenahalli-1 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 these 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 541 ha in Koppal taluk and district, Karnataka. The climate is semiarid and categorized as drought - prone with an average annual rainfall of 662 mm, of which about 424 mm is received during south –west monsoon, 161 mm during north-east and the remaining 77 mm during the rest of the year. An area of about 87 per cent is covered by soil and 13 per cent by water bodies, settlements The salient findings from the land resource inventory are summarized briefly below  The soils belong to16 soil series and 23 soil phases (management units) and 7 land use classes.  The length of crop growing period is 150cm) soils.  About 15 per cent loamy (sandy loam and sandy clay loam) and 71 per cent has clayey (sandy clay and clay) soils at the surface.  About 72 per cent of the area has non-gravelly (200mm/m) in available water capacity.  An area of about 9 per cent has nearly level (0-1%) and 77 per cent has very gently sloping (1-3%) lands.  An area of about 62 per cent is slightly eroded (e1) and 25 per cent is moderately eroded (e2).  An area of about 12 per cent is neutral (pH 6.5 to 7.3), 20 per cent is slightly alkaline (pH 7.3 to 7.8), 20 per cent moderately alkaline (pH 7.8 to 8.4), 28 per cent strongly alkaline (pH 8.4 to 9.0) and 7 per cent very strongly alkaline (pH >9.0).  The Electrical Conductivity (EC) of the soils are <2 dsm-1 indicating that soils are non saline.  Organic carbon is low (<0.5%) in 10 per cent and medium (0.5-0.75%) in 76 per cent area of the microwatershed.  Available phosphorus is medium (<23 kg/ha) in 86 per cent and high (>57 kg/ha) in (<1%) area of the soils.  Available potassium is medium (145-337 kg/ha) in 48 per cent and high (>337 kg/ha) in 39 per cent area of the soils.  Available sulphur is low (<10 ppm) in 21 per cent, medium (10-20 ppm) in 35 per cent and high (>20 ppm) in 31 per cent area of the soils.  Available boron is low (<0.5 ppm) in 14 per cent, medium (0.5-1.0 ppm) in 65 per cent and high (>1.0 ppm) in 7 per cent area of the microwatershed.  Available iron is deficient (<4.5ppm) in 62 per cent and sufficient (>4.5 ppm) in 25 per cent of the area.  Available zinc is deficient (<0.6 ppm) in 49 per cent and sufficient (>0.6 ppm) in 38 per cent of the microwatershed.  Available manganese and copper are sufficient in the entire area.  The land suitability for 31 major agricultural and horticultural crops grown in the microwatershed was assessed and the areas that are highly suitable (class S1) and moderately suitable (class 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 6(1) 369 (68) Sapota 6(1) 64(12) Maize 6(1) 369 (68) Pomegranate 6(1) 276(51) Bajra 16(3) 410(76) Guava 3(<1) 67(12) Redgram 6(1) 189(35) Jackfruit 6(1) 64(12) Bengal gram - 393(73) Jamun 3(<1) 223(41) Groundnut - 75(14) Musambi 6(1) 276(51) Sunflower 6 (1) 244 (45) Lime 6(1) 276(51) Cotton 3(<1) 372(69) Cashew 6(1) 68(13) Chilli 6(1) 81(15) Custard apple 16(3) 437(81) Tomato 6(1) 32(6) Amla 16(3) 437(81) Brinjal 36(7) 367(68) Tamarind 3(<1) 182(34) Onion 27(5) 40(7) Marigold 6(1) 368(68) Bhendi 27(5) 376(70) Chrysanthemum 6(1) 368 (68) Drumstick 6(1) 271(50) Jasmine 6(1) 157(29) Mulberry 6(1) 224(41) Crossandra 6(1) 87(16) Mango 3(<1) 86(5) - - - Apart from the individual crop suitability, a proposed crop plan has been prepared for the 7 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 to these problematic soils like saline/alkali, highly eroded, sandy soils etc.,  Soil and water conservation and drainage line treatment plans have 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. That would help in supplementing the farm income, provide fodder and fuel, and generate lot of biomass which in turn would help in maintaining the ecological balance and contribute to mitigating the climate change. SALIENT FEATURES OF THE SURVEY  The data indicated that there were 91 (53.53%) men and 79 (46.47%) were women among the sampled households.  The average family size of marginal farmers was 5, small farmer was 5, semi medium farmer was 7.3 and medium farmers were 7.8.  