UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Management options for a land use conflict area in Chitawan, Nepal Burton, Sandra Lee 1987

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1987_A6_7 B87_3.pdf [ 23.18MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0096874.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0096874-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0096874-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0096874-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0096874-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0096874-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0096874-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0096874-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0096874.ris

Full Text

MANAGEMENT OPTIONS FOR A LAND USE CONFLICT AREA IN CHITAWAN, NEPAL by SANDRA LEE BURTON B.S.A. ( H o n o u r s ) U n i v e r s i t y  o f S a s k a t c h e w a n , 1978  A THESIS SUBMITTED I N PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE  in FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of S o i l S c i e n c e )  We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s a s c o n f o r m i n g to the required  standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA April  1987  (c) S a n d r a L e e B u r t o n , 1987  ~S{ c-< .-|  In  presenting  degree freely  at  the  available  copying  of  department publication  this  of  in  University  of  partial  thesis by  for  his  of  or  J?  her  representatives.  financial  %T<LJJLASXLJL  The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date  DE-6(3/81)  X^AJI  SO  ,  the  requirements  f ^  that the  agree  scholarly purposes may  this thesis for  <~)&  of  and study. I further  permission.  Department  fulfilment  British Columbia, I agree  for reference  this or  thesis  be  It  gain shall not  for  an  advanced  Library shall make  that permission for granted  is be  by  understood  the  extensive  head  that  allowed without  it  of  copying  my or  my written  ABSTRACT A north  land  use  eastern  properties,  management  Chitawan  forest  and  profitability  The  research  agricultural excellent (pH,  properties  those  quality in  under  as was  accompanied bases,  pH,  margins,  bases).  systems  forest.  be  widespread.  and  forest.  f o d d e r was  This  changes  considered  of  crop  farm  micro-computer  showed  that  soil  not  more  labour  always  risky  and  and  required  to  more  be  as  and  soil  the  natural  exchangeable  aluminum. a  decision  indicators the  soil  method.  farmer  r e s o u r c e s of  Interesting  making  gross and  risk  study  were  The  productive  small  decline  was  productivity,  and  better  the  products  using  from  f o r the  capital.  soil  percent  free  based  conserving  feasible  operating  and  and  30  such  quality  this  had  deterioration  between  forest  preferences,  interviews  soil  found  to  evaluated  into  were  were  from  15  properties  were  managed  regeneration  exchangeable  uses  categories.  d e g r a d a t i o n of  A  management  phosphorus,  observed  removal  in soil and  land  biomass,  farm  Several  were  The  found  to  of  of  soil  rotations  available  wood  Data  evaluation  land,  degraded  compaction  incorporated  they  farming  crop  area  in  use  intensively  resource requirements, s o i l  factors.  options  saturation,  land  evidence  by  by  which  little  Changes  ten  triple  measured  Alternative method  most  annual  with  such  fuelwood  degraded  the  i n an  productivity,  among  exchangeable  base  under  timber,  and  under  carbon,  (pH,  compaction)  forests,  that  productivity  organic  than  compared  conducted  Nepal.  agricultural  were  land,  was  in central  and  revealed  study  data  land  use  because  irrigated  relationships  were  found  between  soil  fertility  inputs.  technique  an a t t r a c t i v e  farm  and v i l l a g e  Land  Resource  study  and  other  areas  The  flexibility  level.  Mapping  the approach  properties,  tool  productivity,  of the methodology  f o r land  The mapping  Project  (LRMP)  developed  i n Nepal.  iii  land  use d e c i s i o n units formed  used  makes  making  and this  at the  f o r the n a t i o n a l  the basis  can t h e r e f o r e  uses  for this  be a p p l i e d  to  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This many a  people;  lack  of  study  of  could  any  would  like  the  study  and  making In  i t a  Nepal,  assistance;  to  and  Ramesh  Shrestha,  Depuc  Chapa  biomass people  of  survey of  Soil  the  Science  with  due  to  without  space  were  f o r her  Peggy  Burton  faith  and  Shah  the  help  restrictions  the  of  Dadi  of  and  not  soil  Ram  Sharma,  Nedenia  sampling  and  and  to  Centre  farm  Section  Sherma,  interviews.  Neupani,  preliminary the  Padmira analysis.  forest  forever indebted  f o r welcoming  and  Survey  Udaya  conducted  am  and  to  the  our  study  of  the  Department  thanks  are  due  students  particular  l a b o r a t o r y a s s i s t a n c e , and Krajci  for their  deeply  grateful  to  Art  Dr.  for their I owe  the  Krishna  staff  helpful;  and  idea  team  with  hospitality.  many  am  Integrated  Dhakkel,  community  Research  i n v a l u a b l e support  the  I  the  project.  Oli) facilitated  enthusiasm.  and  for instigating  Development  provided  members  cheerful  I  guidance  Finally,  Carson  funding  Prasad  Pithuwa  Kennedy  Brian  by  the  with  illustrations.  George  completed  Forestry Services Ltd.  S p i n d l e r and  patient  are  Shrestha,  (Um  Vancouver,  Densmore  been  International  Narayan  friendliness In  the  Yashu  helped  thank  several  individuals  Dongol)  Von  to  Pravakar  Nepal,  open  omissions  reality  (Sunil  Other  have  appreciation.  I  for  not  a my  encouragement  best  thankyou  friend,  throughout  iv  Dr.  and  Hans Les  Bernie  Schreier for his  L a v k u l i c h and  comments.  to  my  Richard the  to  Joni  perfectionism with  Bomke, D r .  suggestions  special  to  to  of  parents, Kabzems  study.  Pat  for  and  their  Dr.  DEDICATION  To who  the  farm  continue  to  families  of  the  c h a l l e n g e and  v  world inspire  me.  TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract Acknowledgements Dedication L i s t of T a b l e s L i s t of F i g u r e s L i s t of P l a t e s L i s t of Appendices  .  1. I n t r o d u c t i o n 1.1 The P r o b l e m 1.2 O b j e c t i v e s 1.3 L a y o u t o f T h e s i s  i i iv v viii x x i i x i i 1 1 2 3  2. S e t t i n g 2.1 L o c a t i o n o f t h e S t u d y A r e a 2.2 C l i m a t e , G e o m o r p h o l o g y and S o i l s 2.3 N a t u r a l V e g e t a t i o n and S e t t l e m e n t H i s t o r y 2.4 C u l t u r a l F e a t u r e s o f P i t h u w a P a n c h a y a t 2.5 F a r m i n g and C r o p p i n g S y s t e m s 2.6 E m e r g i n g Land Use C o n f l i c t s  5 5 5 10 12 16 20  3. Methods 3.1 O r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e S t u d y 3.1.1 S t u d y A r e a S e l e c t i o n 3.1.2 Land Use and P l o t S e l e c t i o n 3.2 S o i l Q u a l i t y E v a l u a t i o n Methods 3.2.1 F i e l d S o i l S a m p l i n g & A n a l y s i s i n N e p a l .... 3.2.2 C h e m i c a l & P h y s i c a l L a b o r a t o r y A n a l y s i s .... 3.2.3 S t a t i s t i c a l A n a l y s i s o f S o i l s D a t a 3.3 A g r i c u l t u r a l P r o d u c t i v i t y E v a l u a t i o n M e t h o d s 3.3.1 I n t e r v i e w T e c h n i q u e s 3.3.2 D a t a O r g a n i z a t i o n & S t a t i s t i c a l A n a l y s i s ... 3.3.3 B u d g e t i n g T e c h n i q u e s 3.4 F o r e s t P r o d u c t i v i t y E v a l u a t i o n 3.4.1 F i e l d B i o m a s s S u r v e y 3.4.2 C a l c u l a t i o n s & D a t a C o m p i l a t i o n 3.5 Land Use Management P l a n  21 21 21 21 27 27 30 30 34 34 35 36 36 36 37 37  4. R e s u l t s o f t h e S o i l Q u a l i t y E v a l u a t i o n 4.1 V a r i a b i l i t y o f S o i l P r o p e r t i e s 4.1.1 V a r i a b i l i t y W i t h i n Land Type 4.1.2 V a r i a b i l i t y W i t h i n Land Use C a t e g o r i e s 4.1.3 Adequacy o f S a m p l i n g 4.2 S o i l P r o p e r t i e s Under F i v e P r e d o m i n a n t Land U s e s .. 4.2.1 G e n e r a l T r e n d s 4.2.2 C h e m i c a l P r o p e r t i e s 4.2.3 P h y s i c a l P r o p e r t i e s 4.2.4 M i n e r a l o g i c a l P r o p e r t i e s 4.2.5 M u l t i v a r i a t e A n a l y s i s o f S o i l P r o p e r t i e s ... 4.3 I n n o v a t i o n s t o I m p r o v e S o i l Q u a l i t y 4.3.1 Legume-based C r o p p i n g R o t a t i o n s 4.3.2 A g r o f o r e s t r y System  39 39 39 41 44 44 45 48 56 59 60 63 63 68  vi  4.4  D i s c u s s i o n of S o i l Q u a l i t y 4.4.1 C o m p a r i s o n W i t h L i t e r a t u r e 4.4.2 I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r Land Use Management  5. R e s u l t s o f Farm P r o d u c t i v i t y E v a l u a t i o n 5.1 O v e r v i e w o f F a r m i n g S y s t e m s 5.2 D e t a i l e d S t a t i s t i c a l A n a l y s i s 5.2.1 Farm & F a m i l y C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 5.2.2 L i v e s t o c k Component 5.2.3 C r o p p i n g R o t a t i o n s 5.2.4 C r o p s 5.3 Farm P r o f i t a b i l i t y A n a l y s i s 5.3.1 B u d g e t i n g T e c h n i q u e s , D e f i n i t i o n s & Adaptations 5.3.2 B u d g e t i n g A n a l y s i s of Farms i n P i t h u w a 5.3.3 R e s o u r c e R e q u i r e m e n t s & C o n s t r a i n t s 5.3.4 S e n s i t i v i t y A n a l y s i s o f C r o p P r o d u c t i o n Factors 5.4 D i s c u s s i o n o f Farm P r o d u c t i v i t y R e s u l t s 5.4.1 C o m p a r i s o n W i t h L i t e r a t u r e 5.4.2 I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r Land Use Management  73 73 75 77 77 78 81 83 84 87 101 101 104 110 I l l 116 116 119  6. R e s u l t s o f F o r e s t P r o d u c t i v i t y E v a l u a t i o n 6.1 V e g e t a t i o n D e s c r i p t i o n o f P l o t s 6.2 C o m p a r i s o n o f N a t u r a l & Degraded F o r e s t B i o m a s s ... 6.3 D i s c u s s i o n o f F o r e s t P r o d u c t i v i t y R e s u l t s 6.3.1 I n t e r a c t i o n s Between F o r e s t & A g r i c u l t u r a l Land 6.3.2 I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r Land Use Management  121 121 125 130  7. D e v e l o p m e n t o f a Land Use Management P l a n 7.1 A p p r o a c h e s t o Land Use Management 7.2 The E n v i r o n m e n t a l C o n s e r v a t i o n i s t A p p r o a c h 7.2.1 Key S o i l Q u a l i t y F a c t o r s 7.2.2 Key Farm P r o d u c t i v i t y F a c t o r s 7.2.3 Key F o r e s t P r o d u c t i v i t y F a c t o r s 7.2.4 R e l a t i o n s h i p s Between S o i l and Farm F a c t o r s 7.2.5 R e l a t i o n s h i p s Between S o i l and F o r e s t F a c t o r s 7.2.6 Recommendations f o r Land Use Management .... 7.3 D e c i s i o n M a k i n g A p p r o a c h 7.3.1 The D e c i s i o n M a k e r s 7.3.2 C r i t e r i a f o r D e c i s i o n M a k i n g 7.3.3 E v a l u a t i o n o f Land Use O p t i o n s 7.3.4 M o d i f i e d Recommendations f o r Land Use Management  137 137 138 139 139 140 140 152 155 157 157 157 159  8. Summary & C o n c l u s i o n s  170  Literature Cited  175  Appendices  184 vii  130 135  167  L I S T OF T a b l e 3.1: T a b l e 3.2: T a b l e 3.3: T a b l e 4.1: T a b l e 4.2: T a b l e 4.3: T a b l e 4.4: T a b l e 4.5: T a b l e 4.6: T a b l e 4.7:  T a b l e 5.1: T a b l e 5.2: T a b l e 5.3: Table Table Table Table Table Table  5.4: 5.5: 5.6: 5.7: 5.8: 5.9:  T a b l e 5.10: T a b l e 5.11: T a b l e 5.12: T a b l e 5.13: T a b l e 6.1: T a b l e 6.2: T a b l e 6.3:  TABLES  Land Use C a t e g o r i e s , D e s c r i p t i o n s , LRMP M a p p i n g E q u i v a l e n t s & Importance to the Study S o i l P r o p e r t i e s A n a l y z e d & M e t h o d s Used f o r F i e l d w o r k i n N e p a l & L a b o r a t o r y Work i n C a n a d a . . . O r g a n i z a t i o n of Data S e t s f o r A n a l y s i s C o e f f e c i e n t s o f V a r i a t i o n (CV%) f o r V a r i o u s Land Use C a t e g o r i e s (LU) and f o r D i f f e r e n t S a m p l i n g Intensities C o e f f e c i e n t s of V a r i a t i o n i n Chitawan Study Compared w i t h L i t e r a t u r e V a l u e s Summary o f Mann-Whitney U - t e s t s o f S i g n i f i c a n c e o f S o i l P r o p e r t i e s Under 5 P r e d o m i n a n t Land U s e s .... R e s u l t s o f Mann-Whitney T e s t s o f S i g n i f i c a n c e o f S o i l P r o p e r t i e s Under 5 P r e d o m i n a n t Land U s e s .... C l a s s i f i c a t i o n M a t r i x of D i s c r i m i n a n t A n a l y s i s I n v o l v i n g 6 S o i l P r o p e r t i e s from A H o r i z o n S e l e c t e d S o i l C h e m i c a l P r o p e r t i e s o f Legume-based t o S i m i l a r R o t a t i o n s W i t h o u t Legumes S e l e c t e d S o i l P h y s i c a l P r o p e r t i e s f o r Comparison of Legume-based R o t a t i o n s t o S i m i l a r R o t a t i o n s w i t h o u t Legumes D e s c r i p t i o n o f Wards S e l e c t e d f o r S t u d y i n P i t h u w a Panchayat Means, S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s & Ranges o f F a r m i n g System C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n P i t h u w a Means and Ranges o f Amounts o f V a r i o u s C r o p p i n g Rotations R i c e Crop P r o d u c t i o n C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Maize Crop P r o d u c t i o n C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s M u s t a r d Crop P r o d u c t i o n C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Wheat C r o p P r o d u c t i o n C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s C o m p a r i s o n o f L e n t i l & P o t a t o C r o p P r o d u c t i o n .... C o m p a r i s o n s o f P r o d u c t i v i t y and E f f i c i e n c y o f V a r i o u s Crops C o m p a r i s o n s o f P r o d u c t i v i t y and E f f i c i e n c y o f Various Cropping Rotations S e n s i t i v i t y of Crop P r o f i t a b i l i t y I n d i c a t o r s t o Changes i n C r o p P r i c e s S e n s i t i v i t y of Crop P r o f i t a b i l i t y I n d i c a t o r s t o Changes i n C r o p Y i e l d s S e n s i t i v i t y of Crop P r o f i t a b i l t i y I n d i c a t o r s t o Changes i n C r o p p i n g I n p u t P r i c e s D e s c r i p t i o n o f V e g e t a t i o n , S u c c e s s i o n a l S t a g e and Canopy C o v e r , N a t u r a l ( f a ) Compared t o D e g r a d e d (fd) Forest F o r e s t Biomass Data R e q u i r e m e n t s f o r 3 I m p o r t a n t F o r e s t P r o d u c t s by Pithuwa Panchayat v i i i  23 31 33  40 40 46 47 61 66 66 80 82 85 88 91 93 96 98 106 107 113 113 114  122 127 131  T a b l e 6.4: T a b l e 7.1: T a b l e 7.2: T a b l e 7.3: T a b l e 7.4:  Forest Resources Panchayat  A v a i l a b l e f o r Needs o f  Pithuwa 133  Summary o f K r u s k a l - W a l l i s S i g n i f i c a n c e T e s t s on 3 C a t e g o r i e s o f 4 Key Farm V a r i a b l e s R e l a t i o n s h i p s Between S o i l and F o r e s t F a c t o r s .... E v a l u a t i o n o f A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Use O p t i o n s R a t i n g o f A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Use O p t i o n s U s i n g a R a n k i n g System  ix  148 153 160 166  L I S T OF FIGURES Figure  1.1: F l o w c h a r t I l l u s t r a t i n g  Organization  of T h e s i s  ...  4  Figure Figure  2.1: L o c a t i o n o f L a n d s a t Image & t h e S t u d y A r e a 6 2.2: Weekly R a i n f a l l & E v a p o t r a n s p i r a t i o n and t h e i r R e l a t i o n s h i p t o Land Use i n C h i t a w a n 8 F i g u r e 2.3: C r o s s s e c t i o n s of C h i t a w a n V a l l e y I l l u s t r a t i n g G e o m o r p h o l o g y and Land T y p e s 9 F i g u r e 2.4: S c h e m a t i c C r o s s - s e c t i o n o f S t u d y A r e a H i g h l i g h t i n g S o i l , Land and Land Use T y p e s 11 F i g u r e 2.5: Summary o f Land Use H i s t o r y i n S t u d y A r e a 13 F i g u r e 2.6: R e s o u r c e F l o w s W i t h i n t h e F a r m i n g S y s t e m 18 F i g u r e 4.1: Low C o e f f i c i e n t s o f V a r i a t i o n by Land Use and S o i l Property F i g u r e 4.2: Medium C o e f f i c i e n t s o f V a r i a t i o n by Land Use and S o i l Property F i g u r e 4.3: V a r i a b l e C o e f f i c i e n t s o f V a r i a t i o n by Land Use and S o i l Property F i g u r e 4.4: O r g a n i c C a r b o n % Under P r e d o m i n a t Land Uses F i g u r e 4.5: T o t a l N i t r o g e n % Under P r e d o m i n a n t Land Uses F i g u r e 4.6: C a t i o n E x c h a n g e C a p a c i t y Under P r e d o m i n a n t Land Uses F i g u r e 4.7: E x c h a n g e a b l e C a t i o n s Under P r e d o m i n a n t Land U s e s F i g u r e 4.8: CEC and ECEC Under P r e d o m i n a n t Land Uses F i g u r e 4.9: A v a i l a b l e P h o s p h o r u s Under P r e d o m i n a n t L a n d Uses F i g u r e 4.10: E x c h a n g e a b l e P o t a s s i u m Under P r e d o m i n a n t Land Uses F i g u r e 4.11: F r e e I r o n o f A H o r i z o n Under P r e d o m i n a n t Land Uses F i g u r e 4.12: F r e e I r o n o f B H o r i z o n Under P r e d o m i n a n t Land Uses F i g u r e 4.13: F r e e Aluminum o f B H o r i z o n Under P r e d o m i n a n t Land Uses F i g u r e 4.14: B u l k D e n s i t y u n d e r V a r i o u s Land Uses F i g u r e 4.15: C o m p a c t i o n o f S u r f a c e Under V a r i o u s Land U s e s . . . F i g u r e 4.16: Water H o l d i n g C a p a c i t y Under V a r i o u s Land U s e s . . F i g u r e 4.17: D i s c r i m i n a n t A n a l y s i s o f S o i l P r o p e r t i e s F i g u r e 4.18: C l u s t e r A n a l y s i s o f S o i l P r o p e r t i e s F i g u r e 4.19: O r g a n i c C a r b o n % A g r i c u l t u r e and A g r o f o r e s t r y .. F i g u r e 4.20: T o t a l N i t r o g e n % A g r i c u l t u r e and A g r o f o r e s t r y . . . F i g u r e 4.21: A v a i l a b l e P h o s p h o r u s A g r i c u l t u r e and A g r o f o r e s t r y F i g u r e 4.22: E x c h a n g e a b l e C a t i o n s A g r i c u l t u r e and A g r o f o r e s t r y F i g u r e 4.23: T o t a l B a s e s and CEC A g r i c u l t u r e and A g r o f o r e s t r y  42 42 42 49 49 49 51 51 53 53 55 55 55 57 57 57 62 64 70 70 70 71 71  F i g u r e 5.1: Summary o f Wards i n P i t h u w a P a n c h a y a t (Nov. 1985) 79 F i g u r e 5.2: P r o p o r t i o n s o f 8 M a j o r C r o p p i n g R o t a t i o n s i n Pithuwa Study 85 F i g u r e 5.3: P r e d o m i n a n t C r o p p i n g R o t a t i o n s , C r o p Y i e l d s , P o t e n t i a l Revenue & A c t u a l Cash S a l e s 100 F i g u r e 5.4: I n t e r a c t i v e Components o f C r o p p i n g S y s t e m B u d g e t i n g Worksheet f o r V a r i o u s Crops & C r o p p i n g R o t a t i o n s i n the P i t h u w a Study A r e a 105 x  F i g u r e 5.5: F i g u r e 5.6: F i g u r e 5.7: Figure  5.8:  F i g u r e 6.1: F i g u r e 6.2: F i g u r e 7.1: Figure  7.2:  Figure  7.3:  Gross M a r g i n s of V a r i o u s Crops i n P i t h u w a Study Gross Margin of Cropping R o t a t i o n s i n Pithuwa Study Gross Margins of Cropping R o t a t i o n s w i t h Average P r i c e s and P o o r Y i e l d s Gross Margins of C r o p p i n g R o t a t i o n s w i t h Average P r i c e s , A v e r a g e Y i e l d s , and C o s t l y L a b o u r F o r e s t P r o d u c t s Biomass from N a t u r a l ( f a ) & Degraded ( f d ) F o r e s t F o r e s t R e g e n e r a t i o n S a p l i n g s on N a t u r a l ( f a ) & Degraded ( f d ) F o r e s t S i g n i f i c a n t R e l a t i o n s h i p s Between Use F a c t o r s S i g n i f i c a n t R e l a t i o n s h i p s Between Yields S i g n i f i c a n t R e l a t i o n s h i p s Between C r o p p i n g I n p u t s (Compost, U r e a Fertilizer)  xi  Soil  and  Land  Soil  and  Crop  S o i l and 3 & complex  108 108 115 115 129 129 142 142 143  L I S T OF P l a t e 2.1: P l a t e 3.1: P l a t e 3.2:  PLATES  Landsat photo i l l u s t r a t i n g of Chitawan V a l l e y  geomorphological  setting 6  A i r photograph mozaic of study area N a t u r a l u n t o u c h e d p r o d u c t i v e f o r e s t or f a * l a n d use D e g r a d e d u t i l i z e d g r a z e d f o r e s t o r * f d ' l a n d use I n n o v a t i v e r a i n f e d a g r i c u l t u r e o r p a ' l a n d use .. I n n o v a t i v e i r r i g a t e d a g r i c u l t u r e o r *kh' l a n d use F i e l d s a m p l i n g methods i n a g r i c u l t u r a l a r e a s .... Key i n f o r m a n t i n t e r v i e w s by i n f o r m a l methods ....  25 25 26 26 28 28  P l a t e 6.1: P l a t e 6.2:  Exposed t r e e r o o t s i n degraded f o r e s t areas E m e r g i n g l a n d use c o n f l i c t s  123 123  P l a t e 7.1:  Agroforestry  169  Plate Plate Plate Plate Plate  3.3: 3.A: 3.5: 3.6: 3.7:  x  innovations  L I S T OF A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L.  22  x  APPENDICES  A b b r e v i a t i o n s Used N e p a l i Terms Used & T r a n s l a t i o n s L i s t o f T r e e s and S h r u b s C o n v e r s i o n F a c t o r s f o r U n i t s of Measure N a t i o n a l S o i l S u r v e y Programme P r o f i l e D e s c r i p t i o n S h e e t I n t e r v i e w Forms S o i l s Data Sets D e s c r i p t i v e S t a t i s t i c s f o r S o i l s Data Clay Mineralogy A n a l y s i s Farm D a t a S e t s Summary o f S e n s i t i v i t y A n a l y s i s F o r e s t Biomass Data  xii  18A 187 188 189 190 191 203 210 216 217 235 2A6  1  CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 The P r o b l e m The  predominantly  traditionally  rural  i n a fragile  p o p u l a t i o n o f N e p a l was  e q u i l i b r i u m with i t s surrounding  Himalayan-Gangetic environment.  The s u b s i s t e n c e  N e p a l i s was d e p e n d e n t on a d e l i c a t e r a t i o land-forest. has  Recently,  over  resulting  l a n d use ( H r a b o v s z k y  1983;  pressure  i n c o m p e t i t i o n and  & Miyan, 1985).  d e f o r e s t a t i o n has been l i n k e d w i t h i n c r e a s e d s o i l soil  of the  of p e o p l e - l i v e s t o c k -  i n c r e a s i n g p o p u l a t i o n and l a n d  upset t h i s d e l i c a t e balance,  conflicts  farming  Rapid  e r o s i o n and  l o s s i n many r e g i o n s o f N e p a l ( E c k h o l m , 1976; J a c k s o n , Singh  e t a l , 1983).  R e c e n t l y , t h e r e has been more  r e c o g n i t i o n o f g e o l o g i c a l l y - c a u s e d mass w a s t i n g  processes  m a j o r c o n t r i b u t o r s t o e r o s i o n and s e d i m e n t a t i o n  rates.  Several  researchers  have q u e s t i o n e d  the present  e r o s i o n i n N e p a l i s m a n - i n d u c e d and c a u s e d by  deforestation  (Carson,  the widespread b e l i e f  as  1985; H a m i l t o n ,  t h a t much o f  1 9 8 5 ; Ramsay, 1 9 8 5 ) .  But  t h e p u b l i c a s s o c i a t i o n o f d e f o r e s t a t i o n and e r o s i o n h a s p e r s i s t e d ; and p o l i c y makers i n Kathmandu have been u n d e r tremendous i n t e r n a t i o n a l programs.  In response,  established eastern resulted The  pressure  conservation  t h e government o f N e p a l has s u c c e s s f u l l y  s e v e r a l f o r e s t r e s e r v e s , s u c h a s t h e one i n n o r t h  part of the Chitawan v a l l e y .  Land u s e c o n f l i c t s  when i m p l e m e n t i n g n a t i o n a l p o l i c i e s a t t h e l o c a l c r u x o f t h e l a n d use c o n t r o v e r s y  t h e f o l l o w i n g two p o i n t s o f v i e w . land  to i n s t i t u t e  level.  c a n be s u m m a r i z e d by  Is i tjustifiable  f o r f o r e s t that i s h i g h l y capable  have  of food  to reserve  production  ina  2  country w i t h food d e f i c i t s ? b e n e f i t s of f o r e s t l o n g e r term crop  Conversely, w i l l  the short  t o a g r i c u l t u r e c o n v e r s i o n s be n e g a t e d  degradation of s o i l  fertility  by t h e  and e v e n t u a l d e c l i n e o f  yields? Thus, t h e p e r c e i v e d problem  d e c l i n e of s o i l agriculture  central  q u a l i t y when f o r e s t  o r when d o u b l e  cropping (Schreier et a l . ,  p e r c e p t i o n of t h e problem  a complex system  i s intensified  to t r i p l e  But i n the context of the  i s merely  w i t h many p h y s i c a l ,  (Thompson & W a r b u r t o n , 1 9 8 5 ) .  be c o n v e r t e d making.  into useful  environment,  the p o i n t of e n t r y  social  Therefore  documented w i t h i n a s o c i o - e c o n o m i c  and c u l t u r a l  the s o i l  factors  c o n t e x t so t h a t t h e d a t a c a n  i n f o r m a t i o n f o r l a n d use d e c i s i o n  so t h a t r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r c o n s e r v a t i o n o f s o i l resources are implementable  and r e a l i s t i c .  approach,  and f o r e s t  Management d e c i s i o n s  owned l a n d s a r e c o n s i d e r e d t h e f o c u s o f s t u d y ,  s i n c e management o f b o t h p r i v a t e and p u b l i c l a n d s involves village  into  degradation i s  Land use management i s s t u d i e d w i t h a s y s t e m s  made on p r i v a t e l y  i sthe  land i s converted to  croppping 1986).  t o t h i s study  u n c e r t a i n t y and d y n a m i c s o f t h e H i m a l a y a n - G a n g e t i c this  term  participation  ultimately  and f a r m e r m o t i v a t i o n .  1.2 O b j e c t i v e s 1. D e t e r m i n e s o i l  quality  under c u r r e n t l a n d  uses.  2. Compare y i e l d s and p r o d u c t i v i t i e s o f f o o d , f o d d e r u n d e r v a r i o u s l a n d use management s y s t e m s .  and  fuelwood  3. S u g g e s t k e y i n f o r m a t i o n needed t o m o n i t o r s o i l d e g r a d a t i o n o r to i d e n t i f y c o n s t r a i n t s t o a d o p t i o n o f s o i l c o n s e r v i n g practices.  3  4. A s s e s s t h e p o t e n t i a l o f l e g u m e - b a s e d o r a g r o f o r e s t r y s y s t e m s f o r r e s o l v i n g t h e l a n d use c o n f l i c t s . 5. D e v e l o p an o p t i m a l l a n d use management p l a n f o r t h e a r e a t h a t c o u l d be t r a n s l a t e d i n t o an e x t e n s i o n p a c k a g e f o r f a r m e r s . 6. D e m o n s t r a t e how t h e m e t h o d o l o g y c o u l d a r e a s i n N e p a l by l i n k i n g t h e s t u d y Mapping P r o j e c t .  be a p p l i e d t o o t h e r t o t h e Land R e s o u r c e  1.3 L a y o u t o f t h e T h e s i s The a r r a n g e m e n t o f t h i s t h e s i s i s a s f o l l o w s : C h a p t e r two d e s c r i b e s (i.e.  the s e t t i n g  of the study b i o p h y s i c a l l y  l o c a t i o n , c l i m a t e , geomorphology  sociologically  ( i . e . settlement  f e a t u r e s of v i l l a g e ,  farming  l a n d use c o n f l i c t s ) .  and c r o p p i n g  sampling,  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of data.  s y s t e m s and e m e r g i n g  l a b o r a t o r y a n a l y s i s and  soil quality  three  into  under e x i s t i n g  six).  land five)  The r e s u l t s o f  components a r e i n t e g r a t e d i n t o a c o m p a r i s o n o f l a n d  use management o p t i o n s approaches. The  splits  f o u r ) , farm p r o d u c t i v i t y e v a l u a t i o n (chapter  and f o r e s t p r o d u c t i v i t y e v a l u a t i o n ( c h a p t e r these  summarizes t h e  At t h i s p o i n t , t h e study  t h r e e components o r s u b s t u d i e s :  as w e l l as  and l a n d use h i s t o r y , c u l t u r a l  The f o l l o w i n g c h a p t e r  methods u s e d f o r f i e l d  uses ( c h a p t e r  and s o i l s ) ,  Finally,  flow chart  (chapter chapter  s e v e n ) by u s i n g  e i g h t summarizes  ( F i g u r e 1.1) i l l u s t r a t e s  two c o n t r a s t i n g the study.  the layout of the  study. Abbreviations  and N e p a l i t e r m s a r e u s e d f r e q u e n t l y  t h r o u g h o u t t h e t h e s i s t o e c o n o m i z e on s p a c e . are  explained  Their  i n A p p e n d i x A and B , r e s p e c t i v e l y .  equivalents  4 Chap.3 Selection of study area, land types & land use (lu) categories by review of LRMP data & transects through the area 8 l u on 5c land type; 2 lu on 4c land type  Chap.4 Soil Quality (95 profiles x 3 depths)  ±  within field innovations (10 samples predominant (3-4 plots x 7 lu) land uses x 8 lu) (9-10 plots x 5 lu)  1  coefficients of variation  Chap.5  Agricultural Chap.6 Forest Productivity Productivity (from farmer interviews (9-10 plots 75 formal & 25 informal) x 2 lu)  V farm & family component  cropping component  biomass data fuelwood, fodder, etc  budgeting i s of efficiency  means, st. dev.  livestock numbers & uses  Y M-Whit. U tests of signif. M-Whit. U & multivariate tests  K-Wallis test of  V  correlations & graphic summaries V  Y determine assess variability identify type potential S sampling & amount of of legume reliability degradation innovations under major land uses  identify relationship among soils, management, land uses & productivity  determine optimal land use management economically  Chap.7 Evaluate various land use management options i n terms of soil conservation, productivity & profitability for several possible scenarios  Figure 1.1: Flowchart Illustrating Organization of Ihesis  V estimate amt of forest products relative to land uses  5  CHAPTER  2: SETTING  2.1 L o c a t i o n o f t h e Study The  study  situated  area  i n south  Area  was r e l a t i v e l y  central  N e p a l about  h o u r s bus r i d e ) from Kathraandu. be  P i t h u w a and S a k t i k h o r with  a village nearest  Politically,  'panchayats'  while  h e a l t h and s e c o n d a r y area.  of the study  the southern  hour away.  area  The n o r t h e r n was t h r e e  boundary  12 k i l o m e t e r s , and c o u l d  foot,  or j e e p .  study  area  agriculture.  degrees n o r t h ; to and  275 m.) humid.  to the East-  T h i s was a l s o t h e l o c a t i o n facilities  boundary  or the f b r e s t e d  area  2.1 i l l u s t r a t e s  Bazaar  was o n l y one  two b o u n d a r i e s be e a s i l y  f o r the  was  t r a v e r s e d on  the l o c a t i o n of  Geomorphology and S o i l s  c l i m a t e of the study  intensive  areas  i n Nepal.  2.2 C l i m a t e , The  Zone o f  markets i n  i n the a g r i c u l t u r a l  Figure  would  Chitawan.  h o u r s walk from T a d i  approximately  the  with  education  The d i s t a n c e between t h e s e  bicycle  governed  f o r permanent m a r k e t s and a c c e s s  of the study  portion  i n the Narayani  (i.e. locally  Kathmandu and I n d i a , was T a d i B a z a a r .  people  i t s location  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e centre) of northeastern  centre  the nearest  I t was  I t i n v o l v e d p o r t i o n s of the  West highway, a major t r a n s p o r t a t i o n l i n k  of  accessed.  6 h o u r s d r i v e ( o r 9 t o 12  d e s c r i b e d as i n t h e C h i t a w a n D i s t r i c t ,  t h e C e n t r a l Development R e g i o n .  The  easily  area  The f a c t o r s  i s ideal  f o r both  of l o c a t i o n  f o r e s t and  (latitude  o f 27.5  l o n g i t u d e o f 85 d e g r e e s e a s t ) and e l e v a t i o n (200  c o n t r i b u t e t o make t h e c l i m a t e o f t h e a r e a s u b t r o p i c a l The y e a r l y c y c l e i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by t h r e e  distinct  6  Figure  Plate  2.1:  2.1:  L o c a t i o n of Nepal.  landsat  image  and t h e  L a n d s a t photo i l l u s t r a t i n g t h e s e t t i n g of Chitawan V a l l e y  study  area  georaorphological  in  7  seasons: (i.e.  to February  very  Falgun and  to J e s t h a ) .  precipitation 1984).  frosts.  occurs  from  t o Magha);  from  and a  March t o May ( i . e . N e p a l i months  F i g u r e 2.2 summarizes data r e l a t i v e  to these  seasonal  temperature  three seasons  ( b a s e d on  The w i n t e r months a r e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y d r y  mild, although  night  t h e r e a r e heavy morning  f o g s and o c c a s i o n a l  Since n i n e t y per cent of the annual  rainfall  d u r i n g t h e summer between June and September, t h e monsoon  corresponds  t o t h e major c r o p p i n g  revitalization The  of tree  and s h r u b  season  ranges  Plate  I t was o r i g i n a l l y  1).  the Narayani  annually  and have r e d u c e d  the occurrence  the annual  e r o s i v e monsoonal r a i n s  of a l l u v i a l  a r e very  plains  amidst ( r e f e r to  river  of the l a c u s t r i n e  as u p l i f t  so t h a t  similar they  significant  m a t e r i a l s from  of these  soils  and f a u l t i n g , and  have caused  tectonic,  i s a mosaic of land types  many a s p e c t s , t h e l a n d s c a p e ,  Gangetic  such  f a n and a p r o n  The r e s u l t  processes  dun' v a l l e y s  nestled  and R a p t i , have m o d i f i e d t h e l a n d s c a p e  Tectonic a c t i v i t i e s  flooding  valley  a l a k e b a s i n but major  deposits.  Siwaliks h i l l s .  as t h e a n n u a l  of the S i w a l i k s P h y s i o g r a p h i c Region  systems,  deposits  as w e l l  growth.  C h i t a w a n i s a 'dun' o r t e c t o n i c  the rugged  x  June t o September  ( i . e . N e p a l i months K a r t i k  d r y , windy s p r i n g  Chaudhary, and  summer or monsoon from  N e p a l i months: A s h r a d h a t o Ashwan); a warm, d r y w i n t e r  October hot,  a hot, rainy  surrounding  e r o s i v e and  ( F i g u r e 2 . 3 ) . In  and l a n d use t y p e s  to those  of the T e r a i  are often r e f e r r e d  of these or g r e a t e r  t o as ' i n n e r  Terai . 1  Within  this  geomorphological  c o n t e x t , most o f t h e s t u d y  area  Land uses: |  |  ED  forest rainfed agriculture  - 200 mny /week  irrigated agriculture  - 155 Climate weekly rainfall evapo transpiration  - 100  mm/week  -  Time scale: Week no.: Nepali: Gregorian: Seasons:  premonsoon Figure  2.2:  Weekly r a i n f a l l & e v a p o t r a n s p i r a t i o n ( 1 9 7 4 - 8 3 ) and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p to land use i n C h i t a w a n ( b a s e d on C h a u d h a r y , u n p u b )  50  rf Horizontal scale: -|  S  1  10 km  study area transect l  Bhabar  Terai  Siwaliks  India -Nepal border  Rapti Dun or Depositional Valley  Chitawan National Park  1 Siwaliks Mahabharat  East-West Highway  -1500 -1000  - 500 m.  Terai land types:  Siwaliks land types:  Geological deposits:  2a river courses 2b recent alluvium  4a 4b-c  river courses recent alluvium  fjp|  unconsolidated alluvium  3a alluvial uplands 3b alluvial fans  Sa-c 5b  alluvial uplands alluvial fans  H|]  alluvial fan and apron  6c  gently rolling depositional basins  II  remnant dun or lacustrine  8  steeply sloping Siwaliks hills  12  steeply sloping mountains  Main Boundary Fault  F i g u r e 2.3:  Siwaliks sediments: sandstone, mudstone, conglomerate, marl F^l  Precambrian metasediments: slate, phyllite, quartzite, schist  Schematic cross s e c t i o n of Chitawan v a l l e y i l l u s t r a t i n g geomorphology and l a n d t y p e s ( b a s e d on LRMP, 1984a,b)  10  was  situated  land  type  on  gently undulating a l l u v i a l  5a and  eutrocrepts  and  5c).  F i g u r e 2.4  found  a north-south  Panchayats. properties the  The and  rationale  l a n d use  such  'asna',  Albizzia  With  increased Pithuwa  Dislocated were each  and  upland  of p a r t i c u l a r  >  sal',  bighas'  was  forest  Most o f t h e  cropped  or c l e a r e d a r e a s .  both  spontaneous valley  resettlement  - 3.0  never  The  scheme.  i n the  hills  hectares)  of  a r e a was  *pakho' or  a c c o r d i n g l y , i . e . maize as  mustard was  sixties,  t o 200,000 i n 1971.  (1.5  the  or wheat i n t h e w i n t e r . very  f a r from  Fuelwood, fodder  and  or  C).  f  t h e Gorkha D i s t r i c t %  hardwood  * p a d k e , e t c . (Appendix  began by  was  tomentosa  p o p u l a t i o n of the C h i t a w a n  from  2 to 4  interest  tropical  Termalina  p a r t of a government  f o l l o w e d by  y e a r s , the  p a r t of  History  of mixed  inner Terai  cultivate.  and  or  60,000 i n 1961  families  g i v e n about  was  the m a j o r i t y of the a r e a  forest  or  The  a b r u p t l y from  farm  types  morphological  page 24)  of m a l a r i a i n t h e e a r l y  and  processes.  monsoon c r o p  pockets  deciduous  eradication  to c l e a r  rainfed  o f t h e a r e a was  julisbrissia  p a n c h a y a t was  Settlement  Originally  of the T e r a i  planned  (LRMP,  of s o i l  between s o i l  ( a s d e f i n e d on  as S h o r e a r o b u s t a  the  settlement  history  semi-dry  type  study.  theme.  species  early  types  l a n d use  by  l a n d use  cross section  correlation  The  study's  on  of  t r a n s e c t of the P i t h u w a - S a k t i k h o r  recurring  f o r the  aprons ( i . e .  i n c l u d e d v a r i o u s phases  the  N a t u r a l V e g e t a t i o n and  vegetated  land  highlights  2.3  to the  and  soils  h a p l u d o l l s depending  1984b). on  The  f a n s and  the  In  the  agricultural  timber  were  Horizontal scale:  N—•  I  1  1  1  0  1  2  3 km.  East-West highway  Pithuwa  Saktikhor  Jutpan  maize. mustard (pc)  10 hapludoll eutrochrept  rice, mustard maize (kh)  degraded forest (fd)  -500  9^8 aquic eutrochrept  Notations:  •  10  4 Figure  soil pit description site and number village 2.4:  agricultural land uses ^  -1000 m.  thicker forest stand (fa)  forest land  Schematic cross s e c t i o n of study area s o i l , l a n d and l a n d use t y p e s .  highlighting  12  plentiful;  but c r o p l o s s e s  were a b i g  a significant  1970's.  the government system  and  of N e p a l  to a s s i s t  to d i v e r t  irrigation  canal  local  water  systems  The  system  t h e ones  Therefore,  irrigation  Control  possible  The Figure  was  of water  land  2.5  water  and  from t h e B u r h i and  river.  m a i n t a i n e d by  b o t h t h e s e two a l l competed  government  i s a very  canals f o r the  funds.  controversial  s e a s o n s made i t t o grow as  c r o p s per y e a r on some f a r m s . use h i s t o r y  o f t h e s t u d y a r e a i s summarized  ( b a s e d on Shah, 1985).  systems  used  i n the three  maps do  p r o v i d e e v i d e n c e though,  is  irrigation  Khola f o r the  as t h e monsoon c r o p and  be i n t e r p r e t e d  occurred  and  o v e r t h e growing  must  to land  own  panchayat  still  changes  due  an  w e s t e r n wards o f P i t h u w a o r g a n i z e d  the J u t p a n i  t o grow paddy r i c e  many as t h r e e  from the K a i r  Unfortunately,  amount of r i v e r  members c o n v i n c e d  them i n b u i l d i n g  were d e s i g n e d , c o n t r o l l e d  servicing  same l i m i t e d  panchayat  of t h e i r  farmer o r g a n i z a t i o n s .  issue.  rhinoceros  change t o t h e c r o p p i n g p r a c t i c e s i n  influential  wards o f P i t h u w a .  a smaller Both  Several  of c a n a l s  eastern  t o d e e r , monkeys and  problem.  T h e r e was the mid  due  Aerial  carefully  the l a s t  that  20  since  the  C u l t u r a l F e a t u r e s of Pithuwa  The  Pithuwa  panchayat,  any  use  classification  changes  in soil  by t h e s t u d y must  These quality  have  years.  2.A  home t o 7100  e x t e n t of the land  y e a r s a r e not e x a c t e q u i v a l e n t s .  use c o n v e r s i o n s r e v e a l e d  within  in  Panchayat  w i t h an a r e a o f about  p e o p l e or 1200  households  (Malaria  1200  hectares,  Eradication  1954  1964  1979  84°. 35'  84°.15'  84°35' 27° 45'  27" 40'  27° 37' Source :  Legend  Indian Topographic Maps, 1954 from photos at 1:40,000 grazing land  F i g u r e 2.5:  27° 37' Forest Resource Survey Office, 1964 from photos at 1 = 12,000  agriculture  \  Land Resource Mapping Project, 1979 from photos at 1: 50,000  | forest cover > 10%  gravel beds, river courses  Summary o f l a n d u s e h i s t o r y o f s t u d y a r e a i n n o r t h e a s t e r n C h i t a w a n ( b a s e d on S h a h , unpub)  14  Office,  1985).  heterogeneous  As w i t h many r e s e t t l e d  areas, i t i s a  m i x t u r e o f p e o p l e s and c a s t e s .  The u p p e r  caste  B r a h m i n s and C h h e t r i e s a r e more d o m i n a n t i n t h e s o u t h ; w h i l e t h e m i d d l e c a s t e G u r u n g s , M a g a r s and Tamangs a r e more common i n northern Pithuwa.  The N e w a r i s ,  near  o r b a z a a r s ; a s do t h e l o w e r c a s t e K a m i s and  the *dobatos'  Domis.  Tharus  and Chipangs  or the merchant c a s t e  drift  through  t i m e t o be e m p l o y e d a s c a s u a l f a r m people  speak N e p a l i as t h e i r  Hinduism  and B u d d h i s m , g r e a t l y  behaviour.  of Pithuwa  agriculture The  influence  for a  family  depend d i r e c t l y  i s very important i n the r u r a l  members, b u t e x t e n d e d  of several  18 members a r e a l s o  families  common.  farm l a b o u r .  There  agricultural  chores  of people  to  20.  to  supplement  on  life in  have 4 t o 8  generations with 8 to a t t e n d s c h o o l , but  labour contribution  divisions  ( S c h r o e d e r , 1985;  to the i n the  of labour f o r  Bennett,  1983).  Farm  own one o r two h e c t a r e s o f l a n d , so t h e per h e c t a r e i s r e l a t i v e l y  O f t e n one o r two f a m i l y family  of l i v i n g  nearly a l l  Women t o o p l a y an i m p o r t a n t r o l e  are definite  h i g h , r a n g i n g from 6  members h a v e o f f f a r m  employment  income.  S c h o o l and h e a l t h standard  typically  Children usually  represent a s i g n i f i c a n t  o p e r a t i o n of the farm.  density  or r e l i g i o n ,  living.  unit  typically  religions,  or i n d i r e c t l y  Families  families  Two  p e o p l e s ' l i v e s and  P i t h u w a , a s i n most o f N e p a l .  they a l s o  time to  The m a j o r i t y o f  language.  Regardless of c a s t e , language  the people  t h e a r e a from  labour.  second  congregate  f a c i l i t i e s are important i n d i c a t o r s of  and a t t i t u d e s  to outside ideas.  Pithuwa  1 5  Panchayat primary walk of  was  fortunate  schools  There that  attracts  centers  or pharmacies  n u r s e s from An  or  land  village  level  the Tadi  Each  health  panchayat  When a d i s t r i c t  i n Nepal  elected  Panchayat' Kathmandu.  government  represent  i n turn  from  a r e no  health regularly  i n the  development  i s the b a s i c or  t o a ward  Each and  natural  committee  5  concerns a t the v i l l a g e  a 'Pradhan  district  Panch' or  meetings  holds a meeting, attending.  there  by a d u l t  franchise  'Rastrya  of t h i s  a p p o i n t e d by t h e K i n g group  c a n be as  o f t h e 75  and a d m i n i s t e r  The powers and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s  This  i n Bharatpur.  Each  to the n a t i o n a l  to set p o l i c y  : 75 p e r c e n t e l e c t e d ) .  office  situations  system.  two r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s  governing l e v e l  homes.  or vice-chairman to represent  o r 80 members  the v i l l a g e s )  one  neighboring areas  on p o p u l a t i o n  their  elect  a t Chitawan  b a l a n c e d by o f f i c e r s  appointed  the 'panchayat'  making  9 wards b a s e d  that  elect  f r o m most  The ' p a n c h a y a t '  such as Chitawan  many as 40 p a n c h a y a t s  attend  i s important i n a g r i c u l t u r a l  into  hour  post.  decision  tiered  are three  a half  the area i s v i s i t e d  and a 'Upa-Pradhan P a n c h '  districts  walk  Although there  planning.  The a s s e m b l y  the Pithuwa  near  o f t h e s e wards e l e c t s  or v i l l a g e r s  chairman  counter  Bazaar  of a three  i s divided  assembly.  school  i n Pithuwa,  and community  boundaries.  (i.e.  high  the study area.  u s e management  panchayat  farmers  30 t o 50 m i n u t e s  understanding of the  government  about  15 and 16 y e a r o l d s t u d e n t s f r o m  as from  by  from  quality  as w e l l  There  The 11 t o 14 y e a r o l d c h i l d r e n  schools  i s a good  schools.  f o r 5 t o 10 y e a r o l d c h i l d r e n  f r o m most homes.  two m i d d l e  t o have s e v e r a l  funds i n  group a r e (25 p e r c e n t  elects  a  prime  1 6  minister.  In  reincarnate pers.  final  of Lord  Vishnu,  has  making  cumbersome and  and  flow  of  inefficient.  The  general  the  rule,  isolated  and  predominantly  a l i e n a t e d from  still  overtones  of  level  are  more i n f l u e n c e d by  their  subsistence  rather  than  very  their  to  powers.  be  a  (Khoju,  long  term  of  in  2.5  Farming  and  The  farming  systems  context  enough f a r m there  housing,  of  products will  operate portions  inputs  at a l e v e l of  classified development  the as  according  the  study  area  the  family.  feed  the  religious  goal  may  and  the  be  the  are  e a r l y consumer  area  farm  first  third  t o an  to  village  Because short  best  of  term  to  described  i s to  Secondly,  in  supply  i t i s hoped  provide c l o t h i n g ,  perhaps a f a m i l y  bicycle  purchase a d d i t i o n a l operation.  goal  i s met  achieved. stage  international are  are  priority  production  c h i l d r e n and  improve  study  of  the  and  Systems  to  whereby  i n the  King  d e c i s i o n s are  first  to  feel  the  religion.  The  second  Farms i n t h e  of  f o r the  and  a  but  because  goals.  A third  As  and  nature.  some s u r p l u s  schooling  transport.  cropping  be  living,  system  of Pithuwa  d e c i s i o n s at  f a m i l y or  Cropping  their  further.  governments;  Thus,  this  a transportation  population  perhaps  positions.  within  problem  rural  respected  level  l a c k of  the  their  Queen a r e  for  veto  information  network a c c e n t u a t e s  that  considered  ultimate  communication  the  King,  comm.) Decision  is  d e c i s i o n s , the  typically  of  Most  but They  farms  only would  be  agricultural  study mixed  (Harwood, crop  and  1979). animal  17  enterprises. supply part for  C e r e a l s such  the s t a p l e  diet  of the farming compost,  or meat.  Crop rice,  and some d i e t a r y  production  mustard  farming  soil  mustard  crop.  Pulses  maize  is first  or l e n t i l s  a r e grown i n b o t h  protein  'loto'  and by p l a n t i n g  ( o r plump) v a r i e t y  i n Pithuwa  ^pakho' l a n d  crop  farmers  i n t h e monsoon  Another  sooner,  were r e l a y i n g  crop  o f paddy  Where  i t i s not and Wheat  depending  and on  operations.  t h e monsoon  Of t h e  an i m p o r t a n t ,  per year,  with  a third  crop  and  rice  such  with water as t h e  mustard  a few pre-monsoon Farmers  i n a few  wheat on n o n i r r i g a t e d  f o l l o w i n g t h e monsoon  f o l l o w e d by m u s t a r d  high  Where  the winter  maize c r o p .  potato  winter  diet.  maturing  leaving  cash  and  maize  crop.  were i n t e r c r o p p i n g p u l s e s w i t h  method o f s q u e e z i n g  eggs  among t h e  c a n be grown.  an e a r l i e r  maturing  i n the winter  Some a d v e n t u r o u s  a year  i n t h e monsoon,  i s p l a n t e d and m a t u r e d  months t o grow an e a r l i e r areas  represent  to the f a m i l y  crops  manure  of milk,  diets.  p o s s i b l e t o grow two c r o p s  innovations three  available  crop  contribution  power,  since i t i s a h i g h l y valued  quality  is  t h e monsoon  and t i m i n g o f f a r m i n g priority  integral  system.  grown i n t h e w i n t e r ,  i n m i n o r amounts b u t t h e y  recent  i n the form  t h e f a m i l y and l i v e s t o c k  moisture  i s usually  draught  i s grown i n t h e monsoon  seasons  It  L i v e s t o c k a r e an  i n the f a m i l y d i e t .  a r e t h e main c r o p s  residual  and wheat a r e grown t o  the i n t e r a c t i o n s  c e n t e r s around  to plant r i c e , to both  protein  illustrates  of the average  contributes  two,  f o r the f a m i l y .  the p r e f e r r e d s t a p l e  possible  maize  o p e r a t i o n and p r o v i d e  F i g u r e 2.6  components  as r i c e ,  as t h e w i n t e r into  the maize  crop.  the t i g h t  seasonal  Community owned resources  Farm controlled production resources  timber & firewood  farm power  1 1  labour  Marketplace resources  household I 1  land  1  cash  (  gathering draft / /field I power / \work animal homestead & garden care upland or rainfed fodder raize growing & manure land livestock fuel for sale S feed consumption lowland or irrigated rice growing land compost S leaf l i t t e r  igure  2.6:  Resource (based  purchase S sale of goods & services/  flows w i t h i n the farming system on B a r l o w e t a l , 1983; Mathema,  1982)  bazaars & markets  19  schedule There most  was  to p l a n t soybeans  seems t o be farms  no  emphasis about  component i s on  luxury  the  growing  importance the  with  t h e r e would  typically  power and  are  and  only  the  one  of  farming  average  production, a pair  chickens  (which  quality  Indistinct indicus  type  breeding  bunds. season  on  the  system.  holdings  be  two  being  o f male b u f f a l o or  two  once  or  calves.  twice  The  female  o c c a s i o n a l pig are  consumed  200  management  are  liters  within  to  amount  possible,  grain  a few  liters by  fields  i n the such  the  are  or Small  raised  for  a week as  not  Cattle  a  milk  feed  f o r farm  crop  Animals or t h e  per  are  nearest  not  poor.  of  the  Bos  s m a l l and  low  Selective  acceptable  situation  for  p r o d u c t i o n has lactation  animals  grazed  i s somewhat  improvement  fed  on  and  to  (LRMP,  the  forested lands.  from  700-  1983c). Whenever  animals.  harvest, village  feed  risen  i s limited.  monsoon c r o p  then  are  lactation.  The  r e s i d u e s are the  i s quite  treated for parasites since  i n t h a t some b r e e d and  area  various strains  per  inadequate.  2000-2500 l i t e r s  and  as  norm.  of milk  Animals  practiced,  of  study  s l a u g h t e r are  months a f t e r  supply.  stubble  are  s e r v i c e s are  for buffalo,  The  breeds,  up-grading  reasons.  veterinary better  livestock  of c a t t l e ,  e.g.  or  religious  of  indigenous  producing,  short  rice  item).  The  1000  l a n d or  o p e r a t i o n of buffalo,  f o r draught  goats,  eggs  and  these  f o r milk  used  numbers o f meat or  Of  recognized  i n the  cattle  6.  kept  bullocks  the  i n Pithuwa.  5 or  buffalo  pulses along  waste i n terms of  F a r m e r s have a l w a y s livestock  or  feed  But is in  pastures,  20  2.6 E m e r g i n g L a n d It  i s obvious  publically Fodder The  removal  of these  capacity  of the f o r e s t .  Attempts  to enforce officers  numerous f a r m e r s Within  land  this  exceed  three  and f o d d e r ,  study  farming  owned g r a z i n g and f o r e s t  extraction rates  forest  Conflicts  that Nepalese  fuelwood  of  Use  major  forest  reserves  depend  for their or timber  products,  than  existence. requirements.  i.e.  1980; W y a t t - S r a i t h , by a  1981). handful  r e s i s t a n c e from t h e  inputs  cultural  timber,  the r e g e n e r a t i v e  and c o n s e r v a t i o n  strong  on t h e s e  biophysical,  p r o j e c t was u n d e r t a k e n use and s o i l  fuelwood  (Bajracharya,  a r e met w i t h  who  lands  i s often greater  forest  s y s t e m s a r e d e p e n d e n t on  for their  and h i s t o r i c a l  survival. s e t t i n g the  t o e l u c i d a t e some o f t h e p r o b l e m s o f  degradation.  21 CHAPTER 3: 3.1  O r g a n i z a t i o n of 3.1.1  Study  Information was  used  The  (LRMP  study  following a) b) c)  The  area  study  was  near  land  (LRMP,  and  Resource Mapping P r o j e c t to s e l e c t  land  use  the  Chitawan D i s t r i c t  for  1985b).  utility  the  uses,  evident  i t was  of  the  same l a n d  (Shah,  1985).  (Plate  3.1).  area  type  An  Land Use  Four  land  Saktikhor of  the  of  the  been c u l t i v a t e d  ten  and  use  made o f  Plot  land  an  of  types  extensive of  1:50,000 a i r area  near  Pithuwa  f o r twenty the  study  years area  Selection  c a t e g o r i e s were c h o s e n  Panchayats land  the  t h e r e was  revealed a neighbouring  was  of  at a s c a l e  h i g h l y capable  Interpretation  t h a t had  prominent  P i t h u w a and  t h a t was  a i r photo mosaic  3.1.2 Ten  forest  that  to  maps were  District  From a c o m p a r i s o n  J u t p a n i under  3.1).  land  1984a,b,c).  photographs  Table  area  s y s t e m s and  agriculture.  the  Land  l o c a t e d i n the  intensified  in  the  p l a n i r a e t e r e d f o r the Chitawan  current land  the  by  reasons:  and  1:125,000  on  Selection  1983a,b,c;  geology,  compiled  area  the  Study  r e l a t i v e e a s e o f a c c e s s and f i e l d w o r k l o g i s t i c s , i t s high production c a p a b i l i t y , c o n t a c t p e o p l e w i t h C r o p p i n g S y s t e m s p r o j e c t & Rampur campus, a v a i l a b l e d a t a o t h e r t h a n LRMP i n f o r m a t i o n , and r e p r e s e n t a t i v e a r e a i n t e r m s o f l a n d use c o n f l i c t s and s o i l d e g r a d a t i o n problems a f t e r c o n v e r s i o n of f o r e s t agriculture.  d) e)  and  Area  collected  to choose  categories  the  METHODS  of Chitawan  for  (refer  u s e s were i l l u s t r a t e d  study to  here:  23  Table 3.1: Land Use Categories, Descriptions, LRMP Mapping Equivalents & Importance to the Study Land Use Codes & Description fa  natural, untouched productive forest  fd  grazed, u t i l i z e d degraded forest  PC  traditional, rainfed •pakho' agriculture maize, mustard  pa  innovative, rainfed 'pakho' agriculture maize,potato-wheat  kh  LRMP mapping No.of Importance to the Study equivalents* plots HSal3M, HTMH4M  8 serves as a baseline of s o i l f e r t i l i t y evaluation  HSald3M, H3WHd3I  11  more widespread condition of forests under present conditions  Fk  14  prominent double-cropping rotation, often with declining crop yields  not mapable or included in m  10  increasingly popular triple-cropping rotation involving a root crop S deeper ploughing of the s o i l  innovative, irrigated 'khet' agriculture rice,mustard,maize  Fr or F/r/  14  increasingly popular triple-cropping rotation involving a rice crop & c r i t i c a l timing of irrigation and farm operations  pa  innovative, rainfed 'pakho' with legumes maize-legume,mustard  not mapable or included in m  4 important innovation involving legume i n a triple-cropping rotation that should improve s o i l f e r t i l i t y status  Pi  innovative, rainfed 'pakho' agroforestry with i p i l i p i l trees  not mapable or included in m  4 important innovation involving a leguminous tree alley-cropped within a triple-cropping rotation to relieve pressure on forests  kc  traditional, irrigated 'khet' agriculture rice,mustard  Fb  3  relatively common double-cropping rotation involving longer maturing, more preferred rice variety  kd  traditional, irrigated 'khet' with legumes rice, legume  Fd  3  traditional way of including legumes (lentils) after longer maturing, more preferred rice variety  ki  innovative, rainfed 'khet' with legumes rice,mustard,legume  3  contraversial cropping rotation involving a green manured legume crop (dainchha)  not mapable or included in m  note that at LRMP (Land Resource Mapping Project) land use mapping scale of 1:50,000 most of agricultural area was mapped as Frk; and most of forest was mapped as HSal3I  24  natural Plate 3.4  forest  3.3,  or * f a ' i n P l a t e  innovative  and i n n o v a t i v e  Preliminary October  as  possible  or  LRMP mapping  while  or * f d '  o r *pa' i n P l a t e  3.5.  i n mid  to determine the  and p r e d o m i n a n t variability,  ( i . e . 8 o f t h e 10) were c h o s e n  in  o r *kh' i n P l a t e  the panchayats  of G.Traboeld,  To m i n i m i z e  cropping  patterns  as many l a n d  uses  on t h e same l a n d  type  unit.  each of f i v e  f o r the other  available. since  area.  forest  cropping  cropping  were made a c r o s s  of s o i l - l a n d types  the study  degraded  triple  triple  the a s s i s t a n c e  of  For  rainfed  transects  with  variability  irrigated  3.2,  A plot  land  five  uses  land  10 t o 15 p l o t s  uses only  s i z e o f 10 m e t e r s  t h i s represented  the average  were  located;  3 to 4 p l o t s  were  by 10 m e t e r s was  chosen  s i z e of the *khet'  or  rice  fields. The  farmer  interviews  in  this chapter,  of  the a g r i c u l t u r a l land  to  select  farmers'  3.3) were used uses.  fields  of these  to l o c a t e  The f o l l o w i n g  plots  criteria  later  i n each were  used  f o r sampling:  a) b) c) d) e)  cropping r o t a t i o n , l a n d use h i s t o r y ( i . e . a t l e a s t 5 y e a r s w i t h no c h a n g e ) , farm s i z e ( t o r e p r e s e n t a l l s i z e s of f a r m s ) , l o c a t i o n (10 t o 15 i n e a c h o f f i v e a r e a s o r w a r d s ) , f a r m e r s ' names ( t o r e p r e s e n t a v a r i e t y o f c a s t e s ) , and  f)  reliability  Forested (soil  section  ( r e f e r to d e s c r i p t i o n  plots  scientist),  ecologist). a) b) c) d) e)  of  interview.  were s e l e c t e d  D. Chapa  The f o l l o w i n g  by c o n s u l t a t i o n  with  ( f o r e s t e r ) and R. Kabzeras criteria  were c o n s i d e r e d  f o r e s t type, community s u c c e s s i o n type, amount o f c a n o p y c o v e r , amount o f r e g e n e r a t i o n , and e x p l o i t a t i o n i n d i c a t o r s , e.g.evidence  P.B.  Shah  (forest important:  o f wood  cutting.  P l a t e 3.2: N a t u r a l u n t o u c h e d p r o d u c t i v e f o r e s t or f a ' l a n d type; used t o e s t a b l i s h a b a s e l i n e f o r the e v a l u a t i o n s o i l f e r t i l i t y and f o r e s t b i o m a s s .  use of  P l a t e 3.3: D e g r a d e d u t i l i z e d g r a z e d f o r e s t o r " f d ' l a n d use p r e v a l e n t c o n d i t i o n of the f o r e s t i n the study a r e a .  type  x  Plate  3 . 4 : I n n o v a t i v e r a i n f e d a g r i c u l t u r e or ' p a ' l a n d use t y p e ; the monsoon maize c r o p was f o l l o w e d by p o t a t o e s i n t h e winter. A c a r e f u l h i l l i n g o p e r a t i o n c o n s e r v e d enough s o i l m o i s t u r e t o g e r m i n a t e a r e l a y e d c r o p of wheat between t h e rows .  Plate  3 . 5 : I n n o v a t i v e i r r i g a t e d a g r i c u l t u r e o r " k h ' l a n d use type; t h i s t r i p l e c r o p p i n g r o t a t i o n o r r i c e , m u s t a r d , maize i n v o l v e d c r i t i c a l t i m i n g of h a r v e s t i n g of r i c e and s e e d i n g of m u s t a r d f o r s u c c e s s .  27  3.2  Soil  Quality  3.2.1 The 1985.  field  according  three  points taken  i n each  using  points,  horizon  was  samples  of the s u r f a c e  were n o t e d  using  (Davidson,  according  a pocket  1967).  Pits  200 cm.  The l a n d  types  National  Soil  sheets then  Survey  (example  sampled.  to 4 h o u r s .  agricultural Land  other  were c o n s i d e r e d . cropped  with  southwestern and time  the s t a f f  of Nepal  repeated  vegetables)  Chitawan  was  profile  were i n t e r v i e w e d .  c o n s t r a i n t s , i t was  was  within  the p l o t  augered  using  a plot varied  not p o s s i b l e  were  from 1  were documented  methodology land  f o r the  uses.  categories  ( i . e . leucaena  sp. a l l e y  at the Japanese Extension  Due  to  description  and f o r e s t e d  Eight  also  B and C h o r i z o n s  sites  system  methods  horizon  f o r the f o r e s t e d  visited.  samples  of A  were d e s c r i b e d  The s a m p l i n g  An a g r o f o r e s t r y  maize,  survey  and t h e n  t o sample  than a g r i c u l t u r a l  At  At t h e same  and d e p t h  soil  Subsurface  required  ( P l a t e 3.6).  design.  moisture  a t 15 p o i n t s  methods and s a m p l i n g  a r e a s was  uses  texture  profiles  E).  were  ( K l i n k a e t a l , 1981) and  were dug t o 50 cm.  The t i m e  photographically  sampling  of the s u r f a c e  and s o i l  November,  ( 0 - 2 0 cm.)  and s o i l  to standard  Programme  to  1965) r e s p e c t i v e l y .  penetrometer  i n Appendix  Field  method  pH, s o i l  (USDA, 1951, 1 9 7 5 ) . C o m p a c t i o n measured  density  (Gardner,  colour,  i n Nepal  horizons  stratified  the v o l u m e t r i c  soil  & Analysis  c a r r i e d out from October  p l o t , bulk  method  Methods  Sampling  to a randomized  gravimetric  three  Soil  sampling  taken  the  Field  Composite  were  Evaluation  p l o t s were s o i l  to s c h e d u l i n g to c o o r d i n a t e  Farm i n sampled  p r o b l e m s and with  J.  Plate  3 . 6 : F i e l d s a m p l i n g methods i n a g r i c u l t u r a l a r e a s ; soil p r o f i l e s were d e s c r i b e d and sampled f o r each p l o t and the farmer was i n t e r v i e w e d about c r o p p i n g i n p u t s and y i e l d s from that f i e l d .  Plate  3 . 7 : Key i n f o r m a n t i n t e r v i e w s by i n f o r m a l m e t h o d s ; i n f o r m a t i o n about t h e c u l t u r a l p r a c t i s e s of the a r e a o b t a i n e d by c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h t h i s farm f a m i l y .  was  29  Lekhraehl, grazing  a grassland  land  use  Travelling and  (i.e. it  time  was  study  P.B.  Of  the  of  95  the  of  bulking  them  methodology  soil  and  Animal  soil  the  into  a total  major  of  to  reduced  sample  95  sample by  the  forest  jeep  three  and/or  plots  the  the  team o f  Dhakkel  people  K.  Neupani)  throughout  as  the  preliminary  use  So  categories. sampling  bagged  sample.  To  the  at  a d e q u a c y , a l l 10  A l l other  office  the  on  the  aspects  k i t were c a r r i e d o u t .  stability  of  some p l o t s was  (Sproule,  pers.comm.; T a y l o r  than  of  the  had  to  end  P and  each  sampling  day.  a LaMotte of  the  due  B  'wet' Soil  permitted, field  aggregate alcohol  method  1972).  laboratory  to  farmer  A Grade  When t i m e  using  a  determine  estimate  & Ashcroft, soil  to  K using  determined  with  office.  roof.  A field  Department  modified.  f o r use  arranged  field  of  be  I n s t i t u t e of A g r i c u l t u r a l  purchased  farmhouse  t e s t s f o r N,  Forestry  and  was  the  an  for analysis rather  accommodation  quarters  at  obtain  above. a field  balance  weights,  soil  considered  ( I A A S ) campus were u n a v a i l a b l e  sleeping  were d r i e d  p l o t s were  p l o t s and  facilities  problems.  the  land  l o c a t i o n of  Science  moisture  At  trip  With a  Kabzems, U.  described  pharmaceutical  office  Shah.  1 composite  were as  both  samples  P.B.  sample  laboratory  political  brass  by  field  greatly  were i n d i v i d u a l l y  planned  The  u s e s was  variation within  samples  served  to  last  plots, 7 variability  surface  The  adequately  i n 5 weeks.  representative idea  the  Shah, R.  possible area  for  land  organized  with  to  category.  agroforestry  transport  e c o l o g i s t or  i n Kathmandu,  30  soil  moisture  Bulk  d e n s i t y samples  weight  and b u l k  of coarse  moisture  d e n s i t y s a m p l e s were d r i e d  were p a s s e d  fragments  and f i e l d  soil  was  through  a 2mm  determined.  moisture  and  s i e v e and t h e  Bulk  density  were c a l c u l a t e d .  and p a c k a g e d  to  w i t h P.B.  D u p l i c a t e s a m p l e s were  Integrated Official  Surveys  in  late  S e c t i o n , t o be s h i p p e d  p e r m i s s i o n was  Agriculture  transport  was  soil  Science,  1985.  Chemical  analysis  University  1986, w i t h  through  roller,  passed  analysis  was  summarized  two  through  samples  were  shipped  a t the Department  Columbia  from  January  plastic  Soil  t o May,  samples  were c r u s h e d  s i e v e t o remove  of  with  were a wooden  the coarse  containers  until  complete. of s o i l  i n Table  soils  substudies:  of  Laboratory Analysis  Customs, they  a 2 mm  i f required.  weeks.  conducted  of B r i t i s h  f o r shipment  required for a i r freight  and P h y s i c a l  was  Canadian  3.2.3  potential  time  250  Shah a t t h e  the M i n i s t r i e s  and t h e s o i l  and s t o r e d i n a i r - t i g h t  A list  The  from  later  t h e a s s i s t a n c e o f J . Densmore. A f t e r  cleared  fragments  The  approximately  3.2.2 The  obtained  and F o r e i g n A f f a i r s  December,  left  soil  The o t h e r  A, B and C h o r i z o n s a m p l e s were w e i g h e d Canada.  weighed.  p r o p e r t i e s and methods  for analysis i s  3.2.  Statistical  A n a l y s i s of S o i l s  d a t a were c o m p i l e d  soil  used  variability,  innovations.  into  the f o l l o w i n g  predominant  F o r each  Data  of these  l a n d uses  three and  three substudies  there  3 1  Table 3.2:  Soil Properties Analysed & Methods Used For Fieldwork in Nepal & Laboratory Work in Canada  Soil property  Fieldwork Method used  PH  Hellige-Truog  organic carbon  Munsell color  Reference, year  USDA, 1951  Equipment required  Laboratory Method used  Reference, year  reagent kit  in H20 (1:1) in CaC12 (1:2)  Lavkulich, 1978  Munsell charts  Walkley-Black  Allison, 1965  semi-micro Kjeldahl  Bremner et al, 1982  total nitrogen nitratenitrogen  Morgan's field estimate  Lunt et al, 1950  LaMotte kit  extractable phosphorus  Morgan's field estimate  Lunt et a l , 1950  LaMotte kit  Bray 1, acid Watanabe & Olsen, ammonium fluoride 1965  exchangeable cations & CBC  displacement  exchangeable aluminum  displacement by KC1  Juo, 1976 McLean, 1965  citratebicarbonatedithionite  Weaver et al, 1968  X-ray diffraction  Lavkulich, 1978  pipette  Shelrick et al, 1984  extractable aluminum & iron  by NH4QAC  Munsell color  USDA, 1951  extra red charts  clay mineralogy particle size  hand texturing  USDA, 1951  plastic bottle  bulk density  volumetric  Klinka, 1981  graduated cylinder  compaction  penetrometer  Davidson, 1965  pocket penetrometer  field moisture gravimetric content  Gardner, 1965  tin cans, balance,oven  water storage capacity  Chapman, 1965  porous plate Richards, 1965 extraction Hillel, 1980 at 1/3 S 15 bar  32  were two  data  per  use  land  sets  an  areal  plots  than  basis  would All  analyze  data  b a s i s . Bulk land  density use  statistics, deviation,  data.  on  each  property  using  land  categories  Whitney  U-Test  back  the  and  SPSSPC  was  Conversion  c a r r i e d out  on  a  4)  rather  to  a  than  within kg/ha  use  category, minimum  tested  program  1986). for  process  standard  for  every  combination  s i g n i f i c a n c e using  produce  and  descriptive  values,  Each  Selected  to  PC-micro  to  s k e w n e s s , were c a l c u l a t e d  ( S i e g e l , 1956).  Symphony  or  were more v a r i a b l e  SYSTAT were used  land  (Norusis,  was  ( i . e . 10  differences.  i . e . means, maximum and variance  plots  a concentration  categories.  analysis  For  of  values  Symphony, SPSSPC and  the  to  number  3.3).  have e x a g g e r a t e d  statistical  use  the  were e x p r e s s e d  between  computer.  on  ( r e f e r to T a b l e  Nutrient on  based  g r a p h s and  of  the  r e s u l t s were  soil two  Mann-  transferred  figures  (Cobb,  1984) . Multivariate applied  techniques  Soils  Data Set  III  predominant  land  u s e s ) to  determine  variability  of  land and into  to  analysis  uses to  selected  (discriminant  determine  5 groups  (cluster  the  soil  ( i . e . major the  properties  soil  were  properties  relative to  1986)  properties  SYSTAT).  the  necessary  differences  predominant  to  group  land  under  contribution  use  all  5  of  amongst  & p r i n c i p l e components a n a l y s i s ,  representing  analysis,  (Wilkinson,  SYSTAT);  values  categories  Table 3.3:  Organization of data sets for analysis  Name of Total Obs. data set obs. /LU  # of Description of data sets var.  Soils Soils Soils Soils Soils Soils Farm Farm Farm Farm Farm Farm  1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6  Forest  69 21 50 20 35 16  9-10 3 9-10 4 3-4 1-2  11 19 24 18 11 9  Variability substudy; major soil nutrients Variability substudy; minor soil nutrients & physical properties Predominant land uses; major soil nutrients, bulk dens.& compaction Predominant land uses; minor soil nutrients & physical properties Legume innovations; major soil nutrients, bulk density & compaction Legume innovations; minor soil nutrients S physical properties  75 75 75 161 75 75  NA NA NA 3-16 NA NA  21 21 15 66 40 25  General farm & family characteristics Livestock substudy; numbers, types & uses Cropping rotation types & proportions Cropping inputs & outputs Selected parameters from Farm 1-4 for correlation tests Parameters important for budgetting analysis of cropping systems  19  8-11  10  Forest products & biomass on sampled plots  Abbreviations used in table: obs. observations or data points LU land use var. variables or properties NA not applicable  34  3.3  Agricultural 3.3.1  The  Interview  study  ourselves  to  program  the  members o f  the  the  9 wards o r  areas  panchayat.  In  15  farm  Key while or  group  (Banta, method  of  was  sensitive also  chatted  another  such cross  A key  i n the  checks  using  previously  Mathema,  1980)  and  this  included  inputs residue  of  seed,  yields,  to  cross  government  select  5  of  s e c t i o n of  interviews  and  10  the to  informal  methods i . e .  information  feed  of  Rhoades,  the  an  individual  notes  discreetly  1985).  for  general  p r a c t i c e s or  or  interview  about  irrigation  formal  This  availability.  interview  with  a farm  family  is  3.7.  Pithuwa  was  used  Panchayat. tested  family  size  irrigated  to conduct A  preset  interviews  translated into  cropping  by  cultural  animal  compiled  livestock,  and  approach  'khet' or  decided  informant  L i , 1980;  informant  in Plate  local  team member r e c o r d e d  1985;  as  the  introducing  c o n v e r s a t i o n a l l y with  area  the  of  by  conducted.  about  A more f o r m a l  amount o f  were  for gathering  information.  way  5 key  preferred  provided  interviews  I t was  1985  a representative  2 to  Chambers,  issues  illustrated  get  head  were i n t e r v i e w e d  people,  1976;  i n September,  board.  interviews  interviewer  background  It  to  e a c h ward  informants  one  began  school  Methods  Techniques  "Pradhan Panch' or  and  general  Productivity Evaluation  and  Nepali.  land,  and  uses  crop  of  fertilizers, and  The  data land  collected  residues.  was  in  holding, uses  amounts o f  crop  farm  1983c;  numbers and  r o t a t i o n s p r a c t i c e d and  compost  general  questionnaire  (LRMP,  composition,  rice  the  yields,  of  each, crop  English translations  3 5  of t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s Since (i.e.  had  co-operation  Institute  intended  lengths  conducted  Four N e p a l i  from  less  this  IAAS  originally  experience  i n t e r p r e t e r s (S. Nepali,  o f t i m e ( 4 t o 31 d a y s ) .  Y.  program f o r  By e a r l y November  of  i n t e r v i e w s and 25 i n f o r m a l i n t e r v i e w s w e r e  i n the Pithuwa  3.3.2  Panchayat.  Data O r g a n i z a t i o n  The i n t e r v i e w d a t a  units  l e c t u r e r - researchers  N. O l i and R. S h r e s t h a ) a s s i s t e d w i t h  75 f o r m a l  before  F.  was n o t p o s s i b l e , more a s s i s t a n t s w i t h  Shrestha,  1985,  with  i n Appendix  o f A g r i c u l t u r e and A n i m a l S c i e n c e ) , as  t o be h i r e d .  varying  are included  analysis.  First  & Statistical  went t h r o u g h s e v e r a l  Analysis  transformations  t h e i n t e r v i e w s w e r e t r a n s l a t e d and a l l  o f m e a s u r e were c o n v e r t e d  A p p e n d i c e s D & J ) . Then D.R.  to metric  Sharraa  units (refer to  and U. Sherma o f I n t e g r a t e d  S u r v e y s S e c t i o n i n Kathraandu t a b u l a t e d  the data  and e n t e r e d i t  o n t o d i s k e t t e s u s i n g an O s b o r n e c o m p u t e r and D B a s e l l p r o g r a m . The d a t a  were b r o u g h t t o C a n a d a and t r a n s l a t e d i n t o an IBMPC  Symphony  program.  converted  to livestock  (Williamson, The d a t a a) b) c) d) e) f)  Finally,  numbers o f v a r i o u s  u n i t s (L.S.U.) u s i n g  livestock  standard  were  values  1978). were s u b d i v i d e d  into  the f o l l o w i n g farm data  sets:  g e n e r a l f a r m and f a m i l y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , livestock section, cropping r o t a t i o n s , c r o p i n p u t s and y i e l d s , s e l e c t e d parameters from 4 p r e v i o u s f a r m d a t a s e t s , and parameters a f f e c t i n g cropping system budgeting a n a l y s i s . ( r e f e r to Table 3.3).  36  Descriptive several ward  statistics  ways: on  and  analysis  by  the  farm  was  size  done on  most a f f e c t e d by  farm  size  Budgeting  techniques  informant  and  worksheet. system  were used  general  Several  'model  to  1  f a c t o r s of  included  3.4  i n Appendix  Forest  Kathmandu  sets.  V to  (Harsh,  to o r g a n i z e data  the  sets  were t h e n  sensitivity (Cobb,  properties  an  of  Malmberg from  &  key  interactive  farm  to t h i s income  Several  cropping  to  some o f  scenarios  are  Field  Biomass  (Gilmore,  Survey  s e v e r a l people  Amatya),  i t was  this  study  area.  S e r v i c e s L t d . was  and  decided be  plots simultaneously  that  our  soil  from  other  to  Depuc Chapa  to conduct  with  data  difficult  Therefore  contracted  organizations in  of  a biomass sampling  survey of  areas. The  to  1986;  applied  1984).  to  these  the  L.  discussions with  forest  Kay,  into  extrapolate  the  by  1986).  information  p r o d u c t i v i t y s t u d i e s would  of  only,  Multivariate  determine  1981;  b i o m a s s and  Forestry  farms  set i n  Productivity Evaluation  3.4.1 After  Set  sampled  data  Techniques  scenarios  production  data  (Wilkinson,  farm  test  set, s o i l  the  Farm D a t a  Budgeting  1985)  data  within  3.3.4  Peterson,  the  whole  were c a l c u l a t e d f o r e a c h  f o r e s t e d p l o t s were d e s c r i b e d  s u c c e s s i o n a l community,  pre-climax  (3rd)  and  climax  and  i . e . primary (4th).  Tree  classified  (1st),  according  secondary  species  were  (2nd),  identified  3 7  and  distinguished  according  to  use  for  timber,  fuelwood  or  fodder. Although plots,  i t was  correspond  to  Within diameter and  studies  are  usually  decided  to  the  plot  the  each  determined  using  (Forest  calculation hectare of  three  and  large  conversion  (Chapa,  L a n d Use  Two  approaches,  In  substudies  productivity.  less  by  10  diameter the  than  into  meters  7.5  to  cm  fodder  species  were measured  height  of  trees  at was  These  using  fuelwood  from  papers  calculate  standard  /USAID, 1 9 6 4 ) . of  to  conversion  Similarly, a  in kilograms i n the  per  Nepal  Journal  1985).  the  Plan  environmental were used  conservationist as  frameworks  and  the  for  alternatives.  a p p r o a c h , key of  Compilation  above were used  factors  Management  use  first  cm  timberwood,  Survey  making a p p r o a c h e s ,  the  7.5  & Data  done f o r w e i g h t  land  10  bigger  clinometer.  3.5  evaluating  saplings  a t a p e m e a s u r e , and  Resources  was  using  Forestry  decision  over  Calculations  small  size  were d i v i d e d  measurements d e s c r i b e d  volumes of tables  a  and  Totals  Trees  using  3.4.2 The  plot, trees  saplings.  height  keep  done u s i n g  a g r i c u l t u r a l sampling.  were c o u n t e d .  other  breast  biomass  soil  f a c t o r s were i d e n t i f i e d  q u a l i t y , farm  f a c t o r s were t h e n  (Spearman c o r r e l a t i o n , S Y S T A T ) , or  p r o d u c t i v i t y and compared  tested  and  from  the  forest  correlated  for significance  38  between c a t e g o r i c  groupings ( K r u s k a l - W a l l i s ,  SYSTAT).  results  to suggest s o i l  recommendations  land  were used  steps.  second First,  decision-maker focus.  management in  for  use management. The  the  conserving  The  approach  consideration  decision  alternatives.  i n the study a l s o was g i v e n  (eg. governmental  In the second  the f i n a l  used  step  step  followed  as t o w h i c h  l e v e l of  planner, i n d i v i d u a l  six criteria  making were i d e n t i f i e d .  to e v a l u a t e s e v e r a l  land  three  f a r m e r ) was  i m p o r t a n t i n farm These  were t h e n  use management  used  39  CHAPTER 4: The quality soil  purposes under  properties space  and  4.1  of t h i s  current  properties,  agroforestry  RESULTS OF  and  throughout  seven  representative  uses,  to determine  for conserving s o i l .  Variability  i n Appendix  of S o i l  use  should  noted  that  took  statistical  random s e l e c t i o n .  variability  plots,  Appendix  a r e used  G,  4.1.1 The range,  i . e . 1 t o 160  property CV's  coefficients  and  land  for a l l soil  use  and  over The  summarized  Variability  sampling  on  strictly  d a t a from  the  seven  Data  analysis  (CV's)  per c e n t , t h a t  1 and  and  2 in  discussion.  Type  covered a  seemed  The  Set  related  considerable to  soil  order of i n c r e a s i n g 4.1)  was  It  use  for  W i t h i n Land  (Table  of  requirement.  f o r the l a n d  in Soils  of v a r i a t i o n  category.  f o r purposes  criteria  f o r the f o l l o w i n g  properties  to economize  soil  were c o n s i d e r e d  the c r i t e r i a  precedence  as  or  Abbreviations for  categories  of v a r i a t i o n  categorization  of legume-based  of  A.  plots  coefficients though  soil  Properties  variability  of the l a n d  the  the v a r i a b i l i t y  the d i s c u s s i o n  comparing be  EVALUATION  chapter are to determine  land  are explained  The  SOIL QUALITY  to a s s e s s the p o t e n t i a l  systems  a r e used  THE  as  overall  follows:  pH(H20) <pH(CaC12) <BDens <orgC <totN <CEC <FC <WHC <WP <extFe < e x t A l <BSat <excCa <excMg <avaP <excK < e x c A l <Comp. Some o f t h e v a l u e s were l o w e r review  of the l i t e r a t u r e ,  phosphorus  and  than  in particular  exchangeable  those expected total  calcium (Table  nitrogen,  4.2).  This  from  a  available was  40  Table 4.1:  Coefficients of Variation (CV%) for Various Land Use Categories (LU) & for Different  Soil 10 samples within 10 by 10 m. field Properties Forest LU Agriculture LU Legume LU fa fd pc pa kh pd pi pH (H20) 4.1 pH (CaC12) 6.9 orgC 13.7 totN 9.3 avaP 43.3 excCa 45.2 excMg 24.9 excK 37.6 CBC 11.6 Base Sat* 26.0  3.3 5.2 13.6 10.1 51.8 44.7 22.9 48.3 11.6 29.3  1.7 2.8 2.4 3.3 3.4 4.2 43.2 6.9 23.7 38.4 9.5 12.6 6.0 13.4 93.5 159.3 7.4 6.3 10.1 12.9  1.7 1.4 5.1 22.3 19.9 9.6 14.4 83.3 7.5 11.0  extFe (cbd) extAl (cbd) excAl (KC1) PC (l/3bar) WP (15bar) WHC Bulk Dens. Compaction *58.2 19.7 159.2 146.1 105.8  1.7 3.5 2.5 1.7 18.8 8.2 9.9 69.2 13.6 13.5  3 samples within 10 by 10 m. field Overall Forest LU Agriculture LU Legume LU Landfa fd pc pa kh pd pi type 5c  1.4 2.8 24.1 11.1 24.6 16.6 17.9 23.1 25.0 18.4  1.0 2.4 5.9 6.3 22.2 12.1 6.1 15.9 7.3 3.9 1.7 3.3 117.9 5.2 1.4 9.1 5.0  4.3 2.0 2.0 4.2 1.2 3.1 8.6 2.0 5.1 15.4 58.8 6.7 24.9 14.3 44.4 29.4 8.0 15.4 14.5 0.0 13.5 37.1 54.3 102.8 2.3 5.2 6.4 14.5 7.5 22.5  1.7 1.0 1.8 2.3 3.4 4.5 54.5 0.0 0.8 24.7 18.9 3.9 22.2 4.0 75.0 88.9 3.4 3.4 20.7 5.8  0.0 2.5 53.3 20.0 11.2 23.8 21.3 15.4 19.4 6.5  7.6 12.9 20.2 25.2 69.0 38.2 44.2 91.3 30.0 37.8  1.7 31.9 2.9 31.3 48.6 0.0 4.6 4.1 2.3 1.0 6.8 4.7 42.0 3.6  44.4 12.6 31.3 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.8 5.9 2.5 1.2 3.3 10.3 6.2  31.6 30.0 0.0 15.7 39.8 33.7 5.1  31.7 35.7 182.4 22.9 34.4 32.5 16.2  35.8 36.8 0.0 15.9 1.2 21.3 14.3  102.2  15 observations within 10 by 10 m. field  Table 4.2:  Soil Property Analysed  Coefficients of Variation in Chitawan Study Compared with Literature Values  Overall Forest LU Agric LU Landfa,fd pa-pd,kh type 5c  pH in H20 pH in CaC12 orgC totN avaP excCa excMg excK CEC Base Sat%  3-4 5-7 13-14 9-11 43-53 44-46 22-25 37-50 11-12 26-30  1-3 1-4 2-5 1-43 18-38 8-13 6-15 69-160 6-14 10-14  Selected Literature: Beckett & Webster, 1971 Wilding & Drees, 1983 Smeck & Wilding, 1980 Wilding, 1982  8 13 20 25 69 38 44 91 30 38  *A (1971) O.Olha  10-20 10-20 13-121 10-40 10-20 11-112  Selected Literature Values *B *C (1971-81) (1980-83) Forest Agric. Overall <2.0ha  11-65 06-153 20-127 12-96 13-63  29-56 5-74 16-186 12-96 13-111  7 2-11 34 11-65 5-153 5-186 36-41 2-111  <15 <15 35 + 35 + 35 + 35 + 15-35 15-35  Bracewell, Robertson & Logan, 1979 Blyth & Macleod, 1978 Campbell, 1978 Patterson s Wall, 1981  41  probably study  due  (LRMP  active  to  the  fact  that  mapping  unit  5c)  alluvial  and  4.1.2 Two that and  generalizations  selected  the  soil  uses  were  soil  properties  variable the  less  than  obvious  vegetation Deeper  root  increase  relatively  processes  Within  can  be  properties.  than  the  within  forested  CV's  Land  made  land  relation  in to  type with  in  Categories  Figures  v a r i a t i o n by the  CV's  o v e r a l l land  4.1  land of  4.2  use  category  individual  type.  uses  and  were  usually  was  not  types,  sizes  and  distributions  size  of  nutrient  of  soil  the  surprising  variability  extraction  properties  land  Secondly,  This  the  this  less  uses.  and  variability  stable  Use  from  First, of  land  influencing i t .  a g r i c u l t u r a l land  development  the  predominant  c o e f f i c i e n t s of  differences in  is  erosional  Variability  summarize  the  given of  plots.  would  under  less  also  forested  land  uses. The nitrogen under  exceptions and  some  scrutiny  had  a  high  probably  of  in  related  base  to  cultivation,  generalizations  potassium,  a g r i c u l t u r a l land  these base  findings.  content.  irrigation  contributes  saturation  these  which uses  a g r i c u l t u r a l systems  for  distribution This  the  the  explanations area  both  exchangeable  of  of  to  irrigated  as  pH  a  or  would cation  Thus be  use  less  water and  soil  Closer  in  the  study  uniform  to  maximize uniform  properties  variable  exchange  variable  4.3).  relatively any  total  possible  important  higher,  fields.  saturation  such  to  Irrigation  is  most  (Figure  reveals  Efficient  water  were  were  under  capacity.  In  yields. base  42  fd  pe  po  kh  Land U»« Ca1«goH«t oroC « CtC  pH  Low C o e f f i c i e n t s S o i l Property  fd  of V a r i a t i o n  pc  po  (CV%) by Land Use  and  kh  Land U i « Calagorlas  Medium C o e f f i c i e n t s o f V a r i a t i o n and S o i l P r o p e r t y  (CV%) by Land  Use  Land U«« Cot*goii»i ovaP O *KCK  Variable Coefficients and S o i l P r o p e r t y  of V a r i a t i o n  (CV%) by Land  Use  c o n t r a s t , management o f m a j o r phosphorus  and  crop n u t r i e n t s  potassium, could contribute  variability.  Inorganic f e r t i l i z e r  fields,  but  Manure and  the t i m i n g  and  under v a r i o u s c r o p p i n g r o t a t i o n s . combinations different  of c r o p s would  rates.  s u c h as r i c e  o r wheat ( S a n c h e z ,  corresponded  t o where t h e p o t a t o row  and  y e a r s and  where t h e c o m p o s t had  l e v e l s would  vary  Comparison is and  another  useful  been u n l o a d e d ,  from  literature  values  t o t h e wheat  systems,  row  potassium  comparable  exchangeable 1978;  (Campbell,  bases  literature  of s t u d y  study.  to the  and  and  were u s u a l l y  forest total  phosphorus  lower  W i l d i n g & Drees,  Smeck & W i l d i n g , 1 9 8 0 ) .  are  The  B r a c e w e l l et a l , 1979).  1978;  area  when s p e c i f i e d  o r g a n i c carbon  under a g r i c u l t u r e  P a t t e r s o n & W a l l , 1982;  Size  those i n the Chitawan  i n t h a t pH,  were l o w and  CV's  sample  f o r the  the r e s u l t i n g  (Table 4.2).  s t u d y were g e n e r a l l y  were h i g h ( B l y t h & M a c l e o d , the Chitawan  crops  soil  been l o c a t e d  v a l u e s w i t h those i n the  or a g r i c u l t u r e  literature  n i t r o g e n CV's  had  sample c o r r e s p o n d e d  o f t h e s e CV  different  variability  T h u s , i f one  by  greatly.  the type of f o r e s t  values of t h i s  1976).  at  removal  4 t o 5 t i m e s t h a t by o t h e r  b u t must be q u a l i f i e d  often quite  to a l l  differs  nutrients  For example, the r a t e of potassium  been f o u n d  two  socio-  in piles  of a p p l i c a t i o n  and  Simultaneously, different  p o t a t o e s has  last  the farmer's  remove t h e s e m a j o r  t o be  to  are broadcast  compost a r e a p p l i e d  the season  43 nitrogen,  significantly  applications  t h e amount v a r i e s a c c o r d i n g t o c r o p and economic s t a t u s .  s u c h as  than 1978;  CV's But the  44  4.1.3 A d e q u a c y The  soil  subdivided limits  of Sampling  properties  into  three  (Wilding  and t h e i r  broad  & Drees,  CV v a l u e s  groups using  from T a b l e  generally  CV < 15% o r l e a s t v a r i a b l e pH i n b o t h H20 and CaC12 organic carbon c a t i o n exchange c a p a c i t y water h o l d i n g c a p a c i t y  b)  CV 15 t o 35% o r m o d e r a t e l y v a r i a b l e p r o p e r t i e s : total nitrogen e x c h a n g e a b l e magnesium base s a t u r a t i o n exchangeable calcium ( a g r i c u l t u r e only) bulk density compaction  c)  CV > 35% o r most v a r i a b l e p r o p e r t i e s : a v a i l a b l e phosphorus exchangeable potassium exchangeable calcium ( f o r e s t land uses) e x t r a c t a b l e i r o n & aluminum.  least  confidence of  Properties  land  widespread  comparison.  Data  less accurate limits,  mean v a l u e s using  a 95%  f o r the other  mean e s t i m a t e s  f o r the  two g r o u p s  c a n be a c c e p t e d  s u c h a s 90% l e v e l  and w i t h i n  o f mean.  Five  data  10 p e r c e n t  I t was n o t a d e q u a t e  unless  4.2 S o i l  the  to e s t i m a t e  within  d i f f e r e n t confidence  percent  and  properties  level.  properties  with  properties:  s a m p l e s were a d e q u a t e  variable  accepted  1982):  a)  Ten  4.2 were  from  Under F i v e  use c a t e g o r i e s i n the area  The f o l l o w i n g ten plots  Predominant  were c o n s i d e r e d  or important analysis  i n each  for a  Land  either  S e t 3 and 4 ( r e f e r t o A p p e n d i x G ) .  land  prevalent  baseline  and d i s c u s s i o n  of these  Uses  uses  a r e b a s e d on i.e.  Soils  20  45  4.2.1 Many s o i l of  land  in  properties  decreased  of a l l p o s s i b l e  the surface  only  confidence  there  chemical  properties  with  combinations  These  horizon,  discussion unless  forest  occurred  of s o i l  to popular  nitrogen,  assumptions,  uses  in soil  properties,  There  (pc,pa,kh),  However,  capacity,  use  Since  horizon,  r e f e r s to values  the f o r e s t e d  were  land  the  i n the A  o f e x h a u s t i v e Mann-Whitney  land  carbon such  uses, the  and  total  as a v a i l a b l e  improved  under  among t h e a g r i c u l t u r a l  examination.  Table  U-tests:  under each  uses  Where t h e o r i g i n a l  between t h e f o r e s t e d  results  properties  In  in physical  some p r o p e r t i e s ,  that  soil  area.  due t o l a n d  to a g r i c u l t u r a l  (fa,fd)  different  a t 95% uniform  surface  quality.  were d i f f e r e n c e s  closer  horizon  use c h a n g e s .  such as o r g a n i c  and d i f f e r e n c e s  merit  while  specified.  p h o s p h o r u s and w a t e r h o l d i n g cultivation.  U-tests  the study  i n the s o i l  had been c o n v e r t e d  declined.  property  different,  differences  properties  i . e . 45 p e r  relatively  throughout  pairs  of  f o r the C  (by Mann-Whitney suggest  when  use and s o i l  (49% i n A h o r i z o n ) than  otherwise  of s e v e r a l  depth;  combinations  results  were n o t a l w a y s t h e h i g h e s t  status  soil  ( 3 9 % i n A h o r i z o n ) due t o l a n d  Contrary  natural  The number  of land  were more s i g n i f i c a n t  properties  different  were s i g n i f i c a n t l y  and mapping u n i t  most o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e s following  4.3).  increasing  different  level).  material  general,  (Table  of a l l p o s s i b l e  were s i g n i f i c a n t l y  in  were s i g n i f i c a n t l y  or A horizon  16 p e r c e n t  parent  Trends  u s e s were compared  differences cent  General  paired  4.4  the land  land  land uses  summarizes the  significantly use  comparison.  Table 4.3:  Summary of Mann-Whitney U-tests of Significance of Soil Properties Under 5 Predominant Land Use Categories  Horizon Basis A B  Profile Basis ASB A,BSC  C  Soil properties analysed: chemical physical # Land Use Comparisons Combinations: soil x LU  14 8 10 220  14 6 10 200  14 6 10 200  14 6 10 200  14 6 10 200  •Significant differences: chemical physical a l l properties  68(49%) 32(39%) 100(45%)  47(34%) 9(15%) 56(28%)  23(16%) 4( 7%) 27(14%)  38(19%)  19(10%)  •significant differences at 95% probability level  47 Table 4.4: Results of the Mann-Whitney Tests o f S i g n i f i c a n c e o f S o i l P r o p e r t i e s (prop) by Horizon (horz) under Predominant Land Uses (horizons a,b o r c l i s t e d i f d i f f e r e n c e s are s i g n i f i c a n t a t p<0.05) fa:  fd  natural  forest  prop  horz prop  horz  phh*  a  degraded  phc  a  forest  orgC  excAl a  totN  PC  avaP  WP  excCa abc  WHC  excMg a c  Silt  excK  Clay  cec  a  Sand BDens  bsat  ab  Comp  phh  t r a d i t i o n a l phc upland  degraded f o r e s t  prop  horz prop  horz  pc: traditional prop  horz prop  prop  horz prop  extFe  phh  ab  extFe  extAl  phc  abc  extAl a c excAl abc  a  excAl  orgC  a  totN  a  PC  totN  a  avaP  a  WP  avaP a excCa abc  WP  ab  WHC  abc  WHC  excMg a  Silt  excMg  Silt  be  excK  Clay  excK  Clay  b  excNa a  Sand  excNa  cec  BDens a  abc  a  extFe  phh  ab  extFe  extAl  phc  ab  extAl  PC  excCa  a  c  Sand  cec  ab  BDens a  bsat  abc  Comp  Comp  pa innovative  phh  extFe a  phh  phc  extAl  phc  abc  extAl a c  phc  upland  orgC  ab  excAl  orgC  ab  excAl abc  orgC  b  excAl  with potato totN  ab  FC  totN  ab  ab  totN  b  FC  avaP  ab  WP  avaP  ab  FC WP  ab  avaP  ab  WP  excCa abc  WHC  abc  excCa  b  extFe  phh  b  extFe extAl a  WHC  excMg a  Silt  excMg  Silt  abc  excMg  WHC Silt  excK  Clay  excK  Clay  ab  excK  Clay  excNa ab  Sand  excNa  Sand  excNa  cec  BDens a  cec  ab  BDens a  cec  bsat  abc  Camp  bsat  extFe  phh  abc  extFe  phh  extAl  phc  abc  extAl a  phc  excAl  orgC  excAl a c  orgC  a  bsat  Camp  phh  lowland  orgC  3 crops  totN avaP  b  FC a  a  be  a  excCa  phc  a  a  WP WHC  excCa excMg  a  a  Sand b  BDens Comp  b a  a  b  excAl  orgC  totN  a  FC  a  totN  FC  totN  avaP  a  WP  a  avaP  WP  avaP  a  excCa  WHC  excCa  WHC  excMg ab  Silt  excMg abc  Silt Clay  excCa abc  WHC  Silt  excMg abc  Silt  FC ab  Clay  excK  a  Clay  excK  Clay  excK  Sand  excNa a  Sand  excNa a  Sand  excNa a  cec  BDens a  cec  ab  BDens a  cec  BDens  cec  Camp  bsat  abc  Camp  bsat  bsat  a a  a  a  c a  Camp  a b b r e v i a t i o n s f o r s o i l p r o p e r t i e s explained i n Appendix A .  a  bsat  b c  excAl  excNa ab  excK  horz  b  bsat  kh  horz  pa: upland with potato  a  orgC  irrigated  upland  extFe extAl a  excNa ab  pc  fd:  a  WP a  Sand c  BDens Comp  a  48  4.2.2 Similar soil  trends  chemical  organized The  Chemical  i n t o four first  standard  deviations  under  the  somewhat  groups of  group  and  4.4  c h a n g e s were e v i d e n t  properties. Therefore  nitrogen  Figures  or  Properties  of  to  f o r these  4.6.  land  leaf  Perhaps there  significant  d i f f e r e n c e s to  properties  dropped  Within  agricultural  exchange c a p a c i t y  being  occurred  under  not  fa  x  'fd'.  T  or  Levels  of  where l a n d organic  the  matter  Total  conditions  of  was  of  nitrogen  this  carbon  rice  rates  according  to  and  or  the  i n the  rice,  mustard,  rotation  the  ('pc' but  increase of  Highest  pa'  from  the rates  cropping  puddled,  expected  the  innovative,  a s i m i l a r trend  x  for  cation  decomposition  pc'  The  elapsed three  and  under  changes.  occurred  cultivation.  estimated  x  less  been c u l t i v a t e d .  precluded  of  these  ploughed, aerated lowest  showed  property  caused  the  double-cropping  Different rates  probably  i n the and  traditional  was  untouched  time  had  higher  different  This  natural,  total  in  f o r e s t had  been enough  develop.  options  significantly  degraded  were s i g n i f i c a n t l y  variability  rotations;  nitrogen  had  the  was  and  summarized  x  significant.  organic  than  carbon,  mean v a l u e s  are  ' f a ' and  f d ' or  significantly  maize, mustard). high  The  were n o t  x  organic  t r i p l e - c r o p p i n g r o t a t i o n ( i . e . kh'  maize) than  the  the  litter  situations.  or  included  uses,  discussion  of  properties.  properties  A l l three  forested  from  irrigated  chemical  properties  surprising since  the  following  c a t i o n exchange c a p a c i t y .  two  additions  the  f o r c e r t a i n groups  crop  cropping  anaerobic removal  h i s t o r y of  of the  49  Figure  4.4:  Figure  4.5:  Land Use Category  O r g a n i c C a r b o n % Under 5 P r e d o m i n a n t (means and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s )  Land  Uses  Land  Uses  Land Use Category T o t a l N i t r o g e n % Under 5 P r e d o m i n a n t (means and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s )  210 .0 2 20 ..0 20 0 0 190 .0 180 .0 170 .0 160 .0 150 .0 140 .0 130 .0 120 .0 110 .0 100 .0 90 .0 80 .0 70 .0  Land Uaa Category Figure  4.b:  C a t i o n Exchange C a p a c i t y % Under 5 P r e d o m i n a n t Uses (means and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s )  Land  50  area  (section  2.3) and b a s e d on e x p e c t e d n u t r i e n t  ( S a n c h e z , 1976;  Mengel  by f a r m e r s ( s e c t i o n  & Kirkby,  5.3.4).  1982) f o r t h e y i e l d s  I t was i n t e r e s t i n g  f o r e s t was c o n v e r t e d t o a g r i c u l t u r e , in  nitrogen  ( 1 0 0 0 k g / h a ) was h a l f  crop removal of t h i s  nutrient  removal  given  reported  t h a t when  the a c t u a l average  o f what one w o u l d  rates  natural  decline  expect i n  t h e 22 y e a r s o f t r i p l e and  double cropping h i s t o r y . The  second group  of properties included  pH, e x c h a n g e a b l e  c a l c i u m , e x c h a n g e a b l e m a g n e s i u m and b a s e s a t u r a t i o n 4.8).  The h i g h e s t mean v a l u e s i n t h i s  under a g r i c u l t u r a l  land  under  forest.  t h e degraded  (kh) were a l s o  forest  forest  Exchangeable  ( f a ) and i r r i g a t e d different  rice  (i.e.  respectively).  the  two r a i n f e d  cropping situations,  and  1.17 meq/lOOg. s o i l ) w e r e l o w e r t h a n t h e n a t u r a l  These  s t u d y o f t h e g e o l o g y maps o f t h e r e g i o n  the  agricultural  degraded  forest  explained  (LRMP, 1 9 8 4 a ;  t h a t i s used f o r i r r i g a t i o n  f o r the differences  between  forest,  they  f o r e s t (1.27  l a n d u s e s , p a s s e s t h r o u g h a band  Reasons  1.23  %  l i m e s t o n e b e d r o c k u p s t r e a m and t h u s becomes r i c h magnesium.  cultivation  o r ' p c ' and p a ' ( i . e .  t r e n d s c a n be p a r t i a l l y  Kair Khola, the r i v e r  magnesium  A l t h o u g h magnesium v a l u e s u n d e r  lower than t h e degraded  The  land  1.88 a n d 1.87  meq/lOOg. s o i l ,  meq/lOOg. s o i l ) .  found  ( f a ) were n o t s i g n i f i c a n t f o r  saturation.  not s i g n i f i c a n t l y  were n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y  found  D i f f e r e n c e s among a g r i c u l t u r a l  e x c h a n g e a b l e c a l c i u m and base natural  g r o u p were u s u a l l y  u s e s ; and l o w e s t v a l u e s were o f t e n  u s e s ( p c , p a , k h ) and n a t u r a l  v a l u e s under  ( F i g u r e s 4.7,  by a  1985a). water of  o f d o l o m i t e and i n c a l c i u m and  n a t u r a l and  a r e e v i d e n t f r o m some o f t h e f o r e s t r y  literature.  51 10  o o \  • E  \ ^  c o  a  o  (VI F i g u r e 4.7:  Co  W~X  Land Use Category K  Mg  LXZ  Na  E x c h a n g e a b l e C a t i o n s Under 5 P r e d o m i n a n t Land Uses (means i n meq/lOOg s o i l )  0»  o o \  tr s E  o.oo Land Use Category bases  F i g u r e 4.8:  Al  O  CEC  A  ECEC  T o t a l B a s e s , E x c h a n g e a b l e Aluminum, C a t i o n Exchange C a p a c i t y ( C E C ) & E f f e c t i v e C a t i o n Exchange C a p a c i t y (ECEC) Under 5 P r e d o m i n a n t Land Uses (means i n meq/lOOg s o i l )  52 The  degraded  especially these  forests  be  fodder  nutrients  rainwash  and  f o r e s t would  and  leaves,  (Panday,  canopy  third  since  taken  of  this  group  of  soil  two  did  differences. similar  causes  phosphorus and  not  ppm,  The  are  respectively).  generally  declined  agriculture use  but  (irrigated  (i.e.  from These  rates  of  various  0.36  to  erratic nutrient  land  potatoes potassium  vary  highest uses,  when n a t u r a l  use  extraction  considerably  f a r m e r s were a d d i n g  these  each  values  1976;  from  vegetation would  4.9,  two  4.10). or  significant  properties  here.  These  may  and  degraded  forest  other  ( i . e . 42  and  ( i . e . 77-132 ppm) 'pa',  a  triple-  f o r e s t was  converted  to  variable.  the  a significant  'kh'  land  decline  soil).  best  explained  by  the  differing  replenishment  within  s u c h as  m a i z e , wheat  in their Der  Only  33  were  levels  and  have  Available  Potassium  Crops,  Van  available  potatoes.  meq/lOOg  systems.  (Sanchez,  (Figures  c u l t i v a t i o n ) showed  r e s u l t s are  includes  e s p e c i a l l y under  included  0.10  of  deciduous  understory  under n a t u r a l  r e s u l t s were h i g h l y rice  bases  ' f d ' f o r e s t , there  together  d i f f e r e n t from  r o t a t i o n that  the  show s i m i l a r t r e n d s  discussed  under a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d cropping  much o f  changes of  The  of  contents  common i n t r o p i c a l  potassium  l e v e l s were l o w e s t  significantly  high  additions  properties  always  erratic  and  High  leaf l i t t e r ,  type.  exchangeable not  of  relatively  away i n t h e  p h o s p h o r u s and properties  their  1982).  but  s h r u b s have been less additions  with  t h r o u g h f a l l are  (Nye,1961);  The  have l e s s a d d i t i o n s  removal  Veen,  manure/ compost  rice,  and  of  1982).  the  phosphorus Most  inorganic  of  and  and  the  fertilizers  to  53 190  E  a. a  \ ^  »  3 k. 0  a. m  0  c a  a o o >  r  fd  pc  pa  kh  Land Us* Category  Figure  A v a i l a b l e P h o s p h o r u s Under 5 P r e d o m i n a n t (means & s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s i n ppm)  4.9  Land  Uses  0.80  0.70  o  0.60  o o \  • E a o • a c o £ o  0.50  -  0.40  0.30  0.20  -  0.10  0.00  Land Use Category  Figure  4.10:  E x c h a n g e a b l e P o t a s s i u m Under 5 P r e d o m i n a n t Land Uses (means & s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s i n meq/lOOg)  54  their  fields,  but  varied  according  reduce  the  often  small  forests the  by  is  iron  in  Levels  of  iron  The  fourth  exchangeable  to  1976).  Free  amorphous oxides  and  were  effects  on  A  and  fixation  of  free  hand,  in  and  Exchangeable  It  into  and  free  was  hydrous  availability,  types  horizons  of  under  in  or  a l l a g r i c u l t u r a l land  cation  exchange  capacity  (CEC)  cation  exchange  capacity  (ECEC)  in  natural one  of  profile.  lower  influence  the  (Figures  as  of  or  (Juo,  'coatings'  oxides. their  4.7-  necessary ECEC  of  These  than  Figure be  under  4.8  adjusted  i f exchangeable  free  indirect  significantly  forest  uses. would  include  p a r t i c u l a r phosphorus  were  degraded  forest  more  the  capacity  because  aluminum  of  soluble  considered  and  important  and  also  aluminum  occur  considered  rate  increased  properties  often  oxides  the  contribute  the  is  soils  iron  crystalline  to  potassium.  aluminum  aluminum  would  potassium  exchange  and  contrast  slower  by  the  chemical  iron  In  Also  held.  leached  found  problems.  be  replaced  oxides  soil  would  been  improve  throughfall  loosely  and  have  1985).  (Nye,1961).  be  applications  and  'effective' cation  Both B  a l ,  other  phosphorus  group  nutrient  potassium. the  aluminum  both  4.11-4.13).  to  fields  aluminum,  calculate  and  nutrients  and  et  canopy  the  the  applications  phosphorus  cycled  rice  of  and  On  of  f i x phosphorus  phosphorus  forest.  flooded  to  timing  phosphorus  organic  the  availability  4.8,  of  quickly of  Manure  rainwash of  and  (Tisdale  more  amounts  under  first  crop.  ability  have  decomposition variable  amount  availability  Replenishment only  to  soil's  phosphorus forests  type,  and  higher natural  illustrates to  in  how  effective  aluminum  levels  55  Figure  Figure  4.11:  4.12:  fd pc ndt U e tego yo r i z o n oL fa hs e C Aa Hr  Free Iron (cbd) % Uses (means & s t a n d a r d  Under  5  Land  I r o n ( c b d ) % of the B H o r i z o n Under U s P S (means & standard deviations)  Land Use Category  5  Land  Land Use Category  Under  Free  deviations)  07.0  Figure  4.13  Free Aluminum (cbd) % of the A H o r i z o n Uses (means & s t a n d a r d deviations)  5 Land  56  are this  considered. adjustment.  saturation 1979). trend,  areas  the  below t h e  level  of  ' f d ' had  other  values  2.41%).  The  land  uses  The  reasons  i n pH,  changes  i n land  4.2.3 Bulk  use  may  Physical  distribution,  i.e. %silt,  the  this  same  deviation  the  other trend,  i n the  various not  land  clearly  uses  than  hand, in  that (2.07-  B horizons  were  (0.20-0.35%).  understood  mineralogy  partially  various  4.14  and  land  %sand to  three  On  the  but  accompanying  these  responsible.  Properties  under  of  somewhat  & Lai,  agricultural situations  clay  compaction  Figures  H).  warrant aluminum  (Juo  standard  aluminum  are  or  be  significantly  deviations  the  free  trends  base s t a t u s  density,  unchanged.  mean and  d i f f e r e n t under  f o r these  changes  of  concern  a r e v e r s a l of  under  would  percentage  followed  (Appendix  showed  percentages  significantly  A horizon  a higher  were f o u n d  not  forest soils  i n these  iron i n B horizon  higher  degraded  i r o n i n the  i n that the  the  Even  ( 3 - 6 % ) was  Free  most o f free  Only  water h o l d i n g uses, while  and  4.16  %clay,  particle  remained  summarize  physical  capacity  the  properties  changed  size  relatively  means and  that  varied  standard with  land  use. Soils mean b u l k 1.09  and  various Bulk  under a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d d e n s i t i e s than  1.27-1.33 Mg/  m3  increased  became d e g r a d e d ,  under  from but  were s u b t l e 1.27  to  significantly  forested  respectively.  