The data indicated that 36 (21.18%) people were in 0-15 years of age, 74 (43.53%) were in 16-35 years of age, 50 (29.41 %) were in 36-60 years of age and 10 (5.88%) were above 61 years of age.  The results indicated that the Vojenahalli-1 had 32.94 per cent illiterates, 1.18 per cent functional literates, 27.65 per cent of them had primary school education, 7.05 per cent of them had middle school education, 21.76 per cent of them had high school education, 3.53 per cent of them had PUC education, 1.18 per cent of them had Diploma, 2.94 per cent of them had degree education, 0.59 per cent of them had ITI and 1.18 per cent of them had other education.  The results indicated that, 100 per cent of households were practicing agriculture.  The results indicated that agriculture was the major occupation for 48.82 per cent of the household members, 14.71 per cent were agricultural labourers, 1.76 percent were in general labour, 0.59 per cent of them were in government services, 1.76 per cent of them were private services, 26.47 per cent of them were students 2.94 per cent were housewives.  The results showed that 1.18 per cent of them participated in Sthree Shakthi Sangha, 1.76 per cent of them participated in self help group and 97.06 per cent of them have not participated in any local institutions.  The results indicated that 46.67 per cent of the households possess Katcha house, 23.33 per cent of them possess Pucca house/RCC and 33.33 per cent of them possess Semi Pacca house.  The results showed that 86.67 per cent of the households possess TV, 86.67 per cent of the households possess Mixer grinder, 20 per cent of the households possess bicycle, 63.33 per cent of the households possess motor cycle, 3.33 per cent of the households possess auto and 80 per cent of the households possess mobile phones.  The results showed that the average value of television was Rs.7000, mixer grinder was Rs.1965, Auto was Rs.42500, bicycle Rs.2000, motor cycle was Rs.37600, auto was Rs. 500000 and mobile phone was Rs.1975.  About 26.67 per cent of the households possess plough, 13.33 per cent of them possess bullock cart, 10 per cent of the households possess seed/fertilizer drill, 16.67 per cent of the households posses irrigation pump, 3.33 per cent of the households possess power tiller, 13.33 cent of the households possess tractor, 26.67 per cent of the households possess sprayer, 66.67per cent of them possess weeder, 33.33 per cent of the households possess harvester, 3.33 per cent of them were 2 possess chaff cutter and 3.33 per cent of the households possess earth remover/duster.  The results showed that the average value of plough was Rs.1900, the average value of bullock cart was Rs. 19750, the average value of seed/Fertilizer drill Rs. 3625, irrigation pump Rs. 245000, the power tiller Rs. 250000, the average value of tractor Rs. 525000, the average value of sprayer was Rs.2500, the average value of weeder Rs. 139, the average value of harvester Rs. 50, the average value of chaff cutter Rs.2000, and the average value of earth remover/duster Rs.150000.  The results indicated that, 16.67 per cent of the households possess bullocks, 30 per cent of the households possess local cow and 10 per cent of the households possess crossbred cow, 6.67 per cent of the households buffalo, 3.33 per cent of the households sheep and poultry birds, respectively.  The results indicated that, average own labour men available in the micro watershed was 1.72, average own labour (women) available was 1.53, average hired labour (men) available was 15.73 and average hired labour (women) available was 16.27.  The results indicated that, 63.33 per cent of the household opined that hired labour was adequate and 36.67 per cent of the household opined that hired labour was inadequate.  The results indicated that, households of the Vojenahalli-1 micro-watershed possess 10.79 ha (32.90%) of dry land and 22.02 ha (67.10%) of irrigated land. Marginal farmers possess 5.78 ha (86.08%) of dry land and 0.93 ha (13.92%) of irrigated land. Small farmers possess 5.01 ha (43.11%) of dry land and 6.61 ha (56.89%) of irrigated land. Semi medium farmers possess 5.47 ha (100%) of irrigated land. Medium farmers possess 9 ha (100%) of irrigated land.  