a g r i c u l t u r a l options  density  forest  those  u s e s had  1.33  land  uses,  Differences and  not  Mg/  m3  r e s u l t s were so  lower 1.03-  among  significant. when  variable  natural that  these  57  E  N.  Figure  4.14:  Figure  4.15:  Land Use Categore is B u l k D e n s i t y (Mg/m3) Under 5 P r e d o m i n a n t Land (means & s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s )  Lend U i * Categories  Compaction Land Uses 31.0  30.0  -  29.0  -  2B.0  -  27.0  -  25.0 24.0 23.0 22.0 21.0 20.0 19.0 18.0 17.0 -  15.0 14.0  Figure  4.16:  ^  o f S u r f a c e (kg/cm2) Under 5 P r e d o m i n a n t (means & s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s )  26.0  16.0  Uses  Land Use Categore is Water H o l d i n g C a p a c i t y (%) Under 5 P r e d o m i n a n t Land U s e s (means & s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s )  58  differences The  were a l s o  mean v a l u e s  not s i g n i f i c a n t . f o r compaction  five  predominant  land  bulk  densities.  However, t h e m a g n i t u d e  greater level  making  showed  a l l differences  and some d i f f e r e n c e s  Compaction  was l o w e s t  agricultural cultivation  reflection  traffic The natural  i n these water  24 t o 25.  o f t h e c h a n g e s was much  t h e 'pakho' o r u n i r r i g a t e d ,  cm u n d e r  under  irrigated  V a l u e s were e x t r e m e l y  degraded  rice  high, i . e .  f o r e s t , and were  amounts o f v i l l a g e r  unpuddled  probably  and l i v e s t o c k  areas.  holding  and d e g r a d e d  significantly  a s means f o r  s i g n i f i c a n t a t 95% c o n f i d e n c e  forest.  of the l a r g e  under the  s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e 99% l e v e l .  under  and n a t u r a l  surface  t h e same t r e n d  s i t u a t i o n s , and i n t e r m e d i a t e  3.7 t o 4.7 k g / s q u a r e a  uses  of the s o i l  capacities  of the s o i l s  both  f o r e s t were l o w , i . e . 17 t o 18, and were  d i f f e r e n t f r o m WHCs u n d e r  S i g n i f i c a n t l y higher  u s e s were e v i d e n t  (WHCs) u n d e r  under  values  'pakho* than  'khet' or puddled  agriculture,  under a l l o t h e r  rice  cropping  i.e. land  systems  ( i . e . 28). Changes their  i n these  e f f e c t s on p l a n t  three  capacities  effects  on t h e c o n d i t i o n  time  subsequent surface the  erosive  such  erosion  and h i g h e r  bulk  of both  i n the l a t e dry season  establishment  of a l u s h  further  erosion.  densities  tree  because of  Lower  have  and c r o p  water  negative  species,  i n M a r c h and A p r i l .  canopy  monsoon r a i n s .  a s was f o u n d hazard  are of concern  g r o w t h and s o i l  holding  especially  properties  is critical High  i n degraded  by i n c r e a s i n g  to i n t e r c e p t the  compaction  forested  At t h i s  of  areas  surface  soil accentuates  runoff  59  potential. exposed  Shallower  tree  r o o t s were e v i d e n c e  were w i d e s p r e a d  i n the  4.2.4 Five land  use  t y p e s were a n a l y s e d weathering, analysis.  essentially  the  least  vermiculite  and  in  I.  These  be  is  thus  young  are  Der  classified  phyllites  results  follows:  large the  Since  the  mica  the  processes  five  mineralogy.  mica  they  reddish soils  have or  or O x i s o l s .  i t was  minerals  The  parent  upstream not  chlorite  and  vermiculite  Thirdly,  the  results  implied a relative  material  and  overall  land type  X-Ray  were from  the  bedrock  can  three  illite  be  clay  unit.  1981;  clay enough  mineralogy  study  these  area  types that  i n the  homogeneity  found  important  weathered  surprising  most  chlorite,  m a t e r i a l s of  were a b u n d a n t  mapping  f o r the  minerals  are not  m a t e r i a l of  represent  studies (Joshi,  amounts o f m i c a  parent  To  the a n a l y s i s  to other  the o r i g i n a l  schists,  clay  predominant  samples  or i l l i t e ,  of  1 9 8 5 ) ; and  as L a t e r i t e s of  with  for a l l five  More d e t a i l  d e p o s i t s d e r i v e d from and  of  areas.  sequence of  comparable  that  a reflection  alluvial  for clay  the  Broek,  First,  indicate  soils.  as  quartz.  LRMP, 1983a; Van  minerals  was  results  implications.  forested  examples  erosive  t h e B h o r i z o n s were u s e d  The  same and  abundant  Appendix  repeated  these  samples c o r r e s p o n d i n g  diffraction  to  degraded  that  and  Mineralogical Properties  subsoil  maximum c l a y  to  A h o r i z o n depths  of  was  like illite, samples. the  parent  60  4.2.5  Multivariate Analysis  Three  multivariate  analysis, to  discriminant  of S o i l  Properties  t e c h n i q u e s , p r i n c i p l e components analysis  and  c l u s t e r a n a l y s i s , were  e s t i m a t e the i n t e g r a t i v e e f f e c t s of land  properties, effects.  and  to i d e n t i f y  I t was  assumed  key  that  properties  i f the f i v e  were s u c c e s s f u l l y s e p a r a t e d f r o m represented  distinctly  each  use  soil  to monitor land  other,  different soil  on  use  the  categories  these f i v e  fertility  used  land  uses  management  systems. Principle  components a n a l y s i s  was  used  t o answer  two  questions: 1) w h i c h  properties  behaved  2) w h i c h  properties  accounted  By  combining  to  identify  t h e answers six soil  to both  properties  variation  over the study a r e a ,  another.  The  exchangeable phosphorus The  six properties  and  Forty  (Table  & Figure  both  1  Cluster group  t h e s e q u e s t i o n s i t was that  accounted  y e t behaved  were pH  two  properties  (CaC12),  possible  f o r most o f  differently organic  potassium,  were used  p l o t s out of f i f t y 4.17).  Most  the  from  one  carbon,  available  i n the  discriminant  were c l a s s i f i e d  of those t h a t  were t h e c l o s e l y r e l a t e d  'pakho ,  variation?  compaction.  analysis.  classified  f o r most o f t h e  magnesium, e x c h a n g e a b l e  same s i x s o i l  4.6  similarly?  'pc' and  x  correctly  were i n c o r r e c t l y  pa'  land  uses, i . e .  or r a i n f e d a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d . analysis  the p l o t s using  excMg, excK, avaP,  by  the average  linkage  method  was  t h e d a t a from t h e s i x p r o p e r t i e s  Comp).  Five  groups  were e v i d e n t  used (pH,  that  to orgC,  Table 4.5: Classification matrix of dLscriminant analysis involving 6 soil properties from A horizon illustrating high % similar classification between predicted soil management groups & actual land use categories  Land Use  % similar  Types  classifn.  Predicted soil management groups 1  2  3  4  5  Total  1 or fa  100  8  0  0  0  0  8  2 or fd  100  0  11  0  0  0  11  3 or pc  70  0  0  7  2  1  10  4orpa  80  0  0  2  8  0  10  5 or kh Total  73 B4  2 10  0 11  1 10  0 10  8 9  11 50  62  Legend :  d f m P r  r 4  degraded forest natural forest maize, mustard maize, potato-wheat rice, mustard,maize  3 f r m r  2  f  r r 1 -  P  r  f r  CM  K  f f  dd  ' f  f  m rr r  in _ CO  f  0 -  P m m  d d d  m m  -2  d d  mpmm p m P p P m P  -1 -  dd  d  P d  -3 i  i  -10  -5  i  0 axis  Figure  4.17:  i  i  i  5  10  15  1  G r a p h i c summary use management  of discriminant a n a l y s i s f o r 5 groups using 6 s o i l properties  land  63 generally There  corresponded  with  the f i v e  was some o v e r l a p  over  t h e two f o r e s t e d  traditional But  rainfed  the i r r i g a t e d  rainfed  triple  distinctive  agriculture plots  rice  Sets  land  cropped  following  were i n c l u d e d .  number  discussion G).  I t should  comparisons  4.3.1  Each o f t h e s e leguminous  first  maize  followed  black  gram,  crop  relatively  that  i n Soil  properties  the innovative  i n occurrence.  cropping  Thus t h e s m a l l  ( i . e . 3 t o 5) made  Systems  to the cropping  i n as c l o s e  pair  r o t a t i o n i n three  rotations  slight  properties.  without Plots  compared  was " p c '  intercropped  carbon,  or  with  The i n c l u s i o n o f t h e b l a c k  increases  exchangeable  ways.  as p o s s i b l e .  and *pd' o r m a i z e  by m u s t a r d .  calcium,  increases  a proximity  of cropping  by m u s t a r d  with  Data  difficult.  ( i . e . pH, o r g a n i c  exchangeable these  scattered.  and p h y s i c a l  f o r i t s e f f e c t on s o i l  followed  associated  properties  and t h e  methods was compared t o a s i m i l a r r o t a t i o n  were t h u s p a i r e d  but  be n o t e d  Legume-based C r o p p i n g  Legumes were added  was  into a  on t h e d a t a  chemical  of p l o t s a v a i l a b l e f o r study  The  categories;  Quality  i s based  Both  were n o t w i d e s p r e a d  statistical  the  A.18).  ( k h ) and t h e i n n o v a t i v e  (pa) separated  t o Improve S o i l  5 and 6 ( A p p e n d i x  rotations  (Figure  ( p c ) were q u i t e  use p l o t s  plots  uses  groups.  4.3 I n n o v a t i o n s The  land  gram  i n many o f t h e c h e m i c a l available  magnesium  were n o t s i g n i f i c a n t  phosphorus,  and base  a t t h e 95  saturation)  percent  64 Land Use Code  Plot no.  Distances  Legend: fa fd pc pa kh  natural forest degraded forest maize, mustard maize, potato-wheat rice, mustard, maize  *  denotes plots that agree with land use groupings done by cluster analysis  kh  separation is kh or rice land  PC  2nd separation is forest land uses fa  fd  * * * * * * * pa  * * * *  17 12 18 13 32 31 30 44 50 35 34 24 39 33  _ 1st separation is •  pa land use i.e. potatoes  _ _  J  _  Figure 4.18: Cluster analysis of plots into 6 soil management groups using 6 key properties  65  confidence lower,  level  1.19  and  (Table 4.6). 1.01  g/cc  Bulk  f o r "pc'  C o m p a c t i o n o f s u r f a c e h o r i z o n and no  change ( T a b l e 4.7).  not  statistically  crop  yields The  and  The  soil  second p a i r  legume c r o p .  The  "pd'  inclusion  changes,  farmers'  "kh'  or  o f t h e g r e e n manure c r o p t h e v a l u e s o f many o f t h e  soil  p h o s p h o r u s and  e x c h a n g e a b l e c a l c i u m were s i g n i f i c a n t .  legume c r o p  may  organic matter ratio.  An  carbon  levels,  have r a i s e d  or  and  predominant r o t a t i o n  effecting  had  or  "kh',  i . e . 1.8  and  t h e r e may  the c o a r s e ,  to plough  i t into  than  and  A l l p l o t s were l o c a t e d on  an  0.3  the  the soil.  field  that C:N  organic organic  the Bray  1 method. legume  under the  more  kg/cm2  t h e same f a r m  h a v e been some a t y p i c a l Apparently  The  extent  the  the farmer  overgrown, deep-rooting  made s e v e r a l p a s s e s o v e r  order  Mg/m3.  s u r f a c e l a y e r under the  considerably higher  the r e s u l t s here.  incorporating  Bulk  more o f t h e  i n o r g a n i c f o r m s e x t r a c t a b l e by  compaction of the  respectively.  would lower  simultaneously convert  " k i ' was  l a n d use  t o 0.97  the n i t r o g e n to such  increase i n decomposition  Surprisingly,  "ki'  i . e . f r o m 1.13  available  d e c o m p o s e r s w e r e s t i m u l a t e d by a n a r r o w e r  phosphorus i n t o  rotation  lower,  rice,  of  d i f f e r e n c e s i n organic carbon,  slightly  maize  m u s t a r d , g r e e n manured  p r o p e r t i e s and  d e n s i t y was  though  opinions.  r o t a t i o n s was  * k i ' or r i c e ,  " d a m c h h a ' seemed t o l o w e r  respectively.  enough t o i m p r o v e t h e  i n the  of c r o p p i n g  slightly  w a t e r h o l d i n g c a p a c i t y showed  was  tilth  m u s t a r d , s p r i n g m a i z e and  and  magnitude of these  significant,  the  d e n s i t y v a l u e s were  for  the  factors had  trouble  "dainchha'  with a rented  tractor  and in  66  Table 4.6: Selected Soil Chemical Properties for Comparison of Legume-based Rotations to Similar Rotations Without Legumes  Land Use Code & Description  pH (in H20) mean std  orgC (%) mean std  avaP (ppm) excCa(meq/lOOg) mean std mean std  pc  rainfed maize, mustard  5.8  0.3  1.52  0.10  86  7  4.47  1.49  pd  rainfed maize-legume, mustard  6.2  0.2  1.59  0.10  105  63  6.29  1.26  kh  irrig.rice,mustard,maize  6.4  0.3  1.74  0.12  74  12  7.16  1.19  ki  irrig.rice,mustard,"dainchha'  6.4  0.0  1.49  0.05  56  9  5.28  0.44  kc  irrig. rice, mustard  6.8  0.4  1.42  0.19  26  5  6.23  0.99  kd  irrig. rice, legume  7.2  0.1  1.37  0.13  24  3  6.03  1.10  Table 4.7: Selected Soil Physical Properties for Ccntparison of Legume-based Rotations to Similar Rotations Without Legumes  Land Use Code & Description  Bulk Density(g/cc) mean std 1.19  Compaction(kg/cm2) mean std  pc  rainfed maize, mustard  pd  rainfed maize-legume, mustard 1.01  kh  irrig.rioe,mustard,maize  1.13  0.3  ki  irrig.rice,mustard,"dflinchha' 0.97  1.8  kc  irrig. rice, mustard  1.11  0.05  0.7  0.2  kd  irrig. rice, legume  1.28  0.09  0.9  0.8  0.3 0.07  0.3  0.1  6 7  The  third  method  rotation  was  maturing  rice  such  'masuli'  rice  by  Many s o i l rotation  but  physical  including  t o p l a n t them as as  the  differences,  times  crops,  by  broadcast  bulk under  onto  following a  'kc'  land  seed  the  soil  while  harvested  the e x c e p t i o n  significant. densities the  a difference  i n t h a t the  f o r mustard  and  with  were n o t  m e a s u r e m e n t s were h i g h e r  winter  crop  cropping  use  p r o p e r t i e s were i n c r e a s e d u n d e r  percentage,  caused  a winter  i . e . 'kd'  p r o p e r t i e s , both  probably  legumes i n t h e  slow  ' m a s u l i ' i n c o n t r a s t to f o l l o w i n g the  mustard,  chemical  saturation  of  x  kd'  and  the  of  In  codes. legume  pH  and  terms  base  of  compaction  rotation.  This  was  i n l a n d p r e p a r a t i o n f o r the was  the  ploughed  legume o r  "khet'  and  two  smoothed s e v e r a l  lentil  or compacted  seed rice  was  merely  paddy  field. In  summary, t h e  rotation  by  expected. carried this  these  out  might  f o r two not  tilth  maize  in and  from  changes.  rotations the the  dry  long  crop  ( i . e . *pd'  benefitted the  be  years  yields  by  beneficial  given  intercropping black  use).  latter  Perhaps  two  i n v o l v e d growing season.  and  Drought  the  soil  green  stress  nitrogen fixing  may  have  been variability, soil  improvements  maize  fertility,  manure c r o p  was  gram w i t h  methods o f i n c l u d i n g  the  in  cropping  as  only  concurrent  in soil  the  apparent  noticed definite  s u b t l e improvements  The  as  enough t o show d i f f e r e n c e s  however, had  land  legumes to  i n n o v a t i v e l a n d u s e s had  consecutive  Farmers,  and  of adding  t h r e e methods were not  Some o f t h e s e  fertility. in  advantages  and  legumes or  the  prohibited  monsoon crop masked in  the  lentils nodulation  p r o p e r t i e s a s s o c i a t e d with  68  legumes (Ayanaba & D a r t , innovation  was  noted, that  contradiction the  rice  research  of  described  on  Temple, 1985).  above. the  i n the  drought s t r e s s ,  to i n c l u d e a l l e y  timing  monsoon s e a s o n .  dry  and  legume  S o y b e a n s were a l l e y - c r o p p e d  legumes would s c h e d u l e f i e l d nodulation  A fourth  compensated f o r the  paddy bunds d u r i n g  l e g u m e s and signs  1977;  Ideally future  work l a t e r  season could  be  would improve the  cropped r o t a t i o n s l i k e  the  along  so  that  the  examined  sampling  fourth  for  design  legume  innovation.  4.3.2 The within  agroforestry  the  existing  t r e e u s e d was renowned best  Agroforestry  the  Rarapur, o v e r 30 different  land  study  therefore  not  s a m p l e d on  a  intermediate First, ^ p i ' or  rotation as  pH,  multi-purpose  located  on  kilometers type,  as  'ipilipil'  the  stable  land  i n the only the  without  the  .  I t was  sp.,  The  baseline  The  Farm s o u t h  s i t u a t e d on  4c',  than the  agricultural  a  and  the  other  use  'pc'  Japanese Extension  Farm  u s e d as  land  of  rest  flooded  Thus, d i r e c t comparison w i t h  comparison  an  here.  r o t a t i o n s on  the  s y s t e m and  t r e e s , were c o m p a r e d .  e x c C a , excMg and  x  The  fixation.  occasionally severely  t y p e i n P i t h u w a was  two  rotation.  Japanese Extension  ipilipil-agroforestry the  nitrogen  from Pithuwa.  trees  or l e u c a e n a  i . e . LRMP m a p p i n g u n i t  difficult. '4c'  of a l l e y - c r o p p e d  'pakho' or r a i n f e d c r o p p i n g  p l o t s , t h a t was  l a n d u s e s was  i.e.  system c o n s i s t e d  f o r i t s r a p i d g r o w t h r a t e and  e x a m p l e was  of the  Systems  Soil  'pk'  a  similar  properties  such  base s a t u r a t i o n were a l l s i g n i f i c a n t l y  69 higher  i n the  * p i ' p l o t s ( F i g u r e s 4.22,  p h o s p h o r u s was (Figure  higher  4.21).  Bulk  i n some c a s e s density  significantly  different  may  the  be  due  to  building-up of  compost  These  soil and  organic  fact  under that  organic  biogas  t r e e s on  sampling  design  two  matter  soil.  not  results  were v a r i a b l e  and  were  not  rotations.  Japanese  had  the  These  have been  the the  amounts  to a l l t h e i r  fields.  effects  stratified best  of  large  have masked any  Also,  results  philosophy  were a p p l y i n g  byproducts  methods may  the  may  the  Available  compaction  the  converter  farming  leuceana  and  but  4.23).  random  choice  for  of  the  block  alley-  cropped r o t a t i o n s . The  next  cropping organic  comparison  rotation rotation  significantly  '4c'  *pk*  on  higher  p h o s p h o r u s and (Figure  on  the  fact  the  had  a severe  that  On  These  organic  the  f l o o d i n g event.  The  in this last  predominant land land  farm.  type. types.  and  land  i t s equivalent  There  carbon,  *pc'  were  available the  h a n d , pH,  'pk'  land  use  exchangeable  b a s e s a t u r a t i o n were may  type  I t was  f l o o d i n g from  be  partially  i n P i t h u w a had  not  p o s s i b l e to  the  improved  explained  by  recently separate  the  composting  comparison.  step  land  other  results  comparable  o f more r e c e n t  practices  '5c'  of  intermediate  i n P i t h u w a and  extension  e x c h a n g e a b l e magnesium lower.  5c'  the  type  the  c a t i o n exchange c a p a c i t y under  significantly  effects  between  land  levels  4.19,4.21,4.23).  calcium,  was  was  use There  t o compare  c a t e g o r i e s of  these the  results Pithuwa  were many s i m i l a r i t i e s  B o t h were g e n t l y  undulating  with study,  between with  one  of  the  i . e . 'pc the  slopes  '4c' less  on and  70  Figure  4.19:  pc/5c pc/4c pk/4c pi/4c Land Use / Land Type  O r g a n i c C a r b o n (%) Under A g r i c u l t u r a l and A g r o f o r e s t r y Land Uses (means & s t . dev.)  pe/Sc  Figure  4.20:  Figure  4.21:  pc/4c  pk/4c  pl/4c  Land Use / Land Type T o t a l N i t r o g e n (%) Under A g r i c u l t u r a l and A g r o f o r e s t r y Land Uses (means & s t . dev.)  Land Use / Land Type  A v a i l a b l e P h o s p h o r u s (ppm) Under A g r i c u l t u r a l A g r o f o r e s t r y Land Uses (means & s t . dev.)  and  71 8.00  7.00  -  6.00  -  5.00  -  4.00  -  3.00  -  2.00  1.00  -  0.00 pc/5c  pc/4-c Land Use /  W2  Mg  pk/4c  pl/4c  Land Type  ESI  K  E x c h a n g e a b l e C a t i o n s (meq/lOOg) Under A g r i c u l t u r a l and A g r o f o r e s t r y Land Uses (means & s t . dev.) 14.00 13.00 12.00  -  11  .oo -  1  o.oo  9.00  -  B.00 7.00 6.00  -  5.00  -  4.00 3.00  -  2.00  -  1.00  -  0.00  -* pc/5c  Bases  pc/4c  pk/4c  pl/4c  Land Use / Land Type + CEC  T o t a l E x c h a n g e a b l e B a s e s & C a t i o n Exchange C a p a c i t y (CEC) Under A g r i c u l t u r a l and A g r o f o r e s t r y Land Uses (means & s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s i n meq/lOOg)  72  than 2 degrees.  Soil  properties like  e x c h a n g e a b l e magnesium, b u l k significantly organic  different.  carbon, t o t a l  exchange c a p a c i t y x  5c  f  that silty  However, o t h e r  Particle  p r o p e r t i e s such  when a s s o c i a t e d  with  were loamy sands t o sandy loams w h i l e Thus the  cropping  starting  For  r a t e s of  x  both land  be  p c / 5 c ' were c o n s i d e r e d (since  the  pc'  %  was  purposes of  building-up'  organic  carbon could increased 155  be  by  8 percent;  leguminous t r e e s i n t o the  upland  or  be  percent,  The  *4c'  and  By  land  relative  the  type.  35  the  use  traditional inferences  i t was  assumed  management; and  that  comparable  percent;  for  methods,  total  nitrogen  a v a i l a b l e phosphorus  also including r o t a t i o n , the  115ppm a v a P w o u l d r e p r e s e n t soil.  240  increases  could  deep-rooting nitrogen  f u r t h e r i m p r o v e d a n o t h e r 6 and total  to  Both  soil-land  following  estimation, use  were loam  improved composting by  cropping  phosphorus s t a t u s could  more p h o s p h o r u s i n t h e  cation  fertility  m a t t e r w o u l d be  increased  percent.  respectively.  this  By  '5c'  historically  to land  types i n both areas.  i m p r o v e d by  of s o i l  lower f o r the  t h a t a l l d i f f e r e n c e s were due  organic  point  r o t a t i o n i n b o t h a r e a s ) , and  were d r a w n .  the  as  s i z e d i s t r i b u t i o n s were d i f f e r e n t i n  considered x  not  n i t r o g e n , a v a i l a b l e p h o s p h o r u s and  were h i g h e r  management b a s e l i n e s  be  soil  *4c'  loam.  calcium,  c o m p a c t i o n were  type.  * p c / 4 c ' and  could  and  land  i m p r o v e m e n t was the  density  exchangeable  o f 0.010% t o t N  k g / h a more n i t r o g e n  and  270  and 52 and kg/ha  73  4.4 D i s c u s s i o n  of S o i l  4.4.1 C o m p a r i s o n It  was d i f f i c u l t  i n the l i t e r a t u r e .  usually  comparable  and  and  included  soil  recognizing soils', the  soils'  of s o i l  that  only  systems there  T h e r e were s u b s t a n t i a l  biomass  nitrogen  exchangeable  that  infertile  these  account  Tanzania  equivalent,  Ambiguous closer  environments  Even  land  when t h e  use t r e a t m e n t s  Therefore,  were c o n s i d e r e d  while on  "tropical  comparable  to  in tropical  and u l t i s o l  and a l f i s o l s from A f r i c a  In g e n e r a l ,  (Sanchez  may  Asia  of the s o i l  since a  larger  are entisols,  1981).  Thus, the  to the Chitawan parameters  were  o f Ghana, N i g e r i a and  ( G r e e n l a n d , 1981; L a i & G r e e n l a n d ,  1979).  with the  orders,  and A f r i c a  & Salinas,  to those of the a l f i s o l s  matter,  (Sanchez,  In c o n t r a s t ,  be more r e l e v a n t  the ranges  organic  i s concerned  f o r o v e r 50% o f t h e r e g i o n .  of the s o i l s  of t h i s  and i n c r e a s e s i n  phosphorus  America  of the o x i s o l  i n South  to the f i n d i n g s  saturation,  in tropical  soils  forests  decreases i n s o i l  b a s e s , pH and a v a i l a b l e  acid,  comparable  classifications.  were s i m i l a r  and aluminum  of the research  study.  on  forming  t r e n d s were n o t e d when t r o p i c a l  study.  literature  were.  soils'  of s o i l  studies  were c l e a r e d  inceptisols  t y p e s seldom  to other  methods were  i s an a b u n d a n c e o f l i t e r a t u r e  America  proportion  study  study.  General  Most  quality  and a n a l y t i c a l  were d i f f e r e n t .  a few s e l e c t e d  Chitawan  soil  and " r i c e  t y p e was r e l a t i v e l y  agriculture  this  Sampling  a wide r a n g e  t h u s a wide r a n g e  initial  Literature  but s o i l - l a n d  such as " t r o p i c a l  examination  with  t o compare  studies  terms  Quality  1977).  quite  74  A study in  Tanzania  study  on  Chitawan.  noted  nitrogen  and  Perhaps over  calcium  this  The  was  deforestation parent on and  while  parent  of  the  the  that  the  i n the  soils  older,  parent  The improve (Zieke  matter  and  carbon,  both  total  increases  in  cation  differently  I t was organic  old  however.  to  the  latter  found carbon  study  older  that and  parent  change  and  parent  on  the total  bulk  climates  or  ratio  pre  of  nitrogen  density  group behaved  This  may  be  inceptisols  translocated  materials  of  older  group.  included  were p e r h a p s  effects  materials'  materials'  group  the  i n temperate  young  parent  compare  t r o p i c s or  exchange c a p a c i t y  materials;  intergrades and  alfisols  and  between on  materials. that  fertility  & Christienson,  including  developed  'tropical  Chitawan  assumption soil  quality  were f o u n d  to  i n the  more w e a t h e r e d ,  i n c e p t i s o l s on  younger  those  'tropical  on  soil  phosphorus,  properties  developed  the  cation  fact  the  significant  behaved  ( 1 9 8 5 ) went on  materials.  s i m i l a r to  developed  these  these  properties  i n organic  Available  density  soil  a r e a s were c l e a r e d ,  magnesium; and  c l e a r i n g l e v e l s of  those  to  Allen  with  more l i k e due  by  materials  behaved  with  on  Tanzania s i t u a t i o n .  soils  post  decreases  bulk  on  younger  compared  pH.  because  i n the study  and  and  deforestation  When f o r e s t e d  significant  capacity  time  was  exchangeable  exchangeable exchange  e f f e c t s of  ( A l l e n , 1985)  i n the  studies  the  legumes, nitrogen  legume-based  was  questioned  1986).  s u c h as  I t was  b e a n s and  conserving  than  cropping  systems  i n other  research  found  alfalfa, corn  that  would projects  rotations  were l e s s  r o t a t i o n s . In  organic the  latter  rotations  higher  fertilizers and  and r e t u r n e d  the Chitawan  farming  system  In  and  findings  soil  total  nitrogen  agriculture.  phosphorus, improved became  other  The  four  changes  compaction  with  be  values  1  converted  s u c h as a v a i l a b l e storage  capacity  would  or t r i p l e d  forest  that  when t h e f o r e s t  f o r e s t or a g r i c u l t u r a l land  techniques soil  corresponded  categories  effects  In a d d i t i o n ,  distinctive  i t was  declined.  have n e g a t i v e  Multivariate analysis  properties,  were  and e x c h a n g e a b l e a l u m i n u m .  were d o u b l e d  that  carbon  f o r e s t was  When n a t u r a l  nutrients.  results indicated  of the  b a s e s and b a s e s a t u r a t i o n  g r o u p s were s e p a r a t e d  - land  became revealed use  to d i f f e r e n t  o f f o r e s t and a g r i c u l t u r e .  important  use when s o i l  to q u a l i f y the type degradation  was t o  discussed. Contrary  cropping had  properties,  properties  the broad  the r e s u l t s .  Management  when n a t u r a l  iron  these  of the  s u c h as o r g a n i c  plant  6 key s o i l  uses w i t h i n  These  o f major  and d e g r a d e d .  management  of  i n these  availability  land  Use  under a g r i c u l t u r a l s i t u a t i o n s .  i n "free  that  to understand  and a v a i l a b l e w a t e r  exchangeable  Both  examination  u s e s were n o t a l w a y s  had d e c l i n e d  compaction  degraded,  utilized  to the s o i l .  Some p r o p e r t i e s ,  However  a p p l i c a t i o n s of  closer  f o r Land  land  T h e r e were i n c r e a s e s  on  residues  i s necessary  forested  quality.  higher  suggest  Implications  summary,  highest  more  parameters  4.4.2  to  yields justified  better  t o what was  rotations nutrient  expected,  seemed more status;  soil  triple  rather  conserving.  and t h e i r  higher  than  double  They  generally  organic  matter  76 levels  were c o r r e l a t e d w i t h  important cropping  for sustainable options  pre-monsoon management  highly  adding  always  t o have  This  i s the wind  inhibited  the  and  erosive  the  other  crop  soil  cropping  quality. fixing  rotation  Drought  benefits  the  pre-monsoon  season.  moisture  adequate,  the  b e n e f i t s of  higher  increased quality  the  i n the  should  be  improvement  merely  farming  y i e l d s of  protein  rotations their  the  focussing  companion  the  Both a g r o f o r e s t r y  soil  s y s t e m s and  soil  properties.  difficult  to  separate  the  two  the  nitrogen  and  phosphorus  kilograms  additions but  were an  in applying  matter  1  there  per  inherent  the  was  p o t e n t i a l i n land Although  hectare  philosophy  room  for  of  Even  crucial  where  the  may  have  soil;  i.e.  increased  high  Legume  rather  of  than  qualities. farming  management study  these  two  of  it  ' b u i l d i n g up  for  was  innovations  the  soil  Compost  traditional  improvement.  was  management b e c a u s e  use  status  seemed  legume  legumes.  system  respectively. of  i f the  than  in this  effects,  part  pre-  apparently  intensive organic  improving  270  use  improvement  t o have  and  the  nitrogen  grain  farming  methods seemed  improved  use  stress  (maize) or  from  i n land  overall  their  rather  crop  diet  considered  to on  household  family  the  monsoon r a i n s .  or  by  In  c a n o p y was  winter  been r e a p e d  during  i n land  erosion.  grown i n t h e was  triple  a crop  season  water  properties  Several  growing  a lush  the  nitrogen  of  critical  of  a legume t o  improve  of  production.  advantage  establishment  i n t e r c e p t the  not  crop  for controlling  Simply did  the  season.  monsoon s e a s o n , to  had  improvements  and  farming soil  by  had  240  manure  systems;  organic  77  CHAPTER 5: This  purpose  agricultural In  order  cropping  5.1  RESULTS OF of t h i s  land  use  farming  Overview  informants w h o l e and  gained  25  The  Bazaar,  information  staff  the  and  Much o f  of  this  Mr.  the  by  used  the  than  present  the  results  i n a separate  been  integrated into  prices the  and  farm  the  area  fertilizer  profitability  Information population  figures  was  context  crops  the  area  Key  as  of  a  the  s t o r e keepers  nine  of  office  Shrestha,  in  saved  critical  to s e v e r a l respected  to o r i e n t a t e the  f o r the  study.  section,  Thus,  these For  2 ) ; and  were l i s t e d  analysis  (section  land areas,  r e l e v a n t to t h i s  crop under  data  have the  the  varieties, the  rather  example,  grown were i n c l u d e d i n  (chapter  concerning  the  i t s farming  chairmen  relevant sections.  prices  of  community.  provide  of  terras.  informants.  Mr.  team  and  description  the  and  p r o v i d i n g some  study  i n f o r m a t i o n was  t o m a r k e t s and  key  about  C h h e t r i and  time  area  Systems R e s e a r c h  interviewers  distance  efficiency  the  1  Cropping  other  optimal  understanding  study  panch ,  i n t r o d u c i n g the of  the  members and  collection  i n f o r m a t i v e people  the  Systems  "pradhan  of  or  a thorough  knowledgeable  in particular data  i s to determine  i n t e r v i e w s with  s c h o o l committee  considerable  and  from  EVALUATION  i s required.  overview  i n c l u d e d the  Pithuwa.  aim,  of Farming  were c o n s i d e r e d  wards, the  Tadi  this  systems  A reconnaissance s y s t e m s was  chapter  o p t i o n s i n economic  to accomplish and  FARM PRODUCTIVITY  crop  assumptions  of  5.3). tenure  patterns  section.  An  and  overview  of  78 the Pithuwa land  areas  Panchayat and  and  are  no.  7 and  9)  therefore The  had  less  d e n s i t y of  wards and Newaris,  of  5.1.  land  1  per  area  hectare  variation  lower  of the  middle  10  percent Thus,  the  as  of  list  of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  farm  family, livestock and  cropping  farmers.  and  a section  was  The  farming  ( i . e . ward and 4).  western  a  land area  results  of both  program  can  and the  be  whole.  done b a s e d  d e v i a t i o n and system  cropping  divided  into  the  The  components,  the  Because  of i t s  management  study,  a cropping  discussing individual  75  range) of a l l  three  l a n d use  into  and  the  were c o m p i l e d .  components.  to the  on  mean v a l u e s  subdivided  i t s importance  component  was  standard  was  the  Analysis  analysis  the  ward  castes, i . e .  of the  area  characteristics  to  Tamangs.  r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the  by  among  ( 1 , 3 and  i n these  sampling  general  of each  wards  e a s t e r n wards  was  due  patterns,  to i r r i g a t i o n  soil  (as measured  and  western  Five  area  differences  access  households.  data  of the  tenure  the  with  complexity  the The  the  represented  total  A more d e t a i l e d  section  than  Detailed Statistical  interviews  i n F i g u r e 5.1.  land  of  considerably less  people  the  their respective  p r o p o r t i o n s sampled  A few  i n t e r v i e w p r o g r a m and  considered  the  the  h i g h l i g h t e d here.  "khet  sampled  5.2  The  t h e r e were more p e o p l e  7 percent  the  and  G u r u n g s , M a g a r s and  The  farmer  is illustrated  constraints.  i n Table  wards a r e  wards w i t h  a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e sampling  distributions  presented  sampled  as  logistical  population  i t s nine  populations  wards were c h o s e n time  and  crops.  rotations  Figure  5.1:  Summary o f wards i n P i t h u w a  Panchayat  (Nov.  1985)  Table 5.1: Description of Wards Selected for Study in Pithuwa Panchayat  Characteristic  Wards selected for study: 1 3 4 7  9  * Other wards  Total  570 35 540  1190 405 785  Land: (ha) total amount amount of 'khet' land amount of 'pakho' land  135 100 35  205 135 70  30 20 5  170 80 90  80 35 45  Land tenure: families with < 0.3 ha. families with 0.3-2.6 ha. families with > 2.6 ha.  80 120 6  50 120 30  44 42 1  28 66 16  30 48 2  Distribution of people: total # of families total population by ward # people per family density (people/ha)  206 1284 6.2 9.5  200 1153 5.8 5.6  87 485 5.6 16.2  110 649 5.9 3.8  80 424 5.3 5.3  433+ 2615+ 6.0+ 4.5+  1110+ 6610+ 6.0+ 5.5+  Proportion sampled: # of families interviewed # of soil sampled plots  15 12  14 6  14 16  19 13  11 8  2 5  75 60  * with the exception of two farmers, wards 2,5,6 & 8 were excluded from study + summary statistics from ward no. 6 were unavailable from Malaria Eradication Office, Nov.1985  81  5.2.1 the  data  5.2.  The  mean number  slightly  obtained  higher  from  the  from  than  14  years on  farm  cases  one  or  two  still  relatively planning  programs. labour  beliefs  their x  khet'  was  study  larger  situation  apparent was  variation  and  was  Smaller  program.  their  area  ( i . e . less  were  totally  although  i n rare  d e s p i t e the  partially  due  efforts  to  such  as  t h a t the  of  the  f a m i l y members.  i n Chapter  societal  Other and  2.  variation  high  (standard  for a l l  indicators  and  firewood  i n poverty  indicators  was  due  i . e . amount o f variable. of farms  slightly  total  land holding  A deliberate  towards  were i n a v e r y t o answer  l a n d c o u l d not  be  to  some  the  medium  precarious questions  i n c l u d e d i n the  or  attempt  i n the i n t e r v i e w s ,  biased  farmers  were s o m e t i m e s a f r a i d  thus  whole  poverty  a l l types  study  farm  respectively).  families  area  moderately  in particular  farmers.  accurately; sampling  soil  6.0  in  employment. F a m i l i e s were  system  l a n d w h i c h were e x t r e m e l y  the  f o r the  livelihood  o f f farm  were d i s c u s s e d  made t o r e p r e s e n t  and  Most  T h i s was  b a s i s of c a l c u l a t i o n ,  although and  men.  farming  d e v i a t i o n s ) among f a r m s  The  (7.8  c o n t r i b u t i o n s by  immediately  characteristics,  figures  sampled  p r o p o r t i o n s of c h i l d r e n  l a r g e i n the  o u t s i d e the  consumption.  average  members had  influences  was  the  were c o n s i d e r e d  f a m i l y members p e r  income f o r t h e i r  farm  It  of  equal  invaluable  religious  f a m i l y component  o l d ) , women and  dependent  family  the  Characteristics  malaria office  T h e r e were r e l a t i v e l y than  Family  First, Table was  Farm and  soil  Table 5.2: Means, standard deviations and ranges of farming characteristics in Pithuwa Farming Characteristics (units)  means st.dev. Explanation or comments  FARM HOUSEHOLD: (#) Family members Children < 14 years Women > 14 years Men > 14 years Members with off-farm work  7.8 2.7 2.5 2.5 0.2  3.1 1.8 1.4 1.5 0.5  FARMLAND: (ha) Total land holding Amount of 'khet* land Amount of 'pakho' land Land for farmstead No. of plots per farm (#/farm)  1.7 1.0 0.7 0.1 1.5  1.6 hectares calculated from 0.9 'khatas' or 'bighas' by 0.9 conversion factors (Appendix D) 0.1 0.8 gives an indication how spread the fields are from one another  POVERTY INDICATORS: Density of people (#/ha) Amount of 'khet' on farms (%) Density of people per 'khet' (#/ha) Food sufficient from farm (*) Months when food must be bought (#)  6.6 61 11.0 1 0.4  FUELWOOD USE: (kg/season) Fuelwood use in monsoon Fuelwood use in winter Fuelwood use in pre monsoon Total annual fuelwood use (kg/yr)  1310 1820 1230 4230  LIVESTOCK COMPONENT: (#/farm) Cattle bullocks Cattle cows Cattle calves Buffalo bulls Buffalo cows Buffalo calves Goats and sheep Chickens and ducks Other animals: pigs Subtotal of cattle & buffalo (LSU) Total for farm (LSU)  1.9 1.3 0.9 0.2 1.7 1.3 2.7 5.6 0.1 5.8 6.1  1.0 1.3 1.2 0.6 1.0 1.3 2.2 7.9 0.7 2.8 2.9  USE OF LIVESTOCK: Bullocks used for draft power (#) Buffaloes used for draft power (#) Total used for draft power (LSU)  1.8 0.1 2.0  1.0 Cattle preferred over buffalo bulls 0.6 for ploughing and puddling fields 1.2  Milk production (L/yr) Milk production (L/LSU cows/yr) Egg production (#/yr) Egg production (#/LSU fowl/yr) Meat production (kg/yr) Meat prodn (kg/LSU goats,fowl/yr) Used for home consumption only (*)  1010 430 210 13 0.8 2.4 1  4.1 22 amount of better quality land 7.8 number of people per ha better land * l=yes, sufficient; 0=no, insuffic. 1.2  860 kilograms estimated from 'bharis' 1420 conversion factors (Appendix D) 950 2780 Conversion factors to calculate LSU 1.00 LSU 0.80 LSU 0.40 LSU 1.20 LSU 1.00 LSU 0.50 LSU 0.10 LSU 0.004 LSU 0.02 LSU i f pigs  770 330 liters per female cattle & buffalo 760 44 eggs per LSU of chickens & ducks 3.8 11.5 kilograms per LSU of goats & fowl * l=yes, 0=no, used only at home  83  The  variation  due t o f o u r  i n firewood consumption  figures  was  probably  reasons:  1) T h e r e a r e d i f f e r e n t p r a c t i c e s among c a s t e s t h a t c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e v a r i a b i l i t y i n f i r e w o o d u s e . F o r example, p e o p l e o f t h e G u r u n g , Tamang and N e w a r i c a s t e s brew more c h a n g ' o r wine and d i s t i l l more r a k s i ' o r s p i r i t s t h a n B r a h m i n and C h h e t r i c a s t e s and r e q u i r e more wood ( F o x , 1983). Some f a r m e r s a l s o make a h o t g r a i n b r o t h s u p p l e m e n t f o r c a t t l e and b u f f a l o ; t h u s f u e l w o o d c o n s u m p t i o n would be h i g h e r on t h e s e f a r m s . x  x  2) T h e r e were d i f f e r e n t r e q u i r e m e n t s among f a m i l i e s f o r firewood. The t y p e and s i z e o f homes i n f l u e n c e d h e a t i n g requirements. Some homes had more e f f i c i e n t , smokeless ' c h u l o s ' o r s t o v e s and t h e r e f o r e had r e d u c e d need o f firewood f o r cooking. 3) T h i s r e c a l l q u e s t i o n was d i f f i c u l t f o r t h e f a r m e r s t o answer. A fuelwood consumption study i n Nepal found that s e a s o n a l r e c a l l methods were l e s s a c c u r a t e t h a n w e e k l y r e c a l l o r w e e k l y w e i g h i n g methods ( F o x , 1 9 8 3 ) . 4) T h i s was a v e r y s e n s i t i v e i s s u e w i t h t h e f a r m e r s , s i n c e wood c u t t i n g i n t h e n e a r b y r e s e r v e f o r e s t was i l l e g a l . Many f a r m e r s were a f r a i d t o answer t h i s q u e s t i o n h o n e s t l y i n c a s e t h e i n f o r m a t i o n was u s e d a g a i n s t them.  5.2.2 The lower each  L i v e s t o c k Component  numbers  portion type  and u s e s  of Table  of animal  5.2.  standard  These  conversion factors to animal  comparable  Mathema, account  To f a c i l i t a t e  conversion factors  1982).  to  roles  comparison, units,  i n the t a b l e  numbers o f i . e . LSU 1978).  i n t h e rows  type.  figures  of animals from  other  I t i s not s u r p r i s i n g  f o r the m a j o r i t y of these  important  were summarized i n  ( W i l l i a m s o n & Payne,  are l i s t e d  Mean v a l u e s f o r numbers were  animals  were c o n v e r t e d t o l i v e s t o c k  using  corresponding  o f the farm  i n the farming  and t o t a l studies  that  LSU p e r f a r m  (LRMP,  cattle  and  values considering  system.  1983c; buffalo their  many  84 It milk,  i s obvious  e g g s and  study,  animal  America  and  a result poor.  Table,  that  meat were e x t r e m e l y  low.  grass  animal  family  late  or  fodder  products  categories, kh)  and  The  crops  'khet'  still  quality  of  managed as  relatively  feed  s e a s o n when t h e r e  was  luxury  in  also a  I t was and  items  North  health  were few  were low,  the  sparse.  animal  available.  levels  time  of  As was  problem,  crop therefore  that  these  i n the  average  by  the  or  different  rainfed  whether  3 different  crops  occurred  'kc'  was  1.2  on ha.  to season,  followed  study  8 farms; or 46  of  percent  using  into  a  two  r o t a t i o n s (e.g. first  premonsoon c r o p s .  amounts o f  of  5.3  one  together these  these of  pc,  on  farm.  kg, pd) . crop  notations (maize, The  cropping r o t a t i o n s  farm,  percentage  example,  8 farms  number  monsoon  (maize-lentils).  For  the  Two  another  various  area.  the  the  the  of  rotation  mean amount  Since  only  in  main  rice-based r o t a t i o n s (e.g.  perspectives: hectares  percentage  'kc'  i n Table  maize-based  o r were i n t e r c r o p p e d the  r o t a t i o n s mentioned  c o d e s were s u b d i v i d e d  according and  cropping  summarized  irrigated  winter  presented  and  Rotations  use  were l i s t e d  differentiated lentils)  13  Land  'pakho' o r  followed  farm,  good  leaves  These are  conventions.  from  the  intensively  were c o n s i d e r e d  Cropping  interviews.  table  At  levels  diet.  T h e r e were o v e r  of  dry  production  were common and  that production  5.3.3  the  as  infections  amounts o f  i n the  surprising  three  not  v e t e r i n a r y s e r v i c e s are  Adequate  residues,  the  h e a l t h was  parasitic  especially  not  from  11%  of of  85  Table  5.3:  Means and Ranges Rotations  CROPPING ROTATIONS  Farmers # %  o f Amounts o f V a r i o u s  Cropping  * hectare basis * % of farm % of area means ranges means ranges ** mean  kc: rice, mustard or wheat kd: rice, legumes (lentils) kf: rice, fallow, spring maize kg: rice, wheat, spring maize kh: rice, mustard, spring maize k i : rice, mustard, •dainchha' Total 'khet* land  8 4 1 26 45 2  11 5 1 35 60 2  1.2 0.3 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.2  0.0-4.7 0.0-0.7 0.0-0.4 0.0-5.4 0.0-2.0 0.0-0.4  46 25 4 53 54 10  0-100 0-71 0-7 0-100 0-93 0-22  5 1 0 19 32 0  pa: maize, potato-wheat pc: maize, mustard pd: maize-legume, mustard pf: upland rice, mustard ph: homestead & home garden p i : rainfed rotations with trees pk: rainfed rotations Jap.Ext. Total 'pakho* land  27 46 3 4 28 1 1  36 61 4 5 37 1 1  0.4 0.7 1.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.9  0.0-0.7 0.0-3.4 0.0-3.5 0.0-0.7 0.0-0.4 0.0-0.3 0.0-1.7  31 46 34 4 10 3 16  0-58 0-100 0-61 0-75 0-25 0-6 0-31  11 28 1 0 3 0 0  Total land holding Irrigated land Months of irrigation  75 74  1.7 1.0 4  0.3-8.1 0.0-6.1 0-5  100 59  0-75  100.0 57.0  •calculations on basis of farms with the rotation e.g. for the 8 farmers with kc the amount of land in this rotation i s 1.2 ha. ••calculation on basis of study area e.g. 11% of farms times 46% of their farms i n kc rotation = 5% of kc rotation in study area ph (3.0X) kc (5.0X)  Figure  5.2:  P r o p o r t i o n s of 8 Predominant Cropping P i t h u w a Study A r e a  Rotations i n  86  the  interviewed  study  area Of  be  kd,  these  'khet' kg,  kh)  systems  'kc'  13  on  or  irrigated  and  4 main  the  less  These area cross  pc,  First,  farmers  of  'pa', uses  x  the  pc'  to  and  the  the  total  'kh'  as  i n c l u d e i n the  the  a l s o widespread  but  too  delayed  t o be  the  sampling and  i n 1985  program.  ' p i ' were n o t  important  soil  potential  innovations  To  warrants  of  of  taken  the  the  Although as  interviewed panchayat's  soil  5 months  ( i . e . kd,  pd)  study  and  they  area.  Thus  selection  The wheat  were  s y s t e m s and  the of  land  rotation  'kg'  p l a n t i n g were  time as  for  accounted  agricultural  r o t a t i o n s such  widespread  the  farms  the  quality.  harvest  cropping  4 or  t o i n t e r v i e w a wide  i n c l u d e d w i t h i n the  c o n s t r a i n t s of 'kd',  %  pd',  considered were i n c l u d e d i n a  substudy. complexity  production  discussion.  of  cropping  methods s e c t i o n 3.3  predominant  i t s rice  conserving  understand  some d e t a i l  was  Pithuwa  study  with  r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of  to the  most  of  4  area.  care  area  to  r o t a t i o n s were  legumes  i n t e r v i e w information support  was  'ki'  the  (refer  cropping  enough  ( i . e . kc,  maize-based  including  the  T h e r e were  systems  especially  were c o n s i d e r e d  for  of  Triple  of  of  11%).  ( F i g u r e 5.2).  rainfed  farms,  5 percent  Secondly,  results  ph).  systems  more d e t a i l ) .  of  rice-based cropping  pd,  percentage  8 were w i d e s p r e a d  pie chart  'pakho' o r  reasons.  the  ( o r 46%  rotations,  Cropping  results  percent  5 percent  of  s e c t i o n of  10  rotation,  majority  than  f o r two  this  i n a summary  irrigation.  covered  was  cropping  ( i . e . pa,  possible of  with  represented  main  f a r m s had  of the  these  cropping  rotations,  various individual  crops  87  5.3.4 The series For in  production factors  of 5 t a b l e s .  rice  f o r each  'pakho' g r o w i n g lentils  were  that  that  was  each  that  included  examples  varieties  such  line  the f i r s t  maturing,  that  were i d e a l  decomposition Chemical  maturing,  that  rice  such  of  fields.  applications,  growing  rotations  maturing  variety  were  comparable.  so most  anaerobic  crops  farmers d i d conditions  were n o t f a v o r a b l e f o r  o f o r g a n i c amendments i n t o commonly  variety  maturing  one o f t h e few  The f l o o d e d ,  Two  as * k g ' , 'kh' and  varieties  was  'masuli'  cropping  while the e a r l i e r  t o compost  for rice  fertilizers  was  (Table 5.4).  The s l o w e r  i n double  t o grow b o t h  to note  i t to t h e i r  crop  The r e m a i n d e r  'moto' v a r i e t y .  'kf';  interesting  apply  particular  of  i s best explained with  cropping options possible  d i d not respond  The number  c h o i c e s of crops  grown i n t h e monsoon  It  not  that  grown, a l a t e r  The i n p u t s a p p l i e d  that  at the t o p .  table.  'ki'. was  The c r o p p i n g  of the t a b l e s .  one o f t h e f i r s t  as ' k c ' , 'kd' and  ' k h e t ' and  o c c u r r e d i n and t h e s e a s o n  i n these tables  a r e commonly  made t r i p l e  listed  contrasted  and p o t a t o e s and  table.  crop or v a r i e t y  included  was  was  i n the l a s t  in a  comparisons.  were  and wheat,  were compared;  were i n t e r v i e w e d a b o u t  an e a r l i e r  variety  F o r mustard  grown i n was  from  Rice  represented paired  crop.  i n the t h i r d  information  tables  of popular v a r i e t i e s  conditions  each  f o r 6 c r o p s were summarized  a pair  contrasted  rotations  farmers  These  and m a i z e ,  a table  and  Crops  used  available  nutrients.  i n the area included  urea (46-  88 Table 5.4: Rice Crop Production Characteristics S Comparison of Late to Early Maturing Varieties  rice (masulijlate) rice (moto,early) *kc(M),kd(M),kg(M) kg(M),kh(M),ki(M) 71 11  Crop (variety): In rotations (season): # of farmers interviewed: Production Characteristics  mean st.dev.  mean st.dev. Explanation or comments  INPUTS: (kg/ha) Seed Compost amount Urea N-P Complex Muriate of potash  44 670 39 29 0  16 1140 37 50 0  52 490 52 52 0  OUTPUTS: (kg/ha) Yield average year Yield poor year Yield good year  2180 1410 2860  420 450 540  2340 1410 2980  mean  %  mean  USE OF SEED: (kg/farm) Total seed yield Home consumption Next years's seed Exchanged for goods or labor Sold i n market  1625 1425 30 0 170  100 88 2 0 10  1870 1410 60 10 390  100 75 more late rice consumed 3 at home & therefore 1 less sold i n market 21  USE OF RESIDUE: (kg/farm) Total residue Animal feed Fuelwood Composted Roof thatch Sold to neighbors  1290 1190 0 0 0 100  100 92 0 0 0 8  1600 1520 20 60 0 0  100 95 1 4 0 more straw sold from late rice sold to neighbors 0  mean  range  mean  CROP INCOME: Market price (Rs/kg) Average crop yield (kg/ha) Potential crop income (Rs/ha) Actual cash sales (Rs/ha) *  2.50 2.35-3.25 2180 5450 1145  22 most farmers didn't apply 1370 compost to rice fields, causing a lower mean 46 70 0  1080 early maturing rice variety 790 gives higher yields but also 1230 more variable %  range  2.00 1.80-2.60 2340 average yield * market price 4680 potential crop income * % sold 1080  refers to cropping rotations described i n Table 5.2 & seasonal codes: M=^nonsoon; W=winter; P premonsoon =  89  0-0),  nitrogen-phosphorus  (0-0-60). fields maize  ( e . g . 2-5 wheat  variety  'masuli'  kg/ha u r e a )  high  variable  among f a r m s  average  varieties  The  of the crop  uses  as i m p o r t a n t  average  yields  kilograms  c r o p on e a c h  interviewed  about  planted  1.2  was  3790 k g / f a r m . maturing land  of  to 75%).  and  saved  the t r a d i t i o n a l  i n yields  favorite  o f 1080 and  among y e a r s ( i . e . also  o f i n p u t s and o u t p u t s .  rice  by t h e number  of h e c t a r e s of  o n l y 16 f a r m e r s  variety.  Thus,  were  Of t h e 11 t h a t  the average  73 f a r m e r s  The  t h e amount o r  t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f i t , t h e mean amount amount  were g r o w i n g  were  of land  per farm the  was  earlier  Of t h e 71 i n t e r v i e w e d , t h e mean amount o f 0.8  hectares.  per farm  varieties i n that  was  Thus, the average  1870 kg p e r f a r m .  the r e l a t i v e  uses  t h e m a j o r i t y was  year's crop  amount o f  In the case  of the seed  were  consumed i n t h e home  S m a l l amounts were e x c h a n g e d  f o r next  maturing  and r e s i d u e s were c o n s i d e r e d  F o r example,  maturing  of seed  (71  seed  In c o n t r a s t ,  comparable  earlier  rice.  hectares.  t h e two r i c e  quite  of  farm.  'raoto' r i c e .  yield  The new  r e s p e c t i v e l y ) but the y i e l d s  as c o m p a r i s o n s  p l a n t e d t o i t was  total  the a d d i t i o n s f o r  (standard deviations  by m u l t i p l y i n g  the slower  to r i c e  the usual a d d i t i o n s f o r  i n kg/ha were c o n v e r t e d i n t o  per farm  added  of potash  y e a r s ) i n t h e f a r m e r s ' o p i n i o n s was  f o r both  growing  than  The v a r i a t i o n  and good  than  than  urea).  gave h i g h e r y i e l d s  equally  that  but l e s s  ( i . e . 