The results indicated that, the average value of dry land was Rs. 564941 and average value of irrigated was Rs. 553933. In case of marginal famers, the average land value was Rs. 596326 for dry land and 855411 for irrigated land. In case of small famers, the average land value was Rs. 528715 for dry land Rs. 680232 for irrigated land. In case of semi medium famers, the average land value was Rs. 594189 for irrigated land. In case of medium famers, the average land value was Rs. 405373 for irrigated land.  The results indicated that, there were 17 functioning bore wells in the micro watershed.  The results indicated that, bore well was the major irrigation source for 56.67 per cent of the farmers and canal was the source of irrigation for 3.33 per cent of farmers.  The results indicated that on an average the depth of the bore well was 83.08 meters. 3  The results indicated that, in case of marginal farmers there was 0.94 ha of irrigated land, in case of small farmers there was 7.07 ha of irrigated land, semi medium farmers were having 5.47 ha of irrigated land and medium farmers were having 8.60 ha of irrigated land. On an average there were 22.07 ha of irrigated land.  The results indicated that, farmers have grown Bajra (0.81 ha), Cotton (0.49 ha), Cowpea (1.21 ha), Maize (28.70 ha), Paddy (0.81 ha), Red gram (1.7 ha), Bengal gram (0.81 ha), Groundnut (1.21 ha) and Jowar (0.53 ha).  Marginal farmers have grown cotton, maize, Bengal gram, jowar and red gram. Small farmers have grown maize, paddy and cowpea. Semi medium farmers have grown maize, red gram and groundnut. Medium farmers have grown bajra and cowpea.  The results indicated that, the cropping intensity in Vojenahalli-1 micro-watershed was found to be 91.06 per cent. In case of Marginal farmers it was 93.55 per cent, for small farmers it was 99.21 per cent, in case of semi medium farmers it was 98.22 per cent and medium farmers had cropping intensity of 75.43 per cent.  The results indicated that, the total cost of cultivation for maize was Rs. 40666.55. The gross income realized by the farmers was Rs. 39436.99. The net income from maize cultivation was Rs. -1229.56, thus the benefit cost ratio was found to be 1:0.97.  The total cost of cultivation for tomato was Rs. 113058.61. The gross income realized by the farmers was Rs. 600810.80. The net income from tomato cultivation was Rs. 487752.20, thus the benefit cost ratio was found to be 1:5.31.  The total cost of cultivation for paddy was Rs. 70320. The gross income realized by the farmers was Rs. 65455. The net income from paddy cultivation was Rs. -4865. Thus the benefit cost ratio was found to be 1:0.93.  The total cost of cultivation for red gram was Rs. 30057.24. The gross income realized by the farmers was Rs. 21736. The net income from red gram cultivation was Rs.-8321.24. Thus the benefit cost ratio was found to be 1:0.72.  The total cost of cultivation for bengal gram was Rs. 37179.20. The gross income realized by the farmers was Rs. 11115. The net income from bengal gram cultivation was Rs. -26064.20. Thus the benefit cost ratio was found to be 1:0.3.  The total cost of cultivation for cotton was Rs. 64625.79. The gross income realized by the farmers was Rs. 428133.32. The net income from cotton cultivation was Rs. 363507.53. Thus the benefit cost ratio was found to be 1:6.62.  The total cost of cultivation for cowpea was Rs. 20307.98. The gross income realized by the farmers was Rs. 16171.11. The net income from cowpea cultivation was Rs. -4136.87. Thus the benefit cost ratio was found to be 1:0.8. 4  The total cost of cultivation for jowar was Rs. 69450.13. The gross income realized by the farmers was Rs. 20900. The net income from jowar cultivation was Rs. - 48550.1. Thus the benefit cost ratio was found to be 1:0.3.  The total cost of cultivation for groundnut was Rs. 33231.29. The gross income realized by the farmers was Rs. 38696.67. The net income from groundnut cultivation was Rs. 5465.37. Thus the benefit cost ratio was found to be 1:1.16.  The total cost of cultivation for bajra was Rs. 33561.71. The gross income realized by the farmers was Rs. 18648.50. The net income from bajra cultivation was Rs. - 14913.21. Thus the benefit cost ratio was found to be 1:0.56.  