75-90 kg/ha  respectively).  poor,  u r e a ) was more  ( i . e . 2340 and 2180 k g / h a ,  were more 420,  ( 2 0 - 2 0 - 0 ) and m u r i a t e  of chemical f e r t i l i z e r s  ( e . g . 39-52 kg/ha  growing rice  The amount  complex  ( i . e . 1-4%).  f o r goods o r l a b o u r A slightly  higher  90  proportion than  o f t h e *moto' o r e a r l y  the p r e f e r r e d 'masuli' or l a t e r  respectively).  Most  percent  This (i.e. its  more s t r a w  may have  harvest The  from  the l a t e r total  few l i n e s  high  i n each  yields  reported  by f a r m e r s  of the slower i n i t s higher  Rs/kg,  rice  table  seed  3.25  compared  price  estimate  cash  throughout  still  i n t h e market  used  (compared  maturing  maize  grown w i t h and  scant  urea). often  actual  t o 1080 Rs/ha  A similar  was c o n s i d e r e d  cash  compost  though  i . e . 2.35 t o  lower  was h i g h e r  t h e amount  that i s  ( i . e . after subtracting  seed  and e x c h a n g e s ) , i t  s a l e s income o f 1145 Rs/ha  was c o m p i l e d  ( T a b l e 5.5).  applications  Even  was  f o r t h e 'nioto' r i c e ) .  comparison  heavy  variety  per hectare  When o n l y  f o r home c o n s u m p t i o n ,  had a h i g h e r  rice  The  i t was s l i g h t l y  income i n r u p e e s  amount  prices.  on t h e  f o r the e a r l i e r  the p o t e n t i a l  the  potential  t o 1.80 t o 2.60 Rs/kg  yielding  sold  higher  of the timing of  the year,  Therefore, although  usually  were  s a l e s income based  'masuli'  t o 4680 R s / h a ) .  that  to neighbours.  total  and t h e m a r k e t  maturing  of r i c e  f o r the straw.  'moto' r i c e .  5450 compared  types  was s o l d  maturing  (i.e.  both  I t was i n t e r e s t i n g  demand  i n c o m e o r r e v e n u e and a c t u a l  reflected  ( i . e . 23 and 21 %  amounts o f s t r a w  crop  popularity  i n t h e market  t o 1600 k g / f a r m ) o r b e c a u s e  c o i n c i d e d with  last  rice  (80 t o 9 5 % ) .  been b e c a u s e  2180 compared  was s o l d  o f t h e r e s i d u e s from  were f e d t o t h e l i v e s t o c k 20  rice  Both  varieties  applications  of chemical  f o r early  and l a t e  of t h i s  earlier  fertilizer  than  were  ( i . e . 3400 t o 3710 k g / h a ) (e.g.  t h e s p r i n g m a i z e was an i m p r o v e d  had t o be h a r v e s t e d  crop  ideal  2-5 kg/ha variety, i t  so t h a t r i c e  could  91  Table 5.5: Maize Crop Production Characteristics & Comparison of Late to Early Maturing Varieties  Crop (variety): In rotations (season): # of farmers interviewed:  maize (late) *pa(M),pc(M),pd(M) 74  maize (early) kf(P),kg(P),kh(P) 70  Production Characteristics  mean st.dev.  mean st.dev. Explanation or comments  INPUTS: (kg/ha) Seed Compost amount Urea N-P Complex Muriate of potash  32 3710 2 8 0  68 2890 10 40 0  24 3400 5 9 0  OUTPUTS: (kg/ha) Yield average year Yield poor year Yield good year  1380 740 1770  890 440 1190  1200 600 1470  870 440 900  mean  %  mean  %  USE OF SEED: (kg/farm) Total seed yield Home consumption Next years's seed Exchanged for goods or labor Sold i n market USE OF RESIDUE: (kg/farm) Total residue Animal feed Fuelwood Composted Roof thatch Sold to neighbors  CROP INCOME: Market price (Rs/kg) Average crop yield (kg/ha) Potential crop income (Rs/ha) Actual cash sales (Rs/ha) *  10 2340 heavy compost applied to most 22 maize fields but less chemical 36 f e r t i l i z e r applied than with 0 other crops monsoon maize higher yielding because spring maize must often be harvested earlier than ideal to plant rice  910 550 15 15 330  100 60 2 2 36  790 585 20 5 180  100 74 more spring maize consumed 2 in home because less 1 choice at this time 23  1010 380 80 550 0 0  100 38 8 54 0 0  1110 475 15 620 0 90  100 43 more spring maize used for 1 animal feed or sold to 56 feed neighbors animals. due to green harvest 0 680  mean  range  mean  2.10 1.80-3.00 1380 2900 1040  range  2.10 1.80-3.00 1200 Average yield * market price 2520 580 Potential crop income * % sold  refers to cropping rotations described i n Table 5.2fiseasonal codes: M=monsoon; W=winter; P=premonsoon  92  be t r a n s p l a n t e d i n t i m e the  yields  than  f o r the e a r l i e r  the l a t e r The  maturing  relative  interesting home t h a n expected  f o r the onset maturing  uses of these  t h e monsoon m a i z e a t the time  t h e monsoon m a i z e was rice  the s p r i n g  feed  almost  other  to feed t h e i r  of t h i s  consumed  This  was  maize h a r v e s t , the  staples  would  be l o w . I n  very c l o s e  always the p r e f e r r e d  livestock.  some i n the  60 % r e s p e c t i v e l y ) .  harvested  harvest i n r e l a t i o n  lower  showed  to the  staple.  m a i z e r e s i d u e s were f e d t o t h e l i v e s t o c k  the n e i g h b o r s timing  was  and  of maize  m a i z e was  of the s p r i n g  contrast,  of  of r i c e  m a i z e were  Thus  crop.  types  (74 and  stores  and  two  More s p r i n g  household  harvest,  or s p r i n g  o r monsoon m a i z e  differences.  since  o f t h e monsoon r a i n s .  T h i s was  also  rice More  or s o l d due  to the a v a i l a b i l i t y  to  to the  of other  sources. The  i.e.  prices  1.80  between  t o 3.00  and  livestock  its  selling Mustard  mustard  cash  i t was  and  The  rates  stores  grown on  *khet'  pakho'  and  higher potential  (1040 R s / h a )  or r i c e  crop  75-100 kg/ha  N-P  and  was  than  income  spring household  of the year  compared  (Table 5.6).  i n double  cropping rotations  (15-20 kg/ha)  time  land  or maize upland  grown as a w i n t e r  pc) or t r i p l e  urea  sales  varieties  more s e a s o n a l l y t h a n  at a c r i t i c a l  value.  o f seed  varied  maize  higher value i n replenishing  o r income  x  f o r t h e two  Monsoon m a i z e had  actual  food  grown on  (kc  kg/ha  Price  S p r i n g m a i z e had  and  cases  were s i m i l a r  Rs/kg.  varieties.  (2900 R s / h a ) maize.  i n 1985  chemical  with In  cropping  ( k h , k i and  than i n  both  rotations  pd, p e ) .  fertilizer  ( 40  c o m p l e x ) were c o m p a r a b l e f o r b o t h  93  Table 5.6: Mustard Crop Production Characteristics & Comparison of 'Khet' to 'Pakho' Mustard  Crop (variety): In rotations (season): # of farmers interviewed:  mustard ([on khet) mustard (on pakho) *kc(W),kh(W),ki(W) pc(W) ,pd(W) ,pe(W) 52 50  Production Characteristics  mean st.dev.  mean st.dev. Explanation or comments  INPUTS: (kg/ha) Seed Compost amount Urea N-P Complex Muriate of potash  20 480 40 100 1  25 1170 30 110 9  15 1400 40 75 2  OUTPUTS: (kg/ha) Yield average year Yield poor year Yield good year  560 253 790  630 160 830  490 270 660  195 140 290  mean  %  mean  %  USE OF SEED: (kg/farm) Total seed yield Home consumption Next years's seed Exchanged for goods or labor Sold i n market  455 130 20 1 305  100 29 4 0 67  365 85 10 10 250  100 80 12 60 555  USE OF RESIDUE: (kg/farm) Total residue Animal feed Fuelwood Composted Roof thatch Sold to neighbors  420 60 0 360 0 0  100 14 0 86 0 0  340 95 0 245 0 0  100 28 byproducts of o i l making; pakho 0 mustard i s harvested earlier & available sooner for feed; 72 0 straw slow to break down 0 in compost  mean  range  mean  CROP INCOME: Market price (Rs/kg) Average crop yield (kg/ha) Potential crop income (Rs/ha) Actual cash sales (Rs/ha) *  7.50 6.50-11.00 560 4200 2815  6 rate of seed and f e r t i l i z e r 2650 same but compost use often 55 higher on pakho than on khet 80 16  khet yields > pakho yields but also more variable  higher % of this cash crop sold i n market  range  7.50 6.50-11.00 490 Average yield * market price 3675 2500 Potential crop income * % sold  refers to cropping rotations described i n Table 5.2 & seasonal codes: M=monsoan; W=winter; P=premonsoon  94 types  of mustard.  Mustard  where some o f t h e fertilizer.  larger  Compost  was  one  farmers  ( i . e . 1400  kg/ha) than  kg/ha).  However,  'khet' mustard  'pakho' m u s t a r d They  were a l s o  later and  into  The  the w i n t e r  uses  situations  seed  w a t e r was  but  was  the For  both  sold  of the  cooking  o i l and  seeding  requirements.  twice  total  mustard higher  was  ( i . e . 28 portion  'pakho' s i t u a t i o n difference 'pakho'  of  both  because  kg/ha  because  t o 14  they  than  were p l a n t e d  was  more d e p l e t e d  (3-4  f o r the  residues a large  ( i . e . 67  t o 68  showed  and  was  as  saved  that  percent).  72%  About  was  form  from  of  year's  crop r e s i d u e s ,  o i l making  from  'khet'  T h i s meant  composted  earlier  of  a  f o r next  respectively).  to the  some  i n t h e home i n t h e  %)  animals  two  percentage  %).  t h r e s h i n g and  'khet' mustard  have been due  higher  respectively).  moisture  of the  consumed  fed to the  ( i . e . 86  'pakho'  that  than  a  i n the  This  h a r v e s t of  the  mustard.  Crop higher  may  490  potash  ( i . e . 480  were c o m p a r a b l e  r e s i d u e s from  of the  h i g h e r on  When i t came t o t h e m u s t a r d  compared  of  were u s u a l l y  of mustard,  a small portion  'pakho' m u s t a r d  and  uses  c r o p was  as much o f t h e  muriate  situations  assured.  i n the market  quarter  yields  seed  types  cropping  'khet' mustard  when s o i l  less  relative  applied  probably  season  few  were o f t e n  on  ( i . e . 560  of the mustard  differences. the  yields  more v a r i a b l e  irrigation  had  applications  mustard  of the  incomes  from  'khet'  reflected than  from  the average  'pakho' m u s t a r d .  m u s t a r d s were h i g h e r t h a n of  yields  those  the h i g h e r p r o p o r t i o n s s o l d  and  were  A c t u a l cash  of r i c e , i n the  thus  maize or  market.  sales wheat  95 A comparison similar and  on  to that  cropping rotations  as a r e l a y  crop a f t e r  k g / h a ) and c h e m i c a l kg/ha N-P  on  potato  Compost  (pa).  that  'khet' wheat. yields  'Khet'  b u t were a l s o  The mean t o t a l 'khet' yield  than  were  wheat  was  was  third  dry  season  Wheat  of potash yields  of seed  consumed  variable.  yields  o f wheat  per farm  straw  straw  reserves for livestock  roofs  of the animal Wheat  relatively Because  was  of the farm  the higher i n the  diet  'khet'  'pakho'  t o 21 % ) . but l a t e r  i n the farming  a r e low.  I t i s also  i n the  families.  system  of the year  Wheat  as  when used  well.  rice to thatch  stalls.  price  of i t s other  most wheat  both  t o a time  i s one o f t h e few c r o p s stable  'pakho'  have been t h e o n l y c h o i c e f o r some  corresponds  i t was t o  were h i g h e r i n t h e  reflecting  i n the f a m i l y  than  and i n t h e r a r e  applied  i n t h e home ( i . e . 44 compared  plays a c r i t i c a l role  h a r v e s t time  growing  a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n of the l a t e r  c h o i c e as a s t a p l e i t may  130-140  'khet'  were a g a i n h i g h e r t h a n  i n t h e 'pakho' s i t u a t i o n  However,  was  (kg)  (100-120  and  h i g h e r on  fertilizer  more  crop i n  cropping rotations  Rates  often  'khet'  as a w i n t e r  (75-90 kg/ha u r e a  p e r h e c t a r e and t h e h i g h e r amount  rotations.  on  c o m p a r a b l e f o r t h e two wheat  additions  muriate  made i n a  i . e . wheat  grown  (kb), i n t r i p l e  was  'pakho' ( i . e 1630 and 550 kg/ha r e s p e c t i v e l y ) ;  instances  Its  situations  Wheat was  fertilizers  c o m p l e x ) were  situations.  growing  d i s c u s s e d f o r mustard,  'pakho' ( T a b l e 5 . 7 ) .  double and  way  o f two wheat  over  the year  p r e c i o u s uses  not s o l d  that  seems  t o have a  i . e . 1.80  t o 2.00  a s a human and a n i m a l  i n the market.  Thus i t s a c t u a l  Rs/ha. staple, cash  Table 5.7:  96 Wheat Crop Production Characteristics & Comparison of 'Khet' to 'Pakho' Wheat  Crop (variety): In rotations (season): # of farmers interviewed:  wheat (on 'khet') *kb(W), kg(W) 27  wheat (on 'pakho') pa (W relayed) 21  Production Characteristics  mean st.dev.  INPUTS: (kg/ha) Seed Compost amount Urea N-P Complex Muriate of potash  100 1630 75 130 5  30 2350 55 95 15  120 550 90 140 0  50 1700 150 130 0  rate of seed & f e r t i l i z e r similar but more compost added to khet than pakho  OUTPUTS: (kg/ha) Yield average year Yield poor year Yield good year  1590 895 2030  675 400 770  1255 660 1815  410 390 565  khet yield > pakho yield but also more variable  mean  %  mean  %  USE OF SEED: (kg/farm) Total seed yield Heme consumption Next years's seed Exchanged for goods or labor Sold i n market  1040 320 105 0 615  100 31 10 0 59  530 240 50 0 240  100 usually more land i n khet wheat 45 so total yields/farm greater; 10 wheat grown as second choice 0 staple i n family diet 45  USE OF RESIDUE: (kg/farm) Total residue Animal feed Fuelwood Composted Roof thatch Sold to neighbors  1115 295 0 105 700 15  100 27 0 9 63 1  800 230 0 120 445 0  100 29 0 15 56 0  mean  range  mean  range  CROP INCOME: Market price (RsAg) Average crop yield (kg/ha) Potential crop income (Rs/ha) Actual cash sales (Rs/ha)  2.00 1.80-2.00 1590 3180 1340  mean st.dev. Explanation or comments  straw important for animal feed at a c r i t i c a l time of year & popular thatching material for animal shelters  2.00 1.80-2.00 1255 Average yield * market price 2510 1130 Potential crop income * % sold  refers to cropping rotations described i n Table 5.2 & seasonal codes: M=monsoon; W=winter; P=premonsoon  97  sales  i n c o m e was  mustard  lower  of winter  cash  crops  were grown i n s m a l l e r amounts  than  the other  but  represented  and  farm  important  livestock  crop  after  crop  (pd).  household sold  yield  of  i n the market. i n t h e monsoon  for  feed  animal  Potential  income b a s e d market  was  395  the study  rotation Inputs other from  year  25 f a r m e r s  25 p e r c e n t  variation  i n their  risk.  was  Of t h e  (Table 5.8).  consumed  s o u p ) and 50 r e s i d u e s when  to neighbors per h e c t a r e of the crop  f o r animal  lentils were  feed  but a c t u a l usually  by t h e  percent  p r o p o r t i o n s of these  They were u s u a l l y  monsoon  to year,  the  rice  were grown as a  300 k g / h a  c r o p , were b e c o m i n g  used  (69%).  cash  sold  i n the  crop  7000 k g / h a .  and more  grown i n a t r i p l e  were r e l a t i v e l y  Since  potatoes  most o f t h e s e e d  o u t l a y of cash with  more  popular  cropping  m a i z e and i n t e r c r o p p e d w i t h wheat ( p a ) .  (Table, 5.8).  a larger  the f a m i l y  Rs/ha.  area.  and  about  and h i g h  required for this crops  high  was  were more  720 r u p e e s  as a c a s h  after  was  d h a l ' or l e n t i l  on t h e p e r c e n t a g e  Potatoes in  x  (31%) or s o l d  i n c o m e was  crops  (kd) or i n t e r c r o p p e d with  yield  about  There  were grown  to both  t o a minimum t o r e d u c e  per farm  ( i n the form  rice There  i n t e r v i e w e d the average  the t o t a l  supplements  Sometimes t h e y  maturing  so i n p u t s were k e p t  farmers  was  like  They were most o f t e n grown on  gardens.  late  m a i z e as a monsoon  Of  protein  diets.  bunds o r i n f a r m s t e a d  yields  that  or p o t a t o .  Lentils  winter  than  this  x  was  compared  were d i f f i c u l t  had t o be b o u g h t  r e q u i r e d t o grow t h i s  pa' rotation,  T h i s was  high  highly  the average  variable  from  to store  annually, crop.  yield  farm  with  to  was farm  Of  Table 5.8:  Comparison of Crop Production Characteristics for Lentil & Potato Crops  Crop (variety): In rotations (season): # of farmers interviewed:  98  lentils potato *kd(W), pd(Mrelay) pa (W) 6 25  Production Characteristics  mean st.dev.  mean st.dev. Explanation or comments  INPUTS: (kg/ha) Seed Compost amount Urea N-P Complex Muriate of potash  10 445 7 0 0  4 1095 16 0 0  540 1920 35 120 0  185 potato seed usually bought so large outlay of cash required 3290 for seed & fertilizers 45 135 0  OUTPUTS: (kg/ha) Yield average year Yield poor year Yield good year  300 160 445  215 100 355  7005 3740 8800  2220 high variation i n l e n t i l yields 2495 so low input levels to reduce risk 2240  %  mean  120 40 5 0 75  100 33 3 0 67  3290 380 195 0 2715  90 75 0 15 0 0  100 83 0 17 o0  425 220 0 205 0 0  range .  mean  mean USE OF SEED: (kg/farm) Total seed yield Home consumption Next years's seed Exchanged for goods or labor Sold in market USE OF RESIDUE: (kg/farm) Total residue Animal feed Fuelwood Composted Roof thatch Sold to neighbors  mean CROP INCOME: Market price (Rs/kg) Average crop yield (kg/ha) Potential crop income (Rs/ha) Actual cash sales (Rs/ha) *  2.40 2.00-2.70 300 720 395  %  100 high variation i n total potato yield due to range of amount 12 planted on each farm 6 0 potatoes represent a cash crop 82 and 82 % sold i n market  100 more residues available for 52 feed from monsoon lentils; 0 but very few farmers grow them as an intercrop with maize so 48 0 70 % can be sold to neighbors 0 to feed to their animals range  3.00 1.25-4.50 7000 Average yield * market price 21020 Potential crop income * % sold 17230  refers to cropping rotations described i n Table 5.2 & seasonal codes: M=monsoon; W=winter; P=premonsoon  99  (standard kg/ha). to  deviation The  grow was  ranged aside most  also  from  140  of the  heap.  this  Rs/kg.  inputs would  yield  and  was  than  farmers  probably and  The  any  be  the a c t u a l  are  indicate  of  actual  the  aerial  family's highly cash  and  valued  sales  crops actual  the  that cash  was  farm  uses  on  less.  crops  animals' the  sales.  to the  be  cash  of land  farm,  protein  remembered  likely  the  sold  i n the market  uses  of  much  diet,  these  each  that  and  farm  rice,  livestock.  to both crops from  the had  actual  p o t a t o e s were  resulting  6 main  lower.  i n the  obvious  income  and  one  crop  supplement  mustard  though,  f o r the  boxes f o r  f o r the  probable  these  be  of  family  to  Thus, i t  position  Because  1.25  (17,230 Rs/ha)  crop.  The  the  potential  s m a l l e r than  their  staple  5 %),  from  investment  cash  been s e t  compost  by  income  farm  half  variable,  sales  the  diets.  afford  per  and  About  illustrated  f o r the  In c o n t r a s t ,  The  (10  I n summary, i t was  important  were r e a d i l y  added  i n c o m e s would  r e s i d u e s were t h e  r e p r e s e n t e d an  %).  I t should  e x t e n t and  m a i z e were s t a p l e  Lentils  seed  i n F i g u r e 5.3.  rice  wheat  yields  preceding discussion  cropping rotations.  m a i z e and  cash  parcels  seasonal and  as  afford  cash  illustrated their  (82  h e c t a r e of t h i s  grown on  total  could  s m a l l amounts had  half  crop  (3700 t o 8800  a farmer  extremely  other crop.  f o r one  highlights  production  and  to year  year's  marketed  this  c o u l d not  that  After  o f p o t a t o e s was  Income f r o m  year  thus  next  fed to l i v e s t o c k  required  hectare;  rotation  variable;  (21,020 R s / h a ) and  most  from  t o 10400 k g / h a !  price  were h i g h e r  crop  of  highly  potato  were  The  income  that  2200) and  f o r home c o n s u m p t i o n  residues  4.25  amount  of  cash  i n higher  c r o p s was  important  100  Land use % of oode: area: kc  5  kd  1  kg  kh  Crops (S yields In kg/ha) by season:  Annual Income per Rotation Potential Actual income: cash Bales: 96S0 Rs/ha 3960 6170  1540  19  10,380  3000  32  11,480  4520  11  26,240  19,340  28  6580  3540  7360  3700  ph 3 Time scale: Nepali Gregorian Seasons  \leritil3M34bl, \  winter  prefsonsoon Figure  ?  5.3:  Predominant potential  cropping rotations, crop yields, r e v e n u e and a c t u a l c a s h sales.  101 in  interpretation  land  of  5.3  Farm P r o f i t a b i l i t y  The  o b j e c t i v e of  management  Specifically, efficiency have been  from  the  and  point  Budgeting  the  of  farm  Management  of  view of  t o compare of  the  various  to  soil  the  optimal  economics. productivity,  cropping  quality  r o t a t i o n s (that  parameters  in  the  Techniques,  farm  Definitions  management  t e r m s and  of  risk  are and  situation  was  the  operating  capital  as  to  cropping  (important  relative to  d e c i s i o n making  small  the  at  this  Thus,  of  point  to  and  of  management  land, labour,  consumer  2).  In  allocations  fodder i t was  and  fuel  the  in a in  this  power  f a m i l y needs  this of  the  f o r the  concerned  w e l l as  whereby  goals  farms at e a r l y  i n chapter  food,  farm  of  the  p r o p e r t i e s ) as  Productivity  adaptations  enough t o meet  relative  rotations,  (relative  Adaptations  process  for fulfillment  allocations  produce of  produce  soil  the  allocated  described  management was  resources  to  uncertainty.  ( i . e . goals  development  &  evaluation.  refers  resources  resource  profitability.  to determine  a n a l y s i s methods r e q u i r e c l a r i f i c a t i o n  understand  the  farm  chapter).  standard  desires  i n c o m e s or  s e c t i o n was  according  Interpretation  context  the  crop  Analysis  profitability  5.3.1  scarce  this  i d e a was  evaluated  previous  use  relative  with  stage  context, same  and  of land  four  family the  and  from  qualities  q u a n t i t i e s of  the  land  allocations). refers  to  the  ability  of  a productive  unit  to  102  produce  a certain level  analysis  i t was  cropping  enterprises  from per  local  village  "bighas'  factors  defined  or  a minimum (Harsh,  resource  and In  the  operations  services farm  of  land  excluded was  the  rough crop  the  cost  from focus  the of  estimation  or  of  various computed  'pathis*  accepted  production  of  of  gross  various  of  farms  of  crops  conversion  (TR)  to  cropping  to  and  total  minus t o t a l  costs  of  the  household  of  Fixed farm  the  as  wood  labour  mixed  or  costs  estimate;  calculation. consideration;  from  crop  production  (TC).  animal-crop Most  of  the  products  exchanged  for  goods  s u c h as  or  depreciation  b u i l d i n g s were n e g l i g i b l e .  or  straw  made f r o m thatch,  for construction  a government  was  selected  revenues  farm  such  this  total  of  with  materials  the  complexity  cost  results  options.  b u i l d i n g s were g e n e r a l l y  of  desired  i n Pithuwa,  margin  i s usually  community.  P i t h u w a was difficult  as  a n a l y s i s of  the  and  and  'muris'  using  this  T h e s e were  calculation difficult.  materials,  opportunity low.  the  machinery  land.  t i m e , money, e n e r g y  ratio  within  within  available  of  the  the  In  1984).  made t h i s  Both machinery  was  land  area  were consumed  of  of  production  study  of  'khatas'  profitability  animal  hectare  measure  In  1981).  y i e l d s i n kilograms  of  requirements  Farm  the  i s defined  1981). as  as  (Harsh,  units  expenditure  interpreted  output  per  (IHDP/SATA,  Efficiency  of  therefore  land  Profitability within  of  total  farm  profitability,  gross  m a r g i n was  the  and  and  r e s e t t l e d area  locally the  maintenance  making  the  p r i c e s were of  crop  context  profitability. considered  As  of  also  production a  very  a measure  the  cost  most  of  relevant  103  term.  To e s t i m a t e  production rotations  or c o s t s were  subtracted assuming  total  a l l crops  (both  resource  constraints  and l a b o u r  capital only  field  was d e f i n e d  be b o u g h t  f o r each  complex  cooperative  partial  budgeting  the  analysis  cropping  to only  enterprises  a s would  usage.  costs  budgeting  and t e x t b o o k s  inputs  than  many  that  could  of labour  or  because a l l kinds of or w i t h i n the  to measure.  t h e methods o f outlined  (Harsh,  i n several  1981; Kay, 1986;  Thus i t was p o s s i b l e  rather  since  Operating  the neighbors  from  There  and u n i r r i g a t e d  The c o s t  were d i f f i c u l t  the f a c t o r s that  rotation options,  f o r crop  was a d a p t e d  1985).  to suggest  i n c e r t a i n seasons.  and e n t e r p r i s e  & Peterson,  rotation.  power was i n c l u d e d  non-cash  were made t h a t technique  common  or markets.  i n the  The u s e o f t h e terms  i . e .irrigated  arrangements with  f a r m management b u l l e t i n s Malmberg  production,  per cropping  as t h e e x p e n d i t u r e  cropping  were  c r o p s ) was s o l d  to t h e i r  Draft  shortages  power were c o n s i d e r e d  A budgeting  and  costs  of crop  enterprise.  f o r each;  i n the bazaars  resources  crops  r e q u i r e m e n t s were e v a l u a t e d  bullock  family  the f a c t o r s of  variable  and t r e e  gross margin  men and women l a b o u r .  f a r m e r s had m e n t i o n e d  only  f o r various  These t o t a l  were c o m p a r a b l e  were two s u b d i v i s i o n s land,  changed  costs,  p o t e n t i a l revenues  to estimate  Selected potential  that  variable  included.  from  marketplace,  land  total  were r e l a t e d  to  streamline  to various  a l l f a c t o r s o f a l l farm  be done i n a c o m p l e t e  budgeting  analysis.  104  5.3.2 The organize taken  technique,  data  key  i n the  from  Pithuwa  profitability  from  area.  gross  of  total  eight  common c r o p p i n g  Next  rotation  assumptions I t was  profitability study  area  labour  intensive.  were g e n e r a l l y low including  for  these  When c r o p s 5.5),  the  order  crop  resource  order  of  The  relative  were  income and crop  Figure  calculated  crops  in  two  estimated  total  was  to estimate  overview  of  the  variable  compiled gross  will  be  examined  from  overall  the  low.  and  or  into  margin  on  a  cropping  prices  i n more d e t a i l  rough  profit  system  estimate  levels  of  of  the  A l l cropping  f o r most  of the  Table  5.9  were in  section  farms  systems  in  the  seemed  very  requirements  cropping  rotations  and  provide  5.10  assumed.  farm  In c o n t r a s t , o p e r a t i n g c a p i t a l  except  the  the  detail  statements.  the  gross  on  a per  margin  hectare  crops  requirements,  was  similar  i . e . labour,  basis (Figure  in decreasing  p o t a t o >> l a t e r i c e > m u s t a r d > e a r l y s p r i n g m a i z e > wheat > l e n t i l s . The  into  worksheet.  o p t i o n s was  f o r 8 major  were compared of  organized  interact.  conditions, yields  potatoes.  general  farmer  to  basis.  obvious that  was  components  combinations  were e x t r e m e l y  one  interviews  general  i n f o r m a t i o n by  obtain a general  5.3.3)  and data  potential  this  system model, average (These  used  IBMPC Symphony  margins  costs.  To  o f an  these  input  cropping  The  d e f i n e d a b o v e , was  o f v a r i o u s l a n d use  First,  tallies  how  as  informant  components  illustrates  steps.  A n a l y s i s o f Farms i n P i t h u w a  budgeting  interactive 5.A  Budgeting  rice  magnitude  > monsoon m a i z e >  when e f f i c i e n c i e s power and  was:  of  operating  selected capital,  105  T i t l e : Comparison by crop Scenerio description Assumptions:  Input costs  Crop prices  * * Crop Income:  Input Costs:  Selected Resource Requirements:  * *  crop 1 kg/ha  Rs  crop2 kg/ha  Rs  * *  * *  * *  * *  crop 1 units  Rs  crop2 units  RS  crop 1 units  RS  crop2 units  Rs  *  *  *  *  crop 1 units  RS  crop2 units  Rs  * *  * *  * *  * *  * * *  Gross Margin:  Crop yields  * *  * * *  * *  etc  etc  * *  etc  etc  T i t l e : comparison by cropping rotation Scenario description  •  i  j Assumptions: | rotation 1 rotation 2  Cropping rotation amounts % ha *  *  ; Summaries by Rotation: income input costs gross margin selected resource reguirets  * rotn 1  rotn 2  * * * *  * * * *  etc.  farm total  * *  Overall Farm or Fixed Costs:  Farm Profit  *  Figure 5.4: Interactive components of cropping system budgeting worksheet for comparing various crops and cropping rotations i n the Pithuwa study area.  TABLE 5.9: COMPARISONS CF PRODUCTIVITY S EFFICIENCY OF VARIOUS CROPS SCENARIO  values taken from key informant interviews and means from general interviews average prices and average yields assumed  ASSUMPTIONS:INPUT COSTS (Rs per unit) tractor rental /hour bullodc team rental /day labor hire/'manday (md) labor hire/womanday (wd) urea fertilizer A g examples fertilizer A g muriate of potash A g pesticide /bottle food far labor /day yearly tax /ha irrigation costAa  aver 150 30 20 15 3.5 3.3 1.6 50 7 100 35  high 200 50 30 25 3.8 3.7  10 60  LATE RICE kg/na Rs 2180 Yield seed: kg par ha Rs per ha of crop per year 5450 TOTAL CROP INCOME  TOTAL INPUT COSTS: (Variable Costs) ploughing: rractcr rental in hours bullock raam in days f e r t i l i t y : compost i n kg/na OR in •wmandays urea complex mur. of potash . seed in kg/ha seeding: labor (rice:wd; othsr:md) crop care: purchased pesticide weeding labor (wd) irrigating labor (md) harvesting: labor in man S womandays threshing: labor in mandays labor food: days that meals are given TOTAL COSTS :: Rs par ha of Rs per kg of GROSS MARGIN: Rs par ha of Rs per kg of  Labor: Power: Capital:  r\ 12  670 3 40 30 0 A "  10 0 1 10 30 10 54  1  EARLY RICE Rs kg/ha 2340 4680  EARLY RICE Rs units 0 C 0 360 360 12 490 29 2 40 175 140 50 50 165 99 0 0 0 104 113 52 150 150 10 0 ± 50 15 15 1 200 200 10 525 525 30 200 10 200 1181 1165 53 3023  LATE MAIZE Rs 1380 2898  kgAa  LATE MAIZE Rs units 0 0 9 270 3710 15 223 0 0 10 33 0 0 67 32 1 20 0 0 1 15 c 0 10 175 27  3139 1.34  2427  LATE RICE • unit Rs/unit irrigated "khet (ha) 1.0 2427 ramirri gated "pakho' (ha) 0.0 man days (md) 47 52 woman days (wd) 82 29 bullock days (bd) 24 101 operating (Rs) 239 10 for marketplace inputs  CROP PRICES (Rs per kg) Crop average high rice 1 2.50 3.25 rice e 2.00 2.60 maize 2.10 3.00 mustard 7.50 11.00 wheat 2.00 3.00 potato 3.00 4.50 lentil 2.40 2.70 soybean 5.00 6.00 fuelwood (Rs/25kg) 10.00 15.00  used in low analysis 150 100 30 25 20 15 15 10 3.5 2.8 3.3 2.7 1.6 1 50 22 7 5 100 35 0  LATE RICE units Rs  crop per year crop 1.39 crap per year crop 1.11  SELECTED RESOURCE RECOTREMENTS: Land:  106  590  1.01 1541  5.00  10.00  WHEAT Rs 0 90  563  MUSTARD Rs •^ni~s 225 b 1.5 o 270 3 480 1000 29 2 '4 140 40 90 330 100 140 0 0 0 150 20 120 20 .1 J. 50 1 0 15 1 -i 20 0 5 75 5 200 15 10 26 416 19  1350  1940  kg/ha  units  0.66  1.09  0.97  EARLY RICE unit Rs/unit 1.0 1541 0.0 47 33 19 81 24 64 340 5  LATE MAIZE unit Rs/unit 0.0 1.0 1505 14 107 48 32 18 84 33 46  EARLY MAIZE unit Rs/unit 0.0 1170 1.0 78 15 45 26 13 65 23 51  unit 0.0 1.0 23 24 18 695  60 315 462 0 240 20 0 15 0 88 300 572  MUSTARD Rs/unit 2260 100 93 126 3  units 1.5 12 1920 8 35 120 0 540 4 0 8 0 35 0 55  unit 0.0 1.0 22 34 6 777  3500 3300 1950 1460 790 660 2030 1810 9500 670  1500 1600 970 560 250 270 890 660 3500 175  2180 2340 1380 1200 560 490 1590 1250 7000 300  13500  625  4200  POTATO Rs  kg/ha  LENTIL Rs  POTATO Rs 225 360 115 123 396 0 1620 80 0 120 0 613 1203  8  LENTIL RS 0 0 27 25 0 0 24 20 0 0 0 75  units  Rs  5  100  10 10 20  150 150 300  171 341  700  379  980  1.26  2.31  339 16 10 56 0  1680  1.14 16146  unit 0.0 1.0 34 88 24 2364  RS  720  units 0 0 445 2 7 0 0 10 1 0 0 0 5  0.69  WHEAT Rs/unit  TPTT.TPTT,  300  4854  339 0.27  4.'34  used in poor analysis  21000  2500  2162  2260  1170  kgAa  good  7000  1.73  3.46  1.13 1505  2.50 2.00 2.10 7.50 2.00 3.00 2.40 5.00  WHEAT Rs  EARLY MAIZE units Rs o Q 270 9 3400 14 204 18 5 10 33 0 0 25 53 20 -L 0 0 • 1 15 0 0 10 175  1393  2.35 1.80 1.80 6.50 1.80 1.25 2.00 4.00  MUSTARD Rs kg/ha 560 1250 420Q  EARLY MAIZE Rs 1200 2520  kgAa  26  CROP YIELDS (kgAa) Crop average rice 1 2180 rice e 2340 maize 1 1550 maize e 1200 mustard k 560 mustard p 490 1590 wheat k 1250 wheat p 7000 potato 300 lentil fuelwood cansumpt 2400  used in  low analysis  POTATO Rs/unit 16146 482 184 673 7  LENTIL unit Rs/unit 0.0 379 1.0 108 4 31 12 0 7 25  TPTT.TPTT.  unit Rs/unit 980 1.0 0.0 10 98 49 20 0 0  107  TABLE 5.10: COMPARISONS CF PRODUCTIVITY & EFFICIENCY OF VARIOUS CROPPING ROTATIONS SCENARIO  information taken from general farm interviews average farm :CROP ROTATIONS (ha S % of farm) Amt kc: late r i c e , mustard kd: late r i c e , l e n t i l kf: late r i c e , fallow, spr maize kg: early r i c e , wheat, spr maize kh: early r i c e , mustard, spr maize k i : early r i c e , mustard, dainchha kk: Jap.Ext.farm organic khetpa: maize, potato-wheat pc: maize, mustard pd: maize-lentil, mustard pf: upland r i c e , mustard or maize ph: farmstead, garden p i : maize, mustard - i p i l i p i l pk: Jap.Ext.farm rainfed rotations Total landholding Irrigated land  (ha) Amt (%) 5.9 0.1 0.1 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.3 17.6 0.5 29.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.8 0.2 0.4 23.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 100.0 1.0 58.8  Farm SUMMARIES FOR CROPPING ROTATIONS Basis of 1 ha of rotation Cropping P r o f i t Margin: Total crop income (Rs) Total Variable Costs (Rs) Gross Margin (Rs) Selected Resource Requirements: Land: irrigated khet (ha) nonirrigated pakho (ha) Labor: man days (md) woman days (wd) Power: bullock days (bd) Capital: operating (Rs) Basis of amt of farm i n rotation Cropping P r o f i t Margin: Total crop income (Rs) Total Variable Costs (Rs) Gross Margin (Rs) Selected Resource Requirements: Land: irrigated khet (ha) nonirrigated pakho (ha) Labor: man days (md) woman days (wd) Power: bullock days (bd) Capital: operating (Rs)  kc 1.0  kd 1.0  kg 1.0  kh 1.0  PC  Pd  1.0  9650 4963 4637  6170 3364 2806  10380 6650 3730  11400 6429 4971  1.0 0.0 70 107 42 934  1.0 0.0 51 94 24 264  1.0 0.0 84 160 48 1168  0.1  0.1  965 496 469  617 336 2S1  0.1 0.0 7 11 4 93  0.1 0.0 5 9 2 26  1.0  pa 1.0  pi 1.0  6573 3333 3240  7293 3675 3618  25398 8409 17989  8253 4033 4220  1.0 0.0 85 150 60 1086  0.0 1.0 37 72 36 728  0.0 1.0 40 84 36 753  0.0 1.0 69 169 48 3174  1.0 0.0 47 92 36 728  0.3  0.5  0.4  0.0  0.0  0.0  3114 1995 1119  5700 3214 2486  2629 1333 1296  0 0 0  0 0 0  0 0 0  13025 7375 5650  0.5 0.0 42 75 30 543  0.0 0.4 15 29 14 291  0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0  0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0  0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0  1.0 0.4 94 172 65 1304  0.3 0.0 25 48 14 350  108 22000  "16146  20000 18000 16000 14000 12000 10000  a ti a  8000 6000  3  2427 1541  4000 2000 0 potato  cash costs  F i g u r e 5.5  \//  A other costs  k X \ l gross margin  G r o s s M a r g i n s , Cash C o s t s & O t h e r C r o p s i n P i t h u w a Study ( R u p e e s /  Costs of Various ha a n n u a l l y ) 17989  o o r. i.  v a • o a a  tr  tX  Figure  ! cash costs  5.6:  \// A other costs  k XNJ gross margin  G r o s s M a r g i n s , Cash C o s t s & O t h e r C o s t s o f C r o p p i n g R o t a t i o n s i n P i t h u w a Study (Rupees/ ha a n n u a l l y )  109  were c o m p a r e d . per  hectare  than  those  exception and  of  to  appear  There  was  crops  options  margins pa  >>  It  was  kh  on  low  > kc  and  varied  of  rotations,  more p r o f i t a b l e  than  profitable  options  three  profitable  most  order  triple  double  ( p a , kh,  crop  crops,  no  r e d u c t i o n i n crop  fuelwood  needs,  the  of  this  cost  eliminating  o p t i o n seemed  rotations  without  comparisons  ipilipil either  to c o l l e c t t o be the  discussed  i t .  here.  of  with than  one  high-yielding,  (pa,  pd)  were  The  three  centered  around  mustard  and  ( p i ) i t was from  could  supply  the  purchase  I f these  F i g u r e 5.6  rotation  (pc).  yields  more p r o f i t a b l e  trees.  order  In c o n t r a s t , w i t h i n  a g r o f o r e s t r y system  t h a t the  labour  new  i . e . potatoes,  that  and  the  were t h o s e  the  cropping  more p r o f i t a b l e  rotations  In  competition  this.  labour  kd.  rotations  respectively. t h e r e was  for  various  male  farming  family  b a s i s the  (kg).  crop  kc)  >  ( k c ) was  variety  and  the  as f o l l o w s :  > kg  with  were  of  double-cropping  rotations  higher  of both  seasons  the  each  was  > pc  t h a t the  'moto' r i c e  Potatoes  compensated  hectare  rice  by  margins  were u s u a l l y  substitution  a 1.0  'masuli'  that gross  efficiencies  into  > p i > pd  find  'khet'  were combined  triple-cropping  maize-based  or  The  probably  interesting  early-maturing  to  'pakho' l a n d .  trend.  in decreasing  late-maturing the  land  possible that p a r t i a l l y  rotation  of  surprising  rice  general  labour  When t h e  the  irrigated  this  operations.  gross  not  f o r n o n i r r i g a t e d or  female  whenever  I t was  always most the  late  rice  assumed  tree-crop a l l the of  family  firewood  assumptions  than  the  similar  illustrates  or  hold,  'pakho' the  110  In  reality  cropping  farmers  rotation.  m a r g i n s and  resource  average  amounts o f  5.10).  With  possible  to  do  order  resource  for  the  switch  Table  various  the  e i g h t major  Resource  from  cropping  combinations. 'khet'  land  crop.  Three  upland  with  crop.  The  water  to  an  low  summarizes rotation  and  multipurpose  requirements  cropping  year.  potential  labour  and  the  Table be  crops,  to  requirements  selected  power and  capital.  kg,  resources  different  kh)  puddled  be  cropping  required  irrigated  f o r the  monsoon  rice  required rainfed  'pakho'  or  soil  f o r the  monsoon  maize  irrigation  trees established.  i . e . 77  These  on  basis.  The  v a r i e d with  r o t a t i o n s (kg,  labour,  gross  i t would  profit  ( p i ) r e q u i r e d some  three  f o r power, i . e . A8 of  pd)  power r e q u i r e m e n t s  Triple  of  selected resource  and  aerated  a g r o f o r e s t r y system  woman-days per  about  drained,  the  to h i g h  options.  bunded  farm  c o n s t r a i n t s need  r o t a t i o n s ( k c , kd,  pc,  each  & Constraints  l a n d were r e q u i r e d by  been  of  methodology,  individual  profit  potential  r o t a t i o n s (pa,  amounts o f  Comparisons  of  had  well  Labour  highest  Four  that  get  category.  types  hectare  actual situation,  to t h i s  c o n s i d e r a t i o n were l a n d , l a b o u r , Different  1.0  r o t a t i o n s (bottom  Requirements  and  5.10  have  were r e c a l c u l a t e d b a s e d  e v a l u a t i o n on  requirements  considered. of  requirements  improvements  this  to  seldom  approximate  the  slight  5.3.3 In  To  would  power  t o 85  kh,  cropping pa)  needed  man-days and  r o t a t i o n s a l s o had  t o 60  bullock-days  requirements  c o n s t r a i n t s for adoption  of  gave  rotation  165 the  per  the to  highest  year.  important  innovative  175  clues  rotations.  111  These not  two r e s o u r c e s  be s t o r e d  f r o m month  labour  was  labour  shortages  month  extremely  these  unavailable detailed  had  The  that  time  before  rotation  rotations  with  pc'  Labour would  with  flow  t h e demand f o r  h a r v e s t i n g months and and power p r o f i l e s  the data  the reason  from  by  was this  the farmers  than  usual  r e q u i r e d f o r each  could  potatoes.  The summary o f seed  consider  type of was  rice  cropping table  because  h a r v e s t and  option  and f e r t i l i z e r s  operating  cropping capital  (1168 and 1086 R s / h a , r e s p e c t i v e l y ) .  traditional  to c r e d i t double  o r farm  cropping  was  profitable  The r i c e - b a s e d , t r i p l e  and no a c c e s s  was  illustrated  the h i g h l y  'kh' had a c o n s i d e r a b l e  to stay with  could  interviews.  f o r purchase  a farmer  they  be a b e t t e r method o f  a later  consideration.  as w e l l  low c a s h  forced x  capital  *kg' and  requirement  the r i c e  Ironically,  busy w i t h  because  For example,  n o t be c o l l e c t e d  3174 Rupees c a s h  concern  Unfortunately  f o r lengthy  important  necessary 'pa'  form.  could  operating  another  rotation  two f a c t o r s .  were e x t r e m e l y little  during  often occurred.  in this  data  t o month.  high  o r week f o r e a c h  studying  they  were o f p a r t i c u l a r  loans  Farmers were  r o t a t i o n s such  or k d ' . x  5.3.4 Several  Sensitivity  s c e n a r i o s were a p p l i e d t o t h e ' c r o p p i n g  budget  model' to t e s t  margin  to v a r i a t i o n s  considered  A n a l y s i s of Crop P r o d u c t i o n  important  the s e n s i t i v i t y in factors f o r two  o f farm  of crop  profit  production.  Factors  system or  gross  This  was  reasons:  1) Some a s s u m p t i o n s v a r i e d a c c o r d i n g t o a n n u a l o r s e a s o n a l c o n d i t i o n s , e.g. crop p r i c e s , y i e l d s . By t e s t i n g t h e  as  1 12  s e n s i t i v i t y of p r o f i t a b i l i t y to would be p o s s i b l e t o a p p r e c i a t e c y c l e s o f some o f t h e o p t i o n s .  these production f a c t o r s , i t t h e r i s k s or 'boom b u s t '  2) O t h e r a s s u m p t i o n s were a 'best a p p r o x i m a t i o n ' from the l i t e r a t u r e and p e r s o n a l o b s e r v a t i o n s i n t h e s t u d y a r e a , e.g. l a b o u r i n p u t s , c o s t o f compost a d d i t i o n s . I f crop p r o f i t a b i l i t y was q u i t e s e n s i t i v e t o t h e f a c t o r s o f p r o d u c t i o n b a s e d on t h e s e q u e s t i o n a b l e a s s u m p t i o n s , i t would be n e c e s s a r y t o s p e c i f y some o f t h e l i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e comparisons. The s e n s i t i v i t y a n a l y s i s c o u l d a l s o h i g h l i g h t f u t u r e r e s e a r c h needs to improve the b u d g e t i n g results. To  appreciate  influenced  the  were a p p l i e d 1) 2) 3) A)  6) 7) 8) 9) 10)  The  detail  should  yields vary  be  the  the  of  were b a s e d  and  the  range  of  d e c i s i o n making, the  cropping  on  these that on the  among i n p u t s  percentages Of  farmers'  noted  depending  effects  risks  systems  conditions following  profitability  that  scenarios  model:  a v e r a g e p r i c e s and y i e l d s f o r a l l c r o p s ( F i g u r e 5 . 7 ) ; low p r i c e s and a v e r a g e y i e l d s , a l l c r o p s ( T a b l e 5 . 1 1 ) ; h i g h p r i c e s and a v e r a g e y i e l d s , a l l c r o p s ( T a b l e 5.11); l i g h t e r monsoon p r e c i p i t a t i o n and w i n t e r d r o u g h t c a u s e d drop i n a l l crop y i e l d s ( T a b l e 5.12); i d e a l growing c o n d i t i o n s caused h i g h e r than u s u a l y i e l d s ( T a b l e 5.12); l e v e l s o f f e r t i l i z e r a p p l i c a t i o n were d o u b l e d and y i e l d s were i m p r o v e d 50% ( T a b l e 5 . 1 3 ) ; new f a c t o r y j o b s a t B h a r a t p u r c a u s e d p r i c e o f l a b o u r t o i n c r e a s e by 50% ( F i g u r e 5 . 8 ) ; s h o r t a g e o f b u l l o c k teams c a u s e d s u b s t a n t i a l i n c r e a s e i n r e n t a l p r i c e ( T a b l e 5.13); e x p e n s i v e p e s t i c i d e s had t o be p u r c h a s e d t o c o n t r o l a r a r e i n s e c t i n f e s t a t i o n of mustard ( T a b l e 5.13); t r a c t o r h i r e was s u b s t i t u t e d f o r b u l l o c k team h i r e , and c r o p y i e l d s were i n c r e a s e d 50% due t o more t i m e l y seeding (Table 5.13).  5)  It  to  the  of  a l l the  largest  analyses the  the  realities  to  important on  crop  and  suggest  change w o u l d  effect  percentages  rotation or  were i n c l u d e d  be  held  of  i n Appendix  change  i n p r i c e s or  f a c i n g the  farmers  scenario.  To  policy  H.  and  compare  thus the  recommendations,  these  constant.  v a r i a b l e s , poor profitability  yields or  gross  appeared margin.  to  have In  113  Table 5.11: Sensitivity of crop profitability indicators to changes in crop prices (expressed as % of change from baseline or average figures) Crop profitability indicators Decrease in crop prices: (mean % decrease for 2-3crops) Potential total revenue Total variable costs Gross margin  kc  -10 -9 0  'khet' land uses kd kg kh  -13  -11  pc  'pakho' land uses pd pa pi  -12  -14  -15  -27  -26  -7 -11 -12 0 - 1 - 1  -14 -1  -14 -1  -49 -12  -21 -1  -18  -16  -30  -27  -27  -27  -66  -41  38  21  41  40  45  34  47  47  Potential total revenue Total variable costs  37 2  28 1  39  45 3  42  49 11  52 2  Gross margin  74  60  81  67  103  Increase in crop prices: (mean % increase for 2-3crops)  39 3  2  105  87  3  88  Table 5.12: Sensitivity of crop profitability indicators to changes i n crop yields (expressed as % of change from baseline or average figures) Crop profitability indicators Decrease i n crop yields: (mean % decrease for 2-3crops)  kc  'khet' land uses kd kg kh  -43  -36  Potential total revenue Total variable costs  -42 0  Gross margin  Increase in crop yields: (mean % increase for 2-3crops) Potential total revenue Total variable costs Gross margin  -43  pc  'pakho' land uses pd pa pi  -47  -41  -41  -32 0  -41 -45 0 0  -38  -38 0  -86  -71  -113  -104  -78  -78  -70  -93  51  92  30  35  30  61  35  94  52 0  68 0  37  38  107  149  32 0  0 90  76  0  37 0  93  -56  -48 0  46 0  84  -45  0 55  -48 0  75 0 147  114  Table 5.13:  Sensitivity of crop profitability indicators to changes i n crop input prices (expressed as % of change from baseline or average figures)  Crop profitability indicators  'khet' land uses kd kg kh  kc  'pakho' land uses pd pa pi  pc  Increase i n f e r t i l i z e r use & yields increased  100 30  100 30  100 30  100 30  100 30  100 30  100 30  100 30  Potential total revenue Total variable costs  30 10  30 1  30 18  30 13  37 15  37 14  32 16  37 12  Gross margin  52  65  52  52  60  59  39  58  50  50  50  50  50  50  50  50  0 27  0 34  0 28  0 27  0 23  0 25  0 22  0 28  -29  -40  -50  -35  -24  -25  -10  -27  50  50  50  50  50  50  50  50  0 6  0 5  0 5  0 7  0 8  0 7  0 4  0 7  -10  -9  Increase i n price of labour: (Rs per md or wd doubled) Potential total revenue Total variable costs Gross margin  Increase i n price of bullock: power (Rs/bd double) Potential total revenue Total variable costs Gross margin  Increased use of pesticides to maintain mustard yields: Potential total revenue Total variable costs Gross margin  -7  300 0 2  0 0  0 0  -2  -2  300  300  300  0 2  0 3  0 3  -2  -3  -3  300 0 0  0 2  Increase i n tractor hire: Increase i n crop yield:  300 50  300 50  300 50  300 50  300 50  300 50  300 50  300 50  Potential total revenue Total variable costs  50 8  50 7  50 7  50 9  58 11  57 10  52 6  57 9  Gross margin  94  101  126  103  107  106  74  102  11 5  cash costs  \//  A other costs  k X \ l gross margin  Gross Margins & Costs of Cropping R o t a t i o n s : Averag P r i c e s & Poor Y i e l d s (Rupees per ha p e r y r ) 16177  ^3 cash costs  8:  \//A  other costs  k X \ l gross margin  Gross M a r g i n s & C o s t s of C r o p p i n g R o t a t i o n s : Averag P r i c e s & Y i e l d s , C o s t l y L a b o u r ( R u p e e s / ha / y r )  11 6 some c a s e s crop as  the gross  yields  were p o o r .  Especially  *kg' o r "kh' and c r o p s  mustard.  I t was  the  recently  more  opinions  introducing narrow  interesting  Zandstra  were r o t a t i o n s  such  three  early crops  m a i z e and were some o f  T h i s would  support  the  r e s e a r c h e r s that the  systems  (Schroeder,  when  rice,  varieties.  i n n o v a t i o n s to farmers margin  value  should  be u n d e r s t o o d  before  t h a t a r e o p e r a t i n g a t such  c o s t of labour  considerable cropping  impact  rotation,  f o r each  1985; Van Der Veen, 1982;  inputs.  sensitive  to t h i s  be i m p r o v e d  detailed  data  was  another  on t h e amount especially  crop  other  Thus,  of gross  those  were based  factor  research  and s e a s o n a l  questionable  systems  in this  profiles  f o r each  rice.  profitability  i n p u t , the cropping by more  margin  involving  on more  s i n c e crop  t h a t had a  The  data  was  than  relatively  budgeting  area  labour  results  ( e . g . more  of a v a i l a b l e  versus  required  labour) . In similar  summary,  increases i n input  decreases  contrast,  factors  magnified  effect  5.4  i n gross such  margin  as crop  on g r o s s  prices  prices  margin  results  Comparison of t h i s  with  study  were r e f l e c t e d i n  per c r o p p i n g and c r o p  by a f a c t o r  D i s c u s s i o n o f Farm P r o d u c t i v i t y 5.5.1  The  a  e t a l , 1981).  The  could  as e a r l y  that these  introduced  of the farming  profit  inputs  such  or a n e g a t i v e  sensitive  of s e v e r a l i n t e r n a t i o n a l  complexities  the  m a r g i n s were z e r o  rotation. yields  In  had a  o f two t o t h r e e .  Results  Literature were compared t o o t h e r  research  11 7  results  i n the Chitawan  characteristics, interesting In  Terai farm  of general  deviations  farming size  studies  yields  Comparisons and l a b o u r  and a r e d i s c u s s e d  terms  standard  crop  area.  (LRMP,  57 % f o r b o t h ) .  to those reported  1983c).  Family  (LSU)  p e r f a r m were somewhat  less  Research panchayat Systems Crop in  was t h e c l o s e s t  Staff,  yields  Pithuwa  rotations and  1984).  i n Pithuwa  than i n comparable i n Ratnanagar.  difference  differences  'panchayats' or a r e a s .  drained,  ancient  situated  on a more r e c e n t  data  alluvial  area  members;  yields  i n Ratnanagar study  similar,  (Cropping though.  c r o p s were c o n s i d e r a b l y  'masuli'  lower  cropping rice  y i e l d e d 2180  respectively.  The  was even more s t r i k i n g ; i . e .  and R a t n a n a g a r .  due t o c o n t r a s t Pithuwa  and a c t i v e  These  i n land  was l o c a t e d  f a n upland ( 5 c ) ;  was u s e d , c r o p  7.8  6.9 L S U ) .  'farmer p r a c t i c e s '  from a 'panchayat' l o c a t e d  the Chitawan  (i.e.  to t h i s  were n o t v e r y  f o r Pithuwa  may have been  was a n a l o g o u s units  program  and R a t n a n a g a r  i n monsoon m a i z e  1380 and 3310 kg/ha  two  systems  F o r example,  f o r Pithuwa  and LRMP  was c o n s i d e r e d i m p o r t a n t .  i n proximity  Yields  the average  livestock  ( 9 . 4 members;  f o r a l l 7 o f t h e major  2820 kg/ha  F o r example,  and t o t a l  yields  done by t h e c r o p p i n g  f o r t h e upper  f o r the Pithuwa  size  6.1 LSU) t h a n t h o s e n o t e d by LRMP comparison of crop  quite  t h e means and  Percentage of 'khet' land  (i.e.  The  were  farm c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ,  was 1.7 and 1.9 h e c t a r e s  respectively.  inputs  here.  were s i m i l a r  systems  of farm  types of the  on a w e l l  while  alluvial  R a t n a n a g a r was  plain  on a more c o m p a r a b l e yields  distinct  were w i t h i n  (4c). land  When type i n  20 t o 60  118  kg/ha  (LRMP,  1983c).  E a r l y maturing  2340 and 2360 k g / h a ;  and monsoon m a i z e  kg/ha, r e s p e c t i v e l y f o r Pithuwa The various  last  comparison  crops.  questionable  Terai  of Nepal  (Khoju,  for  early rice,  per  hectare)  than  three  reasons  study  excluded  Pithuwa could not  study  have  have  canal  study  using  subtropical  very  labour  F o r each  were n o t e d  that  crop  (p) (p) (p) (p) (p) (p)  and and and and and and  T h e r e were  inputs  into  pump while the  irrigation  compared  1985).  T e r a i may  the crop  f i n d i n g s from  (ILAC0,  probably  f o r the d i f f e r e n c e s  by pump o r  amounts o f l a b o u r  were t h e n  inputs  labour  i n the eastern  may have  with  another  several  When  comparable  i n man-days p e r h e c t a r e  the f o l l o w i n g t o t a l  by t h e two s t u d i e s , P i t h u w a  130 60 50 60 120 15  crop  reason  of research  environments  were c o n s i d e r e d  lentil  inputs  i n the eastern  i n the t o t a l s ,  inputs  the assumption similar  crop  T o t a l s i n t h e hand  noted  labour  t h e most  relative  lower  study.  Another  increased  seemed  ( i . e . 65, 55 and 25 mandays  i n this  yields  a compilation  rice: maize: mustard: wheat: potato: lentil: The  the lower  farming  somewhat  and t h r e s h i n g  them.  The l a b o u r  inputs  inputs f o r  pump p r o f i t a b i l i t y  descrepancy.  included  panchayats.  in calculating  and wheat  noted  harvesting  Thirdly,  similar.  labour  rice  diversion required  faulty.  yields  o f hand  those  justified  been  labour  1983) f o u n d  for this  been  production. by  local  y i e l d e d 1380 and 1440  and B h a n d a r a  of the assumptions A study  y i e l d e d an a v e r a g e o f  h i g h l i g h t e d was r e s o u r c e  In p a r t i c u l a r ,  profitability.  rice  were  man-days o f  ( p ) and ILAC0 ( i ) :  135 ( i ) 50 ( i ) 50 ( i ) 65 ( i ) 120 ( i ) 35 ( i )  had q u i t e a d i f f e r e n t  labour  requirement  i n the  11 9 Pithuwa  study  because  harvested  rice  with  little  very The  this  fields  was  of these  or s p e c i a l comparisons  characteristics  and c r o p  farming  l o c a t e d on s i m i l a r  systems  assumptions could  used  be i m p r o v e d  g e n e r a l l y broadcast  or r e l a y e d a f t e r  ploughing  results  crop  yields  onto  t h e monsoon m a i z e  crop  land p r e p a r a t i o n . indicated  t h a t the farm  were n o t u n l i k e t h o s e land  types.  The  i n the e s t i m a t i o n of r e l a t i v e  crop  b u t were n o t o u t o f l i n e  with  of other  labour profitablity  values  i n the  literature.  5.5.2 The  I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r Land  overwhelming  the Pithuwa  study  these  farming  yield  per h e c t a r e  influencing  area  land  was o n l y  crop  grown and m a r k e t  and  and d i v e r s e  Productivity  or crop  of c o n s i d e r a t i o n s  The amount o f i n p u t s o n t o  amendments, was  prices.  dependent  C r o p c h o i c e was gross  margin,  land,  on t h e  i n f l u e n c e d by use  resources  required  First,  of the a n a l y s i s  of the farming  triple  rotations  a l w a y s more p r o f i t a b l e  example,  the k c ' r o t a t i o n  followed  by m u s t a r d ,  x  cropping  rotations  complex  involved.  were n o t e w o r t h y .  triple  incredibly  one o f a s e r i e s  and c h e m i c a l  Some o f t h e r e s u l t s  not  e v a l u a t i o n of the farms i n  systems were.  and r e s i d u e , r e l a t i v e  the r i s k  from  u s e management.  as compost  seed  was how  and c r o p p i n g  such  of  impression  Use Management  than  cropping double  involving  had a h i g h e r  rotations  cropping  the l a t e r  gross  ( k g , pd, p i ) .  margin  systems  were o f t e n but  rotations.  maturing than  Secondly,  For  rice  several irrigated  were n o t a l w a y s more p r o d u c t i v e and p r o f i t a b l e  than  120  rainfed  land  potatoes. rainfed  Third,  rotations  supplying  pa'  as e x e m p l i f i e d the i n t r o d u c t i o n improved  that  had h i g h e r  triple  requirements  capital.  increases  i n the p r i c e s  traditional  rotations  of i n p u t s .  such  as  x  into  Fourth,  s u c h as k g ' , 'kh' and x  bullock more  power and  s e n s i t i v e to  L a s t l y , some o f t h e advantages  included  the p r e f e r r e d  "masuli'  v a r i e t y and were g e n e r a l l y  by  i t was n o t  "kd' had many  rice  fluctuations.  trees  k c ' and  newer i n n o v a t i o n s .  yield  They  needs.  f o r labour,  They were t h e r e f o r e  with  gross margins markedly  rotations  over  and  of multipurpose  and f o d d e r  cropping  operating  by t h e 'pa' r o t a t i o n  the r e l a t i v e  the f a m i l i e s f u e l  surprising x  uses,  l e s s s e n s i t i v e to market  price  121  CHAPTER  6: RESULTS OF FOREST PRODUCTIVITY EVALUATION  6.1 V e g e t a t i o n During discover From  the course  that  recent  transect  aerial  primarily  This  within  state.  constraints, natural  of the study  previously, would  along  area,  5 percent  a c l u s t e r near  it  was n o t p o s s i b l e  search Most  i s included  the  degraded  the  natural  forest  good  forest.  tree  cover  Since  of the tree  from  taking  opinion  that  erosion  terai  tree  had a s much  much  canopy  place  f o r " f a * or  forest canopy  plots c o v e r and  canopy  of the understory was  (Plate  6.1).  and  Relatively  In c o n t r a s t  was w i d e s p r e a d  c o v e r as  unprotected.  obvious  on t h e r e l a t i v e l y  that  vegetation  sites.  had n o t p r e v e n t e d  p l a i n s , degradation  o r "chauk' and  tree  away, t h e s o i l  i s minimal  located  sites.  and d e g r a d e d  were common on d e g r a d e d  erosion  inner  8  and t i m e  I t was i n t e r e s t i n g t o n o t e  often  had been c l e a r e d roots  rhinoceros  checkpost  of succession,  6.1).  forest sites  litter  Exposed  (Table  i n the  x  A d e s c r i p t i o n of both n a t u r a l  slope  of f o r e s t  o f t h e f a ' p l o t s had t o be  t o sample more t h a n  stage  the s e t t l e d  was made o f t h e a r e a  the f o r e s t o f f i c e r ' s  species,  be  were s t i l l  angry  natural,  I t was  Of t h e 1800 h e c t a r e s  l e s s than  field  that  would  t h e f o r e s t edge n e a r e s t  a thorough  in  summarizing  (fd) sites  condition.  and a  be commonplace.  I n s p i t e o f bad r o a d s ,  forest sites.  area  i t was e x p e c t e d  forest  was n o t t h e c a s e .  the study  natural  photographs  the degraded  located  i t was a l a r m i n g t o  o f t h e f o r e s t was i n a d e g r a d e d  (fa)sites  that  of P l o t s  of the f i e l d w o r k ,  two y e a r s  forest  anticipated  areas.  so much  only  untouched  Description  surface  to popular  flat  on l a n d  t e r a i and with  Table 6.1: Description of Vegetation, Successianal Stage & Canopy Cover Natural (fa) Compared to Degraded (fd) Forest  Description for natural forest (fa)  Plot # 72 73 75 76 77 78 79 81  Stage of succession Description of species using Nepali names * 3rd 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd  botdhangaro, padke, sigane, beldar sal, beldar, padke, botdhangaro beldar, botdhangaro, padke, sigane botdhangaro, beldar, sigane, bhont botdhangaro, padke, sigane, beldar, mahuro botdhangaro, tooni, padke, kyamun, sigane harro, kusum, kharam, simal, padke, sigane botdhangaro, sindure, kalikath, harro  Canopy cover % 70 65-70 70 65-70 60-65 75 50 60  Slope of site i n degrees 0-1 0-2 1 4 1 1 3 2  Description for degraded forest (fd)  Plot # 74 80 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89  Stage of succession Description of species using Nepali names * 3rd 2nd 4th 5th 2nd 2nd 5th 5th 5th 5th  Slope of Canopy site i n cover % degrees  sal, padke, sigane 65-70 padke, beldar, sisnu, bhont sal, bhetwasi 80 sindure, amaltas, s a l , khirro 50 botdhangaro, beldar, sindure, khirro, bhont 30 haldu, padke, kyamun,.bhont, banmaro, amaltas 20 sindure, khirro, s a l , banmaro, bhont, tapre 40 sal, amaltas, asna, botdhangaro, tatari 80 harro, s a l , banmaro. 40 botdhangaro, padke, beldar, bhont, khirro 30  1 3 5 5 1 0-1 0.5 3 0.5 0.5  Nepali names are used i n table; scientific equivalents and uuiimi uses are included i n Appendix C.  P l a t e 6.2: E m e r g i n g l a n d u s e c o n f l i c t s ; f a r m i n g h o u s e h o l d needs f o r t h r e e f o r e s t p r o d u c t s , i . e . t i m b e r , f i r e w o o d and f o d d e r , have c a u s e d w i d e s p r e a d d e g r a d a t i o n o f u n d e r s t o r y v e g e t a t i o n .  124  slopes  a s low a s 0.5  A brief in  these  forest an  description  forests  stages  silt  of the stages  was c o n s i d e r e d  productivity.  unpublished  first  percent.  r e p o r t by Chapa  i s the i n i t i a t i o n  d e p o s i t s prevent  riverine  s p e c i e s such  (Dalbergia  (Albizzia  As t h e l a n d  "haldu'  julisbrissia) At t h e t h i r d  tension belt. demanding  competition tomentosa) ,  areas  frequent coarse  other  stage  cordifola),  each  other  robusta)  s p e c i e s such  and  stands  "bhatayo'  Most secondary  "sisau'  stage  "simal'  "padke'  i s present  as "asna'  other  stage  of the f o r e s t and p r e - c l i m a x  but i s a  by t h e  pariflora) ,  "tatari'  anacardium).  of the timber  s p e c i e s from  of the process  called  (Terminalia  (Semicarpus  of " s a l , king  or r e v e r s a l  of pre-climax  and  so i t i s o f t e n  occurs  At  trees' are  competing.  a r e d i s t u r b e d or s a l r e g e n e r a t i o n i s poor,  species  from  i n the p r o g r e s s i o n or pre-climax,  with  e s t a b l i s h e d and p r e v e n t stage  The  f l o o d i n g and  grasses  At t h e secondary  "botdhangero ' ( L a g e r s t r o m i a  stage  post-climax  vegetation type.  s p e c i e s and i s t h e r e f o r e s t u n t e d  from  important  becomes more s t a b l e , t h e  (Adina  " S a l ' (Shorea  pertagyna)  climax  than  are f i v e  from  and " b e l d a r ' ( u n i d e n t i f i e d ) a r e  many s p e c i e s a r e c o m p e t i n g  (Dillenia  p h a s e where  s i s s o o ) a r e dominant.  plentiful.  well  There  as " k h a i r ' ( A c a c i a catechu)  (Bombax m a l a b a r i c u m ) ,  the  (1985).  species other  established.  light  r e l e v a n t t o an e v a l u a t i o n o f  i n the p r o g r e s s i o n towards a climax stage  succession  The f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n was a d a p t e d  becoming  the  of b i o l o g i c a l  when  A  these  allowing  other  to invade.  sites stage  of the study  were c l a s s i f i e d  of succession.  This  as t h e  indicated  125  that the  species  diversity  natural sites  close  probably  proximity.  apparent  that  succession;  was  high.  T h e r e was  because  they  From t h e v a r i a t i o n  they  had o r i g i n a l l y  i . e . degradation  was  less  variation  among  were a l l i n r e l a t i v e l y  of the degraded  been a t v a r i o u s not l i m i t e d  sites,  stages  t o any  i t is  of  particular  stage. In of  n a t u r a l stands  t r e e s , shrubs  utilized, species good  there  (Table  fodder  "padke'  s u b t r o p i c a l deciduous  and h e r b s were v e r y were c h a n g e s  6.1).  present  by s c i e n t i f i c  (Albizzia  such  as  stinging nettle  "banmara' and  (Eupatorium  were p r e s e n t  timber  only  abundant  list  respective  6.2 Lack  was  forest  for five  timber,  s u c h as  sites.  Species  d i o i c a ) , and  " s a l ' (Shorea  and s t a n d i n g  types  fuelwood,  of f o r e s t fodder  of the  (Lagerstromia  disturbance  Some o f t h e good  of f o r e s t ,  epecially  robusta).  area  with  i n Appendix  and D e g r a d e d  of  "sigane'  sites.  of f o r e s t e d areas  of the v e g e t a t i o n  small  types  were  less  species  on d e g r a d e d  names, i s f o u n d  of Natural  o f management  compiled  had  "botdhangaro'  common t o t h e s t u d y  u s e s and v a r i o u s  degradation  sites  adenaphorum) were i n d i c a t o r s o f  of species  Comparison  forest  or " s i s n u ' ( U r t i c a  on d e g r a d e d  species  and d i s t r i b u t i o n  Fuelwood  and  ( T e r m i n a l i a c h e b u l a ) and  complete  timber,  name).  forests,  As t h e y  as " b e l d a r ' o r  s p e c i e s were common i n b o t h  "harro'  data  such  julisbrissia)  p a r i f l o r a ) were much l e s s  diverse.  t o the type  The d e g r a d e d  species  (unidentified  of  Forest  A more  their C.  Biomass  has c a u s e d  marked  biomass.  The  products,  namely l a r g e  s p e c i e s and  biomass  regeneration  126  species  (Appendix  internationally meters  per  size  been b e t t e r t o be  e.g.  T h i s was  (Chapa, with  figures  6.1  conditions.  that  1985);  but  sampling  f o r the  illustrated  as  the  Large  levels, of  the  regeneration Numbers o f  two  The products  while  the  10  by  types  of  relative  sites.  It  was  apparent  that  have c o l l e c t e d g r a z i n g and  plots  forest,  the  degraded  fuelwood  was  Changes i n f o d d e r  forest  of the  and  villagers products  villager  have  plots  were  areas.  Thus,  * f a ' and  A  fd',  amounts o f All  forest  v o l u m e s were h a l f  their  their  about  fodder  6.2).  original  levels; of  various  f o r the  decreased  farmers  for their  traffic  third  and  (Figure  i n the  reasons  and  a  the  areas.  changes  c l u e s to the  these  use  small  would  10 m e t e r  i n average  under  amount o f  Fuelwood  land  to the  r e g e n e r a t i o n s a p l i n g s were a f i f t h  important  forest  i n both  became d e g r a d e d .  s p e c i e s were a s i x t h  magnitude  easy  discussion.  forest  untouched  for  forest (fd).  due  Larger  changes  forest.  natural  the  Livestock  the  groups  degraded  s p e c i e s were e v e n more s t r i k i n g  fodder  gave  two  in  in cubic  in agricultural  small timber  natural  of  areas  the  natural  and  numbers o f o t h e r  numbers o f  results  timber  partially  were c o n s i d e r a b l y r e d u c e d  original  into  ( f a ) and  t h e more a p p r o p r i a t e f o c u s o f  products  the  large  were d i v i d e d  forest  high.  consistent  wood p r o d u c t s  and  very  suited  Figure  of  presents  f o r biomass measurements.  the aggregate are  6.2  ( s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s ) among p l o t s  was  of p l o t  used  Plots  i . e . natural  variation  categories  Table  recognized units,  hectare.  comparison, The  M).  forest  degradation most  rapidly.  i n neighboring household  have a l s o  reduced  needs.  Table 6.2: Forest Biomass Data (adapted from Chapa, 1985) Data for natural forest (fa)  Plot# 72 73 75 76 77 78 79 81 total mean st.dev.  Forest products /ha lgTim.m3 smTim.m3 fuelwd.mt /ha 320.0 238.8 29.8 2337.1 2233.8 514.3 81.0 30.0 19.4 284.6 234.8 62.6 71.1 47.3 15.0 69.1 21.2 15.2 515.9 486.6 113.8 371.2 243.6 64.3 4050.0 506.2 708.5  3536.0 442.0 692.7  834.4 104.3 158.2  fodder.# regener.# 10700 1400 0 0 300 0 200 900  105500 33300 66900 60500 39300 30400 18000 25000  13500 1688 3439  378900 47363 27035  Data for degraded forest (fd)  Plot# 74 80 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 total mean st.dev.  Forest products /ha lgTim.m3 snfTim.m3 fuelwd.mt fodder.# regener.# /ha 124.9 105.6 35.6 0 18500 49.0 41.1 10.4 1800 3000 867.7 844.0 211.2 0 14100 2.5 0.0 0.6 0 23200 39.6 0.0 8.7 400 4000 721.8 603.3 158.8 400 4400 0.0 0.0 0.0 11000 0 . 273.0 211.3 62.4 0 12500 0.0 0.0 0.2 0 16900 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 3600 2078.5 173.2 321.2  1805.3 150.4 298.4  487.9 44.4 75.4  2700 245 554  111200 10109 6687  Abbreviations used i n table: lgTim.m3 large timber volume i n cubic meters per hectare smTim.m3 small timber volume i n cubic meters per hectare fuelwd.mt fuelwood i n metric tonnes per hectare fodder.# fodder tree species i n numbers per hectare regener.# regeneration speciesin numbers per hectare  128 species  (Appendix  internationally meters  per  size  been b e t t e r t o be  the  that  6.1  with  1985);  but  sampling  f o r the  illustrated  as  two  the  the n a t u r a l  Large  levels, of  the  regeneration Numbers o f  and  The products  by  of  the  forest  magnitude  forest  sites.  It  was  apparent  that  have c o l l e c t e d g r a z i n g and  of  plots meter  the  plots  were  areas.  Thus,  amounts  degraded  x  fd',  was  their  forest  the  and  forest their  about  third  and  (Figure  6.2).  original  i n the  reasons  fodder  levels; of  various  f o r the  decreased  farmers  for their  traffic  a  the  areas.  changes  and  of  All  v o l u m e s were h a l f  of fuelwood  products  villager  have  " f a ' and  i n average  under  villagers  these  use  small  would  became d e g r a d e d .  c l u e s to the  Fuelwood  land  to the  r e g e n e r a t i o n s a p l i n g s were a f i f t h  important  the  due  Changes i n f o d d e r  untouched  easy  discussion.  s p e c i e s were a s i x t h  natural  relative  i n both  10  for  forest (fd).  forest,  s p e c i e s were even more s t r i k i n g  of  Livestock  10  changes  forest.  groups  degraded  Larger  types  t h e amount  natural  fodder  gave  two  in  i n cubic  in agricultural  s m a l l timber  while  numbers o f o t h e r  numbers o f  into  results  timber  partially  were c o n s i d e r a b l y r e d u c e d  original  the  large  ( f a ) and  T h i s was  (Chapa,  figures  products  areas  e.g.  were d i v i d e d  forest  high.  consistent  conditions.  and  units,  more a p p r o p r i a t e f o c u s o f  products  of  very  suited  Figure wood  presents  f o r biomass measurements.  the aggregate are  6.2  ( s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s ) among p l o t s  was  of p l o t  used  Plots  i . e . natural  variation  categories  Table  recognized  hectare.  comparison, The  M).  forest  degradation most  rapidly.  i n neighboring household  have a l s o  reduced  needs.  129  600  0 £ \  E  500  -  400  -  300  -  200  -  100  -  0  E  o  2  [\  Figure  I large timber  6.1:  \//  A small timber  firewood  Biomass o f 3 Wood P r o d u c t s on N a t u r a l ( f a ) & Degraded ( f d ) F o r e s t P l o t s ( i n m3/ha) 5000 4500  -  4000  -  3500 o \  0)  3000  -  2500  -  a, D  2000 1500 1000  -  500  -  0 fa  l\  Figure  I other species x 10  6.2:  fd  i/y  A fodder species  R e g e n e r a t i o n S a p l i n g s o f F o d d e r & O t h e r S p e c i e s on N a t u r a l ( f a ) & Degraded ( f d ) F o r e s t P l o t s (in # saplings/ha)  130  regeneration  6.3  and  It of  Forest  the  medicinal  was study  2.6).  farming  needs of  that  degradation  farming  need was  need  from  the average  capita  timber.  study  were c o m p a r a b l e  was  with  Thus t h e  Pithuwa  was  forest  570  other  & B a n d y o p a d h y a y , 1986;  panchayat's  3400 k i l o g r a m s  3,775,000 k i l o g r a m s ;  timber  5400 m3  fodder.  Since  this  annually.  has  per  1982,  The  historically  b a s i s of  that  the  in units third been  The  average  in a climate  annually.  T h i s study  These 1983,  In  found the  per  figures 1984;  Moench  Wyatt-Smith, 1982).  requirement or  of  products  a n n u a l l y , or  year.  e t a l , 1984; annual  forest  r e q u i r e 2200 m3  s t u d i e s (Fox,  Singh  needs  (Wyatt-Smith,1982).  fuelwood.  kilograms  a  forest  and  estimated  would  was  systems  respective sources.  2 m3/yr  approximately needs,  their  I t was  and  6.2).  assumptions  panchayat  the  the  for a family's buildings  f a m i l y used  consumption  The  farms.  suggest  f o r t h r e e main  along with  of t h i s  areas  Land  forested  food  farming  resources with (Plate  the  and  fodder, the  of f o r e s t  families  6.3.  words t h e P i t h u w a  second  p a r t of  i s necessary  on  villages  fuelwood,  integral  i n Table  to that  neighboring  forest  Agricultural  there i s pressure  timber,  r e q u i r e d i n a year  similar  The  as  were l i s t e d  forest  that  from  of e x i s t i n g  calculation  other  such  The  were e s t i m a t e d  amount  area  households  The  first  obvious  p l a n t s a r e an  comparison  Results  I n t e r a c t i o n s Between F o r e s t and  products  (Figure  saplings.  D i s c u s s i o n of F o r e s t P r o d u c t i v i t y 6.3.1  area  t h e number o f  for fuel  was  compatible  forest  need  with  was  a neglected area  of  131  Table 6.3: Requirements for 3 Important Forest Products by Pithuwa Panchayat Basis of calculations & assumptions l)timber average amount needed for family buildings amount needed by Pithuwa panchayat  Value used  2 m3/fam/yr 2220 m3/pan/yr  2)firewood wood conversion factor i f 25% dry weight per capita consumption estimate, Phewa Tal per capita consumed by weight survey, Ghorkha •i  700 500 0.9 630 per capita estimate near Naini Tal, India 730 per family consump. by weight, Dehradun, India 11-14 per person consump " " 550 per family consumption by recall 3400 per person consumption 570 amount required for Pithuwa panchayat 3,775,000 •t it •• 5400  3)fodder % of total feed for livestock that i s fodder recommended feed levels for buffalo cattle •i II •• LSU average livestock unit (LSU) per family farm recommended feed for average family farm amount of fodder for average family farm annual fodder needs of Pithuwa panchayat  Units used  11-14 23 17,000 9,000 10-15,000 6 60-90,000 7-10,000 9,500,000  Reference, year  Wyatt-Smith, 1982 this study, 1987  kg/m3 Fox, 1983 kg/per/yr Wyatt-Smith, 1982 m3/per/yer Fox, 1983 kg/per/yr " kg/per/yr Singh et a l , 1984 kg/fam/day Moenchs Bandyopadhyay,1986 kg/per/yr " kg/fam/yr this study, 1987 kg/per/yr " kg/pan/yr m3/pan/yr "  % %  kg/buf kg/cow kg/LSU LSU /fam kg/fam kg/fam kg/pan  Fox, 1983 Moenchs Bandyopadhyay,1986 research at Lumle Williamson S Payne, 1978 this study, 1987  132  research, figures the  should  t h e most d i f f i c u l t  be i n t e r p r e t e d  recommended  LSU,  feed  i . e .livestock  family  would  Assuming fodder about was  i t was  need  that  levels unit  carefully.  (Wyatt-Smith,  60,000  ( F o x , 1983) a p a n c h a y a t  twice  If livestock  1982),  t o 90,000 k i l o g r a m s  kilograms  to estimate  o f 10 t o 15 t h o u s a n d  11 t o 14 p e r c e n t  9,500,000  of the three  of the feed such  the average  annually.  a s much a s t h e r e q u i r e m e n t  farm  was  require  Ironically,  f o r timber  and  per  annually.  for livestock  as P i t h u w a would  of fodder  were f e d  kilograms  of feed  and  this  firewood  together. The Table  forest  6.4.  resources  The f i g u r e s  of the study  from  1985) were combined  with  the  products  existing  forest  categories together  study  area;  while  the s t a n d i n g  approximate  small  resources  Pithuwa's  needs but o n l y  firewood cut  needs.  timber  meet  Pithuwa  this  Saktikhor  standing  was  i s only forest  o f l a r g e and  120,000 m3 ( o r  t o 300 y e a r s o f  that  annual  people  the fuelwood  the present  needs f o r t i m b e r  i s even more a l a r m i n g  one o f t h r e e  would  resources  forest  biomass  and f u e l f o r  when one  or four panchayats  realizes  dependent  on  area.  are a couple  b i o m a s s was  the case,  to determine  20 o f P i t h u w a ' s  after  (Chapa,  f o r the Saktikhor  assumption  firewood  panchayat's  The s i t u a t i o n  that  There  choice  If this  the study  115 y e a r s .  corresponds  I t i s a reasonable  as s e c o n d  were d e p l e t e d . would  timber  Timber  totalled  This  study  extents  655,500 m3  87,000,000 k i l o g r a m s ) . annual  were e s t i m a t e d i n  biomass  aerial  or r e s o u r c e s .  totalled  fuelwood  area  of flaws  i n the d i s c u s s i o n above.  n o t an e q u i v a l e n t  for forest  First,  productivity.  13 3  Table 6.4: Forest Resources Available for Needs of Pithuwa Panchayat Basis of calculations & assumptions Biomass data for 2 forest types i n Chitawan natural: large timber volume (fa) small timber volume fuelwood weight fodder trees regeneration degraded:large timber volume (fd) small timber volume fuelwood weight fodder trees regeneration Approximate aerial extent (fa) natural (fd) degraded Wood conversion factor i f 25% dry weight Estimated biomass for study area i n Chitawan large timber volume small timber volume fuelwood weight fodder trees regeneration  Value used  Units used  505 440 105 1690 47365 175 155 45 270 9270  m3/ha m3/ha mt/ha #/ha #/ha m3/ha m3/ha mt/ha #/ha #/ha  100 1700  ha ha  Reference, year  Chapa, 1985 tl n ii n n ti n n ti  this study, 1987 II  700 kg/m3  Fox, 1983  348,000 m3/1800 ha 307,500 m3/1800 ha 121,000 m3/1800 ha 628,000 #/1800 ha 15,806,000 #/1800 ha  Forest productivity estimations primary productivity subtrop. decid. forest mean annual increment (MAI) private forest communal forest sal forest  1550 g/m2/yr 2.48 m3/ha/yr 0.31 " 4.27 "  Fodder production estimations fodder yield from unmanaged forest land fodder yield from carefully managed woodlot  1500-2500 kg/ha/yr 50-200 kg/tree  tl tl n ti n  Pandey et a l , 1980 Fox, 1983 " "  Wormald, 1976 Panday, 1982  134  Tropical primary  forests  are notorious  productivity  increments  (Pandey  o f a communal  to s u b t r o p i c a l area  kilograms  per h e c t a r e  would  annual Even  biomass  amount would percent  supply  Saktikhor  forest  these  present  management  The  needs t o p r e s e n t discussion  was  with  (Wormald, yield  1976).  would  meet  28 t o 47 p e r c e n t  Recognizing forest  spite  forest  critical is  of Nepal  much  decrease  over  that  I t was  per h e c t a r e  fodder  o f t h e many i n h e r e n t  room f o r improvement  fodder  to the in a  fodder  yield  o f unmanaged  forest  of the study and would  a l s o depend  on  this  dismal.  assumptions,  forest  of  needs o f P i t h u w a .  areas  p i c t u r e more  c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r land  time i f  found  the annual  Thus t h e S a k t i k h o r  with  the  r a t e somewhere'  I t c a n be added  that s e v e r a l other  n e e d s compared  12 t o 100  of a comparison  of leaves  this  this  continues.  of the annual  makes  of  area.  In r e a l i t y  2,700,000 t o 4,500,000 k i l o g r a m s ;  again,  f o r fodder  In  t h a t would  forest  with  and f u e l .  more t e n u o u s a s s u m p t i o n s .  1500 t o 2500 k i l o g r a m s  kilograms  be u t i l i z e d ,  have a g r o w t h  resources.  hills  a warm  (Fox, 1983).  panchayat  i s the omission  area  of  probably  fodder  i n the middle  forest  growth c o u l d  of the f o r e s t  flaw  in  t h e whole S a k t i k h o r  the Pithuwa  two e x t r e m e s ;  second  respectively  needs o f t i m b e r  would  between  study  only  annual  o f N e p a l were 215 and 2990  over  ground  of i t s annual  The mean  t o 387,000 t o 5,382,000  increments  i f a l l t h e above  r a t e s o f g r o w t h and  and a s a l f o r e s t  per year,  be e q u i v a l e n t  high  e t a l , 1980).  forest  temperate  This  for their  resources  u s e management  this discussion was c o n s i d e r e d planning.  of the c a l c u l a t i o n s  as more  a  There research  135  data  becomes  6.3.2 The  The  I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r Land Use Management  findings  following species  available.  of t h i s  two s t a t e m e n t s .  and wood  available  forest  of meeting  panchayat  and o t h e r  firewood.  These  T h e r e were d i s t i n c t  resources  the present neighboring  results  trying  Despite  forest  t o keep v i l l a g e r s  was  degraded.  were f o u n d  t o be  o r f u t u r e needs o f t h e P i t h u w a communities  f o r f o d d e r and implications for  "management  of lopping l e v e l s '  more r e a l i s t i c  the h i s t o r y  villagers  c a n be m o t i v a t e d  communities  in this  Theoretically kilograms  (Johnson  study  of leaves  (Panday, fodder.  still  i f these  collection  movement  to conserve  Other  traditionally  conservation  sites  of the Chipko  1986). that  t h a t many N e p a l i  inherent ideals  had 240 f o d d e r  per h e c t a r e  be a  trees (Shiva &  e t a l . , 1982).  were a l l o w e d  might  suggested  studies indicated  had some  based  Perhaps  (Moench & B a n d y o p a d h y a y ,  Certainly  1986).  of fodder  policies  serious  v e g e t a t i o n has o c c u r r e d .  approach  Bandyopadhyay,  conservation strategies are  out of the f o r e s t ,  of f o r e s t  for  area  r e s e r v e s and e n f o r c e m e n t  degradation  year  decreases i n  have s e v e r a l i m p o r t a n t  of a l l , a l t e r n a t i v e  required.  of  of the study  by t h e  u s e management. First  on  c o u l d be summarized  biomass volumes as n a t u r a l f o r e s t  incapable  land  chapter  and k n o w l e d g e  The d e g r a d e d  forest  t r e e per h e c t a r e .  t o mature,  12,000 t o 48,000  c o u l d be c a r e f u l l y  lopped  1982) t o meet t h e needs o f s e v e r a l f a m i l i e s  each needs  136  Secondly, intimately areas.  these  l i n k e d with  pressure  on t h e f o r e s t . by i n c r e a s e d  farms.  Based  can produce  1982),  i t would  firewood  from  annually,  species 1982).  that  would  conservation  was  i n d i c a t e d that  Several  of s u p p l y i n g  1980).  forest  per year  by g r o w i n g  family  fodder  trees to demand  firewood that  needs o f 5 m.3  or Leucaena  further  be  (Panday,  identified  The p o t e n t i a l o f n a t i v e  a l s o be e x p l o r e d  could  t r e e s on  Similarly,  have been  the average  of the  " w e l l managed  40 t o 80 m a t u r e  be r e d u c e d species  much  fodder  of leaves  needs f o r f o d d e r . could  from  and g r o w i n g  approximately  forest  and f u e l w o o d  alleviate  f o r fodder  residues that  family's  could  forest  fodder  as C a l l i a n d r a c a l o t h y r s u s  1983; NAS,  firewood Panday,  such  land  50 t o 200 k i l g r a m s  on t h e f a r m .  be c a p a b l e  (IDRC,  crop  require  the average  would  increased  Demand  on s t u d i e s  trees'  species  that  on p r i v a t e l y - o w n e d  reduced  for  implied  the p r o d u c t i v i t y of the a g r i c u l t u r a l  I t was o b v i o u s  production  meet  results  leucocephala  fodder  and  (IDRC, 1983;  137  CHAPTER 7.1  t o Land  were s e v e r a l  management  recognized  integrated,  for  combining  problems.  possible  biophysical  I t became a p p a r e n t  aspects the  s t a r t e d with  of the land  environment,  undesirable approached related of  approach,  these  the  soil  or environment.  approach  tended  well The  being  made by p e o p l e , that  and  be u s e d  degradation of q u a l i t y , was  The p r o b l e m  farm  case  thus  and how an u n d e r s t a n d i n g  to decrease  degradation of and l a n d  use  This  and i m p r a c t i c a l t o  i n i t s concern  f o r the long  and m a n k i n d .  o r t h e d e c i s i o n making  how  was  f a c t o r s were  o r e c o l o g i c a l phenomena.  of the earth  in this  that  conservationist  The e m p h a s i s was on l a n d  approach,  use  of the b i o p h y s i c a l  life.  t o be somewhat a c a d e m i c  to understand  approach,  in soil  o f which  b u t i t was more e t h i c a l  second  attempted  a decrease  properties;  as a s c i e n t i f i c  implement;  assumed  in soil  point  of the study  I t assumed t h a t  sustainable  r e l a t i o n s h i p s could  management  term  case  term  of land  must  as:  a c l e a r understanding  the perspective  t o changes  the s t a r t i n g  or the environmental  in this  i t was  approach.  use problem.  f o r long from  be d e s c r i b e d  land  perspectives  the course  conservationist  2) t h e d e c i s i o n making  approach,  Even when  to determine  during  could  1) t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l  first  f o r developing  d i f f e r e n t s t y l e s of a study  p o t e n t i a l approaches  The  approaches  and s o c i o - e c o n o m i c  i t was d i f f i c u l t such  PLAN  Use Management  p l a n s or recommendations.  that  be  two  DEVELOPMENT OF A LAND USE MANAGEMENT  Approaches  There use  7:  land  u s e management  the farmers  the f u l f i l m e n t of f a m i l y  approach, decisions are  o f the Pithuwa  goals  area.  was o f p r i m a r y  It  138  importance,  especially  situation.  The  perspective  o f how  resources capital,  land  use  land  of the farm, to produce  "management' and qualitative  and  in a precarious problem was  was  (i.e.  often  this  and  approach  quality,  were u s e d  to f a l l  short  perspectives.  though. basic  The  i n terms  two  making  provided  the  term  economics. for  components  productivity)  approaches  integration by  approach  message;  of  of  ideas  both,  provided  the  w h i l e the  the c o n t e x t .  7.2  The  The  environmental conservationist  following  on  1982).  the t h r e e  were r e v e a l e d  c o n t e n t of the e x t e n s i o n approach  (Bunch,  very d i f f e r e n t  of complete  Valuable insights  farming  forest  environmental conservationist  theme and  decision  The  was  be more r e a l i s t i c  to i n t e g r a t e and  operating  unscientific,  term  may  the  to the o t h e r  emphasis  development  f a r m i n g systems  study i n the Chitawan.  seemed  The  considered  o r community  approaches  soil  food.  farming  from  power and  too concerned w i t h s h o r t  extension  Both  relative  s u c h as l a b o u r ,  However, i t s " p e o p l e - f i r s t ' sensitive  approached  allocated  c r o p s and  this  was  subsistence  Environmental Conservationist  Approach  approach  asked  the  questions:  1) What a r e t h e key productivity?  factors  2) What r e l a t i o n s h i p s variables?  exist  of s o i l  quality,  among t h e s e key  f a r m and  factors  3) What r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r l a n d use management c a n b a s e d on t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s i d e n t i f i e d ?  forest  or  be made,  139  7.2.1 Key  Key  Soil  factors  A horizon  Factors  indicating  under  statistical  Quality  the  various land  techniques.  are  presented here;  Appendix  0.  Firstly,  properties  compaction,  most  available  uses  A brief  analyses  soil  soil  summary  sensitive  phosphorus,  cation  pH  the  use  types corresponded  ( i n CaC12).  used:  compaction,  the time  with  exchangeable  technique, a p r i n c i p l e  exchangeable  These  independent  o f one  discussed soil  pH  another  one  use  exchange  different  and  of three in that  the  were:  capacity,  organic carbon,  total  indicated  soil  properties  and  pH  identified  phosphorus  and  behaved  exchangeable  relatively  f o r a high  S i n c e t h e y had  o r more t i m e s  by  compaction,  proportion  a l l been  the o t h e r  as t h e key  factors  techniques to  monitor  quality.  Two  Key  Farm P r o d u c t i v i t y  t e c h n i q u e s were u s e d  productivity.  The  first  were  ( i n CaC12).  organic carbon,  accounted  a b o v e , t h e y were c h o s e n  7.2.2  that  management  components a n a l y s i s  properties  variability.  identified  i n land  potassium  ( i n CaC12),  six soil  of the t o t a l  previously  exchangeable  magnesium, a v a i l a b l e  potassium.  (66%)  as  several  magnesium, o r g a n i c c a r b o n ,  The  properties  using  found  when t h e f o l l o w i n g  phosphorus,  t h e key  be  Discriminant analysis  available third  can  to changes  and  percent of  surface  t h e Mann-Whitney U - t e s t r e v e a l e d  nitrogen  84  of a  of the r e s u l t s  more d e t a i l  magnesium, b u l k d e n s i t y ,  groups  status  were i d e n t i f i e d  exchangeable  land  quality  Factors  to i d e n t i f y  o f t h e s e was  an  key  factors  analysis  of  of the  farm  140  sensitivity production important and  cash  factors  (i.e.  pc,pa,kh),  three  crops  LSU  make t h i s  The  amounts  conditions. site  forest  type  factors  values  applied  fuelwood forest  also  inputs  were  amount  key  of l a n d , f a m i l y  yield  use  amount  of the farming  extremely  systems  difficult.  Factors were  productivity  gave i n d i c a t i o n s  to neighboring  of  f o r the three crops ( i . e .  and f o d d e r  the e x i s t i n g  types  per farm  identified  and  stand  of the causes  The m a g n i t u d e o f t h e d e g r a d a t i o n  by c o m p a r i n g relative  labour  The f o l l o w i n g  and t o t a l  of a n a l y s i s  to monitor  degradation.  products  yield,  o f major l a n d  The c o m p l e x i t y  of timber,  These  be e s t i m a t e d  amount  Key F o r e s t P r o d u c t i v i t y  t h e key f a c t o r s  t h e most  compost i n p u t s f o r t h r e e c r o p s ,  o f 21 v a r i a b l e s ) .  the study  forest  units),  per h e c t a r e  in rotation,  7.2.3  as  were i d e n t i f i e d :  (livestock yield  variables.  crop  that  Spearman c o r r e l a t i o n  o f farm  factors  indicated  of land, crop  and complex f e r t i l i z e r  a total in  Secondly,  productivity  urea  This technique  for a l l pairs  total  (gross margin) to v a r i o u s  were: amount  inputs.  size,  of  profit  factors.  calculated farm  o f farm  amounts o f t h e s e community  could  three  needs f o r these  products.  7.2.4 Two  techniques,  significance relationships the  R e l a t i o n s h i p s Between S o i l  tests  Spearman c o r r e l a t i o n s  on c a t e g o r i c  between s o i l  correlations  were  data  and f a r m  and Farm F a c t o r s and K r u s k a l  were used variables.  to  Wallis  identify  The r e s u l t s o f  discussed i n three sections:  of  soil  141  properties and  soils  with with  done on f o u r urea  land crop  sets  fertilizer  use v a r i a b l e s , yield  variables.  of c a t e g o r i c  inputs  soils  with  cropping  The s i g n i f i c a n c e  data:  landholding,  and n i t r o g e n - p h o s p h o r u s  inputs tests  were  compost u s e ,  complex  fertilizer  inputs. There land  were s e v e r a l  use v a r i a b l e s  confidence  (Figure  correlated  with  There  Organic  of t o t a l  was  spring  maize  correlated  the o t h e r  with  rotation  was  p h o s p h o r u s and e x c h a n g e a b l e found  t o be h i g h e r  rotation that  soil  cropping  than  properties rotations  the c r o p p i n g  is  probably  less  are influenced  on a f a r m  rotation  as w e l l  itself.  that  the smaller  with  available  Compaction  was  amounts o f t h i s ' p c ' These  findings  suggest  by t h e r e l a t i v e amounts o f a s t h e more  The c h o i c e  direct  effects  of various  an i n d i r e c t r e f l e c t i o n o f management  interesting  well.  t r a d i t i o n a l *pc' or  levels.  'pc' .  o f *pa' l e v e l s as  correlated  greater  carbon  x  phosphorus  o f t h e more  potassium  size.  or k h ' i . e .  The amount  negatively  of  triple-cropping  potato-wheat  available  on f a r m s w i t h  on f a r m s w i t h  of  also  innovative  and  negatively  and f a m i l y  between t h e o r g a n i c  rotations.  h a n d , t h e amount  maize, mustard  properties  l e v e l s were  landholding  correlations o f more  carbon  s u c h as 'pa' i . e . m a i z e ,  mustard,  rotation On  amount  between s o i l  were s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e 95% l e v e l  7.1).  and t h e amount  rotations, rice,  that  were p o s i t i v e  levels  correlations  rotations  levels.  f a r m s had h i g h e r  I t was  organic  matter  levels. The soil  second  properties  section  of c o r r e l a t i o n s  compared w i t h  cropping  for discussion input  levels  were t h e  (Figure  7.3).  142  amount of pa land use  soil organic carbon  +  amount of triple _s cropping  amount of pc land use  available phosphorus in soil  exc. potassium in s o i l  Figure 7.1: Significant relationships between soil & land use factors (+ positive; - negative)  soil compaction pc land use  maize S mustard yields  exc. Mg in soil  soil compaction pa land use  wheat yields exc. Mg in soil  kh land use  maize yields  exc. K in s o i l  Figure 7.2: Significant relationships between soil S crop yields (+ positive; - negative)  143  amount of compost additions (pre-monsoon)  crop yield (pre-monsoon)  + 1 exc. Mg in s o i l  soil PH  a) compost additions  amount of urea used (monsoon)  amount of kh land use  soil  V  exc. K in s o i l  ava. P in s o i l  soil organic carbon  b) urea fertilizer use  amount of N-P complex f e r t i l i z e r use (annual)  soil pH  V  exc. Mg in s o i l  crop yields in selected pre-monsoon & winter crops  soil organic carbon  c) N-P complex f e r t i l i z e r use  Figure 7.3: Significant relationships between s o i l and 3 cropping inputs: compost, urea & complex f e r t i l i z e r s . (+ positve; - negative)  144  Three  i n p u t s were  examined: compost, urea  additions.  T h e s e i n p u t s were  in  winter,  monsoon,  and complex  examined a c c o r d i n g  pre-monsoon  and t o t a l  fertilizer  t o amounts  added  annually.  1) compost Total soil  annual  organic  pre-monsoon matter  carbon season  levels  exchangeable available  higher  t h e most  pre-monsoon  compost was  critical  In g e n e r a l  a triangular yields  with  t h e pre-monsoon soil  compost  both  for soil  fertility  with  as  In c o n t r a s t , l e v e l s of  potassium  were n e g a t i v e l y  a d d i t i o n s but the the s o i l s  per h e c t a r e  season.  organic  p r o p e r t i e s , such  seemed  and t o t a l  organic  Thus c r o p  carbon yields  increasing  improved  season.  one, i n t h a t y i e l d s  soil  with  o f compost a p p l i e d i n t h e  a d d i t i o n s i n t h e pre-monsoon  (both  correlated  weakly c o r r e l a t e d  and pH i n CaC12.  were weak.  monsoon c r o p s  better  seemed  The amount  a s w e l l as s e v e r a l o t h e r  with  relationship  in  levels.  magnesium  correlations  were  a d d i t i o n s were  p h o s p h o r u s and e x c h a n g e a b l e  correlated  with  compost  This  of the preyields  per farm)  and compost a p p l i e d were  amounts  a reflection  of  o f pre-monsoon  compost. 2) u r e a Urea  fertilizer  properties. crop  were  a d d i t i o n s were  In p a r t i c u l a r ,  correlated  exchangeable correlation  magnesium  factor;  urea  positively  correlated  levels with  organic  w a t e r and f e r t i l i z e r  several  soil  carbon,  The u n e x p e c t e d  a d d i t i o n s and pH may  i . e . t h e amounts  with  a p p l i e d t o t h e monsoon  pH,  and c o m p a c t i o n .  between u r e a  intermediate irrigation  fertilizer  of  positive  have been due t o an  base-saturated  a s s o c i a t e d with  rice  production  145  on  x  khet .  Available  f  levels  were l o w e r  fertilizer  between u r e a  due  responsive  to the  crops.  amount o f u r e a kh'  rotation  improved winter to  to  urea  mustard  levels  chemical  and  correlated  have  of urea the  on  the  of  'pc'  and  the  t h e amount  was  this rotation  probably  very  due  Pre-  because  seemed  the  Likewise,  this rotation.  were c o r r e l a t e d  of  amount o f  rotation.  rotation of  between  increased  this  season  *pa'  of  by  were  particularly  correlation  part  amount o f  crop  different Complex  correlated  weakly w i t h  These r e l a t i o n s h i p s  of nitrogen-phosphorus  with  positively  may  and  amount  wheat,  responsive  fertilizer  application.  magnesium  grown as  and  fertilizer.  complex  fertilizer  use  urea  positive  seasons  i n t h e monsoon s e a s o n  amount o f  winter  were  in particular  rotations.  potassium  h i g h e r amounts o f  There  have been c a u s e d  variety  exchangeable  applied  example,  applied  Additions  of  use  grown i n t h e w i n t e r  relayed  3)  that  farmers For  may  rice  monsoon u r e a the  farms  of v a r i o u s cropping  probably  x  on  i n t h e monsoon s e a s o n .  correlations (ha)  p h o s p h o r u s and  been an  i n the  with  soil.  Amount  Both  with  *khet'  fertilizer  applied  positively  correlated  land  i n the with  magnesium of winter  uses.  these  of  on  sets  applied  available  season was  but  also  complex  and  exchangeable  of  correlations  Surprisingly, season  the  levels  t h e management  pre-monsoon  were  i n t h e monsoon  organic carbon  indirect result  associated  fertilizer  depending  applied  exchangeable  levels.  correlated  levels  properties  fertilizer  with  compaction was  soil  complex  practices  only  seemed  phosphorus,  the  complex  be  to  nutrient  146  that  was  annual  supposed levels  correlated soil.  reflected winter  improved  complex organic  and  of  pre-monsoon  third  correlations  cropping  double  compaction  values  correlated.  of  The  and  wheat with  cropped  relay  the  yields,  negatively examined rice,  the  was  spring  spring of  potassium  was  four  the  or  was  the  yields  wheat  wheat  the  in  those  the was  of  the  There  In  each  was  the  The  understandable  of  was  was  positively  cropped was  while  The  the  positively  was  other  were  the  "pa  1  potatocorrelated  magnesium  was  rotation of  relationship  soil  and  were two  the  yield  soil  potassium  between m a i z e  m a i z e has  soil  irrigated rotation  exchangeable  as  by  last  a strong in  or  mustard  followed  The  idea  or  analyzed  yields;  of  that  maize  relationship  much p o t a s s i u m  use  "pc'  m a i z e and  summary, t h e r e  since  land  rotation.  rotation  levels  interest,  relationship  a more r e a l i s t i c  for  yields.  triple  potassium  the  relationship  second  maize.  7.2).  t i m e s as  especially  monsoon m a i z e were  compaction  with  particular  (Figure  soil  obtain  these  rotation,  case  maize c r o p .  magnesium  to  kh'  exchangeable  properties  two  x  parameters  key  maize, mustard  The  Again  this  the  of  unexpected  correlated  mustard,  between of  in  the  To  y i e l d of  rainfed  crops.  positively magnesium  discussion  first  cropped  correlated.  triple  were  Total  exchangeable  yields,  yields.  e x c h a n g e a b l e magnesium and  or  with  fertilizer.  inputs  were done s e p a r a t e l y  Another  negatively  and  some o f  the  crop  rotation.  traditional  this  crops.  section and  by  fertilizer carbon  improvement  properties  these  be  in a relationship  The soil  of  with  This  to  been  found  cereals  and  and to  remove  (Mengel  &  147  Kirkby,  1982).  magnesium  and  The  y i e l d s of  more d i f f i c u l t a reflection properties reason  discussed  of  true  categories  The  key  farm  and  field  of  land  data  frequency  large  hectares.  definitely the  soil  significant  > 2.0  size  were: a n n u a l  with  yield  of  winter of  the  crops  apparent It  the  additions  revealed  complex  fertilizer  compost  (6580 k g / h a / y r ) and  inputs.  the  was  correlations  significance tests  were n o t  on  either the  representative  an  into  three  and  different  among  fertilizer  these  use,  total yields  total  farm  (Table  There  was  7.1).  compost size,  and  small  use  but  large  opposite  The  separated  monsoon c r o p ,  farm  small  compost  by  much s c a t t e r i n  complex  decreasing  increasing  between  no  either.  hectares,  were s i g n i f i c a n t l y  a trend  but  soil  distributions:  that  monsoon and  were  O t h e r s were n o t ;  was  3)  average  o f magnesium  situation.  holding  their  the  categories  hectares, 1.0 t o 2.0  farms  were  unmeasured  found  too  s m a l l f a r m s < 1.0 medium f a r m s f r o m  the  be  by  weak w i t h  farm  on  wheat  nutrients;  variables.  imposed  farm  other  r e l a t i o n s h i p s suggested  the  properties  levels  and  c o r r e l a t i o n s were m e r e l y c o i n c i d e n t a l .  or  based  livestock,  of  other  1) 2)  groups of  of  the  four  size  the  r e l a t i o n s h i p s could  these  relationship;  The  Perhaps  of  exchangeable  maize, mustard  base s t a t u s ,  c o r r e l a t i o n s were t o o  the  like  a b o v e were s u b s t a n t i a t e d  categories  of  explain.  availability  that  c o r r e l a t i o n s between  crops  general  f o r these  Some o f  the  to  of  or  more l i k e l y  negative  and  organic  d i f f e r e n c e s were  farm trend  groups. to  the  The  fertilizer  more  (65  only  average  average  farmers a p p l i e d  l e s s complex  matter  Table 7.1: Summary of Kruekall-Wallis Significance Tests on 3 Categories of 4 Key Farm Variables  KEY VARIABLES: and their categories  COMPARISON WITH OTHER KEY VARIABLES Soils Farm Land use Inputs (kg/ha) Yields (kg/ha/yr)  FARM SIZE: small ( <1.0 ha) medium (1.0-2.0 ha) large ( >2.0 ha)  orgC% 1.526 1.566 1.442  total LSU 3.5 * 6.7 7.5  compost complex monsoon 6580 65 1420 4695 * 145 * 1830 3100 90 2310  COMPOST ADDITIONS: orgC% small ( <1000 kg/ha) 1.344 medium (1000-4000 kg/ha) 1.542 large ( >4000 kg/ha) 1.578  farm (ha) pc (ha) 4.8 0.6 2.6 * 0.5 1.7 0.2  UREA FERTILIZER USE: small ( <20 kg/ha) medium (20-100 kg/ha) large ( >100 kg/ha)  totN% 0.110 0.121 0.125  farm (ha) 3.4 1.7 4.1  COMPLEX FERTILIZER USE: small ( <40 kg/ha) medium (40-160 kg/ha) * large ( >160 kg/ha)  CEC 8.68 10.83 11.41  Yields (kg/farm/yr) monsoon 400 * 1140 5070  winter 280 * 1150 2090  monsoon 5950 * 1680 1620  winter 3030 * 940 910  compost complex monsoon premonsoon monsoon 4250 35 1690 160 2170 3790 * 135 * 1840 * 610 * 1600 6120 195 2730 1000 5760 khet% 57 * 53 61  urea 42 * 72 30  * means are significantly different among 3 categories at p<0.05 note: CEC i n meq/lOOg s o i l  winter premonsoon 1330 185 * 990 * 720 2860 700  winter premonsoon 90 890 * 790 * 480 3810 920 winter premonsoon 630 135 * 900 * 730 2790 410  149  kg/ha/yr);  while  the l a r g e  k g / h a / y r ) b u t more complex startling  that  ten  the t o t a l  as  times  large  the  lowest The  farm  yields  better  o r g a n i c matter  categories  fertilizer  less  compost  compost  (90 k g / h a / y r ) . the l i v e s t o c k  (3100  I t was n o t  h o l d i n g s and  o f t h e monsoon and w i n t e r  However i t was s u r p r i s i n g  their  annual  applied  f a r m s had t w i c e  the s m a l l farms.  f a r m e r s , .with  farmers  cash  that  f l o w and a c c e s s  levels  addition  in their data  crops  the l a r g e  t o e d u c a t i o n , had  soils.  was s u b d i v i d e d i n t o  three  f o r examination:  1) s m a l l compost amounts o f 1000 k g / h a / y r o r l e s s , 2) medium compost amounts f r o m 1000 t o 4000 k g / h a / y r , 3) l a r g e The  following  three  compost  variables  groupings:  rotation crops.  amounts o f more t h a n  and t o t a l  yields  with  less  1000 k i l o g r a m s  average  ha);  while  compost ha).  increasing  these  use.  o f compost  t h e same  The f a r m e r s  the farmers  per farm three  among t h e  that  applied land that  reflected  variables  "pc'  t r e n d and that  applied  p e r h e c t a r e had more l a n d on  ( 4 . 8 ha) and more o f t h e " p c ' c r o p p i n g  p e r h e c t a r e had l e s s  crop  different  o f t h e monsoon and w i n t e r  demonstrated  compost  I t was n o t s u r p r i s i n g  winter since  per farm  A l l f o u r key v a r i a b l e s  than  kg/ha/yr.  l a n d h o l d i n g , amount o f t h e t r a d i t i o n a l  decreased  the  were s i g n i f i c a n t l y  4000  and  over  r o t a t i o n (0.6  4000 k i l o g r a m s o f  ( 1 . 7 h a ) and l e s s total  t h e same  yields  " p c ' (0.2  o f t h e monsoon and  t r e n d s as s i z e  are intimately  linked  with  of  farm;  one  another. Some o f t h e l e s s to  80% c o n f i d e n c e  because  significant  relationships  l e v e l ) were c o n s i d e r e d w o r t h y  of the i n s i g h t s  they  provided.  There  ( i . e . a t t h e 75 of d i s c u s s i o n  were  apparent  150  trends and  i n d i c a t e d by  organic  small  and  levels  moderate  increased use  carbon  annual  users  concurrently  increased  increased  from  100  1.34  to  from  between m o d e r a t e and probably level.  caused  the  Although  correlations,  i n the of  to  50  115  1.54  trend  to  65  be  and  supported  the  categories  especially  between m o d e r a t e  and  h e a v y may  artificial  and  use;  were r e l a t i v e l y i . e . small  indicate  that  originates on  the  6.2,  farm  medium 6.7  studies  better  basis  of  affect  this  large  f o r comparison  a LSU  the  fertilizer carbon  per  95  of  hectare  three  data  of  compost  seemed  to  compost compost  to  the  of l i v e s t o c k  This the  percent  too  groupings 6.0.  