The results indicated that, dry fodder available in the micro watershed was 85 tons and it was available for 64 days. Green fodder available was 55 tons and it was available for 49 days.  The results indicated that, 36.67 per cent of the households opined that dry fodder was adequate and 13.33 per cent of the households opined that dry fodder was inadequate. The data also revealed that 36.67 per cent of the farmers opined that green fodder is adequate and 10 per cent of the farmers opined that green fodder is inadequate  The results indicated that the average annual gross income in the micro watershed was Rs. 65,153.33. Marginal farmers had an income of Rs. 53,860, for small farmers it was Rs. 53,500, for semi medium farmers it was Rs. 116,000, for medium farmers it was Rs.77,500.  The results indicated that the average expenditure of marginal farmers was Rs. 5,310, small farmer was Rs. 2,881.94, semi medium farmer was Rs. 11,300 and medium farmer was Rs. 9,250.  The results indicated that, sampled households have grown 42 coconut trees and 4 mango trees in their fields.  The results indicated that, households have planted 30 Neem, 5 Banyan trees, 3 tamarind trees and 2 peepul trees in their field and also 91 Neem trees in the backyard.  The results indicated that, bajra, bengal gram, cotton cowpea, groundnut, paddy, jowar, redgram were sold to the extent of 100 per cent. Maize and tomato were sold to the extent of 99.88 per cent and 33.33 per cent respectively.  The results indicated that, 6.67 percent of the households have sold their produce to agents/ traders, 83.33 percent of the households sold their produce in local/village merchant, 33.33 percent of the households sold their produce to regulated market and 10 percent of the households sold their produce to cooperative marketing society and contract marketing arrangement respectively.  The results indicated that 30 per cent of the households have used cart as a mode of transport, 96.67 per cent have used tractor and 6.67 per cent have used truck. 5  The results indicated that, 80 percent used fire wood, 20 percent of the households used LPG as a source of fuel.  The results indicated that, piped supply was the major source for drinking water for 50 per cent, 40 per cent of households used bore well water, 6.67 per cent of households used open well water and 6.67 per cent of households used lake/tank water.  The results indicated that, electricity was the major source of light for 100 per cent of the households in micro watershed.  The results indicated that, 50 per cent of the households possess sanitary toilet i.e. 70 per cent of marginal, 33.33 per cent of small, 50 per cent of semi medium and 50 per cent of medium had sanitary toilet facility.  The results indicated that, 90 per cent of the sampled households possessed BPL card, 6.67 per cent of the sample households possess APL card and 3.33 per cent of the households have not possessed any PDS card.  The results indicated that, 16.67 per cent of the households participated in NREGA programme which included 100 per cent of the marginal, 16.67 per cent of the small, 25 per cent of the semi medium and 25 per cent of the medium farmers.  The results indicated that, cereals, pulses, vegetables, milk, egg and meat were adequate for 100 percent, 53.33 percent, 16.67 percent, 26.67 percent, 16.67 percent of the households respectively.  The results indicated that, Lower fertility status of the soil was the constraint experienced by 16.67 per cent of the households, wild animal menace on farm field (46.67%), frequent incidence of pest and diseases (36.67%), inadequacy of irrigation water (20%), high cost of fertilizers and plant protection chemicals (16.67%), high rate of interest on credit (10%), low price for the agricultural commodities (43.33%), lack of marketing facilities in the area (23.33%), inadequate extension services (16.67%), lack of transport for safe transport of the agricultural produce to the market (20%), less rainfall (100%) and Source of Agritechnology information(Newspaper /TV/Mobile) (53.33)