and  r e s u l t s of  number  amount o f  among t h e  use  differences  compost  amount a p p l i e d  nature,  urea  have been  proportion  the  the  average  l i v e s t o c k manure, t h e  d i d not  future  a large  and  between  organic  at  of  s i m i l a r i n a l l three  although  from  The  complex  were more s u b t l e  of  units  soil  insignificant  unrepresentative.  and  complex  However, t h e  users  trend  urea  differences  kg/ha/yr,  kg/ha/yr  compost to  The  of  were s t r i k i n g ;  percent.  general  limits  inputs  soil.  compost  from  heavy  the  the  fertilizer  the  fields.  might  compost  available  be  a  use  categories. The sampled  q u a n t i t i e s of f a r m s was  annual  subdivided  urea  fertilizer  i n t o three  1) 2)  small urea i n p u t s of moderate urea i n p u t s  20 of  3)  large  greater  Several  cropping  among t h e compost  urea  urea  inputs,  inputs  of  used  and  categories:  kg/ha/yr or l e s s , 20 t o 100 k g / h a / y r , than  five  of  the  annual  the  soil  groups:  100  complex  six yield  and  kg/ha/yr.  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y  use  on  different  fertilizer  measures  and  ( i . e . yield  In  151  per  hectare  small  amounts  amounts of  and  (less  o f complex  compost  inputs  per farm  20 kg) o f u r e a  moderate  amounts  the  urea  fertilizer  key  inputs  complex  o f compost  But s m a l l  amounts  o f compost  users  inputs  also  coincided of urea  t o compensate  large  amounts  moderate  urea kg) and  Farmers that  applied  suggested  applied  the other  195  two  and mean  that  the  increased  f o r m o d e r a t e and heavy  seemed  used  small  ( i . e . 135  ( i . e . mean complex  These r e s u l t s  inputs  users.  used  Farmers with  fertilizer  i n l a r g e amounts  kg/ha).  of a l l three  annually  ( i . e . 3790 k g ) .  i n l a r g e amounts  6120  Farmers that  (mean o f 35 kg) b u t r e l a t i v e l y  moderate  use  than  seasons).  ( i . e . mean o f 4250 k g ) .  used  compost  i n three  urea  t o be s u b s t i t u t i n g l a r g e r  for less  chemical  fertilizer  inputs. The  annual  (abbreviated three than  of nitrogen-phosphorus  below as complex  groups. those  inputs  The  limits  f o r urea  use  a d d i t i o n s ) was  f o r t h e g r o u p s were  complex  fertilizer  subdivided  into  slightly  higher  groups:  1) s m a l l complex a d d i t i o n s o f 40 k g / h a / y r o r l e s s , 2) m o d e r a t e complex a d d i t i o n s o f 40 t o 160 k g / h a / y r , and 3) l a r g e The or per  irrigated hectare  rice  The  land,  interesting  link  between  the problems with  been d i s c u s s e d  above.  o f more t h a n  urea  basis) and  use and  of the winter  significant  The  the focus CEC  and  trends  t h e use o f complex  Therefore  amount  the y i e l d s  i n t e r p r e t i n g the y i e l d  v a r i a b l e s of the l i s t .  160 k g / h a / y r .  (CEC) o f t h e s o i l ,  annual  and a p e r f a r m  revealed  groups.  two  additions  c a t i o n exchange c a p a c i t y  crops  and  complex  of  "khet'  (both  on a  pre-monsoon  among t h e  and u r e a  three  fertilizers  r e l a t i o n s h i p s have  h e r e was  on t h e  e x h i b i t e d an i n c r e a s i n g  first trend  152  with  increased  moderate "khet*  and  or  complex  large  inputs  irrigated  consistently groups).  (57,  These  irrigation  and  rice  53  amount  farm  suggest  not  s u r p r i s i n g that  the  soil.  may  exhibit  a c o n s i s t a n t or  levels,  was  As  of  declining soil  "fa  1  v  when t h e  standing  compared  f o r the  data  could  not  be  the  wood volume o f  of  and  forest  trends  trees  measured  results  i n Table  vegetation  land  uses  was  improvement  vegetation  (fodder,  other  d e c l i n e was was  35  by  of  did  Forest  on  in  of  the  not  Factors  was  forest  clearly (fd)  there  several indications  the  comparison  degrading  was  regeneration (fa, fd).  analyzed  timber,  used  between  7.2.  were s t r i k i n g .  small  " f d ' areas  and  of  management, i t i s  ( f a ) became d e g r a d e d  The  large  amount  property  Between S o i l  statistically  ( l a r g e timber,  examined,  soil  of  been a r e f l e c t i o n  trend.  forest  o f wood  species  a l s o have  small,  not  fertilizer  a concurrent  b i o m a s s v o l u m e s and  6.2),  which  the  be  biomass accompanied  section  but  both  innovative  significant  forest  two  Since  latter  summarized  that  for  percentage  increased  the  quality.  f d ' are  Evidence  related.  may  natural forest  a d e c l i n e i n wood  and  be  although  of  The  11.41  % f o r s m a l l , m o d e r a t e and  Relationships  degradation  linked.  generally  would  levels  carbon  and  nitrogen-phosphorus  there  organic  The  62  of  10.83  respectively).  more i n t e n s i v e and  CEC  7.2.5  (8.68,  land  and  trends  the  The  inputs  revealed  counts  Although  (reasons  were the  discussed  Regardless  in  of which  firewood,  total  wood) or  species,  total  species)  obvious.  percent  of  For the  example, natural  type  was  total  untouched  Table 7.2: Relationships Between Soil and Forest Factors  Key factors Forest Productivity: Total wood biomass (m3/ha) Large timber (") Small timber (") Firewood (m3/ha) (kg/ha) Total regeneration (#/ha) Other species (") Fodder species (")  Soil Quality: pH (in CaCl2) organic carbon (%) available phosphorus (ppm) exc. magnesium (meq/lOOg) exc. potassium (meq/lOOg) base saturation (%) ext. iron (%) ext. aluminum (%) exc. aluminum (%) Compaction (kg/m3)  natural forest fa  degraded forest fd  1095 505 440 150 104,300  395 175 155 65 45,000  49,050 47,360 1,690  9,540 9,270 270  5.6 1.918 42 1.88 0.36 67.8 1.24 0.22 0.90 1.65  4.9 1.999 33 1.27 0.34 34.2 1.89 0.48 2.16 4.24  * the difference in means i s significant at the 95% confidence level  154  areas 20  (fa);  while  total  "fd'  land  use.  properties  A few  forested  fertility  parameters  declined (fa).  properties  land  Although  the  v a r i a b l e to  had  significantly  signifying  be  saplings  that  the  where amounts o f  of  4.24  this  surface  kilograms  of  soil  was  only  erosion  had  "desirable  p r o p e r t i e s ' had  "undesirable It  was  extremely  T h e r e was  of  the  focus.  soil  a whole c o n t i n u u m  0.22  soil had  natural  to  0.48  was  levels  was  levels  I t was  noted  ( s e c t i o n 4.2.2; the  soil.  The  Increases  enough  from  i n compaction of  of  the  levels  of  (soil erosion of  f o r e s t ( f d ) was  land. and  To  forest),  literature  research  types  arrest the was  of  three three  increased. degraded  1.65  the  amounts o f  the  to  compaction  because  summary, t h e  Figure  only s i t u a t i o n  dramatically,  and  forest  %),  problems.  undesirable  the  resources The  the  decreased,  u n s a t i s f a c t o r y use  degradation became t h e  that  or  relevance  " f r e e ' aluminum  increased  In  p r o p e r t i e s ' had apparent  of  meter.  potential.  their  Three  the  key  saturation)  fertility use  under  aluminum were s i g n i f i c a n t  capacity  square  six  of  original  fixation  m a g n i t u d e were c o n s i d e r e d  inferred  the  trend,  f o r e s t land  soil  per  the  because  ( i . e . from  exchangeable  values  than  a v a i l a b l e phosphorus  phosphorus  c a t i o n exchange the  of  increased  affect  degradation  considered.  to  a consistent  degraded  soil  magnesium, base  compared  discussion  other table  uses are  decline  possible  a previous  i n the  (pH,  significantly  too  4.8)  i n d i c a t i o n s of  were i n c l u d e d  when o n l y  to  regeneration  percent. T h e r e were s e v e r a l  in  number o f  an the  processes reviewed.  from p h y s i c a l l y  155  based Loss  e r o s i o n models to a d a p t i o n s Equation);  but  condition  of  important  factors  Taylor,  the  1979;  the  soil  Carson,  Shaxson,  1981).  fuelwood  were e x a m i n e d  vegetation. community that  e m p h a s i s had crop  and  of  discussed  to r e t u r n to the increasing  1984;  the  (section  yields,  particular,  and  fodder  resources  1983;  and  of to  present  I t became  land uses.  clear  on  the  Increasing  multipurpose  pressure  i t seemed  f o r Land  increased f e r t i l i z e r use  use  the  tree  forest  for  complex  relationships  with  crop  yields.  Yields  monsoon c r o p s  were r e s p o n s i v e  application;  while  responsive  the  fertilizers  complex  seemed  rice  or  cropping wheat  or  yields  t o be x  khet'  applications. connected l a n d on  rotations, potato  and  and  fertilizer  inclusion other  levels  farm, of  of  pre-monsoon Heavy use  of  recently of  the  In clear  preurea  crops  were  chemical  percentages  higher  indicators  and  showed  o f monsoon and  to h i g h e r  the  fertility  recommended.  to i n c r e a s i n g  of w i n t e r  Management  soil  was  N-P  to  Use  t h a t to improve  and  as  (Aina, L a i &  degradation  growing  urea  such  most  the  required for conservation,  of  triple  of  6.3.1).  for relieving  Recommendations  Generally,  irrigated  one  like  agricultural  yields  The  Quinn & L a f l e n ,  existing  was  same.  degradation  products  the  the  fuel.  7.2.6  crop  forest  to understand  were p o s s i b i l i t i e s  fodder  (Universal Soil  considered  Gregory,  participation  r e s i d u e s by  crops  1977;  A comparison  i f villager  was  e r o s i o n and  T h u s , key  n e e d s was  t h e USLE  u n d e r l y i n g theme was  v e g e t a l cover of  of  amounts  of of  introduced intensive  crops  156  management.  The  relationships land  land  would  rotations  rotation  (pa) would  justify  large  It  was  variation land  (khet  For  crop  yields  and  be p r o m o t e d .  in  fallow  triple  cropping choice  value  in replenishing  believed use  higher  maize  fertilizer  The  potato  m a i z e was  was  fodder  would  crop  and  The  f o r crops  thus  than whether  crop. with  should  qualifiers  the  than  Spring  For  critical  was  season r a t h e r  season  pre-monsoon. leaving  the  a double or  m a i z e was  the  i n Pithuwa because of i t s  supplies.  fertilizer,  and  correlated  be s e a s o n a l  from e r o s i o n  promoted.  applications  to  for soil  t h e monsoon  properties;  for conservation.  in this  enough  recommendations  Given  r e s p o n d e d more t o compost  o r complex  triple-  responsive  were more h i g h l y  of s o i l  f o r a pre-monsoon  that  of urea  land  1  the s o i l  main  be more m e a n i n g f u l .  p e r h a p s more c r i t i c a l  usual  based  recommendations  that  would  "pakho  improvement  rotation  the e i g h t  fertilizers.  A n o t h e r improvement  was  yield  these  the overwhelming complexity  additions  growing a crop  with  be p r o m o t e d .  be c o n s i d e r e d  I t seemed  rainfed  terms of p r o t e c t i n g  land  kh) would  Of  the r i c e  t o make o v e r a l l  the recommendations  Therefore  chapter,  or pakho)  compost  associated  optimal.  of chemical  of the farms.  on most  with  also  inputs  example,  crop  ( k g and  though, given  types  this  in this  difficult  conservation  or  be c o n s i d e r e d  uses c o n s i d e r e d  cropping  use c a t e g o r i e s  that  most  farmers  additions  than to  the general  would  have  t o be  recommendation modified.  of  157  7.3  Decision  Making  Approach  The  d e c i s i o n making  approach  conservation  asked are  the  management and  soil  questions:  2)  What c r i t e r i a process?  3)  How  a r e l a n d use management a l t e r n a t i v e s e v a l u a t e d a c c o r d i n g to these c r i t e r i a , given a s e t of p r i o r i t i e s ?  4)  How  should b a s e d on process?  Nepal  are  the  s y s t e m s and national,  marketing farmer  of  local  levels  But  is crucial  The  to  the  land  elucidate  criteria.  can  the  or  use  the  important  Governments  at  impact  instituting  village  p a r t i c i p a t i o n and guidelines  or  Making  management and  context  goal  of  Thus t h e  The  in  reality.  for Decision land  resources  have a t r e m e n d o u s  guidelines  become  primary  production.  making  be modified, d e c i s i o n making  f o r recommendations,  p r o d u c t i v i t y under  important  of  can  eventually  farmers within  food  decision  t o make r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s .  concerning  priorities.  or  conservers  Researchers  Criteria  Decisions  in their  Makers  conservation  projects  7.3.2  yields  or  incentives.  were made by  actual  farmers.  district  important  Decision  processes  conservation  are  consideration?  c o n s e r v a t i o n recommendations an u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e f a r m  the  motivation  maximize  d e c i s i o n makers i n t h i s  The  legislation  most  use  Who  Ultimately,  and  following  land  1)  7.3.1  by  the  to  of  most crops  their farm  flow  family  concerns  f a m i l i e s was  involved  a l t e r n a t i v e land cash  conservation  and  their  u s e s were t h e  represented  by  to  that  two crop  158 production needed hire)  was  another  f o r many o f t h e c r o p p i n g and f o r m e e t i n g  education,  health  Attainment resources. on  their  of goals  respective  land  indicated  which  The  land  importance  the  soil  was  criteria,  resource.  and l a n d  t o denote  were c h o s e n  but t e x t u r e ,  was  were.  Soil  I t was  included  or  based  resources  operating resources  because  n o t be  of i t s e f f e c t  i n the study  area  with  could  farmers'  d e c i s i o n making criterion  on  recognized  q u a l i t y and had v a r i o u s Based  t h e s i s , three  words i n  key  fertility c a r b o n and  were a l s o  q u a l i t y e s p e c i a l l y under  density  and c o m p a c t i o n  recognized  that  However  be r e a l i s t i c a l l y  land  an  forest  land  were n o t as  u s e s as t h e  evaluation this  the  on t h e r e s u l t s o f  physical properties  complex.  balanced  last  farm  a s i n d i c a t o r s : pH, o r g a n i c  bulk  extremely what  o f some  p r a c t i c e s would  by d i f f e r e n c e s i n a g r i c u l t u r a l  properties  Four  power, and c a s h  in this  i n d i c a t i o n of s o i l  The  by a s c a r c i t y  differences.  important  quality  of the f a m i l y ( e . g .  requirements.  Farmers  phosphorus.  affected  labour  s u c h as p r o d u c t i v i t y and t h e amount o f  available  uses;  limited  u s e management  q u a l i t y study  properties  was  farmers.  of s o i l  language  (e.g. f e r t i l i z e r ,  o f a v a i l a b l e and r e q u i r e d  q u a l i t y of s o i l  required  their  land  important  cash  use a l t e r n a t i v e s were c o n s i d e r e d  labour,  A comparison  by  was  resource  land,  adopted  goals  since  needs).  capital.  readily  inputs  secondary  Therefore  were c r i t i c a l :  other  f a c t o r of c o n s i d e r a t i o n ;  of  complexity  incorporated  chemical  soil had t o be i n t o the  process. was  an i n d i c a t i o n o f r i s k  associated  with  159  the  alternatives.  those  i n a precarious  unproven of and  innovative  the Pithuwa  Even  considered In  about  that  i f this  compared  rating  of  were i m p o r t a n t  qualitatively (Tulachan,  i t was  1982).  interviews  factors for decisions  They were c r o p  matter  of r i s k  and v a r i a b l e  o f t h e key i n f o r m a n t  preference,  the resource  crop  requirements  capital),  soil  quality  and a v a i l a b l e p h o s p h o r u s ) and a  use o p t i o n s  i n Table  as i f i t was  degree  Use  Options  identified  i n the study  t o s i x d e c i s i o n making f a c t o r s .  of the farm  7.3.  results  To e l u c i d a t e t h e d e c i s i o n making  f a m i l y , each c r i t e r i o n the s i n g l e  The  were  most  was  important  considered i n  factor  of the land  choice. Choices  straight  based  forward.  family  these the  decisions  environment  risk.  land  according  disease  be e x a m i n e d  E v a l u a t i o n o f Land  various  especially  were r e l u c t a n t t o t r y  a high  power and o p e r a t i n g  (pH, o r g a n i c  summarized  process  the  only  profitability,  draught  7.3.3 The  contained  f o r management  relative  labour,  relative  use  could  area,  The d e c i s i o n m a k i n g  already  u s e management.  indicators  turn,  uses.  six criteria  productivity,  situation,  from weather, i n s e c t s ,  crucial  land  (land,  land  summary, t h e r e s u l t s  suggest  i n the study  financial  farmers  uncertainty  prices.  are  Some f a r m e r s  on c r o p  Rice  and m a i z e were o b v i o u s l y  and f a r m  two c r o p s  monsoon  only  were  crops.  livestock  diets  important. Provided  preference  were  relatively  so t h e amount  These  irrigation  two  crops  w a t e r was  the s t a p l e s of and t i m i n g o f were  invariably  i n unlimited  160 Table 7.3: Evaluation of Agricultural Land Use Options According to 6 Criteria  Decision making Criteria  Land use codes for •khet' land kd kc kg kh  Crops included: monsoon crop (m) rice winter crop (w) mustard pre-monsoon crop (p) inter-crop (season) Productivity (kg/ha): monsoon crop winter crop pre-monsoon crop relay or inter-crop Profit total total gross  rice lentils  2205 560  2420 340  rice wheat maize  2340 1590 1200  Land use codes for 'pakho' Agroforest af** PC Pd pa  rice mustard maize  maize mustard  2750 480 1200  1740 450  maize mustard  maize potato  maize mustard gr.manure lentil(m)wheat(w) trees(mwp)  1850 400  1290 7140  1500 500  200  1250  3400  margin (Rs/ha): crop income variable costs margin  8765 4935 3825  6870 3200 3670  10440 6205 4235  11620 6220 5400  7030 3205 3825  7365 3480 3885  26450 8075 18375  8260 3705 4555  Resource requirements: land: irrigated (ha) rainfed (ha) labour: men (md) women (wd) power: bullocks (bd) cash: operating (Rs)  1.0 0.0 70 110 40 930  1.0 0.0 50 95 25 265  1.0 0.0 85 160 50 1170  1.0 0.0 85 150 60 1085  0.0 1.0 35 70 35 730  0.0 1.0 40 85 35 755  0.0 1.0 70 170 50 3175  0.0 1.0 50 60 35 730  6.3 31240 60  6.9 30140 55  low  low  Soil quality: pH (in CaCl2) organic C (kg/ha) available P (kg/ha) Risk rating:  medium  *  *  *  **  6.2 38280 170  5.7 33440 185  6.2 34980 230  5.6 35420 290  6.2 45100 350  high  low  medium  high  high  mean values for these 3 land uses are based on 10 samples; a l l others are based on 4 samples, agroforestry land use values are extrapolated from results of this study and the literature.  Assumptions used i n calculation: Crop prices (RsAg) early rice (moto) 2.00 maize (in both season 2.10 mustard 7.50 wheat 2.00 potato 3.00 lentils 2.40 Fuelwood price (Rs/25 10.00  labour (Rs/md) bullock team hire (Rs/bd) land tax (Rs/ha) irrigation tax (Rs/ha) Rupees per CDN$  20 15 15 100 35 15  161  supply, since the  the  they  later  would  be  land  maturing  crop  as  and  additional  stores  lentils,  potato,  options (kh,  The  pa)  second  productivity but  criterion  alone,  choices  or  lower  yielding  considered, with The  annually,  such  market  was  potato  crops  (7.5  and  of  rice  preferred  the  (kb,  diet  option with ( k g , kh, of  livestock crops,  Rice  also  pd),  building  such  kd)  a third  pa,  feed.  crop,  would  up  food  Finally,  as  mustard  and  highest  (pc  (kg)  or  margin  options 'kg'  or  were s o l d  of  was of  The  third such  would  the  i n the  high Based  and  be  on  fourth  as m a i z e , chosen  land  use  distinctively  over  this  crop  potato-  above  choice  here  crops  respectively).  the  per  triple  other  choice,  hectare.  4200 Rs/ha  actually of  was  cropping  the  sold  some o f  complex in  the  mustard  and  for relatively Thus  first  became v e r y  percentages market  options  18,000 r u p e e s  ( i . e . 5400 and  of the  Higher  a  yielders.  were i r r i g a t e d , 'kh'  as  pd).  profitability rotation  relative  again  wheat were t h e  percentage  Rs/kg,  the  emerged  wheat, m a i z e  gross  as  was  Thus c o m b i n a t i o n s  considered.  3.0  or  were t h e  respectively).  t h o u g h , when t h e  crop  be  rotations including  'masuli'  use  considered  crops.  'pa'  profitable  rotations,  flour  m a i z e and  the  i t s annual next  a relay  rotations  the  land  would  were o f t e n p r e f e r r e d .  rice,  When o n l y  Those  that i n c l u d e d cash  respectively.  (pa)  kh)  s i d e b e n e f i t s i n terms  potatoes  wheat  or  wheat  the  priority,  kg,  Diversity  Any  criterion  of  kd,  crop.  popular.  a pre-monsoon  of  (kb,  better tasting  preference.  represent  cropping  uses  a l l include a rice  particularly  affected either  'khet'  higher  prices  the r o t a t i o n s  162  including shown  these  by t h i s Another  crops  ( p c , pd) were p e r h a p s more  theoretical important  alternatives  Four  resources  operating first or  capital.  comparison.  was t h e i r  relative  were i n c l u d e d : l a n d , The amount  fordiscussion.  some o f t h e more  and t y p e  In order  profitable  resource labour,  triple  l a n d was r e q u i r e d .  cropping  rotations  ( p c , pd, pa) r e q u i r e d w e l l d r a i n e d , Labour  alternatives.  In areas  their  land  high  uses  labour  respectively). cropping first  noteworthy.  options;  thus  be  adopted.  easily  doing in  twice  in  even  totals  rainfed  shortages,  be a p r o b l e m  ( 2 4 5 , 235, 240  At f i r s t  labour  because o f  input  o f the double  o f farm  of Pithuwa  Some a c t i v i t i e s  of the crop  than  the other  that  other  not l i k e l y  t h a t women were but time  the s i t u a t i o n  farmers  l a n d use  i t would  i t appeared  done by men s u c h  with  to require a  work a s t h e men;  revealed  made i t a  were a l s o  conserving  glance,  triple  man-woman-days/ha/yr  o f man t o woman l a b o u r  i f i t was s o i l  the market, meeting  marketing  aerated,  were l a b o u r  o f man t o woman l a b o u r  t h e amount  the v i l l a g e  complex.  where t h e r e  The a g r o f o r e s t r y o p t i o n a p p e a r e d  ratio  (kg,kh),  t h e maize-based  * p c ' ( i . e . 105 man-woman-days/ha/yr)  Ratios  crop  v a r i e d among l a n d u s e  In c o n t r a s t , t h e lower  different  rotations  Conversely,  ( k g , k h , p a ) would  rotation  choice.  requirements  inputs  power and  t o grow t h e p r e f e r r e d r i c e  'khet'  'pakho' l a n d .  requirements.  o f l a n d was t h e o b v i o u s  irrigated  cropping  than  c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o compare l a n d u s e  management major  profitable  as buying to arrange  spent  was more fertilizer exchanges or  p r o d u c e , were n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e l a b o u r  because of the d i f f i c u l t y  i n e s t i m a t i n g them.  The f o u r t h  163  resource  requirement  based  those  on  cooperatively chemical  cropping or  fertilizer,  or  bullock  supply  as  i s often  rotations Rs/ha/yr  such  combined  be  the  and  the  Soil actually  an  indicators  crops.  of  use So  the and  a key  the  land  of  be  pH  farms, one  these  another,  the  of  than  land to  no  other  organic  matter  use  options  would  as  here. It  i t was  evaluated  pH  as  ( i n CaC12),  mean s o i l range  for  would  be  that  properties  pH  like  pHs  chosen  was  carefully  involving irrigation  the  order  follows:  of  were b e t t e r choice  as  base  magnesium, t h e  pd)  under  most  options  (kd,  was  consideration  namely  use  265  this  and  content be  were  calcium  a legume c r o p  on  resources  were used  optimal  1085 would  with  study  land  choices  considered.  The  and  pc,  resource  soil,  not  in limited  1170  and  outlined  this  the  and  that  properties  the  was  but  for  cash-outlay  (kd  so  was  required  taxes  Better  four  However, r e m e m b e r i n g  Thus t h e or  cash  large  uses  criterion  alone,  exchangeable  better.  the  chosen.  This  arranged  ( i . e . 3175  land  fertility  i n d i c a t o r of  'khet' r o t a t i o n s ) Based  not  were w i t h i n  considering  chosen  value  "kh'  a v a i l a b l e phosphorus.  options  and  be  I f cash  area,  or  fifth  condition  conserving.  saturation  for  the  soil  more s o i l as  most  seed.  in this  i t s importance  Three  carbon  land  On  i n t e g r a l part  separately.  or  much more complex  given  cash.  not  It included  more t r a d i t i o n a l  q u a l i t y was  But  organic  case  "pa'," kg'  was  could  or  p e s t i c i d e s , t r a c t o r h i r e and  substituted  consideration  all  as  capital  that  h i r e , compost  Rs/ha/yr).  above.  inputs  r e s p e c t i v e l y ) would  obviously 730  operating  i n exchanges.  labour  and  was  higher  the  (the choices.  among  the  164  af>  kh>  Conversely appeared  pa>  to  to  be  organic  such  as  pc>  kb>  expectations, soil  alternatives the  pd>  the  was  cation  water h o l d i n g  capacity,  these  p h o s p h o r u s was  the  phosphorus  maize  agroforestry levels  of  (af)  290  developing  of all  the  the  preferred  three  soil  was  relay  soil  uses  encouraging crop  find  options of  lentils  there  no  apparent  reasons  for  Risk  this  was  the  soil  pa,  available  choices  question,  However  of  that  the  af)  had  potato-wheat  hectare  here  to  pa,  af)  that  (pa)  with  the  were t h e  criterion  the  soil, values  of  use  and  alternatives is still  discuss. the  more s o i l  to  Even  one  When more  conserving.  though  improve  or  the  crop y i e l d s ,  properties.  i n more d e t a i l  for evaluating  for  of  r o t a t i o n s were t r i p l e  in soil  discussed  and  high  interest  land  include  l e g u m e s seemed  have been  higher  mean  surface  given  In  tenuous e x t r a p o l a t i o n  profitable.  improvement  exciting.  the  such h i g h  i n the  these  Since  properties  and  p a r a m e t e r s were c o n s i d e r e d  highly  final  inputs.  u s e f u l , a v a i l a b l e phosphorus  note  or  pd,  for evaluating  (kh,  and  inclusion was  per  properties  to  other  these  quality indicator.  better  t e s t r e s u l t s and  fertility  land  (pc,  the  noted  situation.  f a r m e r s would  soil  maize,  open t o  a methodology  innovative It  of  the be  be  to  of  r e s u l t s were p a r t i c u l a r l y  kilograms  I t should  agroforestry  that  350  to  fertility  exchange c a p a c i t y  third  these  rotations  profitability  extra  rotations  phosphorus are  variability the  Of  the  seemed  and  respectively. available  based  status.  cropping  closely related  nitrogen,  general  The  justified  total  Available  triple  conserving.  probably carbon  kd.  the  The  i n chapter land  use  4.  165  options. crop  The  y i e l d s , the  infestations was  ratings  or  sensitivity disease,  i n t e r e s t i n g that  involved  the  innovative  were b a s e d  triple  cropping  on  the  farm  close  to  the  subsistence  least  risk  or  calculating  farm  by the  offs,  the  but  this  were e q u i t a b l e , priorities  that  small  7.4).  f a r m e r s who  data,  (kh,  pa,  af)  i t seems t h a t  would  choose  pa)  more were  farm  the  kd,  riskier.  families  options  with  be  the  the  land  uses  f o r each land  s i t u a t i o n s , a l l the  land  each  use  There  agroforestry  outweighed  evaluated.  the  the  six This  was  and  then  criteria,  (Table  u s e s were not  overall rating. of  for  7.4).  The  distinctly  were o f  course  s y s t e m s and  disadvantages  r a t i n g system  assumed  d i f f e r e n t f a m i l i e s would would  selectively  farms would Their  criteria  i s recognized  approximation  that  of of  weight  probably  decisions  thought  oversimplification first  uses  the  (kc,  It  trade-  triple  i f criteria  were  weighted.  Although  It  land  the  drought,  uses  while  simultaneously  benefits  rotations  equally  (Table  farmer;  to  of  fluctuations.  land  would  that  in their  example,  price  making  mean r a n k  different  all  market  decision  ranking  suggested  cropping  the  level  variability  p a r t i c u l a r crops  the  interview  criteria  approximated  results  the  involved.  actual  factors  the  more t r a d i t i o n a l for  Based  In  and  the  least risk  of  on  would 2,3  the  a very  and  focus be  a methodology  a l l six  the on  criteria. criteria  5 were most here  process. that  criteria  have d i f f e r e n t  d i f f e r e n t from  discussion  complex  that  could  For 1,4  and  larger  important.  is  an  I t i s meant be  as  improved.;  6  166  Table 7.4: Rating of Agricultural Land Use Options Using a Ranking System *  Decision making Criteria  Land use codes for khet land kb kd kg kh  Crops preference: mean rank of crops (all seasons)  6  5.5  Productivity:  4  3  6  5  1  2  8  7  Gross margin (profit):  4  1  5  7  2  3  8  6  Resource requirements: mean rank of labour, power & capital  3  6.8  2.5  2.8  6.7  5.7  1.8  4.9  Soil quality: organic carbon  2  1  6.5  6.5  3  4  5  8  Risk rating:  7  7  4.5  2  7  4.5  2  2  4.3  4  5.1  4.8  3.9  3.9  4.8  5.2  4  3  7  5.5  1.5  1.5  5.5  8  Overall mean rank: Ranking of mean ranks:  6  Land use codes for pakho Agroforest pc pd pa af**  5.3  4  4.3  4.3  3.3  * rank of 8 = best or most desirable; rank of 1 = worst or least desirable land use option.  167  The  number  of  or  decrease  depending  viewpoint  or  indicate  only  calculating Regardless extension  important  data the  criteria  on  the  of  unusual  of  four  there  conservation  situation,  Another  resource  i t s faults, soil  farming  availability.  a mean r a n k i n g of  f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n might  evaluation  improvement  might  requirements  rather  such  farm  are  diverse  valuable  than  resources.  insights  recommendations  increase  for  gleaned  from  the  evaluation.  7.3.4 If in  Modified  soil  conservation  management  use  options  inputs, i r r i g a t i o n  and  the  should  question  The  the  were t h e soil  per  be  rephrased,  soil  conserving  land  cropping  and  rotation).  promoting  accepted  the  l a r g e r farmers.  recommended  p r a c t i c e s , crop  the  demonstrated, They w o u l d cash  to  these  have  purchase  initial  the the  due  people  soil  be  use  first  priority  tradeoffs?  The  operating  capital.  price  were n o t  and  land  yield  included.  family  goals  recommendations  Perhaps  and compatible  a l t e r n a t i v e s (af,kh,kg,pa) ( i . e . higher  conservation  yields  and  that  land  would  If a clear  be  income  easily  could the  especially  for triple  between be  new  the  cropping  gross  use  relationship  r e c e p t i v e to  resources,  requirements  the  required  profitable  be  Management  usually  I t appeared  would  required  to  " what  conserving  recommendations by  and  p r e f e r r e d crops  were u s u a l l y more p r o d u c t i v e margins  to  Use  conserving  associated risks  fluctuations  with?"  considered  seemed more s o i l  T h e r e were h i g h e r  priorities  was  f o r Land  d e c i s i o n m a k i n g , what were t h e  that  more l a b o u r  Recommendations  ideas. operating  of  improved  168  seed  varieties,  smaller factor  poorer  one  of increased  that  promoted  section,  requirements,  fertilizer  applications.  perceived  techniques making  This  terms o f p r o d u c t i o n ,  saving  decrease  i n fodder  considered. for  this  strongly  use.  This  might  surprising  that  benefits  throughout  promoted  to outweigh  agroforestry  t h e whole  conservation.  from  be met w i t h I t also tree  There  was  f o r e s t was required  some r e s i s t a n c e i n required  nursery  seedlings.  system  considerable  ( s e v e r a l hours  'wonder t r e e s ' w i t h farming  highly  when t h e t i m e  the d i s t a n t  some o f t h e c o n s t r a i n t s  practices.  s y s t e m s be  more work f r o m men was  suitable tree  multi-purpose  previous  u s e a l t e r n a t i v e was r a t e d  women-days o f l a b o u r  the nearest  Pithuwa) to o b t a i n  i n the  of agroforestry  collection  be  p r a c t i c e s , s u c h as  discussed  p a t r i a r c h a l households. to v i s i t  message would  context  The p a r a d o x was t h a t  land  initiative from  and f u e l  outweigh the  For farmers i n  1982).  and s o i l  i n required  would  (Bunch,  land  profit  extension  to t h e i r  the i n t r o d u c t i o n  by f a r m e r s ?  general  changes  B u t f o r many  e s p e c i a l l y the r i s k  capital  the d e c i s i o n  how would  fertilizers.  the disadvantages,  slight  composting  Given  a  and coraplex  s i t u a t i o n t h e more a p p r o p r i a t e  improved  in  farmers  and t h e o p e r a t i n g  benefits this  more u r e a  walk  I t i s not many  (Plate  side  7 . 1 ) must be  to adoption  of the  169  Plate  7.1: Agroforestry innovations; multi-purpose t r e e s such as " i p i l i p i l ' ( l e u c a e n e a s p . ) w o u l d be c a p a b l e o f s u p p l y i n g the farming household needs f o r fuelwood and fodder.  170  CHAPTER 8: Soil use  fertility  conflict  valley.  This  properties emphasis forest  to  study  based  was  r e s u l t s of  land  the  The  following  was  s u c h as  capacity  was  a decline  degraded degree  or  and  compaction  to  using  parts  and  significantly agricultural  aluminum affected.  land  uses  land  use  and  were e v a l u a t e d  in  Thirdly, forest  soil  Finally,  to  carbon,  develop  a  Several  total  soil  affected.  slopes  of  revealed  that  improved  a v a i l a b l e phosphorus); under  the  cation  of  one bases,  "free' Al) the  the  pH,  were  various  innovative (organic  several  degraded  there  f o r e s t became  l e s s than  fertility and  productive  However,  and  some o f  soil  and  Exchangeable  examination  study:  fertility  nitrogen  exchangeable  Closer  the  degradation.  q u a l i t y when n a t u r a l  (both  by  when n a t u r a l  f o r e s t canopy*.  than  soil  the c o m p o s t - f e r t i l i z e r  quality  total  were b e t t e r  in  f o r e s t degradation  and  options  parameters  changes  were r e v e a l e d  triple-cropping nitrogen,  Chitawan  were i n t e g r a t e d  were s i g n i f i c a n t l y  "closed  land  plan.  o v e r - u t i l i z e d , even on under  First,  Then  agriculture.  in soil  the  biomass measurements.  in soil  organic  of  profitability  conclusions  a decline  exchange also  steps.  interviews.  three  between  part  in a  were d o c u m e n t e d , w i t h p a r t i c u l a r  farm  nine  converted  properties,  on  options  a link  T h e r e was  main  cropping  first  management  1) T h e r e was  eastern  conversions.  estimated  use  forest  use  y i e l d s and  area  management were s t u d i e d  north  four  CONCLUSIONS  changes accompanying  agricultural  crop  land  the  land  those  productivity the  of  involved  due  on  to  inputs, the  area  and  SUMMARY AND  soil  carbon, quality  f o r e s t land  use.  1 7 1  2)  Six soil  properties  were i d e n t i f i e d  a s key i n d i c a t o r s o f s o i l  quality. Monitoring be  accomplished  CaC12),  organic  soil  degradation  using  the following  carbon,  identified  agricultural  potassium  a s t h e most  land  i n d i c a t o r under  useful  3)  There  forested  land  exchangeable  compaction  t o be t h e  b u t more r e s e a r c h  systems  for  conserving  i s needed.  The  i n t r o d u c t i o n o f l e g u m e s i n t o t h e r o t a t i o n had i m p r o v e d b u t so f a r no e v i d e n c e s  chemical  soil  properties  were v i s i b l e .  had  been  c a r r i e d o u t f o r two c o n s e c u t i v e  only  variability,  this  in soil  have a h i g h  p o t e n t i a l f o r improving  organic  carbon,  assumptions  fertility.  total  nitrogen  made i n t h i s  Agroforestry  relative  triple  annual  land  potato-wheat) than  "legume l a n d years  and  uses'  given  enough t o show s y s t e m s seemed t o  properties  such as given  study.  agricultural  land  uses  were  u s e s were compared, p r o d u c t i v i t i e s  profitabilities cropping  soil  of improved  and a v a i l a b l e p h o s p h o r u s ,  The p r o d u c t i v i t i e s o f v a r i o u s distinctly different. When a g r i c u l t u r a l  These  may n o t .have been l o n g  differences  and  q u a l i t y under  or a g r o f o r e s t r y  properties  h)  carbon  uses.  soil  the  Organic  was f o u n d  physical  soil  could  p r o p e r t i e s : pH ( i n  i n d i c a t o r of s o i l  was p o t e n t i a l f o r l e g u m e - b a s e d soil,  analysis  and c o m p a c t i o n .  u s e s and s u r f a c e  key  key s o i l  a v a i l a b l e phosphorus,  magnesium, e x c h a n g e a b l e was  and s t r e a m l i n i n g  (gross  (kh: r i c e ,  f o r double  m a r g i n s ) were h i g h e r f o r  mustard,  cropping  maize;  options  (kc:  pa: maize, rice,  172  mustard; of  pc: maize, mustard).  supplying  food,  t h e f a m i l y needs  and t h e o r e t i c a l l y  A g r o f o r e s t r y s y s t e m s were f o r fodder  would  and f i r e w o o d  be h i g h l y p r o d u c t i v e  capable  as w e l l as  and  profitable.  5) F o r e s t  productivity  Degraded had  markedly  forest lower  was  declining  (the prevalent  than  products  (timber,  reduced  by 15 t o 35 p e r c e n t  natural forest. firewood,  conditions.  incapable timber,  of meeting  firewood  standing  including improved over  was  not the best  food,  land  uses  cropping  systems  fodder  i n terms  rotations,  than  growth  were  needs f o r  30 y e a r s from  the  the four  areas  carbon,  should  crop  were  rotation  which  yielding  quality.  yields  to  and  bases) this  included  land  use b u t  The v a l u e o f  c o n s e r v a t i o n and  again  those  exchangeable  An e x c e p t i o n  the highest  of s o i l  especially  had h i g h e r  cropping  i n terms of s o i l  and f u e l w o o d  annual  under  quality.  rotations.  definitely  of forest  in agricultural  cultivation,  cropping  levels  by t h e demands  Pithuwa.  the r a i n f e d  T h i s was  agroforestry of  was  original  i n less  like  better soil  rice  double  generalization  it  Thus,  p r o p e r t i e s (pH, o r g a n i c  rainfed,  potatoes.  their  be d e p l e t e d  forest  were compared, a l l were  communities  triple  irrigated soil  from  and f o d d e r .  with  general,  fodder)  area)  regeneration  important  the Pithuwa  6) The h i g h l y p r o d u c t i v e  In  When t h r e e  increments  "panchayats'  associated  c o n d i t i o n i n the study  Mean a n n u a l  b i o m a s s would  surrounding  not s u s t a i n a b l e .  amounts o f wood b i o m a s s and  saplings  natural  and was  be s t r e s s e d .  production  173  7) T h e r e  were r e l a t i o n s h i p s  between  soil  quality  and  fertility  inputs. Higher season and  was  a d d i t i o n s of correlated  organic  phosphorus organic link  carbon.  with  and  and  was  a format  gross  both  urea  alternative most  farming  higher  land  situations  The other  use  compelling  areas  values  to the  of was  no  variability  factors  preferences,  requirements,  provided  soil  were used  quality  In  more  uses  final in  the  profit  way,  the  diversity  e n v i r o n m e n t s was  and  t o make  to a l l s i x f a c t o r s  this  or  indicators  guidelines for individuals  d e c i s i o n making  specific  the  land  productivity,  decisions according  and  o p t i o n s was l a n d use  alternative  i n t e r p r e t e d by  Six  combination.  or of  stressed  recommendations.  and  applicability  to  other  Nepal.  methodology  areas  evaluated  methods have r e l e v a n c e  of  nitrogen-  However, t h e r e  s t a t u s due  easily  crop  approach  study  be  resource  implementing  The  approach  farmers.  including  This  and  magnesium  farms.  makers, the  margins,  risks.  9)  of  pre-monsoon  exchangeable  a s s o c i a t e d with  phosphorus  that could  comparison,  for  use  pH,  i n the  A f l e x i b l e e v a l u a t i o n o f l a n d use management r e a l i s t i c than d e v e l o p i n g a s i n g l e o p t i m a l management p l a n .  decision  the  soil  e x c h a n g e a b l e magnesium.  A d e c i s i o n making in  especially  higher  Increased  n i t r o g e n or  among s o i l s  8)  with  fertilizers  carbon  compost,  of Nepal  can  be  used  due  to t h r e e  to e v a l u a t e reasons.  land First,  use the  problems i n link  with  174  the  Land  R e s o u r c e Mapping  all  of N e p a l ) p r o v i d e d  biophysical, considered data  i n land  Nepal.  was  while  the d e c i s i o n land  transferrable would  resolution.  making  situations of t h i s  to other  be more w i d e l y  be  which should  electrified  a p p r o a c h was  centers  of  that  would  could  Thus,  only  be  comparable agro-ecosystems, applicable.  be  a flexible  priorities.  evaluation  must  S e c o n d l y , a l l the  programs  and  s e t of  that  use management a l t e r n a t i v e s ,  adapted to other  methodology  cultural factors  based i n major  the s p e c i f i c r e s u l t s  partially  f o r t h e complex  done on m i c r o computer  means o f c o m p a r i n g be e a s i l y  and maps ( a v a i l a b l e f o r  point  and  use c o n f l i c t  for researchers Thirdly,  data  a starting  s o c i a l , economic  analysis  feasible  Project  the  175  LITERATURE Aina,  CITED  P.O., R. L a i and G.S. T a y l o r . 1979. E f f e c t s o f v e g e t a l c o v e r on s o i l e r o s i o n on an A l f i s o l . I n : R. L a i and D.J. G r e e n l a n d ( e d s . ) S o i l P h y s i c a l P r o p e r t i e s and C r o p P r o d u c t i o n i n t h e T r o p i c s , J o h n W i l e y & Sons, T o r o n t o , pp.501-508.  A l l e n , J u l i a . 1985. S o i l r e s p o n s e t o f o r e s t c l e a r i n g i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s and t h e T r o p i c s : g e o l o g i c a l and b i o l o g i c a l f a c t o r s . B i o t r o p i c a 1 7 ( 1 ) . pp. 15-27. A l l i s o n , L . E . 1965. O r g a n i c c a r b o n . I n : C A . B l a c k e t a l ( e d s . ) , M e t h o d s o f S o i l A n a l y s i s , P a r t 2: C h e m i c a l and M i c r o b i o l o g i c a l P r o p e r t i e s . Am. S o c . o f A g r o n . , M a d i s o n , W i s c o n s i n , pp.1367-1378. A y a n a b a , A. and P . J . D a r t . 1977. B i o l o g i c a l N i t r o g e n F i x a t i o n i n F a r m i n g S y s t e m s i n t h e T r o p i c s . J o h n W i l e y and S o n s , New Y o r k . 377 pp. B a n t a , G.R. 1976. I n f o r m a t i o n r e q u i r e d f o r d e s c r i p t i o n o f c r o p p i n g s y s t e m s . I n : Symposium on C r o p p i n g S y s t e m s R e s e a r c h and D e v e l o p m e n t f o r t h e A s i a n R i c e F a r m e r , 21-24 September 1976, I R R I , L o s B a n o s , P h i l i p p i n e s , pp. 151-165. B a j r a c h a r y a , D. 1980. d e f o r e s t a t i o n : an in eastern Nepal. Center, Honolulu.  F u e l w o o d and f o o d needs v e r s u s energy study of a h i l l v i l l a g e panchayat Resource Systems I n s t i t u t e , East-West C i t e d i n : Fox 1983 ( q . v . ) .  Barlow, C , S. J a y a s u r i y a and E.C. P r i c e . 1983. E v a l u a t i n g T e c h n o l o g y f o r New F a r m i n g S y s t e m s : Case S t u d i e s f r o m P h i l i p p i n e R i c e F a r m s . IRRI, L o s B a n o s . pp. 9-29. B e c k e t t , P.H.T. and R. W e b s t e r . 1971. S o i l v a r i a b i l i t y , S o i l & F e r t i l i z e r s V o l . 3 4 , N o . l . pp.1-15.  a review.  B e n n e t t , L . 1983. D a n g e r o u s W i v e s and S a c r e d S i s t e r s , S o c i a l S y m b o l i c R o l e s o f H i g h - C a s t e Women i n N e p a l . Columbia U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , New Y o r k . pp. 1-33.  and  B l y t h , J . F . and D.A. M a c l e o d . 1978. The s i g n i f i c a n c e o f s o i l v a r i a b i l i t y for forest s o i l studies in north-east Scotland. J . o f S o i l S c i . V o l . 29. pp.419-430. B r a c e w e l l , J.M., G.W. R o b e r t s o n and J . L o g a n . 1979. Variability of o r g a n i c m a t t e r and e x c h a n g e a b l e c a t i o n s w i t h i n t h e A2 h o r i z o n o f an i r o n p o d z o l . J . o f S o i l S c i . V o l . 30. pp.327332.  1 76  Bremner, J.M. and C.S. M u l v a n e y . 1982. T o t a l n i t r o g e n . I n : A.L. Page e t a l ( e d s . ) , Methods o f S o i l A n a l y s i s P a r t 2: C h e m i c a l & M i c r o b i o l o g i c a l P r o p e r t i e s , 2nd E d i t i o n , Agronomy No.9, M a d i s o n , W i s c o n s i n , pp. 595-616. Bunch, R o l a n d . 1982. Two E a r s o f C o r n ; A G u i d e t o P e o p l e - c e n t e r e d A g r i c u l t u r a l Improvement. W o r l d N e i g h b o r s , Oklahoma C i t y , O k l a h o m a . 250 pp. C a m p b e l l , J . 1978. S p a t i a l v a r i a b i l i t y o f sand c o n t e n t and pH w i t h i n s i n g l e c o n t i g u o u s d e l i n e a t i o n s o f two s o i l mapping u n i t s . S o i l S c i . S o c . o f Amer. J . V o l . 41. pp.578-582. C a r s o n , B r i a n R. 1977. Use o f t h e u n i v e r s a l s o i l l o s s e q u a t i o n t o p r e d i c t s o i l l o s s f r o m t h e T i m o r e s e l a n d s c a p e . M.Sc. thesis, Dept. of S o i l S c i e n c e , Univ. of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver. 72 pp. C a r s o n , B r i a n R. 1985. E r o s i o n and s e d i m e n t a t i o n p r o c e s s e s i n t h e N e p a l e s e H i m a l a y a . ICIMOD O c c a s i o n a l P a p e r No. 1, ICIMOD, Kathmandu, N e p a l . 39 pp. Chambers, R o b e r t . 1985. S h o r t c u t methods f o r g a t h e r i n g s o c i a l i n f o r m a t i o n f o r r u r a l d e v e l o p m e n t p r o j e c t s . I n : M.M. Cernea (ed.), P u t t i n g People F i r s t , S o c i o l o g i c a l V a r i a b l e s i n Rural D e v e l o p m e n t . W o r l d Bank/ O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , Wash., D.C. pp.399-415. C h a u d h a r y , S a t y a N. 1984. E v a p o t r a n s p i r a t i o n a t Rampur 1974-83. unpub. p a p e r i n D e p a r t m e n t o f S o i l S c i e n c e , I n s t i t u t e o f A g r i c u l t u r e & A n i m a l S c i e n c e , Rampur, N e p a l . 26 pp. Chapa, D e p u c . 1985. B i o m a s s s u r v e y c a r r i e d o u t i n t h e v i c i n i t y o f J u t e p a n i panchayat f o r e s t i n the Chitawan D i s t r i c t of Nepal, unpub. r e p o r t , Kathmandu. 22 pp. Chapman, H.D. 1965. C a t i o n e x c h a n g e c a p a c i t y & t o t a l exchangeable b a s e s . I n : C.A. B l a c k e t a l ( e d s . ) , M e t h o d s o f S o i l A n a l y s i s , P a r t 2: C h e m i c a l and M i c r o b i o l o g i c a l P r o p e r t i e s . Am. S o c . o f A g r o n . , M a d i s o n , W i s c o n s i n , pp.891-904. Cobb, D.  1984.  M a s t e r i n g Symphony. SYBEX I n c . , B e r k l e y . 763  pp.  C r o p p i n g S y s t e m s S t a f f . 1984. C r o p p i n g System P r o g r a m o f t h e I n t e g r a t e d C e r e a l s P r o j e c t , Semi-annual Report A p r i l through S e p t . , 1984. HMG M i n i s t r y o f A g r i c . Kathmandu, N e p a l . pp.IV-30,31 D a v i d s o n , D.T. 1965. P e n e t r o m e t e r m e a s u r e m e n t s . I n : C.A. B l a c k e t a l ( e d s . ) , M e t h o d s o f S o i l A n a l y s i s , P a r t 1: P h y s i c a l & M i n e r a l o g i c a l P r o p e r t i e s , Am. S o c . o f A g r o n . , Madison, W i s c o n s i n , pp. 472-474.  177  Eckholm, E r i c . Y o r k . 223  1976. pp.  L o s i n g G r o u n d . W.W.  Norton  and  Co.  Inc.,  F o r e s t R e s o u r c e S u r v e y HMG/ USAID. 1964. T r e e Volume T a b l e s N e p a l . M i n . o f F o r e s t s , Kathmandu. pp. 28.  New  of  Fox,  J.M. 1982. M a n a g i n g p u b l i c l a n d s i n N e p a l : a v i l l a g e l e v e l look at land-use p l a n n i n g . P a p e r p r e s e n t e d a t 1 1 t h Ann. C o n f . on S. A s i a . S. A s i a n A r e a C e n t e r , U n i v . o f W i s c o n s i n , 5-7 Nov. 1982.  Fox,  J.M. 1983. M a n a g i n g p u b l i c l a n d s i n a s u b s i s t e n c e economy: t h e p e r s p e c t i v e from a N e p a l i v i l l a g e . Unpub. Ph.D. thesis, D e p t . o f A g r i c . E c o n . , U n i v . o f W i s c o n s i n , M a d i s o n . 246 pp.  Fox,  J.M. 1984. F i r e w o o d c o n s u m p t i o n i n a N e p a l i E n v i r . Manag. V o l . 8 , No.3. pp.243-250.  village.  G a r d n e r , W.H. 1965. Water c o n t e n t . I n : C A . Black et a l ( e d s . ) , M e t h o d s o f S o i l A n a l y s i s , P a r t 1: P h y s i c a l & M i n e r a l o g i c a l P r o p e r t i e s , Am. S o c . o f A g r o n . , M a d i s o n , W i s e . pp.82-96. G r e e n l a n d , D . J . 1981. C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f S o i l s i n R e l a t i o n t o t h e i r C l a s s i f i c a t i o n and Management. O x f o r d U n i v . P r e s s , New Y o r k . pp.51-75, 135-145. G r e g o r y , J.M. 1984. P r e d i c t i o n o f s o i l v a r i o u s f r a c t i o n s of c o v e r . Trans pp.1345-1354.  e r o s i o n by w a t e r f o r ASAE V o l . 2 7 , No.5-6.  H a m i l t o n , L.S. 1985. Towards c l a r i f y i n g t h e a p p r o p r i a t e mandate i n f o r e s t r y f o r w a t e r s h e d r e h a b i l i t a t i o n and management. P r o c e e d i n g s o f E x p e r t M e e t i n g s on S t r a t e g i e s , A p p r o a c h e s and S y s t e m s f o r I n t e g r a t e d W a t e r s h e d Management, FAO - ICIMOD East-West C e n t e r . F e b . - Mar. 1985. Kathmandu. 40 pp. H a r s h , S.B. 1981. M a n a g i n g t h e Farm B u s i n e s s . P r e n t i c e - H a l l E n g l e w o o d C l i f f s , N . J . pp. 1-12, 115-149.  Inc.  Harwood, R.R. 1979. S m a l l f a r m d e v e l o p m e n t , u n d e r s t a n d i n g and i m p r o v i n g f a r m i n g s y s t e m s i n t h e humid t r o p i c s . IADS D e v e l o p m e n t - o r i e n t a t e d L i t e r a t u r e S e r i e s , Westview P r e s s , Boulder, Colorado. 160 pp. H i l l e l , D a n i e l . 1980. S o i l w a t e r c o n t e n t and p o t e n t i a l . I n : F u n d a m e n t a l s o f S o i l P h y s i c s . A c a d e m i c P r e s s , New Y o r k . 145-162. Hrabovszky, use i n Mohonk Ganges  pp.  J . P . and K. M i y a n . 1986. P o p u l a t i o n g r o w t h and l a n d Nepal, the g r e a t t u r n a b o u t . Paper p r e s e n t e d a t : I n t e r n a t i o n a l M o u n t a i n C o n f e r e n c e on t h e H i m a l a y a n P r o b l e m , 6-11 A p r i l 1986, New Y o r k . 25 pp.  178  IDRC. 1983. L e u c a e n a R e s e a r c h i n t h e A s i a n - P a c i f i c Region: P r o c e e d i n g s o f a Workshop H e l d i n S i n g a p o r e , 23-26 Nov. 1982. I n t e r n a t i o n a l D e v e l o p m e n t R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , O t t a w a , pp. 89-90, 99-102. IHDP /SATA. 1984. M a r k e t s u r v e y o f t h e p r o j e c t a r e a i n D o l k h a D i s t r i c t / S i n d u p a l c h o w k D i s t r i c t e a s t o f S u n k o s i . IHDP/SATA, Kathmandu, N e p a l . I L A C 0 . 1985. A g r i c u l t u r a l Compendium f o r R u r a l D e v e l o p m e n t i n t h e T r o p i c s and S u b t r o p i c s . E l s e v i e r S c i e n c e Pub., Amsterdam, The N e t h e r l a n d s , pp. 560-580. J a c k s o n , P e t e r . 1983. M o u n t a i n r e s c u e : c a n N e p a l s t o p t h e I n t . U n i o n f o r C o n s e r v . o f N a t u r e , V o l . 1 4 , No.7-9, J u l y / S e p t . 8 3 . pp.73-78.  slide?  J o h n s o n , K i r s t e n , E l i z a b e t h A. O l s o n and S u m i t r a M a n a n d h a r . 1982. E n v i r o n m e n t a l knowledge and r e s p o n s e t o n a t u r a l h a z a r d s i n mountainous Nepal. M o u n t a i n R e s . & Dev. V o l . 2 , No.2. pp.175-188. J o s h i , J.R. 1981. C h e m i c a l and m i n e r a l o g i c a l a n a l y s i s o f some s o i l s o f t h e C h i t a w a n v a l l e y , N e p a l . Unpub. M.Sc. thesis, D e p t . o f S o i l S c i e n c e , U n i v . o f W i s c o n s i n , M a d i s o n . 80 pp. Juo,  A.S.R. 1976. An e v a l u a t i o n o f c a t i o n e x c h a n g e c a p a c i t y m e a s u r e m e n t s f o r s o i l s i n t h e t r o p i c s . Commun. i n S o i l S c i e n c e and P l a n t A n a l y s i s , 7 ( 8 ) . pp. 751-761.  Juo,  A.S.R. and R. L a i . 1979. N u t r i e n t p r o f i l e i n a t r o p i c a l A l f i s o l u n d e r c o n v e n t i o n a l and n o - t i l l s y s t e m s . S o i l S c i . 1 2 7 , 3 . pp.168-173.  Kay,  R o n a l d . 1986. Farm Management: P l a n n i n g , C o n t r o l & I m p l e m e n t a t i o n , 2nd E d . M c G r a w - H i l l Book Co., New York, pp.65-82, 264-290.  K h o j u , Madhab R. 1983. E c o n o m i c s o f pump i r r i g a t i o n i n E a s t e r n N e p a l . I n : C o n s e q u e n c e s o f S m a l l Farm M e c h a n i z a t i o n . IRRI, L o s B a n o s , P h i l i p p i n e s , pp.95-106. K l i n k a , K a r e l , R.N. G r e e n , R.L. T r o w b r i d g e and L . E . Lowe. 1981. Taxonomic C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f Humus Forms i n E c o s y s t e m s o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a . 1 s t A p p r o x . B.C. M i n . o f F o r e s t s , pp.4951. Lai,  R. and D . J . G r e e n l a n d . 1979. S o i l P h y s i c a l Crop P r o d u c t i o n i n the T r o p i c s . John W i l e y pp.501-508.  P r o p e r t i e s and & Sons, T o r o n t o ,  L a v k u l i c h , L.M. 1981. M e t h o d s m a n u a l ; P e d o l o g y l a b o r a t o r y . 3 r d p r i n t i n g . Department of S o i l S c i e n c e , U n i v . of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , V a n c o u v e r , B.C. 211 pp.  179 Li,  P. 1981. S o c i a l R e s e a r c h pp.45-68, 115-124.  Methods. B u t t e r w o r t h s , T o r o n t o ,  LRMP. 1983a. D r a f t Land S y s t e m s R e p o r t . Land R e s o u r c e M a p p i n g P r o j e c t , C.I.D.A./ H.M.G., T o p o g r a p h i c S u r v e y s B r a n c h , Kathmandu. 234 pp. LRMP. 1983b. D r a f t Land U t i l i z a t i o n R e p o r t . Land R e s o u r c e M a p p i n g P r o j e c t , C.I.D.A./ H.M.G., T o p o g r a p h i c S u r v e y s B r a n c h , Kathmandu. LRMP. 1983c. D r a f t A g r i c u l t u r a l R e p o r t . Land R e s o u r c e M a p p i n g P r o j e c t , C.I.D.A./ H.M.G., T o p o g r a p h i c S u r v e y s B r a n c h , Kathmandu. LRMP. 1984a. G e o l o g y Maps, C h i t a w a n D i s t r i c t , 1:125,000. Land R e s o u r c e M a p p i n g P r o j e c t , C.I.D.A./ H.M.G., T o p o g r a p h i c S u r v e y s B r a n c h , Kathmandu. 4 maps. LRMP. 1984b. Land System Maps, C h i t a w a n D i s t r i c t , 1:50,000. Land R e s o u r c e M a p p i n g P r o j e c t , C.I.D.A./ H.M.G., T o p o g r a p h i c S u r v e y s B r a n c h , Kathmandu. 10 maps. LRMP. 1984c. Land U t i l i z a t i o n Maps, C h i t a w a n D i s t r i c t , 1:50,000. Land R e s o u r c e M a p p i n g P r o j e c t , C.I.D.A./ H.M.G., T o p o g r a p h i c S u r v e y s B r a n c h , Kathmandu. 10 maps. LRMP. 1985a. D r a f t G e o l o g y R e p o r t . Land R e s o u r c e M a p p i n g P r o j e c t , C.I.D.A./ H.M.G., T o p o g r a p h i c S u r v e y s B r a n c h , Kathmandu. LRMP. 1985b. D r a f t Land C a p a b i l i t y R e p o r t . Land R e s o u r c e M a p p i n g P r o j e c t , C.I.D.A./ H.M.G., T o p o g r a p h i c S u r v e y s B r a n c h , Kathmandu. 62 p p . L u n t , H.A., C.L.W. Swanson, a n d H.G.M. J a c o b s o n . 1950. T h e Morgan's s o i l t e s t i n g system. C o n n e c t i c u t A g r i c . Exp. S t a t i o n , New Haven C.T. B u l . No. 5 4 1 . 60 pp. + a p p e n d i c e s . M a l a r i a E r a d i c a t i o n O f f i c e S t a f f . 1985. P o p u l a t i o n f i g u r e s f o r P i t h u w a P a n c h a y a t , C h i t a w a n D i s t r i c t , unpub. r e p o r t . Malmberg, M. and T. P e t e r s o n . 1985. Farm b u s i n e s s p l a n n i n g n o t e s , 1985-01PN. M i n i s t r y o f A g r i c u l t u r e and F o o d , P r o v . o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , V i c t o r i a . 6 pp. Mathema, S.B. 1982. T h e r o l e o f l i v e s t o c k i n t h e f a r m i n g s y s t e m s a t two c r o p p i n g s y s t e m s s i t e s i n N e p a l . I n : R e p o r t o f a workshop on c r o p p i n g s y s t e m s r e s e a r c h i n A s i a , I R R I , L o s B a n o s , P h i l i p p i n e s , pp.569-590. Mathema, S.B. and M.G. Van D e r V e e n . 1980. D a t a C o l l e c t i o n Methods f o r I n i t i a l S i t e D e s c r i p t i o n s . C r o p p i n g Systems P r o g r a m s , HMG Agronomy D i v i s i o n , K h u m a l t a r . 63 pp.  180  McLean, E.O. 1965. Aluminum. I n : C.A. B l a c k e t a l ( e d s . ) , Methods o f S o i l A n a l y s i s , P a r t 2: C h e m i c a l & M i c r o b i o l o g i c a l P r o p e r t i e s , Am. S o c . o f A g r o n . M a d i s o n , W i s c o n s i n , pp.978998. M e n g e l , K. and E.A. K i r k b y . 1982. 3rd Ed. I n t e r n a t i o n a l P o t a s h pp. 296.  P r i n c i p l e s of P l a n t N u t r i t i o n , I n s t i t u t e , Bern, Switzerland,  Moench, M. and J . B a n d y o p a d h y a y . 1986. People-forest interaction: a n e g l e c t e d p a r a m e t e r i n H i m a l a y a n f o r e s t management. Mtn. Res. & Dev. V o l . 6 , N o . l . pp.3-16. NAS.  1980. F i r e w o o d C r o p s , Shrub and P r o d u c t i o n . N a t i o n a l Academy o f pp.32-68.  Tree S p e c i e s f o r Energy Sciences, Washington, D.C.  N o r u s i s , M a r i j a J . 1986. SPSS/PC+ f o r t h e IBMPC/XT/AT. SPSS C h i c a g o , I l l i n o i s . p p . B l - 2 4 , B80-90, B176-195. Nye,  P.H. and clearing  Inc.,  D . J . G r e e n l a n d . 1964. Changes i n t h e s o i l a f t e r a t r o p i c a l f o r e s t . P l a n t & S o i l 21. pp.101-112.  Panday, K.K. 1982. F o d d e r t r e e s and t r e e f o d d e r i n N e p a l . Development C o o p e r a t i o n / Swiss F e d e r a l I n s t i t u t e of F o r e s t r y R e s e a r c h , Kathmandu, N e p a l . 107 pp.  Swiss  P a n d e y , H.N., J . P . Gaur and R.N. S i n g h . 1980. L i t t e r i n p u t and d e c o m p o s i t i o n i n t r o p i c a l dry d e c i d u o u s f o r e s t , g r a s s l a n d and abandoned c r o p f i e l d c o m m u n i t i e s a t V a r a n a s i , India. A c t a E c o l o g i c a E c o l . P l a n t . V o l . 1 ( 1 5 ) , No.3. pp.317-323. P a t t e r s o n , G.T. and G.J. W a l l . 1982. W i t h i n - p e d o n v a r i a b i l i t y s o i l p r o p e r t i e s . C a n . J . S o i l S c i . V o l . 62. pp. 631-639.  in  Q u i n n , N.W. & J.M. L a f l e n . 1983. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of raindrop t h r o u g h f a l l u n d e r c o r n c a n o p y . T r a n s . ASAE 2 6 ( 5 ) . pp.14451450. Ramsay, W.J.H. 1985. E r o s i o n i n the M i d d l e H i m a l a y a , Nepal w i t h a c a s e s t u d y o f t h e Phewa V a l l e y . M. S c . T h e s i s , D e p a r t m e n t o f F o r e s t R e s o u r c e s Management, U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , V a n c o u v e r , B.C. 160 pp. R h o a d e s , R.E. 1985. The a r t o f t h e i n f o r m a l a g r i c u l t u r a l s u r v e y . P a p e r p r e s e n t e d a t I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n f e r e n c e on R a p i d R u r a l A p p r a i s a l , 2-5 S e p t e m b e r 1985, Khon Kaen, T h a i l a n d . R i c h a r d s , L.A. 1965. P h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n o f w a t e r i n s o i l . I n : C.A. B l a c k e t a l ( e d s . ) , M e t h o d s o f S o i l A n a l y s i s , P a r t 1: P h y s i c a l and M i n e r a l o g i c a l P r o p e r t i e s , Am. Soc. of Agron. M a d i s o n , W i s c o n s i n , pp. 128-152.  181  S a n c h e z , P e d r o A. 1976. P r o p e r t i e s and Management o f S o i l s i n t h e T r o p i c s . J o h n W i l e y & Sons I n c . , New Y o r k . pp. 198-216. S a n c h e z , P e d r o A. 1979. S o i l f e r t i l i t y and c o n s e r v a t i o n c o n s i d e r a t i o n s f o r a g r o f o r e s t r y s y s t e m s i n t h e humid t r o p i c s o f L a t i n A m e r i c a . I n : H.O. Mongi & P.A. H u x l e y ( e d s . ) , S o i l s R e s e a r c h i n A g r o f o r e s t r y , ICRAF, N a i r o b i , K e n y a . pp.79-124. S a n c h e z , P.A. and J.G. S a l i n a s . 1981. L o w - i n p u t t e c h n o l o g y f o r m a n a g i n g o x i s o l s and u l t i s o l s i n t r o p i c a l A m e r i c a . A d v a n c e s i n A g r o n . V o l . 3 4 , pp. 280-379. S c h r e i e r , H., P.B. Shah and S. B u r t o n . 1986. U s i n g t h e Land R e s o u r c e Mapping P r o j e c t f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d e v a l u a t i o n and s o i l management i n N e p a l . P a p e r p r e s e n t e d a t Mohonk I n t e r n a t i o n a l M o u n t a i n C o n f e r e n c e on t h e H i m a l a y a n - Ganges P r o b l e m , 6-11 A p r i l 1986, New Y o r k . 5pp. S c h r o e d e r , R.F. 1985. H i m a l a y a n s u b s i s t e n c e s y s t e m s i n d i g e n o u s a g r i c u l t u r e i n r u r a l Nepal. M o u n t a i n R e s e a r c h and D e v e l o p m e n t , V o l . 5 , N o . l . pp. 31-44. Shah,  P.B. 1984. A g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d e v a l u a t i o n i n t h e K a i l a l i D i s t r i c t i n N e p a l ; u s i n g r e s o u r c e i n v e n t o r y d a t a as a b a s i s f o r n a t i o n a l l a n d use p l a n n i n g . M.Sc. t h e s i s , D e p t . o f S o i l S c i e n c e , U n i v . o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , V a n c o u v e r . 145 pp.  Shah,  P.B. River  Shah,  P.B. and H. S c h r e i e r . 1985. A g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d e v a l u a t i o n f o r n a t i o n a l l a n d - u s e p l a n n i n g i n N e p a l : a case study i n the K a i l a l i D i s t r i c t . M o u n t a i n R e s e a r c h & D e v e l o p m e n t , V o l . 5, No. 2, pp. 137-146.  1985. A s t u d y o f t h e l a n d use h i s t o r y i n t h e R a p t i W a t e r s h e d o f C e n t r a l N e p a l , unpub. r e p o r t w i t h maps.  Shaxon, T . F . 1981. I n t e g r a t i n g t h e s o c i a l and t e c h n i c a l a s p e c t s o f v i l l a g e a r e a c o n s e r v a t i o n work i n t h e e r o d i n g t r o p i c s . I n : R.P.C. Morgan ( e d . ) S o i l C o n s e r v a t i o n : P r o b l e m s and P r o s p e c t s . J o h n W i l e y & Sons I n c . , New Y o r k . pp. 386-397. S h e l d r i c k , B.H. ( e d . ) 1984. A n a l y t i c a l M e t h o d s M a n u a l . Land R e s o u r c e R e s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e , A g r i c . Canada, O t t a w a , O n t . pp. 26/1-8, 27/1-4. S h i v a , Vandana and J . B a n d y o p a d h y a y . 1986. The e v o l u t i o n , s t r u c t u r e and i m p a c t o f t h e C h i p k o movement. Mtn. R e s . Dev. V o l . 6 , No.2. 8pp.  &  S i e g e l , S. 1956. N o n - p a r a m e t r i c S t a t i s t i c s f o r t h e B e h a v i o r a l S c i e n c e s . M c G r a w - H i l l Book Co., New Y o r k . 312 pp. S i n g h , J . S . , A.N. Pandey and P.C. P a t h a k . 1983. A h y p o t h e s i s t o a c c o u n t f o r t h e m a j o r pathway o f s o i l l o s s f r o m H i m a l a y a . E n v i r . C o n s e r v . V o l . 1 0 , No.4 w i n t e r 83. pp. 343-345.  182  S i n g h , J . S . , U. Pandey c e n t r a l Himalayan  and A.K. T i w a r i . 1984. Man and f o r e s t s : a c a s e s t u d y . Ambio V o l . 1 3 , No.2. p p . 8 0 - 8 7 .  Smeck, N.E. and L . P . W i l d i n g . 1980. Q u a n t i t a t i v e e v a l u a t i o n o f pedon f o r m a t i o n i n c a l c a r e o u s g l a c i a l d e p o s i t s i n O h i o . Geoderma V o l . 24. p p . 1-16. T a y l o r , S t e r l i n g A. and G a y l e n L . A s h c r o f t . 1972. P h y s i c a l E d a p h o l o g y ; t h e P h y s i c s o f I r r i g a t e d and N o n i r r i g a t e d W.H. Freeman & Co., San F r a n c i s c o , pp.323-334.  Soils.  T e m p l e , W. 1985. A p r o p o s e d s y s t e m o f c r o p p i n g f o r t h e m a i z e ( b a r i ) l a n d s o f N e p a l . Unpub. p a p e r , D e p t . o f S o i l S c i e n c e , U n i v . o f B.C., V a n c o u v e r . 20 pp. Thompson, M i c h a e l and M i c h a e l W a r b u r t o n . 1985. U n c e r t a i n t y on a H i m a l a y a n s c a l e . M o u n t a i n R e s e a r c h and D e v e l o p m e n t V o l . 5 , No.2. pp. 115-135. T i s d a l e , S.L., W.L. N e l s o n and J.D. B e a t o n . 1985. S o i l F e r t i l i t y and F e r t i l i z e r s , 4 t h E d . M a c m i l l a n Pub. Co., New Y o r k , pp.210-211. T u l a c h a n , P r a d e e p M. 1982. C o n s t r a i n t s t o t h e a d o p t i o n o f i m p r o v e d t e c h n o l o g y on i n n e r t e r a i and h i l l m a i z e f a r m s , a c a s e s t u d y 1981. P a p e r p r e s e n t e d a t t h e N a t i o n a l S c i e n c e and Technology Congress, N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l f o r Science & T e c h n o l o g y , 22-24 S e p t . 1982, K i r t i p u r , N e p a l . 23 p p . USDA. 1975. S o i l Taxonomy; A B a s i c S y s t e m o f S o i l C l a s s i f i c a t i o n f o r M a k i n g and I n t e r p r e t i n g s o i l S u r v e y s . S o i l Survey S t a f f USDA. 754 pp. USDA  S o i l S u r v e y S t a f f . 1951. S o i l S u r v e y A g r i c . Handbook No. 18. 503 pp.  M a n u a l . USDA D e p t . o f  Van  Der B r o e k , Theo M.W. 1985. C o l l o i d a l S t a b i l i t y and C h a r g e C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s w i t h r e g a r d t o The E r o s i o n o f Red S o i l s i n t h e M i d d l e M o u n t a i n s o f N e p a l . M.Sc. t h e s i s , T r o p i c a l S o i l S c i e n c e , A g r i c u l t u r a l U n i v e r s i t y o f W a g e n i n g e n , The N e t h e r l a n d s . 54 p p .  Van  Der V e e n , M.G. 1982. P a r c e l - , f a r m - , a n d community-level v a r i a b l e s i n f l u e n c i n g c r o p p i n g i n t e n s i t y i n Pumdi Bumdi, N e p a l . I n : I n t e r n a t i o n a l R i c e R e s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e , R e p o r t on a Workshop on C r o p p i n g S y s t e m s R e s e a r c h i n A s i a , L o s B a n o s , P h i l i p p i n e s , pp.617-636.  Watanabe, F . S . and S.R. O l s e n . 1965. T e s t o f an a s c o r b i c a c i d method f o r d e t e r m i n i n g p h o s p h o r u s i n w a t e r and NaHC03 e x t r a c t s f r o m s o i l . SSSAP V o l . 29. pp. 677-678.  183 Weaver, R.M., J.K. S y e r s and M.L. J a c k s o n . 1968. D e t e r m i n a t i o n o f s i l i c a i n c i t r a t e - b i c a r b o n a t e - d i t h i o n i t e e x t r a c t s of s o i l . SSSAP 32. pp. 497-327. W i l d i n g , L.P. 1982. S p a t i a l v a r i a b i l i t y - an o v e r v i e w . I n : P r o c e e d i n g s of the 29th Annual Meeting of the Canadian S o c i e t y o f S o i l S c i e n c e , 13 J u l y 1982, U n i v . o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , V a n c o u v e r , pp.47-62. W i l d i n g , L.P. and L.R. D r e e s . 1978. S p a t i a l v a r i a b i l i t y : a p e d o l o g i s t ' s v i e w p o i n t . I n : M. S t e l l y ( e d . ) , D i v e r s i t y o f S o i l s i n t h e T r o p i c s , ASA S p e c . Pub. No. 34, Madison, W i s c o n s i n , pp. 1-12. Wilkinson, Inc.,  L . 1986. SYSTAT: The S y s t e m f o r S t a t i s t i c s . E v a n s t o n , I l l i n o i s . 320 pp.  SYSTAT  W i l l i a m s o n , G. and W.J.A. P a y n e . 1978. An I n t r o d u c t i o n t o A n i m a l H u s b a n d r y i n t h e T r o p i c s , 3 r d E d . Longman, New Y o r k . pp. 119-121, 595-609. Wormald, T . J . 1976. V i l l a g e F o r e s t r y i n t h e H i l l s o f West C e n t r a l N e p a l . Lumle A g r i c u l t u r a l C e n t e r , L u m l e , N e p a l . C i t e d i n : Fox 1983 (q.v.). W y a t t - S m i t h , J o h n . 1982. The a g r i c u l t u r a l s y s t e m i n t h e h i l l s o f N e p a l : t h e r a t i o o f a g r i c u l t u r a l t o f o r e s t l a n d and t h e p r o b l e m o f a n i m a l f o d d e r . APROSC. O c c a s i o n a l P a p e r s No. 1. A g r i c . P r o j e c t s S e r v i c e s C e n t e r , Kathmandu. 17 pp. Z a n d s t r a , H.G., E.C. P r i c e , J.A. L i t s i n g e r and R.A. M o r r i s . 1981. A Method f o r On-farm C r o p p i n g S y s t e m s R e s e a r c h . I n t . R i c e R e s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e , L o s B a n o s , P h i l i p p i n e s . 147 pp. Z i e k e , R.C. and D.R. C h r i s t i e n s o n . 1986. O r g a n i c c a r b o n and n i t r o g e n changes i n s o i l under s e l e c t e d c r o p p i n g systems. S o i l S c i . S o c . Amer. J . V o l . 5 0 , pp.363-367.  APPENDIX A. ABBREVIATIONS USED (note: alphabetical within the f i r s t 4 categories)  I. LAND USE CODES (cropping rotations l i s t monsoon crop f i r s t ) fa fd ka kb kc kd ke kf kg kh ki kk pa pb pc pd pe pf pg ph pi pk  natural, untouched, productive forest degraded, grazed, utilized forest rice, fallow rice, wheat rice, mustard rice, l e n t i l s rice, l e n t i l s , maize rice, fallow, maize rice, wheat, maize rice, mustard, maize rice, mustard, dainchha Japanese 3 yr. rice based rotation maize, potato relayed with wheat ( i . e . potato-wheat) maize, potato maize, mustard maize-lentils, mustard maize-peanuts, mustard upland rice, mustard upland rice, mustard, maize homestead and kitchen gardens agroforestry i.e. maize or vegetables with i p i l - i p i l Japanese Extension farm 3 year maize based rotation  II. SOIL PROPERTIES avaP BDens BSat CEC Comp exc excAl excCa excK exoMg excNa extAl extFe FC horz meq/lOOg orgC pH(CaCl2) pH(H20) ppm prop  available phosphorus, Bray 1 extraction bulk density i n g/cc or mg/m3 base saturation cation exchange capacity i n meq/lOOg. compaction i n kg/m3 exchangeable exchangeable aluminum, KC1 extraction exchangeable calcium exchangeable potassium exchangeable magnesium exchangeable sodium free aluminum, cdtrate-bicsarbcmte-dithionite extract free iron, citrate-bicarbonate-dithionite extract f i e l d capacity s o i l moisture (%) at 1/3 bar pressure horizon of s o i l profile milli-equivalents per one hundred grams s o i l organic carbon, Walkley-Black method pH i n 1:2 calcium chloride solution pH i n 1:1 water parts per million s o i l property  tot totN WHC WP  total total nitrogen, micro-Kjeldhal method water holding capacity or water storage capacity, difference between f i e l d capacity % and wilting point % wilting point s o i l moisture (%) at 15 bar pressure  III. FARM CHARACTERISTICS child fam home jung khet % khet land mens off-farm pakho pers/ha premon rotn suff wint  number of children i n family less than 14 years old number of family members amount of land taken up by farmstead, stalls, garden firewood from jungle or forest irrigated, puddled land used for rice based rotations percentage of total land holding that i s khet land total land holding i n hectares monsoon season number of family members with off-farm employment rainfed, well drained land for maize based rotations number of people per hectare premonscon season rotation of crops sufficient food for family for f u l l year winter season  IV. LIVESTOCK Buffa Bul IB BullC CalfB CalfC CowB CowC LSU Oxen kg/yr kg/LSU l/yr 1/LSU #/yr #/fowl  number of male buffalo used for draft power number of male buffalo number of male cattle number of young buffalo number of young cattle number of female buffalo number of female cattle standard livestock units number of male cattle used for draft power kilograms of meat per year kilograms of meat per livestock unit of goats & pigs l i t e r s of milk per year l i t e r s of milk per livestock unit of female animals number of eggs per year number of eggs per livestock units of fowl  V. CROP INPUTS AND YIELDS (in order of appearance on data tables) Farmr farmer number RotnCod cropping rotation code Sea season M monsoon (June-Sept) W winter (Oct-Jan) P pre-monsoon (Feb-May) Amou amount of seed applied i n kilogram/ hectare Typ type of composting method a piles b pits c sticks Arat amount of compost applied i n kilograms/ hectare Urea amount of urea applied i n kilograms/ hectare Coral nitrogen-phosphorus complex f e r t i l i z e r applied (kg/ha) Other other cropping inputs, usually muriate of potash AverY yield i n an average year (kg/ha) PoorY yield i n an poor year (kg/ha) GoodY yield i n a good year (kg/ha) TotalY total seed yield par farm (kg) HomeCcns amount consumed in home (kg) NxtyrSeed amount saved for seeding next year's crop (kg) SoldMarket amount of seed sold i n market (kg) Exchg amount exchanged for goods or labour (kg) TotalResid total amount of crop residue/ farm (kg) AnimlFeed amount of residue fed to animals (kg) FuelWood amount of residue burnt for fuel (kg) SoldFarm amount of residue sold to neighbors (kg) Compost amount of residue composted (kg) RoofThatc amount of residue used for s t a l l roof thatching (kg)  APPENDIX B. NEPALI NAMES USED & THEIR ENGLISH EQUIVALENTS Nepali Ashadha: Ashwan: bighas: chang: chauk:  English Equivalent  name of month, about mid June to mid July. name of month, about mid September to mid October. local unit of area measurement, about .677 hectares. alcoholic beverage brewed from rice, corn or millet. checkpost i n the forest where forest officers live and work. dhal: a soup made from lentils that i s consumed by most Nepalis twice a day. dun: depositional valley formed i n Siwaliks region by tectonic processes. Falgun: name of month, about mid February to mid March. Jestha: name of month, about mid May to mid June. Jutpani: name of panchayat , translated l i t e r a l l y as polluted water. Kartik: name of month, about mid October to mid November. kathas: local unit of area measurement, about .034 hectares. khet: land that i s puddled and irrigated i n order to grow paddy rice i n the monsoon season. khola: river or large stream. kulo: locally made irrigation canal. Magna: name of month, about mid January to mid February masuli: variety of rice that i s longer maturing but preferred by many Nepalis because of i t s superior flavor. moto: fat or plump. moto dhan variety of rice that i s usually earlier maturing and higher yielding. muris: local unit of volume measurement, about 90.9 l i t e r s , nahar: main supply canal for irrigation diverted from major rivers. pakho: land that i s rainfed (i.e. not irrigated), well drained and used to grow upland crops. panchayat : village level governing or administrative unit i n a three tiered system of government; boundaries of a panchayat are based on population and biophysical features. pathis: local unit of volume measurement, about 5.5 l i t e r s , Pithuwa: name of panchayat , l i t e r a l l y translated as mad dog. pradhan panch: head or chairman of village level government. raksi: d i s t i l l e d alcoholic beverage made from rice, corn or millet. rastrya: national governing or administrative level. Siwaliks: f i r s t jagged range of h i l l s and mountains next to the southern plains of Nepal. Terai: relatively level alluvial plains along the southern boundary of Nepal, an extension of the Ganges river plains and drainage system, upa-pradhan panch: assistant or vice-chairman of village level government.  188  APPENDIX C.  LIST OF TREES AND SHRUBS (adapted from Chapa, 1985;Panday, 1982)  Local name  Scientific name  Kind  Family  Uses  amaltas ankhoteri asna asuro banmara barro beldar bhatayo bhetwasl  Cassia fistula Walsari trijuga Terminalia tomentosa Adhatora vascice Eupatorium adenaphorum Terminalia belerica  tree tree tree shrub shrub tree tree tree herb  Leguminaceae Mebacea Combrataceae Acanthaceae Compositive Combrataceae  tanning & dyeing medicine fuelwood, fodder & timber medicine indicator of disturbance furniture  Anacardeceae Lagarstromia  soft timber, plywood medicine & sal indicator  shrub tree tree tree shrub tree tree tree tree tree tree tree shrub  Verbernaceae Bcmbaceae Apoloryaceae Moraceae Leaceae Dilienaceae Singiberaceae Combrataceae Mysinaceae Leguminaceae  Semicarpus anacardium Fleminizza chhaper / Fleminizza macrophylle Clerodentron infortunatum bhont botdhan garo Lagerstrcmia pariflora domsal/ khirro Holarrhena antidyssentria dumre Ficus glommesalo Lea robusto galone hade bayer Ziziphus incurba haldu / karma Adina cordifola Terminalia chebula harro Myrsine semiserrota kalikath kalo s i r i s Albizzia labbek khair Acacia catechu kharam Holpptelea integrifolio khursani Pittos nepalensis khusre kodam kusum kyamun mahuro padke sal sigane simal sindure sisnu sisau / sisam tapre tatari unio  Celebrookia oppoitifolia Anthecepalus cadamba Schleichera trijuga Sygesiuzm cuminii  Albizzia julisbrissia Shorea robusta Bombax malabaricum Mallatos philippinensis Urtica dioica Dalbergia sissoo Cassia tora Dillenia pertagyna Adiantum philippinensis  timber, fuelwood fuelwood, medicine fodder & fuelwood medicine fuel, fodder, f r u i t furniture furniture furniture, fodder & fuel timber, furniture beetlenut Ulmaceae timber, fodder Solonacea fuelwood, food, medicine & hedges shrub Labiatae medicine, gunpowder & charcoal tree Rubiaceae furniture, fodder & fuel timber, fuelwood & best fodder tree Sapindaceae timber, fodder, tanning tree Myrtaceae & dyeing fern Belechanaceae medicine tree Leguminaceae furniture £ plywood tree Dipterorarpacaea 'king of timber' shrub firewood Bcmbaceae tree timber for market industries Bixaceae firewood, dyeing (seed) tree medicine nettle Urticaceae timber, furniture tree medicine Leguminaceae shrub Dilienaceae tree Belechanaceae fern medicine  189  APPENDIX D. CONVERSION TABLES Source: THDP/SATA. 1984. Market Survey of the Project Area i n Dolakha District/ Sindhupalchowk District East of SunKosi. Kathmandu:THDP/SATA VOLUME: muti mana pathi muri  muti 1 10 80 1600  mana 0.1 1 8 160  pathi 0.0125 0.125 1 20  pau 1 12 5  dharni 0.0833 1  kg 0.199 2.393 1  muri  liters  0.05 1  0.568 4.544 90.88  WEIGHT: pau dharni kg  LENGTH: 1 gaj = 91 cm  CURRENCY: (Oct.1985) 1 Rupee = 0.07 $CDN  VOLUME/ WEIGHT: paddy rice chura wheat grain wheat flour buckwheat maize grain maize flour millet mustard seeds potato sugar salt daal chilli  kg/muri kg/pathi kg/mana 49.90 2.5 0.311 68.04 3.4 0.425 36.29 1.8 0.226 68.04 3.4 0.425 44.44 2.2 0.277 54.43 2.7 0.340 68.04 3.4 0.425 48.54 2.4 0.303 65.77 3.2 0.411 65.70 2.8 0.354 54.00 2.7 0.337 3.3 0.500 3.0 0.500 63.50 3.2 0.396 16.00 0.8 0.100  VOLUME/AREA: (as modified by Burton, O l i et al) pathi/kata 1 sack potato = 80 kg muri/bigha kg/ha Q/bigha paddy 1 74 mustard/ potato 1 maize 1 100 Q/kata wheat 1 100 mustard/ potato 1 mustard 1 82 potato 1 74 bhari/B daal 1 94 compost/ wood 1 soybean bhari/kata 1 109 peanut 1 109 compost/ wood 1  kg/ha 150 3000  38 750  Map Unit  ISSP i i mill ram ins  o  Dislrici / Village  Auger" • Pit • Tilte of Survey  .  Date Land Region.  foil tProfile * Sampled  •  Surveyor  •••  LanJ S>slem  for.  Land Unit Land Type  -Location Air Pnoto Line/Run  Case Map_ Local Climate  % Ouicmp_  Bedrock Type  Stoniness. Df niiity  Parcel Material Vegetation: Forest Type  Stotey A. B._ A.  Slope Up  Aspect^  Dowb_  Elevation _  Position on Slope  Relief  Water Table Depth ( m ) April  Drainage: Surface  _  August  Permeability  Flooding / Ponding Occurence. Present Land Use / Cropping pattern irrigation Water Availability. £rosional Signs  Macro-site Diagram  ,  Micro site-Diagram  Terrace Riser Hts> Slope  _  Run Length Slope ,  Tentative Capability Class F n i x t Sitr. Onnliiv  '  191 APPENDIX F: INTERVIEW FORMS INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR PRADHAN PANCH Panchayat:  Date:  Name of Pradhan Panch:  A. CLIMATE OF PANCHAYAT 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.  Which months of the year i s r a i n f a l l generally enough for crop production i n this panchayat? Is flooding or too much rain a problem i n this area? If yes, which months? Which months i n the winter did i t freeze at night last year? Which months i n the winter i s there heavy fog i n the morning? Is h a i l a problem for the farmers i n this area? If yes, i n which months has i t occurred during the last 5 years? How much are the crop yields reduced by the hail?  8. MARKETS 9. What are the permanent market centers used by the farmers of this panchayat? name of the markets name of the villages distance from the panchayat building types of transport time i n walking 10. Where are the temporary markets i n this panchayat? name of the markets name of the villages distance from the panchayat building types of transport time i n walking 11. What are the main items of transaction i n the above markets (i.e. both the temporary and permanent markets)? commodities unit price 12. Where i s the nearest inorganic f e r t i l i z e r ? 13. What types of inorganic f e r t i l i z e r are available and what are the average prices farmers have to pay for i t ? 14. Is inorganic f e r t i l i z e r always available to the farmers when they need i t ? explain.... 15. Do the farmers buy f e r t i l i z e r from the black market? 16. If yes, when? what prices do farmers have to pay? 17. Where do the farmers generally purchase the following agricultural inputs? improved seed insecticides herbicides improved livestock breeds f r u i t trees  192  C. CREDIT 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.  What are the most important sources for credit for the farmers i n this panchayat? Are loans provided from land reform savings? If yes, how many farmers i n this panchayat received loans from land reform savings during 1984? Where i s the nearest agricultural co-operative which provides loans to farmers? How many farmers i n this panchayat received loans from a co-operative i n 1984? Where i s the nearest Agricultural Development Bank? How many farmers i n this village received loans from ADB i n 1984? Are credit f a c i l i t i e s sufficient for improved farming? explain  D.PRICES 26. Farm gate prices of agricultural commodities i n 1984-85 (also to be asked of merchants and shopkeepers) Crops Varieties Max Rupees Month Min Rupees rice maize wheat mustard millet potato pulses sugarcane jute others  Month  Average  193  E. DESCRIPTION OF EACH WARD Panchayat:  Ward No.:  Ward Chairman's Name: GENERAL 1. Amount of upland i n the ward? 2. Amount of lowland i n the ward? 3. Amount of grazing land and amount of forest i n the ward? 4. Number of households i n the ward? 5. Number of households i n the ward who do not farm? 6. Number of females over 14 years? 7. Number of males over 14 years? 8. Number of children less than 14 years? 9. What are the uumuuii ethnic groups i n this ward? and number of households i n each group? 10. What are the common religions i n the ward and the number of households of each religion? 11. What are the common languages used i n daily conversation by the farmers? and what i s the number of households speaking each language? 12. How many men i n this ward are soldiers?  F. EDUCATION 13. What types of schools are i n this ward? Primary (5-10yr)  Secondary (ll-14yr)  High Adult (15-16yr) (>16yr)  nearest school name of village with school average time walking from ward to school number of people from this ward attending proportion of school age children attending 14. How many household heads i n this ward are able to read and write?  G. HEALTH 15. What types of health f a c i l i t i e s are available i n this ward? Health center nearest medical care name of village with medical care hours walking from ward number of people from ward treated 1984  Hospital  Ayurvedic  16. What are the sources of water for the following purposes? Source Walking time from home water for livestock water for washing water for drinking  KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS Panchayat: Farmer's Name:  Ward No: Date:  Note: these interviews were conducted by informal methods; therefore not a l l topics were covered i n every interview; & not a l l questions were asked exactly as presented here. A) Land Tenure 1. according to the Malaria office, there are households in this ward, do you think this i s true? 2. i f no, how many are there? 3. how many households are there i n each of the following farm size groupings?  farm size  # of households total >80% khet  >80%  pakho  < 0.3 ha 0.3 - 1.0 ha > 1.0 ha  B) Amount of Upland, Lowland, Irrigated Land 4. i n this ward, according to the ward chairman, there are bighas of lowland, do you think this i s true? 5. i f no, what i s the amount? 6. how much of the lowland i s irrigated and when? 7. what are the sources of irrigation water? 8. how much of the land that i s irrigated during the whole year i s relatively unfertile? 9. how much land that i s rainfed or irrigated only i n the rainy season i s relatively unfertile? 10. according to the ward chairman there are bighas of upland in this ward, do you think this estimate i s true? 11. i f no, what i s the correct amount? 12. how many hectares of upland are i n f e r t i l e i n this ward?  C) Historical Land Use 13. do the farmers who possess more than one hectare of land practice cultivation differently than those farmers who possess less than one hectare? 14. i f yes, i n what way does cultivation differ? 15. has there been any changes i n the method of cultivation i n the upland within the last 5 years? 16. i f yes, explain... 17. has there been any changes i n the method of cultivation in the lowland within the last 5 years? 18. i f yes, explain...  195  D) Fuel 20. what are the main sources of fuel? 21. do the people of this ward collect their own needs of firewood or do they purchase i t ? 22. i f they collect, how much time does a family on the average, spend for cutting firewood or other materials for burning? who does the cutting? which months? or how many days per year? how many hours per day? E) Labor Problems 23. do the farmers practise exchange labor? explain... 24. do the farmers of this ward hire laborers on contract basis for working i n their fields? 25. do the farmers of this ward hire villagers as laborers on a daily wage basis for working i n their fields? what i s the daily wage for men? for women? 26. do the farmers of this ward have problems i n hiring labor during any timpg of the year? when? why? 27. how many farmers of this ward go to the Terai or India for one month or more for employment or marketing? 28. what other occupations do the farmers have besides farming? types of which no. of which av.days av. hrs work members households months per yr. per yr.  29. labor profiles (mandays/month) for each activity F) Livestock 30. bullock power profiles (bullockdays/month) 31. livestock numbers per household 32. what are the main food materials fed to the animals by the farmers of this ward and where are the animals fed? type of winter where fed summer where fed livestock feed hs f d pr feed hs f d pr cows (not milking) cows (milking) bullocks (not workg) bullocks (working) buffalo (not workg) buffalo (working) buffalo (milking) calves goats, sheep pigs chickens, ducks  G) FodderfiCompost 33. i s i t d i f f i c u l t to get enough grass or fodder for cattle i n this ward? 34. i f yes, why? 35. i n which months do the farmers have the most d i f f i c u l t y in getting grass or fodder for cattle in this ward? why? 36. how many hours distance i s the pasture area from this ward? 37. how many farmers of this ward dig pits for keeping compost? 38. how many farmers of this ward practice "scientific methods' of keeping compost? 39. generally, which method do the farmers of this ward practice for making compost? H) Cropping Profiles 40. what cropping rotations are practiced i n this ward? premonsoon crop monsoon crop  winter crop  1st cropping rotation earliest planting latest planting earliest harvesting latest harvesting 2nd cropping rotation earliest planting latest planting earliest harvesting latest harvesting 3rd cropping rotation earliest planting latest planting earliest harvesting latest harvesting  I) Fallow Problems 41. what are the main reasons for keeping the upland fallow? 42. during the period of fallow, do the farmers who have fallowed upland spend most of their time cultivating on the other land? 43. i f they do, which crops are grown? 44. do the farmers face d i f f i c u l t i e s i n farming their upland fields because they have to work i n other fields? 45. which special work would the farmer and his family members who own fallow land be engaged i n during the fallow period of this upland? 46. do the farmers mostly l i v e far from the uplands which are l e f t fallow? 47. are the upland fields used for grazing cattle? 48. i f those fallow upland fields are brought under cultivation, w i l l i t be d i f f i c u l t to get fodder materials for cattle from other sources? 49. do the farmers of this ward feel they w i l l cultivate the fallow uplands i n future? explain...  J) Crop Production 50. what are the main varieties of crops grown i n this ward and how much was average yields grown from these main crops last year 1984-85? crop  variety  landtype  yield/ha  # of farmers  rice  wheat  maize  mustard  soybean  pulses  potato  51. Use of crops crop rice  wheat  maize  mustard  soybean  pulses  potato  aver.fertilzer  use of crop  selling price  use of residue  K) Trees 52. what are the types of f r u i t trees grown i n this ward? types of trees  improved  local  mango orange pear apple papaya banana lemon jack f r u i t guava pineapple lichi others  53. do any of the farmers i n this ward grow fodder or fuelwood trees on their land? 54. i f yes, how many? 55. what types of trees do they grow? 56. where are their farms? L) General Problems 57. what are the major problems of the farmers of this ward for increasing agricultural production? 58. what are the reasons for decreases i n yields i n the last years? 59. what are the reasons for increases i n yields i n the last years? 60. what types of changes i n varieties of crops would the farmers l i k e to have? 61. what are the mjor handicaps (obstacles) for the development of agriculture in this ward? 62. what do you suggest for the agricultural development i n this ward? 63. do the farmers of this ward produce enough food for their household use from their own fields or do they have to get some from other sources? 64. how many small farmers are there who cannot f u l f i l l the required food grains for household consumption? 65. how many farms generally produce grains i n excess of what i s required for the household?  GENERAL FARMER INTERVIEWS A) Farm & Family Description Name of farmer: Panchayat: 1. how 2. how 3. how 4. how 5. how  many many many many many  Interview date: Ward No:  members are there i n your family? children are there below 14 years? females over 14 years old? males over 14 years old? members of your family have off-farm employment?  6. how many "katha' of cultivated land do you have? 7. how many separate plots does your farm consist of? 8. how much °khet' or bunded irrigated land do you have? •9. how much "pakho' or °bari' or rainfed land do you have? 10. how much land does your home and farmyard occupy? 11.  i s the production from your farm sufficient to feed your family? 12. i f not, how many months of the year do you have to buy food from the market? 13. what are the foods that you must buy from the market? 14. what are your sources of cooking fuel and how much of each does your family use i n the different seasons? fuel type  monsoon  winter  kerosene crop residues cow dung sticks firewood from forest firewood from farm others  B) Livestock Section 20. how many of each type of farm animals do you have? bull cow cow calf male buffalo female buffalo buffalo calf goats, sheep chickens, ducks others 21. of these how many are used for draught power? bull male buffalo  premonsoon  22. what products and how much per month do you get from these domesticated animals? milk (liters or "manas*) eggs (numbers) meat (kilograms) 23. are the products a l l for home consumption? 24. i f no, a) how much do you sell? b) how much do you exchange for other commodities? c) how much do you give to farm laborers? d) how much do you feed to the cattle? e) other uses?  C) Cropping Rotations Section 30. which crops do you grow and i n what order? how much of your land i s i n each cropping rotation? cropping rotations kathas: fallow 01 rice 02 rice wheat mustard 03 rice 04 rice lentils wheat 05 maize rice 06 maize rice mustard 07 maize millet 08 maize wheat 09 maize mustard 10 maize lentils 11 others 12 total 31. which of these crops did you irrigate? how much of each crop was irrigated and for how many months? crops: amt. land: months of i r r i g : 01 late maturing rice 02 late maturing maize 03 mustard 04 wheat 05 millet 06 early maturing rice 07 early maturing maize 08 lentils 09 potato 10 total  20 1  D. Crop Inputs and Yields 1st cropping rotation: Seasonal cycles: Units of measure: Inputs: 33. seed sources (pathi or muri): a) last year's crop b) neighbor's crop c) permanent market d) Agric. Inputs Corp. e) other 34. compost (bhari): a) piled b) pits c) other methods 35. chemical f e r t i l i z e r s (kg) a) urea b) complex c) muriate of potash d) lime e) ammonium sulphate 36. other inputs a) Output or Yields: 37. production (muris/bigha): a) average year b) poor year c) good year 38. use of seed (pathi): a) home consumption b) next years seed c) sold i n market d) exchanged i n market e) exchanged for labor f) damaged i n storage g) other h) total 39. use of crop residue (bhari) a) animal feed b) fuel c) sold d) compost e) roof thatch f) other g) total  monsoon amount  area  winter amount  area  premonsoon amount area  202  2nd cropping rotation: Seasonal cycles: Units of measure:  monsoon amount  Inputs: 43. seed sources (pathi or muri): a) last year's crop b) neighbor's crop c) permanent market d) Agric. Inputs Corp. e) other 44. compost (bhari): a) piled b) pits c) other methods 45. chemical f e r t i l i z e r s (kg) a) urea b) complex c) muriate of potash d) lime e) ammonium sulphate 46. other inputs a) Output or Yields: 47. crop production (muris/bigha): a) average year b) poor year c) good year 48. use of seed (pathi): a) home consumption b) next years seed c) sold i n market d) exchanged i n market e) exchanged for labor f) damaged i n storage g) other h) total 49. use of crop residue (bhari) a) animal feed b) fuel c) sold d) compost e) roof thatch f) other g) total  area  winter amount  area  premonsoon amount area  203 APPENDIX G.  SOUS DATA SETS 1-6  SOILS DATA SET 1: VARIABILITY SUBSTUDY 11 s o i l properties 10 samples per plot 1 plot per land use type 7 land use types  SPSS LU Plot#/ Case# Code Sample 1 1 76.00 2 1 76.01 3 1 76.02 4 1 76.03 5 1 76.04 6 1 76.05 7 1 76.06 8 1 76.07 9 1 76.08 10 1 76.09 11 2 88.00 12 2 88.01 13 2 88.02 14 2 88.03 15 2 88.04 16 2 88.05 17 2 88.06 18 2 88.07 19 2 88.08 20 2 88.09 21 3 24.00 22 3 24.01 23 3 24.02 24 3 24.03 25 3 24.04 26 3 24.05 27 3 24.06 28 3 24.07 29 3 24.08 30 3 24.09 31 4 41.00 32 4 41.01 33 4 41.02 34 4 41.03 35 4 41.04 36 4 41.05 37 4 41.06 38 4 41.07 39 4 41.08 40 4 41.09  page 1  excBases & CEC i n meq/lOOg soi pH H20 CaCl2 orgC% totN% extP excCa excMg excK excNa CEC 5.6 4.5 1.762 0.149 8 2.50 1.21 0.98 0.01 15.97 21 8.42 2.55 0.96 0.01 20.61 6.2 5.5 2.658 0.204 18 8.86 2.55 1.17 0.01 20.65 6.2 5.5 2.498 0.189 5.8 5.0 2.090 0.161 9 4.68 2.04 0.70 0.03 17.13 8 3.93 1.62 0.61 0.01 17.29 5.6 4.8 2.213 0.166 5.8 5.0 1.908 0.156 11 4.99 2.04 0.95 0.00 18.86 10 4.99 1.83 0.42 0.01 21.31 5.6 4.8 2.757 0.194 11 2.56 1.42 0.98 0.01 17.09 5.6 4.6 2.765 0.158 7 3.56 1.42 1.70 0.01 15.68 5.6 4.7 2.086 0.161 7 3.93 1.83 0.82 0.00 16.36 5.7 4.8 2.122 0.177 1 1.56 0.80 0.49 0.01 14.36 5.5 4.5 1.516 0.156 4 7.99 1.83 0.58 0.01 17.22 6.1 5.2 2.281 0.143 5.9 5.0 1.880 0.140 1 5.30 1.21 0.53 0.01 16.47 5.6 4.6 1.845 0.109 3 3.31 1.52 0.87 0.01 15.38 5.8 4.8 1.543 0.141 2 2.93 1.11 1.11 0.01 11.98 2 3.18 1.62 0.43 0.01 16.00 5.8 4.8 1.718 0.130 2 2.50 1.01 0.82 0.01 15.97 5.7 4.5 1.793 0.140 5.8 4.8 1.749 0.144 1 4.49 1.32 0.28 0.01 19.11 4 5.55 1.42 0.16 0.01 16.25 5.9 5.1 2.289 0.152 6.1 5.0 2.031 0.140 2 5.24 1.21 0.55 0.01 16.04 25 5.55 1.01 1.60 0.01 8.64 5.9 5.0 1.529 0.111 18 4.74 0.90 1.74 0.00 9.18 5.7 4.9 1.557 0.258 28 4.99 1.01 0.22 0.01 8.82 5.8 5.0 1.549 0.118 32 5.43 1.01 0.47 0.01 9.18 5.9 5.1 1.545 0.287 31 6.30 1.01 0.29 0.01 9.36 5.9 5.3 1.653 0.112 24 6.36 1.01 0.13 0.01 9.36 5.9 5.2 1.533 0.115 22 6.18 1.11 0.79 0.02 9.36 5.9 5.2 1.621 0.121 13 5.43 1.01 0.22 0.01 9.00 5.9 5.1 1.556 0.110 25 5.68 0.90 0.31 0.01 7.22 5.9 5.1 1.456 0.106 28 5.93 1.01 0.45 0.01 8.47 6.1 5.2 1.495 0.110 14 5.37 1.42 0.00 0.01 10.61 6.0 5.4 1.532 0.145 18 5.49 1.42 0.00 0.01 10.07 6.1 5.5 1.674 0.135 22 6.55 1.83 1.29 0.01 11.91 6.1 5.7 1.675 0.148 35 4.93 1.32 0.14 0.02 11.89 5.9 5.5 1.529 0.162 22 6.61 1.83 0.12 0.01 11.89 6.2 5.6 1.532 0.139 13 6.55 1.62 0.15 0.01 11.89 6.1 5.5 1.502 0.141 14 6.30 1.62 0.15 0.01 10.82 6.1 5.5 1.630 0.137 18 6.55 1.62 0.02 0.01 10.98 6.2 5.6 1.638 0.135 11 7.68 2.04 0.06 0.01 11.86 6.5 5.9 1.684 0.136 28 6.49 1.73 0.79 0.06 10.63 5.9 5.2 1.653 0.146  Base Satn 29.4 57.9 61.0 43.4 35.7 42.3 34.0 29.0 42.6 40.2 19.9 60.4 42.9 37.1 43.1 32.8 27.1 31.9 43.9 43.7 94.6 80.6 70.7 75.3 81.3 80.2 86.4 74.1 95.7 87.4 63.7 68.6 81.3 53.9 72.1 70.0 74.7 74.7 82.5 85.3  SOILS DATA SET 1: VARIABILITY SUBSTUDY SPSS LU Plot*/ Case# Code Sample 41 5 49.00 42 5 49.01 43 5 49.02 44 5 49.03 45 5 49.04 46 5 49.05 47 5 49.06 48 5 49.07 49 5 49.08 50 5 49.09 51 7 50.00 52 7 50.01 53 7 50.02 54 7 50.03 55 7 50.04 56 7 50.05 57 7 50.06 58 7 50.07 59 7 50.08 60 7 50.09 61 13 90.00 62 13 90.01 63 13 90.02 64 13 90.03 65 13 90.05 66 13 90.06 67 13 90.07 68 13 90.08 69 13 90.09  page 2  pH excBases & CEC in meq/lOOg soi Base H20 CaC12 orgC% totN% extP excCa excMg excK excNa CEC Satn 8 9.42 2.96 0.03 0.02 10.43 119.1 7.1 6.8 1.564 0.135 7 10.48 2.86 0.06 0.02 11.14 120.5 7.2 7.0 1.703 0.145 11 9.67 3.17 0.15 0.02 11.50 113.1 7.1 6.9 1.812 0.142 7.1 6.9 1.715 0.145 6 11.67 3.68 0.15 0.02 11.50 134.9 7.2 7.0 1.696 0.136 9 10.30 2.55 0.03 0.02 12.54 102.8 9 9.61 2.55 0.03 0.02 12.18 100.2 7.1 6.9 1.819 0.036 7.0 6.8 1.717 0.141 7 9.48 3.06 0.05 0.02 11.64 108.3 7.3 7.0 1.593 0.130 10 9.55 2.24 0.00 0.02 9.54 123.8 7.0 6.9 1.633 0.136 11 10.23 2.86 0.01 0.02 11.47 114.4 6.9 6.7 1.824 0.144 8 7.99 2.55 0.05 0.02 11.47 92.5 5.8 5.0 1.590 0.119 16 5.12 1.21 0.29 0.01 8.64 76.7 21 6.61 1.62 0.34 0.01 12.04 71.3 6.1 5.5 1.593 0.122 6.0 5.5 1.602 0.122 20 5.49 1.32 0.15 0.01 12.07 57.7 5.9 5.4 1.481 0.115 21 5.80 1.52 0.22 0.01 12.43 60.8 5.8 5.1 1.549 0.120 13 5.18 1.42 0.38 0.01 8.36 83.7 6.0 5.2 1.594 0.119 14 5.37 1.52 1.10 0.01 11.75 68.1 6.0 5.3 1.592 0.124 22 5.93 1.32 0.45 0.01 12.41 62.1 6.0 5.3 1.560 0.120 17 5.74 1.52 0.47 0.01 12.57 61.6 5.9 5.0 1.636 0.125 18 5.12 1.21 0.22 0.01 11.86 55.3 14 5.68 1.42 0.31 0.01 11.68 63.5 6.0 5.2 1.596 0.120 40 4.12 0.60 0.26 0.02 12.93 38.6 6.3 5.8 1.536 0.108 33 3.31 0.90 0.33 0.00 7.93 57.2 6.5 5.9 1.368 0.100 46 4.31 0.80 0.35 0.00 7.22 75.6 6.6 6.2 1.265 0.087 33 2.93 0.60 0.44 0.01 6.50 61.2 6.5 5.9 0.428 0.091 27 3.81 0.90 0.32 0.00 7.22 69.7 6.5 6.2 1.240 0.094 54 4.31 0.90 0.56 0.00 7.93 72.7 6.5 6.1 1.329 0.107 40 4.18 0.80 0.45 0.00 7.04 77.2 6.6 6.3 1.178 0.092 26 3.00 0.60 0.40 0.01 6.50 61.6 6.5 6.1 1.186 0.085 33 4.74 0.90 0.40 0.01 9.36 64.7 6.5 6.0 1.534 0.125  DATA SET 2: VARIABILITY SUBSTUDY 19 s o i l properties 1 plot per land use type 3 samples per plot 7 land use types  LU Plotff/ DCB Fe S Al SPSS KCl %A1 %exAl Case# Group Sample %Fe 1 76.03 1.19 0.30 0.10 1 1 76.05 1.15 0.30 0.07 2 76.09 1.19 0.31 0.66 1 3 88.03 1.17 0.34 0.18 2 4 88.05 1.21 0.35 0.51 2 5 88.09 1.21 0.34 0.37 2 6 3 24.03 1.13 0.13 0.00 7 3 24.05 1.11 0.13 0.01 8 3 24.09 1.89 0.22 0.00 9 4 41.03 1.28 0.15 0.00 10 4 41.05 1.29 0.16 0.01 11 4 41.09 2.29 0.27 0.01 12 5 49.03 1.04 0.19 0.02 13 5 49.05 0.52 0.10 0.01 14 5 49.09 1.40 0.19 0.00 15 7 50.03 1.34 0.18 0.02 16 7 50.05 1.19 0.16 0.02 17 7 50.09 1.04 0.19 0.02 18 13 90.03 0.91 0.38 0.02 19 13 90.05 0.48 0.21 0.02 20 13 90.09 0.89 0.32 0.02 21  exBases & CEC i n meq/lOOg s o i l Base Water Storage CapaHDens Compac l/3barl5bar Ca Mg K Na CEC Satn WHC g/cm3 kg/cm2 H20 CaC12 orgC% %N ppmP 30.4 14.7 15.7 1.13 5.8 5.0 2.090 0.161 9 4.68 2.04 0.70 0.03 17.13 43.4 2.3 5.0 1.908 0.156 30.8 15.1 15.7 1.23 5.8 11 4.99 2.04 0.95 0.00 18.86 42.3 2.0 4.8 2.122 0.177 33.4 15.0 18.3 1.23 5.7 7 3.93 1.83 0.82 0.00 16.36 40.2 1.7 4.6 1.845 0.109 31.2 14.5 16.6 1.35 5.6 3 3.31 1.52 0.87 0.01 15.38 37.1 4.3 4.8 28.6 13.9 14.6 1.39 5.8 2 3.18 1.62 0.43 0.01 16.00 32.8 3.7 1.718 0.130 5.0 30.8 14.6 16.3 1.55 6.1 2 5.24 1.21 0.55 0.01 16.04 43.7 4.9 2.031 0.140 5.1 1.545 0.287 26.4 6.0 20.4 1.16 5.9 32 5.43 1.01 0.47 0.01 9.18 75.3 0.8 5.2 1.533 0.115 25.9 6.0 19.9 1.08 5.9 24 6.36 1.01 0.13 0.01 9.36 80.2 0.4 5.2 1.495 0.110 28.0 6.1 21.8 1.09 6.1 28 5.93 1.01 0.45 0.01 8.47 87.4 0.2 5.5 1.529 0.162 37.5 8.3 29.3 0.82 5.9 35 4.93 1.32 0.14 0.02 11.89 53.9 0.1 5.5 1.502 0.141 38.6 8.4 30.2 0.84 6.1 13 6.55 1.62 0.15 0.01 11.89 70.0 0.1 5.2 1.653 0.146 28.5 8.5 20.0 1.06 5.9 28 6.49 1.73 0.79 0.06 10.63 85.3 0.1 6.9 1.715 0.145 37.8 9.7 28.2 1.03 7.1 6 11.67 3.68 0.15 0.02 11.50 134.9 0.3 6.9 1.819 0.036 37.2 8.7 28.5 0.85 7.1 9 9.61 2.55 0.03 0.02 12.18 100.2 0.2 6.7 1.824 0.144 37.4 9.6 27.8 1.03 6.9 8 7.99 2.55 0.05 0.02 11.47 92.5 0.2 5.4 1.481 0.115 25.9 9.7 16.1 0.96 5.9 21 5.80 1.52 0.22 0.01 12.43 60.8 0.3 5.2 1.594 0.119 26.1 10.2 15.9 1.04 6.0 14 5.37 1.52 1.10 0.01 11.75 68.1 0.2 5.2 1.596 0.120 26.8 9.9 16.9 0.92 6.0 14 5.68 1.42 0.31 0.01 11.68 63.5 0.1 5.9 0.428 0.091 14.3 4.2 10.2 1.22 6.5 33 2.93 0.60 0.44 0.01 6.50 61.2 0.0 6.2 1.240 0.094 16.0 9.0 6.5 27 3.81 0.90 0.32 0.00 7.22 69.7 0.0 7.0 1.11 6.0 1.534 0.125 19.4 5.5 14.0 1.21 6.5 33 4.74 0.90 0.40 0.01 9.36 64.7 0.0  O  206  DATA SET 3:  PRESENT LAND USES  A Horizon SPSS LO Sample FH Nutrients Case* Code H20 CaCl2 orgC% %N # 1 1 72.a 6.6 6.4 1.641 0.156 2 1 73.a 6.6 6.3 1.920 0.136 3 1 75.a 5.7 5.0 2.225 0.165 4 1 76.a 5.8 4.9 2.286 0.172 5 1 77.a 6.8 5.0 2.110 0.158 6 1 78.a 6.5 6.1 1.439 0.114 7 1 79.a 6.1 5.6 1.766 0.125 8 1 81.a 6.3 5.8 1.953 0.151 9 2 84.a 5.5 4.6 2.350 0.166 10 2 06.a 6.8 4.9 2.383 0.164 11 2 74.a 5.8 4.7 1.987 0.128 12 2 80.a 6.5 6.1 1.643 0.136 13 2 82.a 5.5 4.6 1.486 0.121 14 2 83.a 5.5 4.5 1.536 0.137 15 2 85.a 6.0 5.3 2.232 0.184 16 2 86.a 5.5 4.6 1.937 0.138 17 2 87.a 5.9 4.9 2.263 0.156 18 2 88.a 5.8 4.8 1.864 0.139 2 89.a 19 5.6 4.7 2.310 0.175 20 3 15.a 5.8 5.0 1.691 0.13 16.a 6.1 5.3 1.466 0.117 1.249 0.104 22 3 17.a 6.7 6.1 1.395 0.105 3 13.a 23 6.2 5.5 3 19.a 24 6.6 6.3 1.656 0.128 3 20.a 25 5.8 6.4 1.814 0.146 26 3 22.a 5.8 5.2 1.645 0.121 27 3 24.a 5.9 5.1 1.549 0.145 3 25.a 23 5.8 5.3 1.570 0.122 29 3 38.a 6.9 6.7 1.148 0.123 30 4 31 .a 6.2 6.0 1.657 0.133 4 32.a 31 6.0 5.8 1.657 0.123 4 32.a 6.0 5.6 1.567 C.127 33 4 34.a 5.9 5.4 1.783 0.100 A 34 35.a 5.8 5.4 1.669 0.114 25 4 36.a 5.6 5.2 2.011 0.129 4 37.a 36 5.8 5.4 1.498 0.111 37 4 41.a 6.1 5.5 1.605 0.142 33 4 42.a 6.1 5.7 1.510 0.115 39 4 43.a 6.7 6.5 1.178 0.143 40 5 44.a 6.3 5.9 1.637 0.115 41 5 46.a 5.9 5.2 1.881 0.138 42 5 49.a 7.1 6.9 1.708 0.129 43 5 61.a 6.5 6.1 1.908 0.139 44 5 62.a 6.3 6.2 1.908 0.145 45 5 64.a 6.6 6.3 1.318 0.145 46 5 65.a 6.9 6.5 1.656 0.128 47 5 66.a 6.3 5.9 1.722 0.120 48 5 67.a 6.4 6.1 1.533 0.117 49 5 70.a 6.5 6.1 1.889 0.126 50 5 71.a 7.1 6.8 1.470 0.112  11-13 soil properties 10 plots per land use  1 sample per plot 5 land use types  E exBases & CEC i n meq/lOOg soil Base BDens OompacSample ppmP Ca meqMg meqK meq Na megCECtneq Sat% g/cm3 kg/cm2 # 16 6.36 1.62 0.02 0.00 11.73 68.3 1.22 1.7 72.b 58 8.92 2.45 0.13 0.00 12.59 91.4 1.31 1.8 73.b 85 5.87 1.87 0.39 0.00 15.22 53.4 1.23 1.4 75.b 11 4.84 1.85 0.93 0.01 18.09 41.6 1.20 2.0 76.b 40 4.62 1.73 0.45 0.00 19.00 35.8 1.17 1.1 77.b 40 7.74 1.71 0.42 0.00 10.07 98.0 1.35 1.3 78.b 40 7.55 1.60 0.15 0.00 14.09 66.1 1.32 2.3 79.b 48 9.55 2.24 0.40 0.00 13.84 88.1 1.37 1.6 81.b 23 3.18 1.19 0.59 0.01 17.34 28.7 1.34 4.3 84.b 79 4.12 1.03 0.15 0.02 16.13 33.0 1.43 4.4 06,b 59 3.37 1.30 0.26 0.00 15.23 32.4 1.37 4.4 74.b 66 6.80 1.38 0.18 0.01 12.25 68.3 1.27 3.7 BO.b 9 1.24 0.86 0.69 0.01 18.74 14.9 1.28 4.7 82.b 3 2.53 1.27 0.00 0.01 21.56 17.7 1.29 3.9 83.b IS 8.80 1.54 0.27 0.00 14.50 73.2 1.32 4.1 85.b 71 2.81 0.99 0.19 0.01 17.32 23.0 1.28 4.1 86.b 6 3.43 1.85 0.56 0.00 23.11 25.3 1.29 4.4 87.b 2 4.21 1.31 0.58 0.01 15.88 38.3 1.43 4.3 88.b 35 3.24 1.21 C.25 0.01 21.70 21.7 1.36 4.4 89.b 1.12 94 4.80 1.27 0.21 0.01 10.97 57.4 0.2 15.b 1.05 0.4 16.b 37 6.30 1.09 0.05 0.01 9.00 82.8 1.19 0.6 17.b 56 5.62 1.58 0.08 0.01 7.04 103.6 1.17 0.2 18.b 101 4.24 0.97 0.03 0.01 9.18 57.1 1.14 0.3 19.b 163 10.48 1.15 0.14 0.01 10.41 113.2 1.06 0.3 20.b 82 8.42 2.24 0.30 0.02 11.82 92.9 1.08 0.3 22.b 62 4.68 0.86 0.03 0.01 10.41 53.6 1.11 0.5 24.b 25 5.66 1.00 0.62 0.01 8.86 82.6 1.01 0.5 25.b 109 5.49 0.97 0.10 0.01 10.93 60.1 0.95 0.0 38.b 101 6.86 1.19 0.05 0.00 6.75 120.1 1.04 141 6.36 1.40 0.10 0.01 10.66 73.8 1.06 0.1 31.b 140 5.80 1.03 0.06 0.01 10.31 57.0 1.07 0.2 32.b 143 4.68 0.82 0.04 0.01 10.48 53.0 0.95 0.2 33.b 172 6.24 1.13 0.18 0.01 11.00 68.7 1.05 0.1 34.b 166 6.93 0.99 0.38 0.01 11.52 72.1 1.06 0.1 35.b 166 5„43 1.13 0.20 0.01 12.06 56.1 1.22 0.2 36.b 108 5.55 0.93 0.12 0.01 9.22 71.3 0.91 C.2 37.b 20 6.25 1.64 0.27 0.02 11.26 72.7 0.89 0.1 41.b 88 5.24 1.09 0.16 0.01 9.20 70.7 1.01 0.2 42.b 173 5.12 1.50 0.15 0.01 7.79 87.0 1.31 0.1 43.b 60 5.05 1.62 0.05 0.02 9.89 68.2 0.98 0.7 44.b 72 5.37 1.15 C.13 0.02 11.98 55.7 0.97 0.3 46.b 8 9.84 2.35 0.06 0.02 11.34 113.0 1.12 0.3 49.b 139 7.11 1.32 0.12 0.01 13.23 64.7 1.07 0.5 61.b 67 6.43 1.83 0.33 0.02 11.47 75.0 0.88 0.3 62.b 65 7.18 2.04 0.06 0.02 11.63 79.9 1.10 0.4 64.b 81 9.11 2.76 0.26 0.02 13.09 92.7 1.13 1.6 65.b 71 5.37 1.73 0.01 0.01 10.39 68.5 1.06 0.5 66.b 62 6.05 1.93 0.01 0.02 10.20 78.5 1.20 1.6 67.b 73 7.36 1.83 0.04 0.01 11.61 79.7 1.16 1.2 70.b 150 9.67 1.54 0.03 0.01 11.04 101.9 0.6 71.b  Horizon  C Horizon exBases & CEC in meq/lOOg soil Base Sample pH Nutrients exBases & CEC in maq/lOOg soil Base Nutrients H20 CaC12 orgC% totN% ppriP K Na CEC Sat% # Na CEC Sat% Ca Mg H20 CaC12 orgC% totN% ppaP pnP Ca Mg K 6.6 6.0 0.998 0.080 -1 -1 .;. -I. -1 37 5.93 0.97 0.05 0.00 7.80 89.0 -1 -1 -1 - • -1 -1 -1 -1 - -1 7.4 7.1 0.826 0.068 7.1 6.3 1.052 0.073 69 6.05 2.65 0.04 0.00 6.43 136.1 73.C 8.97 95.5 2.24 0.00 0.20 10 6.12 5.6 4.5 0.992 0.091 29 1.30 6.64 0.30 0.00 16.85 13.5 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 5.6 4.2 1.144 0.066 32 0.81 6.29 0.28 0.00 13.82 10.0 76.C 5.9 4.5 0.448 0.060 18 1.56 0.51 0.26 0.01 12.50 18.7 5.7 4.4 1.432 0.101 34 1.50 0.72 0.18 0.01 14.38 16.7 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 6.8 6.1 0.913 0.080 59 6.68 i.67 0.15 0.00 8.70 97.7 78.C 6.9 6.0 0.393 0.054 16 2.68 1.52 0.21 0.00 5.00 88.4 6.0 5.2 0.862 0.068 40 4.80 1.40 0.06 0.00 9.77 64.2 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1-1 -1 6.7 5.9 0.764 0.056 4 5.37 1.34 0.00 0.00 8.38 80.0 81.C 6.5 5.7 0.421 0.038 44 1.37 0.88 0.37 0.02 16.91 15.7 5.6 4.3 1.483 0.111 21 1.37 6.68 0.03 0.01 15.81 13.2 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 5.9 4.6 1.049 0.090 51 1.04 0.47 0.25 0.01 10.95 •16.1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 5.9 4.6 0.973 0.085 50 0.91 0.49 0.33 0.00 17.48 10.3 74.C 5.9 4.8 0.354 0.048 33 1.44 0.60 0.22 0.01 8.43 26.8 6.5 5.8 0.390 0.038 42 3.31 0.84 0.00 0.00 2.34 177.4 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 5.9 4.3 0.592 0.078 1 0.35 6.28 0.34 0.01 17.02 5.9 82.C 6.0 4.6 0.195 0.050 35 0.10 0.05 0.04 0.00 4.01 4.9 5.8 4.6 0.642 0.085 11 2.33 1.03 0.24 0.01 21.78 17.2 -1 -i_ -1 -1 -1 -1 -1. -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 6.3 5.2 0.610 0.076 20 3.18 1.11 0.07 0.01 7.36 59.4 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 5.9 4.4 0.919 0.078 8 0.61 0.31 0.15 0.01 17.29 6.2 86.C 6.1 4.6 0.194 0.042 3 0.95 0.37 0.29 0.01 15.27 10.6 5.5 4.4 1.211 0.108 8 0.67 0.70 0.22 0.02 17.22 9.4 -1 -.1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 5.7 4.3 0.784 0.084 39 0.81 0.27 0.23 0.01 13.79 9.6 88.C 5.7 4.4 0.316 0.051 6 0.72 0.39 0.34 0.01 8.50 17.2 5.6 4.3 1.142 0.083 44 0.85 0.80 0.15 0.00 29.27 6.2 89.c 5.7 4.3 0.577 0.066 2 0.22 0.04 0.34 0.00 1.38 44.1 7.1 5.3 C.731 0.079 30 2.25 0,78 0.10 0.01 6.47 48.5 15.C 5.6 4.6 0.690 -1 38 1.56 0.84 0.20 C.02 7.02 37.3 6.9 5.7 0.709 0.071 14 3.56 0.66 0.21 0.01 5.75 77.1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 7.1 6.6 1.055 0.071 40 6.30 1.67 1.62 0.02 6.7 8.59 111.8 17.C 5.9 0.414 0.052 18 3.12 0.76 0.20 0.03 3.82 107.4 6.6 6.1 0.887 0.078 28 4.18 0.78 0.29 6.1 4.8 0.187 0.044 0.01 7.32 71.9 18.c 0 4.12 2.34 0.25 0.01 3.43 195.9 6.6 6.1 0.604 0.076 39 2.37 0.68 0.30 6.1 6.77 5.8 0.205 0.039 0.01 57.1 19.C 0 1.68 0.64 0.22 0.01 2.70 94.6 6.5 6.0 0.709 0.084 29 2.06 6.62 0.25 6.0 0.02 5.70 51.6 20.C 40 1.37 0.62 0.10 0.02 3.55 59.1 5.4 0.729 0.070 6.1 5.5 0.607 0.090 16 1.62 0.47 0.01 6.1 0.01 5.32 39.9 22.C 5.4 0.299 0.047 19 1.31 0.58 0.24 0.05 7.50 28.9 6.4 5.3 0.935 0.124 57 3.43 0.49 0.00 6.5 0.01 7.07 55.7 24.C 5.7 0.108 0.027 14 1.31 0.41 0.04 0.01 2.57 68.9 6.0 5.7 1.168 0.090 28 4.31 0.68 0.35 6.3 0.01 8.30 64.4 25.C 5.5 0.362 0.047 21 1.44 0.37 0.07 0.01 3.46 54.4 7.1 6.8 1.267 0.119 37 6.74 1.73 0.22 7.4 18 4.68 1.93 0.17 0.01 6.45 105.2 6.3 0.341 0.045 0.01 8.30 104.6 38.C 6.5 6.2 1.350 0.106 58 5.74 1.27 0.08 -1 -X -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0.02 10.13 70.3 6.4 .6.0 1.359 0.100 4.18 0.64 0.00 6.6 0.62 0.20 0.02 3.09 81.5 49.5 32.c 6.0 0.246 0.044 4 1.68 109 0.02 9.77 6.1 5.6 1.291 0.131 4.37' 0.80 0.19 -1 -1 64.4 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 80 -1 -1 5.9 5.5 1.613 0.115 3.68 0.64 0.06 0.01 8.34 5.9 44.9 34.C 0.13 28.7 0.35 6.29 5.2 0.449 0.063 23 1.31 0.01 6.2 5.9 1.708 C.106 133 5.55 0.53 0.17 0.01 9.75 7.4 6.4 0.666 0.072 27 4.99 0.19 0.32 0.01 5.91 93.1 92 3.06 0.64 0.06 0.00 11.52 54.4 35.c 5.9 5.4 1.450 0.107 -1 41.7 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 40 0.01 9.02 6.4 5.6 0.862 0.142 3.68 0.47 0.00 -1 63.7 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 145 0.01 6.54 6.4 5.9 1.668 0.082 6.49 1.64 0.12 .9 6. 6.1 0.369 0.057 30 2.37 1.09 0.33 0.01 5.02 75.6 43 2.43 0.64 0.08 0.01 9.70 85.3 41.c 5.6 4.9 0.671 0.092 .6 6. 62.4 42.c 6.0 0.559 0.066 21 2.31 0.86 0.12 0.01 5.54 59.5 163 0.01 5.07 6.9 6.7 1.168 0.100 5.80 1.79 0.69 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 48 3.18 1.03 0.08 0.01 8.97 92.4 -1 6.4 6.0 0.755 0.075 6.6 19 1.15 1.16 6.95 75.6 70.2 44.c 5.8 0.479 0.063 2.93 0.01 35 0.01 6.13 6.6 6.2 1.651 0.076 8.80 2.24 0.26 6.7 29 2.68 1.30 1.44 0.01 6.93 78.3 64 7.05 2.34 0.15 6 0.01 11.75 96.3 46.c 7.1 6.6 1.428 0.122 6.9 6.1 0.544 0.065 80 6.0 0.318 0.056 0 2.81 2.04 0.22 0.02 8.32 61.0 0.02 11.63 82.2 49.c 6.3 6.2 1.490 0.109 7.55 2.42 0.38 -1 -1 -1 -1 34 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0.02 11.23 83.4 -1 -1 6.7 6.4 0.810 0.075 3.31 1.07 0.02 -1 -1 -1 -1 33 -1 91.5 62.c -1 -1 -1 0. .01 5.36 -1 -1 -1 1.411 0.110 6.8 6.4 6.05 1.83 0.04 -1 -1 -1 92 8.42 2.55 0.09 0. -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 .01 10.11 78.4 64.c 7.1 6.9 1.411 0.101 -1 -1 -1 36 -1 -1 94.2 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 6.8 6.4 0.666 0.062 2.81 1.01 0.01 0.01 11.75 -1 -1 51 5.05 1.67 0.05 0.01 4.48 85.6 66.C -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 6.7 6.4 1.236 0.108 -1 29 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0.01 10.25 66.2 -1 6.8 6.2 0.953 0.076 3.06 0.68 0.00 -1 27 4.31 1.36 0.00 0.00 7.54 49.6 70.C -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 7.1 6.6 0.674 0.075 -1 —1 20 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0.01 10.43 54.3 -1  207  DATA SET 4: LAND USE SUBSTUDY 9 soil properties 1 sample per plot 3-4 plots per land use 5 land use types A Horizon Plot Fe 5 A% SPSS- LU # DCBFe DCBAl Case* Code 1 73.a 1.21 0.16 1 1 76.a 1.18 0.30 2 1 81.a' 1.32 0.20 3 2 84.a 1.21 0.32 4 2 74.a 1.59 0.41 5 2 32.a 3.21 0.75 2 86.a 2.26 0.60 2 88.a 1.20 0.34 3 15.a 1.23 0.18 9 1.96 0.15 10 3 1; .a 11 3 20.a 1.86 0.21 t n 1.38 0.16 3 24.a 2.16 0.25 13 4 32.a 14 4 34.a 1.99 0.23 15 4 41.a 1.62 0.19 2.03 0.22 16 4 42.a 17 5 44.a 2.11 0.23 18 5 46.a 2.09 0.33 19 5 49.a 0.99 0.16 20 5 64.a 2.24 C.24  KC1A1 0.02 0.28 0.01 0.98 0.38 2.48 1.01 0.35 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.01  WHC l/3barl5bar 23.0 7.5 31.5 14.9 28.8 8.7 33.6 13.7 30.2 10.6 33.8 17.5 31.4 13.0 30.2 14.3 33.5 9.3 .33.5 5.9 32.0 7.4 26.8 6.0 31.3 7.1 30.9 6.7 34.9 8.4 31.3 6.3 32.4 6.6 35.9 9.2 37.5 9.3 39.5 8.9  WHC 15.5 16.6 20.0 19.9 19.6 16.3 13.4 15.9 24.1 27.6 24.7 20.8 24.2 24.2 25.5 24.4 25.8 26.7 28.2 30.6  Particle Size %Silt %Clay %Sand 40.59 11.75 47.67 58.16 32.90 8.95 57.09 16.00 26.91 53.78 29.38 16.83 56.81 18.05 25.14 46.37 43.77 9.86 54.67 24.79 20.55 53.35 34.12 12.53 66.67 21.07 12.26 53.78 11.56 34.57 -1 -1 -1 50.36 12.23 37.41 53.49 16.04 25.47 59.88 14.72 25.40 66.26 19.66 14.03 56.32 12.15 31.53 20.30 14.92 21.22 13.89 16.66 19.61  Text L SiCL SiL SiCL SiL SiC SiL SiCL SiL SiL -1 SiL SiL SiL SiL SiL SiL SiL SiL  B Horxzon Fe S A% DCBFe DCBAl 1.14 0.14 2.21 0.57 -1 -1 1.41 0.34 1.94 0.52 1.04 0.22 0.62 0.17 0.68 0.21 2.06 0.27 2.27 0.19 -1 -1 2.07 0.23 1.99 0.23 1.97 0.26 2.15 0.29 2.16 0.22 2.31 0.25 2.21 0.36 2.51 0.38 2.61 0.26  KC1A1 0.00 1.80 -1 2.18 1.50 2.76 1.83 2.49 0.04 0.03 -1 0.03 0.00 0.00 COO 0.4S 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00  WHC l/3barl5bar 23.5 5.4 31.2 14.8 -1 -1 36.5 -1 29.7 13.0 31.2 21.1 28.2 12.3 29.8 17.9 34.4 7.3 33.5 6.3 -1 -1 22.7 5.8 31.2 9.1 31.9 7.1 37.9 8.7 31.5 5.1 29.0 5.8 33.7 9.3 38.6 10.5 37.8 8.1  Particle Size WHC %Silt %Clay %S<ind 18.1 42.50 8.30 49.20 16.4 56.09 33.45 8.46 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 51.77 33.63 14.60 16.7 47.86 27.60 24.54 10.1 45.55 47.27 7.17 16.0 46.69 2S.36 24.95 11.9 48.23 43.49 8.29 27.0 72.18 16.48 11.35 27.2 63.26 14.32 22.41 -1 -1 -1 -1 16.9 49.90 12.67 37.43 22.0 55.97 16.24 26.79 24.S 58.25 14.73 27.02 29.2 65.24 20.47 14.30 26.4 56.34 1G.77 32.39 23.2 -1 -1 -1 24.5 -1 -1 -1 28.1 65.46 26.13 8.40 29.7 66.33 12.40 21.27  Text L SiCL -1 SiCL CL SiC CL SiC SiL SiL -1 L SiL SiL SiL SiL -I -1 SiL SiL  C Horizon WHCFe S A% SampleDCBFe DCBAl KClAl l/3barl5bar 73. c 2.62 0.65 1.76 31.3 17.1 76.c 1.16 0.19 0.01 18.4 5.6 81.c -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 84.c 74. c 1.79 0.45 0.48 21.7 11.1 S2.C 2.23- 0.58 2.10 30.4 19.2 2.33 0.52 0.26 22.9 7.5 86.c 2.84 0.78 2.67 30.8 18.3 88.c 15. c 2.60 0.39 0.25 31.0 10.2 .17. c 0.58 0.07 0.00 24.9 5.8 -X -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0.59 0.07 0.01 30.0 4.6 24.c 1.26 0.16 0.00 28.8 5.1 32.c 34.c 1.41 0.16 0.08 28.8 5.9 41.= 2.51 0.29 0.01 30.3 7.9 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 44.= 2.76 0.35 0.01 31.3 7.7 46. c 2.19 0.44 0.01 27.5 9.2 49.c 2.56 0.50 0.02 25.4 11.9 -1 -1 . -1 -1 -1 -1  Particle Size WHC % S i l t %Clay %Sand Text 14.2 54.76 12.9 40.49 -1 -1 10.6 45.15 11.2 44.62 15.3 38.19 12.5 4.75 20.8 63.79 19.1 43.94 -1 -1 25.4 47.22 23.6 65.98 22.9 53.70 22.4 58.33 -1 -1 -1 23.6 -1 18.3 13.4 54.01 -1 -1  38.57 6.67 SiCL L 11.94 47.57 -1 -1 -1 L 26.55 28.30 47.37 8.01 SiC L 16.46 45.35 c 80.29 14.96 26.39 9.83 SiL L 15.58 35.48 -1 -1 -1 L 9.46 43.32 11.81 22.21 SiL 17.45 28.84 SiL 18.37 23.30 SiL -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 29.03 16.96 SiCL -1 -1 X  208  LAND USE INNOVATIONS SUBSTUDY  DATA SET 5:  SPSS LU Land Case# Code Use 1 6 PC 2 6 P= 3 6 4 7 pd 5 7 Pd 6 7 Pd 7 7 Pd 8 7 pd 9 kh 10 kh 11 kh 12 kh 13 9 ki 14 9 ki 15 9 ki 16 10 kg 17 10 kg 18 10 kb 19 10 kb 20 11 kd 2! 11 kd kd 22 pk 23 24 12 pk 25 12 pk 26 13 pi 27 13 pi 23 13 pi 29 13 Pi 30 13 pi 31 14 pe 32 14 pe 33 14 pc 34 35  14 PC 15  A Sample # 52. a 53. a 60.a 28. a 48.a 50. a 56. a 57. a 47.a 54 .a 58. a 59. a 51. a 55.a 63.a 53.a 69.a 98.3  99. a 100. a 39.a 45.a 95. a 96. a 97.3  90. a 91. a 92. a 93. a 94. a 25.a 27.a 29. a 30. a 21.a  13 soil properties 1 sample per plot 3-4 plots per land use 10 land use types  Horizon Soil Properties B exBases & CEC in meq/lOOg soil Base BDens Compac Nutrients pH %N ppm? K Ca Mg Na CEC Sat% g/cm3 kg/cm2 H20 CaC12 crgC% 1.436 0.113 0.14 0.01 12.06 31.7 1.19 0.3 5.5 4.9 78 2.81 0.86 -1 -1.0 5.7 5.2 1.628 0.116 0.47 4.93 1.34 0.01 13.81 48.8 87 -1 -1 6.1 5.5 1.494 0.119 ,93 5.68 1.64 0.41 0.01 13.06 59.3 6.4 5.9 1.723 0.125 57 6.68 1.75 0.13 0.01 12.50 68.5 0.97 0.3 6.1 5.3 1.568 0.118 144 4.80 1.48 0.41 0.01 12.61 53.2 1.09 0.4 6.0 5.3 1.579 0.121 18 5.60 1.41 0.39 0.01 11.38 66.1 0.97 0.2 -1 -1 6.1 5.5 1.457 0.115 160 6.18 1.87 0.45 0.01 13.43 63.3 -1 -1 6.3 6.0 1.635 0.123 145 8.17 1.79 0.33 0.01 12.54 82.2 6.6 6.4 1.739 0.128 88 e.30 2.86 C H 0.02 14.07 80.2 1.13 0.3 -1 -1 6.4 6.1 1.916 0.137 79 8.05 2.45 0.20 0.02 15.04 71.2 6.5 6.2 1.641 0.120 -1 62 5.93 2.04 0.12 0.02 13.43 60.3 6.0 5.6 1.680 0.126 -1 -1 66 6.36 1.64 0.06 0.01 12.54 64.5 6.4 5.8 1.446 0.124 45 4.37 1.56 0.06 0.02 12.95 50.3 0.97 1.8 6.4 6.1 1.483 0.116 -1 62 5.74 2.14 0.13 0.02 13.09 61.3 6.4 6.0 1.554 0.122 60 5.24 1.95 0.22 0.02 10.97 67.8 -i -1 6.5 6.1 1.687 0.134 34 5.43 1.46 0.02 0.02 9.18 75.4 1.07 0.6 7.0 6.8 1.442 0.128 23 6.55 2.45 COS 0.02 6.64 137.0 1.11 1.0 7.4 6.1 1.266 0.130 24 7.49 3.27 0.33 0.02 9.25 120.0 1.16 0.6 6.5 6.1 1.239 0.127 25 5.43 1.91 0.06 0.02 8.89 33.4 -1 -1 1.390 0.138 27 7.30 2.96 0.06 0.02 8.72 118.5 - i 1.231 0.107 151.1 0.01 5.30 1.15 0.01 4.29 22 7.1 7.0 1.34 1.5 1.476 0.118 22 5.49 2.34 0.01 0.02 6.73 116.7 1.21 0.3 1.250 0.090 80 1.50 0.16 C.32 0.01 3.64 23.8 1.20 0.0 5.8 4.9 1.414 0.098 109 1.55 0.16 0.05 0.00 11.77 15.0 -i -1 5.3 5.0 1.234 0.031 110 1.50 0.14 0.12 0.00 11.04 16.0 5.9 -11.229 0.099 37 3.35 0.78 0.39 0.01 8.07 64.3 1.13 6.5 6.1 1.3C4 0.092 184 3.37 0.78 0.42 0.00 8.86 51.6 -T 6.5 5.3 1.203 C.0S7 159 2.87 0.66 0.32 0.00 8.14 47.3 6.3 5.8 1.242 0.090 204 3.12 0.63 0.34 3.48 48.8 6.4 5.7 coo 1.278 0.093 0.36 3.06 0.68 8.66 47.4 157 5.4 5.7 coo -1 -1 1.024 0.086 COO 5.87 1.52 5.13 144.1 39 7.5 7.0 0.00 1.17 0.3 0.779 0.069 32 5.55 0.88 0.03 0.01 3.02 214.S 0.84 0.1 7.7 7.1 0.9S4 0.087 34 6.30 1.27 COO 0.02 4.95 153.5 0.39 0.1 7.3 7.2 1.010 0.085 5.30 1.19 0.07 4.79 137.4 52 7.7 7.2 0.01 1.07 0.1 0.557 0.050 COO 7.92 0.51 2.55 330.4 17 7.8 7.2 0.00 1.16 1.5  Horizon Soil Properties C Horizon Soil Properties pH Nutrients cH Nutrients exBases & CEC in meq/lOOg soil Base Ca Mg Na CEC Sat% H20 CaC12 orgC% totN% ppmP H20 CaC12 orgC% totN% ppnP K -1 -1 -1 —1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 34 2.18 1.19 0.06 0.01 10.91 31.6 6.7 5.8 0.312 0.091 16 6.1 5.6 0.244 0.045 5.8 5.4 1,405 0.107 - 38 2.43 0.84 0.04 0.01 11.47 29.1 70 5.6 4.6 0.421 0.060 5.7 1.480 0.113 41 4.93 1.23 0.11 0.02 14.09 44.6 6.1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 19 6.7 6.5 1.649 0.119 125 7.43 2.65 0.17 0.02 13.25 77.5 6.4 5.8 0.466 0.061 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 _** _ -t -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 i -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 ± 0.02 12.81 60.2 16 6.7 6.2 1.347 0.115 64 5.05 2.45 0.19 5.6 4.8 0.428 0.051 -1 -1 -1 -1 _1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 _i -1 -1 35 4.93 1.32 C03 0.01 6.55 95.8 -1 -1 -1 6.8 6.6 1.000 0.092 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 68 5.05 1.36 0.00 0.01 6.84 94.2 6.9 5.5 1.028 0.083 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 4 5.18 1.71 COO 0.01 5.52 124.9 7.2 7.0 0.735 0.073 -1 7.7 6.5 0.250 0.045 40 40 5.43 2.14 0.00 0.01 7.23 104.7 7.2 6.6 0.776 0.075 -1 _1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 _ i -f -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 123.1 0.01 6.52 46 7.4 6.5 0.442 0.056 7.0 0.355 C032 42 5.99 1.87 0.15 123.2 7.52 -1 0.01 -1 -1 -1 7.3 6.9 0.940 0.107 64 6.61 2.55 0.09 -1 13.0 _ i -1 -1 -1 -1 1.024 0.066 1.81 0.12 COO 0.01 10.79 -1 -1 j. -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 _1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 43.6 _ i 10 6.7 5.7 0.106 0.010 6.5 5.6 0.796 30 1.50 1.01 0.53 0.01 6.98 -1 _ i -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 .L -1-1 -1 -1 -1 — i -1 -1 -1 '' - i _ i -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 _1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 "* ± -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 i -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 109.9 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 49 6.68. 1.60 0.06 0.01 7.59 7.2 6.9 1.017 0.099 78.2 20 7.0 6.6 .339 0.094 17 6.18 0.97 0.00 0.01 9.14 7.5 6.8 1.248 0.103 86.1 -1 0.01 8.59 -1 -1 -1 -1 87 6.05 1.34 0.00 7.2 6.8 0.969 0.096 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 180.4 15 0.01 3.55 8.2 7.1 0.269 0.032 16 5.99 0.41 0.01 7.8 7.3 1.049 0.065 ; •  J.  exBases & CEC i n meq/lOOg soil Base Na CEC Sat% Ca Mg K -1 -1 -1 -1 -I -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1. -1 -1 1.87 0.60 O.08 0.02 5.41 47.4 1.37 0.64 1.53 0.01 11.14 31.9 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 2.68 1.93 0.67 0.02 10.97 48.4 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 —T -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 X. .01 0.15 .63 28.7 1.44 0.88 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 T -1 -1 -1 -1 x -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 l -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1.00 •1.00 -1.00 -1.00 -1.00 -1.00 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 3.37 1.25 Q.15 .01 .13 115.9 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 X —1 -1 -1 -1 -1 "I -1 -1 -1-1 -1 "I _"1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 X .00 .43 136.8 2.25 1.01 0.06 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 — 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 X -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 9.70 1.36 0.02 0.01 10.04 110.5 —1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 ~1 -1 4.49 0.38 C.03 COO 1.70 327.1  DATA SET 6: INNOVATIONS SUBSTUDY 9 s o i l properties 1 sample per plot 3-4 plots per land use 10 land use types  LU Code 6.2 6.3 7.2 7.3 7.4  7.5 8.1  B.3 8.4 9.1  9.3 10.3 12.1 13.1 13.5 15.1  A Horizon Land Plot Fe S A l % Use • # DCBFe DCBAl •KClAl 1.68 0.34 PC 53.a 0.03 pc 60.a 0.18 1.10 0.02 48.a 1.64 0.35 0.02 pd 50.a -1 -1 -1 -i 56.a -1 -1 pa 57.a 1.46 0.35 0.01 Pd kh •47.a 1.76 0.32 0.02 kh •58.a 1.89 0.33 0.02 kh 59.a 1.77 0.28 0.02 k i 51.a 1.74 C.39 0.02 k i 68.a 2.04 0.43 0.03 kb 98.a 2.24 0.18 0.02 pk 95.a 0.76 0.37 0.37 -1 pi 90.a -1 p i 94.a 0.38 0.36 0.03 cr •21.a 1.49 0.10 0.02  WHC l/3barl5bar 25.6 9.3 26.6 9.6 27.0 10.8 -1 -1 23.4 9.3 27.4 9.7 30.7 • 9.9 27.8 9.8 30.1 8.1 31.5 10.7 33.1 11.4 6.9 41.2 18.2 4.3 -1 -1  WHC 16.3 17.0 16.2 -1 14.1 17.7 20.8 18.0 22.0 20.8 21.7 34.3 13.9  17.4  4.3  13.1  21.2  2.1  19.1  note: - 1 means missing values i.e. analysis not done  Particle Size % S i l t %Clay %Sand 45.99 20.08 33.93 46.34 20.43 33.23 46.85 20.49 32.66 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1. -1 44.15 21.77 34.08 51.30 21.68 27.02 46.27 21.91 31.82 50.79 17.98 31.23 56.04 25.13 13.83 57.37 25.74 16.89 71.40 15.54 13.07 20.18 6.94 72.88 -1 -1 -1 16.08 5.24 73.68 30.57 3.58 65.76  B Horizon Fe S A l % Text DCEFe DCBAl -1 L -1 L -1 -1 SiL -1 -1 1.96 0.37 -1 -i -1 -1 -1 L -1 1.96 0.31 Sil T -1 Jj -1 -1 SiL -1 SiL 2.24 0.44 SiL 2.02 0.19 SiL 2.29 0.18 SL -1 -1 Q.93 0.42 -1 LS -1 SL -1 -1  KClAl -i -1 -1 0.00 -1 -1  0.00 -X -1 0.00 0.00 -1  0.01 -1 -1  WHC Particle Size l/3barl5bar WHC % S i l t %Clay %Sand -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 27.0 11.2 15.8 46.72 25.68 27.60 -i -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 29.2 10.5 18.7 49.04 23.72 27.23 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -i -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 29.3 12.3 17.0 53.72 28.81 17.47 - 1 52.01 12.29 65.70 -1 31.5 33.8 6.6 27.2. 60.78 17.02 22.20 _1 _i -1 -1 -1 -1 A. 12.2 4.6 7.6 15.42 5.27 79.31 -1 -1 -1 -i -1 -1 -1  -1  _-t  Text -i  -1 - i  L -1  _i -r At  -1 -1 SiCL Sil. Sil. -1  LS -i -l  C Horizon Fe & A l % WHC Samp DCBFe DCBAl KClAl l/3barl5bar 53.c -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 60.c -1 -1 -1 -1 X 48.c 2.34 0.52 1.26 25.8 13.5 50.c -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -I -1 -1 -1 -1 —1 -1 -1 -1 -1 47.C 2.42 0.45 0.00 21.9 11.8 58.c -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 51. c 1.40 0.29 0.48 24.2 11.4 68.C -1 -1 -1 3.7 98.C 1.94 0.15 0.01 21.6 -IT 95.C -1 -1 -1 -1 90.c 0.74 0.15 0.01 1.6 4.9 94.c -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 21.c 0.81 0.06 0.00 33.5 1.7  WHC -1 -1 12.3 -1 -1 -1 10.1 -1 -1 12.8 -1 17.9 -1 3.3 -1 31.8  Particle Size % S i l t %Clay %Sand -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 40.55 31.02 28.43 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 ..-1 41.29 29.85 28.86 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 47.37 27.50 25.13 -1 -1 -1 39.38 5.87 54.74 -1 -1 -1 6.56 0.44 93.00 -1 -1 -1 15.09 2.23 82.68  Text -1 -1 CL -1 -1 -1 " CL -1 -1 CL -1 SL -1 S -1 LS  210  APPENDIX H.  DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR SOILS DATA SETS 1-6  SOILS DATA SET 1: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF VARIABILITY STUDY  S o i l Property  Horizon  pH (H20) pH (CaC12) org.Carbon tot.Nitrogen  A A A A ava.Phosphorus A exc.Calcium A exc.Magnesium A exc.Potassium A exciSodium A CEC (meq/lOOg) A Base Sat.% A  S o i l Property  pH (H20) pH (CaC12) org.Carbon tot.Nitrogen ava.Phosphorus exc.Calcium exc.Magnesium exc.Potassium exc.Sodium CEC (meq/lOOg) Base Sat.%  nor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor  Horizon  A A A A A A A A A A A  hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor  natural forest degraded forest t r a d i t i o n a l upland upland with potato irrigated lowland LU f a (n=10) LU f d (n=10) LU pc (n=10) LU pa (n=10) LU kh (n=10) mean st.dev. mean st.dev. mean st.dev. mean st.dev. mean st.dev. 5.7 4.9 2.286 0.172 11 4.84 1.85 0.93 0.01 18.1 41.6  0.2 0.3 0.341 0.018 5 2.19 0.46 0.35 0.01 2.1 10.8  legume upland LU pd (n=10) mean st.dev. 6.0 5.2 1.579 0.121 18 5.60 1.41 0.39 0.01 11.38 66.1  0.1 0.2 0.039 0.003 3 0.46 0.14 0.27 0.00 1.55 8.9  5.8 4.8 1.864 0.139 2 4.21 1.31 0.58 0.01 15.88 38.3  0.2 0.2 0.254 0.012 1 1.88 0.30 0.28 0.00 1.84 11.2  5.9 5.1 1.549 0.145 25 5.66 1.00 0.62 0.01 8.86 82.6  0.1 0.1 0.053 0.064 6 0.54 0.06 0.58 0.00 0.66 8.4  agroforestry overall mapunit 5c LU p i (n=9) a l l LU (n=60) mean st.dev. mean st.dev. 6.5 6.1 1.229 0.099 37 3.86 0.78 0.39 0.01 8.07 64.3  0.1 0.2 0.310 0.012 9 0.64 0.14 0.09 0.01 2.02 11.8  6.1 5.4 1.765 0.313 14 6.07 1.68 0.48 0.01 12.80 69.0  0.5 0.7 0.141 0.034 9 2.20 0.65 0.44 0.01 3.42 27.1  6.1 5.5 1.605 0.142 20 6.25 1.64 0.27 0.02 11.26 72.7  0.17 0.18 0.068 0.008 7 0.79 0.22 0.43 0.02 0.71 9.4  7.1 6.9 1.708  0.1 0.1 0.087  0.129 9 9.84 2.85 0.06 0.02 11.34 113.0  0.031 2 0.94 0.41 0.05 0.00 0.85 12.5  21 1  SOILS DATA SET 2: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF VARIABILITY STUDY  S o i l Property  ext.Fe (cbd) ext.Al (cbd) exc.Al (KC1) FC (l/3bar) WP (15bar) WHC Bulk Density Compaction pH (H20) pH (CaC12) org.Carbon tot.Nitrogen ava.Phosphorus exc.Calcium exc.Magnesium exc.Potassium exc.Sodium CEC (meq/lOOg) Base Sat.%  S o i l Property  ext.Fe (cbd) ext.Al (cbd) exc.Al (KC1) FC (l/3bar) WP (15bar) WHC Bulk Density Compaction pH (H20) pH (CaC12) org.Carbon tot.Nitrogen ava.Phosphorus exc.Calcium exc.Magnesium exc.Potassium exc.Sodium CEC (meq/lOOg) Base Sat.%  Horizon  hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor  A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A  Horizon  A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A  hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor A hor  natural forest degraded forest traditional upland upland with potato irrigated lowland LU f a (n=3) LU f d (n=3) LU pc (n=3) LU pa (n=3) LU kh (n=3) mean st.dev. mean st.dev. mean st.dev. mean st.dev. mean st.dev. 1.18 0.30 0.28 31.5 14.9 16.6 1.20 2.00 5.8 4.9 2.040 0.160 9 4.53 1.97 0.82 0.01 17.45 42.0  0.02 0.01 0.33 1.6 0.2 1.5 0.06 0.30 0.1 0.1 0.120 0.010 2 0.55 0.12 0.13 0.02 1.28 1.6  legume upland LU pd (n=3) mean st.dev. 1.19 0.18 0.02 26.3 9.9 16.3 0.97 0.20 6.0 5.3 1.560 0.120 16 5.62 1.49 0.54 0.01 11.95 64.1  0.15 0.02 0.00 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.06 0.10 0.1 0.1 0.070 0.000 4 0.22 0.06 0.48 0.00 0.41 3.7  1.20 0.34 0.35 30.2 14.3 15.8 1.43 4.30 5.8 4.8 1.860 0.130 2 3.91 1.45 0.62 0.01 15.81 37.9  0.02 0.01 0.17 1.4 0.4 1.1 0.11 0.60 0.3 0.2 0.160 0.020 1 1.15 0.21 0.23 0.00 0.37 5.5  1.38 0.16 0.00 26.8 6.0 20.7 1.11 0.47 6.0 5.2 1.520 0.170 28 5.91 1.01 0.35 0.01 9.00 81.0  0.44 0.05 0.01 1.1 0.1 1.0 0.04 0.31 0.1 0.1 0.030 0.100 4 0.47 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.47 6.1  agroforestry overall mapunit 5c LU p i (n=3) a l l LU (n=18) mean st.dev. mean st.dev. 0.76 0.30 0.02 16.6 6.2 10.4 1.18 0.00 6.5 6.0 1.070 0.100 31 3.83 0.80 0.39 0.01 7.69 65.2  0.24 0.09 0.00 2.6 2.5 3.5 0.06 0.00 0.0 0.2 0.570 0.020 3 0.91 0.17 0.06 0.01 1.49 4.3  1.26 1.22 0.11 31.2 10.5 20.7 1.10 1.20 6.1 5.4 1.722 0.140 15 5.95 1.73 0.46 0.02 12.90 67.3  0.35 0.08 0.19 4.5 3.2 5.4 0.19 1.50 0.4 0.7 0.205 0.046 10 2.04 0.65 0.33 0.01 2.90 25.9  1.62 0.19 0.01 34.9 8.4 26.5 0.91 0.10 6.0 5.4 1.560 0.150 25 5.99 1.56 0.36 0.03 11.47 69.7  0.58 0.07 0.01 5.5 0.1 5.7 0.13 0.00 0.1 0.2 0.080 0.010 11 0.92 0.21 0.37 0.03 0.73 15.7  0.99 0.16 0.01 37.5 9.3 28.2 0.97 0.23 7.0 6.8 1.790 0.110 8 9.76 2.93 0.08 0.02 11.72 109.2  0.44 0.05 0.01 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.10 0.06 0.1 0.1 0.060 0.060 2 1.84 0.65 0.06 0.00 0.40 22.6  212  SOILS DATA SET 3: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF PRESENT LAND OSES  S o i l Property  pH (H20) pH (CaC12) org.Carbon tot.Nitrogen ava .Phosphorus exc.Calcium exc.Magnesium exc.Potassium exc.Sodium CEC (meq/lOOg) Base Sat.%  Horizon  natural forest degraded forest traditional upland upland with potato irrigated lowland LU fa (n=8) LU f d (n=ll) LU pc (n=10) LU pa (n=10) LU kh (n=ll) mean st.dev. mean st.dev. mean st.dev. mean st.dev. mean st.dev. 0.4 0.6 0.292 0.020 23 1.81 0.30 0.28 0.00 3.05 23.3 0.08 0.39  5.9 4.9 1.999 0.149 33 3.98 1.27 0.34 0.01 17.62 34.2 1.33 4.24  0.4 0.5 0.334 0.021 30 2.10 0.27 0.23 0.01 3.36 19.3 0.06 0.28  6.3 5.7 1.518 0.124 83 6.26 1.23 0.16 0.01 9.54 82.3 1.09 0.33  0.5 0.6 0.206 0.014 40  hor hor  6.3 5.6 1.918 0.147 42 6.93 1.88 0.36 0.00 14.33 67.8 1.27 1.65  B B B B B B B B B B B  hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor  6.3 5.4 0.991 0.076 38 4.06 1.21 0.13 0.00 10.77 63.4  0.7 1.0 0.214 0.015 20 2.43 0.74 0.11 0.00 3.74 46.2  5.9 4.6 0.890 0.083 27 1.40 0.64 0.18 0.01 15.48 30.1  0.3 0.5 0.323 0.019 19 1.05 0.30 0.11 0.01 7.10 51.2  C C C C C C C C C C C  hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor  6.6 5.6 0.580 0.060 22 2.93 1.29 0,26 0.01 10.85 54.6  0.5 0.8 0.320 0.010 15 2.20 0.76 0.08 0.01 5.07 43.3  5.9 4.5 0.330 0.050 16 0.69 0.29 0.25 0.01 7.52 20.7  0.2 0.2 0.160 0.010 17 0.55 0.24 0.13 0.01 5.29 15.4  hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor  Bulk Density Compaction  A A A A A A A A A A A A A  pH (H20) pH (CaC12) org.Carbon tot.Nitrogen ava.Phosphorus exc.Calcium exc.Magnesium exc.Potassium exc.Sodium CEC (meq/lOOg) Base Sat.% pH (H20) pH (CaC12) org.Carbon tot.Nitrogen ava.Phosphorus exc.Calcium exc.Magnesium exc.Potassium exc.Sodium CEC (meq/lOOg) Base Sat.%  0.3 0.4 0.213 0.014 48 0.68 0.26 0.10 0.00 1.28 9.5 0.10 0.05  6.5 6.2 1.739 0.129 77  1.91 0.41 0.18 0.01 1.69 24.8 0.07 0.18  6.0 5.6 1.614 0.124 132 5.76 1.17 0.17 0.01 10.35 69.3 1.03 0.15  0.4  7.14 1.87 0.10 0.02 11.44 79.8 1.09 0.73  0.5 0.155 0.012 38 1.73 0.52 0.10 0.01 1.07 16.9 0.12 0.50  6.6 6.0 0.867 0.088 32 3.73 0.86 0.34 0.01 6.96 68.3  0.4 0.5 0.235 0.019 12 1.72 0.46 0.47 0.00 1.17 23.8  6.2 5.8 1.314 0.108 91 4.50 0.91 0.14 0.01 8.88 62.9  0.4 0.5 0.339 0.018 45 1.34 0.48 0.20 0.01 1.86 16.5  6.8 6.4 1.135 0.090 45 5.46 1.56 0.10 0.01 9.15 77.4  0.2 0.2 0.368 0.020 23 2.22 0.62 0.12 0.01 2.75 15.6  6.3 5.5 0.370 0.050 19 2.29 0.94 0.17 0.02 4.50 83.5  0.5 0.5 0.210 0.010 14 1.33 0.70 0.08 0.01 1.93 50.7  6.7 5.9 0.460 0.060 21 2.53 0.62 0.22 0.01 5.17 67.7  0.5 0.4 0.160 0.010 10 1.44 0.37 0.10 0.00 1.25 24.9  6.7 6.0 0.450 0.060 16 2.81 1.50 0.94 0.01 7.40 71.6  0.2 0.2 0.120 0.000 15 0.13 0.48 0.64 0.01 0.80 9.3  213  SOILS DATA SET 4: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OP PRESENT LAND USES  S o i l Property  Horizon  ext.Fe (cbd)  A A A A A A A A A  ext.Al (cbd) exc.Al (KC1) PC (l/3bar) WP (15bar) WHC Silt » Clay % Sand %  natural forest LU f a (n=3) mean st.dev.  hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor  1.24 0.22 0.10 27.8 10.4 17.4 51.95 20.22 27.84  0.07 0.07 0.15 4.3 4.0 2.3 9.85 11.19 19.38  1.89 0.48 1.04 31.8 13.8 18.0 53.00 30.02 16.98  0.85 0.19 0.87 1.8 2.5 1.8 3.94 9.71 6.12  0.18 0.02 31.5 7.2 24.3 56.94 14.95 28.11  0.76 0.30 1.27  1.14 0.29 2.16 31.1 16.1 13.7 48.02 36.07 15.91  0.55 0.14 0.50 3.2 4.2 3.2 2.35  2.13 0.23 0.03 30.2 6.5 23.7 61.78  8.91 8.55  14.49 23.73  ext.Fe (cbd) ext.Al (cbd) exc.Al (KC1) FC (l/3bar) WP (lSbar) WHC Silt % Clay % Sand »  B B B B B B B  hor hor hor hor hor hor hor B hor B hor  1.68 0.36 0.90 27.4 10.1 17.3 50.30  ext.Fe (cbd) ext.Al (cbd) exc.Al (KCl) FC (l/3bar) WP (15bar) WHC Silt % Clay % Sand %  c c c c  1.89 0.04 0.89 24.9 11.3 13.6 47.63 25.26 27.12  C C C C C  degraded forest traditional upland upland with potato irrigated lowland LU f d (n=5) LU pc (n=4) LU pa (n=4) LU kh (n=4) mean st.dev. mean st.dev. mean st.dev. mean st.dev.  hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor  20.88 28.83  5.4 6.6 1.2 11.02 17.78 28.81 *  n<3 for C horizon  2.30 0.58 1.38 26.4 14.0 12.4 33.18 42.67 24.16  1.61  0.73 0.18 0.09 28.6 6.9 21.8 53.32 17.14 29.54  0.36 0.03 0.01 3.2 1.6 2.8 8.60 5.31 13.80  1.95 0.22 0.02 32.1 7.3 24.8 60.24 15.64 24.12  0.23  1.86  0.03 0.01 1.9 0.8 1.1 4.27 3.13 7.28  0.24 0.02 36.3 8.5 27.8 47.47 19.39 16.14  0.58 0.07 0.02 3.0 1.3 2.1 29.09 2.41 3.05  0.12 0.04 0.01 6.5 0.8 5.9 11.21 1.91 13.09  2.07 0.26 0.12  0.10 0.03 0.24  33.1 7.5 25.6 59.20  3.2 1.8 3.0 4.10  15.55 25.25  4.01 7.83  2.41 0.31 0.01 34.8 8.4 26.4 65.90 19.27 14.84  0.18 0.07 0.01 4.4 2.0 3.0 0.62 9.71 9.10  1.73 0.20 0.03 29.3 6.3 23.0 59.34 15.88 24.78  so standard deviation (st.dev.) not calculated  2.50 0.43 0.01 28.1 9.6 18.5 17.34 9.01 4.99  2 14  SOILS DATA SET 5: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF INNOVATICNS SUBSTUDY  S o i l Property  pH (H20) pH (CaC12)  Horizon  A A A A A A A CEC (meq/lOOg) A A Base Sat.% A Bulk Density Compaction A  hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor  B B B B B B B B B B B  hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor  pH (H20) pH (CaC12) org.Carbon tot.Nitrogen ava.Phosphorus exc.Calcium exc.Magnesium exc.Potassium exc.Sodium CEC (meq/lOOg) Base Sat.%  traditional pakho pakho with legume irrigated lowland khet with dainchha LU pc (n=3) LU pd (n=5) LU kh (n=4) LU k i (n=3) mean st.dev. mean st.dev. mean st.dev. mean st.dev.  A hor A hor  org.Carbon tot.Nitrogen ava.Phosphorus exc.Calcium exc.Magnesium exc.Potassium exc.Sodium  page 1  5.8 5.2 1.520 0.120 86 4.47 1.28 0.34 0.01 12.98 46.6 1.19 0.3 #  *  0.3 0.3 0.100 0.000 8 1.49 0.39 0.18 0.00 0.88 13.9 *  *  6.2 5.6 1.590 0.120 105 6.29 1.66 0.34 0.01. 12.49 66.7 1.01 0.3  0.2 0.3 0.100 0.000 63 1.26 0.20 0.13 0.00 0.73 10.5 0.07 0.1  1.740 0.130 74 7.16 2.25 0.12 0.02 13.77 69.1 1.13 0.3  6.2 5.6 1.230 0.100 38 3.18 1.09 0.07 0.01 12.16 35.1  0.1 0.1 0.460 0.210 1 0.01 3.51 1.52 0.21 0.04 0.0  6.7 6.5 1.649 0.119 125 7.43 2.65 0.17 0.02 13.25 77.5  6.4 6.1  0.3 0.3 0.120 0.010 12 1.19 0.53 0.06 0.01 1.05 8.7 *  6.4 6.0 1.490 0.120 56 5.28 1.88 0.14 0.02 12.34 59.8 0.97 1.8  0.0 0.2 0.050 0.000 9 0.44 0.30 0.08 0.00  *  6.8 6.4 1.170 0.100 50 4.99 1.89 0.11 0.02 9.68 78.0  *  1.19 8.9 *  n<3 for some properties so standard deviation (st.dev.) not calculated  215  SOILS DATA SET 5: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF INNOVATIONS SUBSTUDY  S o i l Property  Horizon  page 2  traditional khet khet with legume Jap.rot. 0 trees LU pk (n=3) LU kb (n=4) LU kd <n=3) mean st.dev. mean st.dev. mean st.dev.  agroforestry LU p i (n=5) mean st.dev.  pH (H20) pH (CaC12) org.Carbon tot.Nitrogen ava.Phosphorus exc.Calcium exc.Magnesium exc.Potassium exc.Sodium CEC (meq/lOOg) Base Sat.% Bulk Density Compaction  A A A A A A A A A A A A A  hor hor hor hor nor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor  6.9 6.3 1.420 0.130 27 6.23 2.27 0.12 0.02 8.49 104.0 1.11 0.7  0.4 0.4 0.190 0.001 5 0.99 0.78 0.14 0.00 1.24 29.4 0.05 0.2  7.2 6.9 1.370 0.120 24 6.03 2.15 0.03 0.02 6.58 128.8 1.27 0.9  0.1 0.1 0.130 0.020 3 1.10 0.92 0.03 0.01 2.22 19.3 0.09 0.9  5.8 5.0 1.320 0.090 100 1.52 0.15 0.33 0.00 10.48 19.9 1.20 0.0  0.1 0.1 0.090 0.010 17 0.03 0.01 0.43 0.01 1.64 7.7 *  6.4 5.8 1.250 0.090 152 3.25 0.72 0.37 0.00 8.44 51.9 1.18 0.0  0.1 0.2 0.040 0.000 66 0.38 0.06 0.04 0.00 0.34 7.2 *  pH (H20) pH (CaC12) org.Carbon tot.Nitrogen ava. Phosphorus exc.Calcium exc.Magnesium exc.Potassium exc.Sodium CEC (meq/lOOg) Base Sat.%  B B B B B B B B B B B  hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor  7.1 6.7 0.850 0.080 37 5.22 1.74 0.00 0.01 6.53 107.9  0.2 0.3 0.160 0.010 32 0.19 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.90 15.6  7.2 7.0 0.900 0.090 53 6.30 2.21 0.12 0.01 7.02 123.2  *  *  *  6.5 5.6 0.796  *  *  traditional pakho LU pc/4c (n=4) mean st.dev.  30 1.50 1.01 0.53 0.01 6.98 43.6  n<3 for some properties so standard deviation (st.dev.) not calculated  7.7 7.1 0.950 0.080 39 5.76 1.22 0.03 0.01 4.47 162.5 0.97 0.2 7.3 6.8 1.080 0.100 51 6.30 1.30 0.02 0.01 8.44 91.4  0.1 0.1 0.110 0.010 9 0.43 0.26 0.03 0.01 0.98 35.5 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.150 0.001 35 0.33 0.32 0.03 0.00 0.79 16.5  APPENDIX I. CLAY MINERALOGY ANALYSIS Sample*  Clay minerals (in order of abundance)  24b  quartz i l l i t e or mica chlorite vermiculite  41b  i l l i t e or mica chlorite vermiculite quartz  ++ + + +  49b  quartz i l l i t e or mica chlorite vermiculite  + +  82b  i l l i t e or mica quartz chlorite vermiculite  -Hf ++ + +  84b  i l l i t e or mica quartz chlorite vermiculite  ++ ++ ++ +  2 17  APPENDIX J . FARM DATA SETS 1-4 FARM DATA SET 1: GENERAL FARM 4 FAMILY INFORMATION I" i n f o F a » i l y info FarierNard Soil FanilyChild Moien /SPSS! 1 SaipldMeibt <14yr 1 1 0 4 2 1 2 1 1 8 2 4 3 1 1 4 2 1 4 1 1 8 4 2 5 1 0 7 4 1 5 6 1 0 8 1 7 1 0 6 1 3 0 8 1 0 4 2 9 1 2 9 4 3 10 1 1 7 3 2 11 1 4 17 6 5 12 1 0 13 5 4 13 1 1 9 3 4 14 1 1 4 0 1 IS 3 4 6 2 2 16 3 1 4 0 2 17 3 1 14 4 4 0 16 3 I 4 1 19 3 1 7 4 2 20 3 1 7 4 2 21 3 0 11 4 3 22 3 0 5 0 3 5 23 3 0 8 2 24 3 1 7 3 2 25 3 0 11 3 3 26 3 0 7 2 1 27 3 0 9 3 3 26 7 0 12 6 4 29 7 0 5 2 2 30 7 1 5 3 1 31 7 1 6 0 4 32 7 1 9 5 3 33 7 0 11 4 3 34 7 0 8 3 4 35 7 1 13 4 4 36 7 1 12 3 2 37 7 1 3 0 2 38 7 0 10 1 5 39 7 1 4 1 2 40 7 1 10 3 3 41 7 0 9 5 2 42 7 1 8 4 2 43 7 1 7 4 2 44 7 1 1! 1 8 •» 45 7 1 5 J 1 46 7 1 6 5 0  - Aat of Land Men IDff Land •of F a n Hoi do, Plots 1 0 1.2 2 2 0 2.2 1 1 0 0.7 2 2 0 0.4 1 2 0 0.7 2 2 O 0.6 1 2 0 3.0 1 2 0 1.3 3 2 0 1.3 2 2 0 1.2 1 6 0 8.1 0 4 0 0.7 0 2 0 1.5 0 3 0 1.4 1 2 0 6.1 4 2 0 1.0 1 6 0 8.6 1 3 0 0.4 1 1 1 0.8 1 1 0 1.4 1 4 0 1.4 1 2 1 1.6 2 1 0 0.6 2 2 1 1.0 2 5 0 1.6 1 4 2 2.7 2 3 0 1.0 1 2 0 3.2 2 1 0 0.4 1 1 0 0.4 2 2 0 2.7 2 3 1 0 2.7 4 0 4.7 3 1 0 0.4 1 3 5 2 5.6 7 0 1.5 L 1 0 0.2 1 4 0 2.0 2 1 0 2.9 2 4 0 2.4 1 2 0 1.1 3 2 0 1.0 2 1 0 1.2 1 2 0 1.6 1 1 0 0.6 1 1 0 1.5 2  - Indications of poverty Fuelnood Use Khet Pakho Hone Person I Person Food Month Hons Mint PreionTotal ha ha ha /ha khet /khet Suff clnsuff Jung Jung Jung Jung 1.1 0.0 0.1 3.3 92 3.6 1 0 1689 93B 937 3563 1.9 0.3 0.0 3.6 86 4.2 0 2812 3750 937 7499 0.5 0.2 0.0 5.7 71 8.0 0 5 3000 6000 4500 13500 0.3 0.1 0.0 20.0 75 26.7 1 4 1500 844 644 31B8 0.7 0.0 0.0 10.0 100 10.0 1 0 3750 5625 2B12 12187 0.1 0.0 13.3 0.5 83 16.0 0 750 1125 375 2250 2.7 0.3 0.0 2.0 90 2.2 1 0 3750 7500 3750 8250 0.8 0.4 0.1 3.1 62 5.0 0 2250 3750 1500 7500 1.0 0.2 0.1 6.9 77 9.0 1 0 2625 3750 1125 7500 0.9 0.3 0.0 5.8 75 7.B 0 1875 2625 750 5250 6.1 1.7 0.3 2.1 75 2.8 1 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 0.5 0.2 0.0 18.6 71 26.0 -1 0 -1 -1 -1 1.1 0.4 0.0 6.0 73 8.2 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 1.0 0.3 0.1 2.9 71 4.0 1 0 1800 1500 1500 4800 2.0 4.0 0.1 1.0 33 3.0 1 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 0.7 0.3 0.0 4.0 70 5.7 0 2250 3000 2250 7500 4.7 3.4 0.5 1.6 55 3.0 1 0 2750 3500 2750 9000 0.3 0.1 0.0 10.0 75 13.3 •> 0 937 1312 937 3186 0.7 0.1 0.0 8.8 BB 10.0 1 0 625 625 625 1B75 0.7 0.6 0.1 5.0 50 10.0 0 1125 1500 1125 3750 1.0 0.3 0.1 7.9 71 11.0 1 0 2812 3750 2S12 9374 1.0 0.5 0.1 3.1 63 5.0 0 1875 2500 1250 5625 0.6 0.0 0.0 13.3 100 13.3 0 2 750 1125 750 2625 0.7 0.3 0.0 7.0 70 10.0 1 0 1B75 3750 2812 5625 1.5 0.0 0.1 6.9 94 7.3 1 0 2750 3500 2750 9000 2.0 0.7 0.0 2.6 74 -r c 0 1000 1500 1000 3500 0.8 0.2 0.0 9.0 80 11.3 1 0 2250 3000 2250 7500 1.0 1.8 0.4 3.B 31 12.0 ft 750 1000 750 2500 0.0 0.4 0.0 12.5 0 -1.0 i 4 500 750 500 1750 0.2 0.2 0.0 12.5 50 25.0 375 500 375 1950 -I 0.7 1.8 0.2 2.2 26 B.6 1 0 -1 -1 -! 2.0 0.6 0.1 3.3 74 4.5 0 62: 975 625 2125 2.0 2.6 0.1 43 5.5 1 0 1625 1750 1625 5000 0.2 0.2 0.0 20.0 50 40.0 5 500 ly} 500 1750 4.1 i.4 0.1 2.3 25 9.3 1 0 2250 3000 2250 7500 (i 900 1200 900 0.7 0.8 0.0 8.0 47 17.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 15.0 100 15.0 4 562 375 1874 937 0.5 1.5 0.0 5.0 25 20.0 625 2125 0 625 B?5 2.0 O.B 0.1 1.4 69 2.0 0 750 lO'.'O 750 250" 1.7 0.6 0.1 4.2 71 5.9 0 750 1000 750 2500 (1 625 750 750 0.7 0.4 0.0 8.2 64 12.9 o 1500 2000 1500 5000 0.2 0.7 0.1 8.0 20 40.0 0.5 0.7 0.0 5.8 42 14.0 1 0 750 1000 750 2500 0.7 0.7 0.2 6.9 44 !5.7 0 1125 1500 1125 3750 0.2 0.4 0.0 8.3 33 25.0 1 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 0.7 0.7 0.1 4.0 47 8.6 1 0 1500 2500 1250 5250 1  1  218  ID i n f o — Fasi1y infoFamerNard Soil FaeilyChild Hoien /SPSS! t SaipldKeibl <14yr 47 9 0 13 6 3 48 9 0 4 1 2 49 9 1 5 3 1 50 9 1 4 1 1 51 9 1 10 4 2 52 9 1 10 4 3 53 9 1 7 3 2 54 9 1 8 1 5 55 9 0 6 0 3 54 9 0 11 4 3 57 9 0 6 2 2 58 3 0 3 1 1 59 1 1 9 4 2 60 4 1 13 4 4 61 4 2 5 0 2 62 4 1 7 0 4 63 4 1 7 2 3 64 4 2 9 5 2 65 4 2 10 3 3 66 4 1 11 2 4 67 4 4 0 15 6 68 4 0 8 1 4 69 4 0 4 0 1 70 4 0 4 2 1 71 4 0 6 4 1 72 4 1 4 2 1 73 5 4 9 4 3 74 6 8 8 0 0 75 4 2 8 2 2 76 7 1 -1 -1 -1  Ait of LandRen tOff Land lof Fare Holdg Plots 4 0 1.9 1 1 0 0.7 2 1 0 0.5 1 2 1 1.3 2 4 0 1.0 2 3 0 1.3 1 2 0 2.0 3 2 0 1.6 2 3 1 1.5 3 4 0 l.B 1 2 0 1.3 2 1 1 0.6 1 3 0 2.2 1 5 0 1.7 2 3 0 1.0 1 3 0 1.4 1 2 0 0.7 1 2 0 0.7 1 4 0 1.7 2 5 0 3.4 3 5 0 2.0 1 3 0 1.4 2 3 0 0.6 0 1 0 0.3 1 1 0 0.4 1 1 0 0.4 1 2 2 1.8 1 0 0 5,4 1 t 4 0 1.7 J -1 -1 -1 -1  Indications Khet Pakho Hone Person X ha ha ha /ha khet 1.3 0.5 0.1 6.8 68 0.3 0.4 0.0 5.7 43 0.4 0.1 0.0 10.0 80 0.7 0.5 0.1 3.1 54 0.6 0.4 0.0 10.0 60 0.7 0.6 0.0 7.7 54 1.4 0.6 0.0 3.5 70 0.8 0.7 0.1 5.0 50 1.3 0.2 0.0 4.0 87 1.3 0.4 0.1 6.1 72 0.7 0.5 0.1 4.6 54 0.5 0.1 0.0 5.0 83 1.4 0.7 0.1 4.1 64 0.7 0.9 0.1 7.6 41 0.7 0.2 0.1 5.0 70 1.3 0.0 0.1 5.0 93 0.7 0.0 0.0 10.0 100 0.5 0.2 0.0 12.9 71 0.9 0.7 0.1 5.9 53 0.7 2.6 0.1 3.2 21 1.4 0.5 0.1 7.5 70 0.7 0.6 0.1 5.7 50 0.0 0.5 0.1 6.7 0 0.3 0.0 0.0 13.3 100 0.2 0.2 0.0 15.0 50 0.3 0.0 0.1 10.0 75 1.4 0.4 0.0 5.0 78 2.0 3.1 0.3 1.5 37 0.7 0.8 0.2 4.7 41 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1  of poverty Fuelwood Use Person Food Month Hons Mint PreionTotal /khet Suff clnsuff Jung Jung Jung Jung 10.0 1 0 1500 2250 1500 5250 13.3 0 450 625 500 1575 12.5 3 0 450 600 450 1500 5.7 0 1375 1750 1375 4500 16.7 1 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 14.3 0 750 1000 750 2500 5.0 1 0 1875 2500 1550 5925 10.0 0 1750 2125 1750 5625 4.6 1 0 750 1000 750 2500 B.5 0 750 1000 750 2500 8.6 1 0 1875 2500 1250 5625 6.0 0 250 500 250 1000 6.4 1 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 18.6 0 1750 2500 1750 6000 7.1 1 0 750 1000 750 2500 5.4 0 750 1000 750 2500 10.0 1 0 1250 1500 1250 4000 18.0 0 625 750 625 2000 11.1 1 0 750 1000 750 2500 15.7 0 1000 1500 750 3250 10.7 1 0 875 1250 875 3000 11.4 0 625 875 500 2000 -1.0 D 4 500 750 500 1750 13.3 0 375 625 375 1375 30.0 1 0 450 600 450 1500 13.3 0 450 600 450 1500 6.4 1 0 225 200 200 bu 4.0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 11.4 1 0 1875 2500 4375 8750 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1  2  FARM DATA SET 2: LIVESTOCK SECTION  19  page 1  Conversion factors to LSU BullCCowC CaHCBulIBCowB CalfS6oats Foul Pigs 1.00 0.80 0.40 1.20 1.00 0.50 0.10 0.004 0.02 ID i n f o — • Nos. of Livestock • LSU Use of Livestock — FaraerNard Soil Cattle Buffalo— -SheepDucks Other SubLSU Milk Eggs Meat Hone /SPSS! f SaipdBullCCowC CaHCBulIBCowB CalfBGoa s Fowl Pigs Total Total Oxen BuffaUsed 1/yr 1/LSU t/yr l/fowlkg/yrkg/LSUDnly 1 1 2 0 2.0 360 100 12 0 6.5 6.9 0 0 0 0 2 0 4.4 4.B 2 0 2.0 600 250 360 15 24 25 83 3 0 3.0 3.1 2 0 2.0 540 540 0 1 0 1 10 4 1 3.7 4.0 0 1 0 1.0 360 200 8 0 0 0 0 4.8 4.8 5 2 0 2.0 1440 514 5 0 0 0 3.6 3.6 6 2 0 2.0 720 900 0 0 0 0 5 12.9 13.0 0 0 0.0 1080 150 7 0 0 0 0 1 4.5 4.6 2 0 2.0 240 120 o o 8 0 0 1 9.7 10.1 2 0 2.0 2160 300 9 0 0 (I 0 2 5.6 5.6 2 0 2.0 720 400 o 10 0 0 0 2 7.4 7.8 0 2 0 2.0 0 11 0 0 0 0 2 7.4 8.3 2 0 2.0 1260 350 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 13 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 3.0 3.4 2 0 2.0 1080 1080 900 14 T 13 10 69 2 5.4 5.7 0 2 2.4 2890 1440 3600 225 15 o 16 0 3.6 3.9 16 0 0 0.0 720 200 0 0 6 0 3 8.7 9.2 ft 17 4 0 4,0 2160 771 720 48 0 3.4 3.7 18 1 0 1,0 1080 675 0 0 1 T C 3.6 o 19 0. J 2 2 0 2.0 720 720 0 20 0 4.2 4.2 2 0 2,0 360 360 0 1 21 0 4.5 4.7 2 0 2.0 1440 720 o 0 22 0 4.4 4.4 2 0 2,0 1050 540 o 2 23 5 2.0 2.0 0 0 0.0 900 900 ft 4 0 6.6 7.1 2 0 2.0 1440 554 24 o 3.9 0 0 2 0 2.0 720 720 f. 5.5 ft 0 4 4 0 4.0 0 (I 6.0 1 0 2 0 2.0 1800 1000 5.9 o 2 25 2 0 2.0 720 240 7.2 8.0 0 5.5 1 0 2 0 2.0 900 321 5.3 0 0 3.7 1 2 0 2.0 1440 1440 o 0 1} 4 4 0 4.0 2160 831 2520 180 14 9.8 10.3 3 2 0 2.0 1320 471 5 7.1 7.6 0 2 4 0 4.0 1800 375 20 9.8 10.2 o 1 0 0 0.0 360 360 0 1.5 1.5 o 6 4 0 4.0 360 180 0 9.0 9.6 o 0 2 0 2.0 1080 386 0 4.8 5.1 0 0 0 0 0.0 720 450 0 2.4 2.6 0 1 2 4 6.8 720 257 4 10.1 10.4 0 0 2 0 2.0 360 0 8.4 B.7 0 69 2 2 0 2.0 3600 818 fl 8.6 9.0 1 2 0 2.0 540 270 o 4.5 4.8 3 2 0 2.0 1440 554 6.5 6.7 0 3 2 0 2.0 720 400 5.3 5.6 0 3 2 0 2.0 1080 300 7.9 B.3 0 1 2 0 2.0 720 720 3.5 3.5 0 0 2 0 2.0 0 7.0 7.2 0 0  220 FARM DATA SET 2:  LIVESTOCK SECTION  page 2  ID info Nos. of Livestock — LSU Farsertlard Soil Cattle Buffalo SheepDucks Other Sub/SPSSt I SaipdBullCCowC CalfCBullBConB CalfBGoats Fowl Pigs Total 47 9 0 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 0 10.6 48 9 0 2 0 2 1 1 0 0 2 0 5.0 4? 9 1 2 0 2 2 0 0 2 20 0 4.4 50 9 1 2 1 0 1 1 X 2 12 0 5.2 51 9 1 4 0 3 2 3 1 3 0 0 10.7 52 9 1 2 5 1 1 3 1 1 0 0 11.1 53 9 1 2 1 0 3 0 1 I 6 0 6.3 54 9 1 4 0 4 4 3 4 3 20 0 13.B 55 9 0 4 5 0 2 5 2 4 16 0 13.0 56 9 0 2 1 0 4 1 1 1 1 1 7.7 57 9 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 3 1 0 4.3 58 3 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 2.7 59 1 1 2 3 0 0 2 2 3 0 0 7.4 60 4 1 2 1 0 0 2 2 7 15 0 5.B 61 4 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 5 15 0 5.0 3 4 1 62 2 1 0 2 1 0 30 0 4.6 63 4 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.4 64 4 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3.0 65 4 2 0 2 2 2 2 1 3 12 0 6.9 66 4 1 J 2 1 0 2 2 6 30 0 7.6 67 4 0 2 0 0 0 2 3 7 0 0 5.5 68 4 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 4.1 69 4 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 3.4 70 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 2.0 71 4 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 3.8 72 4 1 0 1 0 0 3 0 4 2 0 3.8 73 5 4 2 1 0 1 2 1 10 12 0 5.7 74 6 8 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1.0 T 75 4 2 0 0 0 3 0 4 23 0 5.0 4. 76 7 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -I -1 -1 -1.0  Total 10.8 5.0 4.7 5.4 11.0 11.2 6.4 14.2 13.5 7.B 4.6 2.7 7.7 6.6 5.6 5.0 2.4 3.0 7.2 8.3 6.2 4.1 3.5 2.7 3.8 4.2 6.7 -1.0 5.5 -1.0  Use of Livestock — LSU Milk Eggs Heat Hone Oxen BuffaUsed 1/yr 1/LSU l/yr l/fonlkg/yrkg/LSUDnly 2 2 4.4 3600 1000 0 0 0 0 2 0 2.0 1440 554 0 0 0 0 2 0 2.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2.0 1440 267 0 0 0 0 2 o 0 2.0 1440 206 0 0 0 T 0 2.0 1440 379 0 0 0 0 L 4 0 4.0 1800 290 4320 216 0 0 4 0 4.0 360 60 0 0 0 0 2 0 2.0 360 75 0 0 0 0 2 0 2.0 1440 0 800 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 720 400 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 rt 2 0 2.0 1440 0 0 5!« 0 o 2 o 0 2.0 10GO 540 0 0 2 0 2.0 1440 800 2520 0 0 0 2 0 2.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2.0 2160 600 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2.0 1440 379 0 0 0 o o 2 0 2.0 1440 720 0 0 0 0 0.0 1440 400 0 0 0 0 n o 0 0 0.0 1080 415 0 0 0 2 0 2.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.0 720 2 400 180 90 0 0 0 0 0.0 1080 2B4 180 90 0 0 2 0 2.0 900 40 321 480 6 6 -1 -1 -1.0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 "2.0 720 2 240 0 0 20 50 -1 -1 -1.0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1  22 1  FARM DATA SET 3:  CROPPING ROTATIONS  ID info khet rotations FarmWard#Sarapl kcA kdA kfA 1 0 1 2 1 1 1 0.5 3 1 4 1 1 1 0 5 6 1 0 7 1 0 2.7 8 1 0 1 2 9 10 1 1 0.3 0.7 1 4 11 12 1 0 1 13 1 14 1 1 3 4 15 16 3 1 17 3 1 4.7 18 3 1 3 1 19 20 3 1 3 0 21 22 3 0 3 23 0 3 24 1 25 3 0 3 26 0 27 3 0 28 7 0 1.0 7 29 0 7 30 1 7 31 1 7 32 1 7 0 33 34 7 0 7 1 1.0 0.4 35 7 36 1 37 7 1 7 38 0 7 1 39 7 1 40 7 41 0 7 0.2 42 1 7 1 43 7 44 1 7 45 1 7 46 1  page 1  pakho rotations kgA khA kiA kkA paA pcA pdA pfA 1.1 1.9 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.8 0.4 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 5.4 1.7 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.3 1.1 0.2 0.8 0.3 1.0 1.2 0.2 3.5 0.7 0.3 3.4 0.3 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.7 0.6 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.3 0.7 0.8 0.1 2.0 0.7 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.2 1.6 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.3 1.5 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.2 0.8 2.4 0.2 0.2 0.3 3.3 0.7 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.5 2.0 1.7 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.7  LAND phA piA pkA TOTAL 0.1 1.2 2.2 0.7 0.4 0.7 0.1 0.6 3.0 0.1 1.3 1.3 1.3 0.3 8.1 0.7 1.5 0.1 1.4 0.2 6.1 1.0 0.5 8.6 0.4 0.8 0.1 1.4 0.4 1.4 0.1 1.6 0.1 0.6 1.0 1.6 2.7 1.0 0.4 3.2 0.4 0.4 0.2 2.7 0.1 2.7 4.7 0.3 0.4 0.2 5.6 1.5 0.4 1.5 2.9 0.1 0.1 2.4 1.1 0.1 1.0 1.2 0.2 1.6 0.6 0.1 1.5  222 FARM DATA SET 3:  CROPPING ROTATIONS  khet rotations ID info FarmWard#Sampl kcA kdA kfA 47 9 0 48 9 0 9 49 1 50 9 1 9 51 1 52 9 1 9 53 1 9 1 0.2 54 9 55 0 56 9 0 57 9 0 58 3 0 1 59 1 4 60 1 4 2 61 4 62 1 4 1 63 4 64 2 4 65 2 4 66 1 67 4 0 4 0 0.7 68 4 69 70 4 0 0.3 4 0 0.2 71 4 72 1 5 73 4 74 6 8 4 2 75 khet ID info FarmWard#Sainpl kcA 1.2 mean 1.5 stdev min 0.0 4.7 max #far 8 %far 11  rotations kdA kfA 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.4 4 1 5 1  kgA  page 2  khA kiA 1.3  0.3 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 1.3 0.3 1.3 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.7 0.7 1.3 0.7 0.5 0.9 0.7 1.4  pakho rotations kkA paA pcA pdA pfA 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.7 0.9 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.5 2.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.2  0.3 1.0 0.4  khA 0.8 0.5 0.0 2.0 45 60  0.8  kiA 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.4 1 1  0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1  0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1  0.4  0.5  kgA 0.8 1.0 0.0 5.4 26 35  0.1  0.1 0.1  2.0  kkA 1.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 1 1  pakho rotations paA pcA pdA pfA 0.4 0.6 1.2 0.3 0.2 0.8 1.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 3.4 3.5 0.7 27 48 3 4 36 64 4 5  LAND TOTAL 1.9 0.7 0.5 1.3 1.0 1.3 2.0 1.6 1.5 1.8 1.3 0.6 2.2 1.7 1.0 1.4 0.9 0.7 1.7 3.4 2.0 1.4 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.4 1.8 0.3 1.7 5.4 1.7  phA piA 0.1  1.4 0.2  phA 0.2 0.2 0.0 1.4 38 51  piA 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.3 1 1  pkA  pkA 0.9 0.9 0.0 1.7 1 1  LAND TOTAL 1.7 1.6 0.0 8.6 75 100  223  FARM DATA SET 4: CROP YIELDS AND INPUTS  page 1  Note: Data arranged by farmer number S season Abbreviations explained i n Appendix A. Monsoon crop • ID info Inputs kg/ha Yields kg/ha — T o t a l Use of Seed kg/yr Total Use of Residue kg/yr FarmrWard Soil Rotn SeedCompost F e r t i l i z e r Seed Home Nxtyr Sold ExchgResid AnimlFuel Sold Com- Roof /SPSS # SanrpdCodSeaAmouTyp Amt Urea CcmplOtherAverYPoorYGoodYkg/yr Cons Seed Market kg/yr Feed Wood Farmspost Thatct 1 0 kg M 45 0 50 75 0 3330 1850 3700 3660 1480 50 2130 0 1100 1100 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 kh M 110 a 0 7400 5920 8880 14000 3400 200 10400 2 75 75 0 0 3750 3750 0 0 0 0 1 40 0 1690 850 2640 620 620 3 1 kd M 42 0 0 800 780 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 20 a 7500 0 0 400 200 600 3 0 pc M 0 80 75 5 0 0 1250 250 1000 0 0 o' 1 4 0 kh M 40 0 65 0 0 3180 1480 3330 1270 1255 15 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 4 1 0 0 1000 800 1200 0 1 pc M 40 a 9000 0 34 32 2 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 0 0 kg M 45 0 75 75 0 3700 1850 4440 2430 1490 30 960 0 1500 1500 0 0 0 5 1 0 kg M 60 0 0 0 0 1850 925 3150 925 895 30 0 0 0 6 0 1250 1250 0 0 1 0 2410 2100 2960 6500 5000 115 1385 0 0 kb M 42 b 2850 75 150 0 6250 6250 0 0 0 7 1 7 0 pc M 22 b 5000 0 0 0 1330 890 1560 400 393 7 0 0 1500 500 0 0 1000 0 1 0 kh M 0 0 0 2070 890 2370 1760 1715 45 0 0 0 0 0 53 a 1800 0 1250 1250 8 1 0 pc M 23 a 1730 0 0 0 920 770 1080 370 0 0 2250 500 1750 0 0 0 8 10 360 0 1 0 1780 990 2470 890 615 25 250 0 0 0 1 kg M 50 b 5000 50 0 0 1250 1250 9 1 0 0 0 600 400 800 0 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 9 1 pc M 20 b 3750 120 115 5 1 0 0 0 40 b 2880 60 0 2390 1820 3130 720 550 20 150 0 675 675 0 10 0 kd M 0 1 0 2390 1820 3130 0 0 0 0 10 0 kg M 40 b 2880 60 0 480 370 10 100 0 450 450 1 0 0 0 0 2390 1820 3130 965 750 15 200 0 875 875 0 1 kh M 40 b 2880 60 0 10 1 0 300 0 0 300 0 20 b 9380 0 0 0 1500 750 2000 450 0 6 444 0 10 0 pc M 1 -1 -1 7500 5000 0 2500 0 0 2 kb M 55 0 0 0 0 2780 1110 2960 15000 -1 -1 11 1 0 750 0 0 0 0 0 2780 1110 2960 1950 -1 -1 -1 -1 750 0 11 2 kd M 55 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 0 0 0 320 240 400 550 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 pc M 20 a 3750 11 1 0 2320 1690 3700 1160 1135 25 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 12 0 kh M 48 0 110 215 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1200 800 1600 240 236 4 0 0 500 500 0 0 pa M 20 a 6250 0 12 0 1 0 kh M 27 0 0 1120 450 1340 1230 1230 0 0 0 1250 1250 0 0 0 13 0 45 1 0 0 0 75 0 13 1 pb M 17 a 80 0 0 500 300 670 50 48 2 0 275 200 0 0 0 500 300 670 150 133 17 0 0 13 1 0 pc M 80 0 0 0 850 550 0 300 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3000 3000 14 1 kh M 75 0 60 60 0 3670 -1 -1 3100 2040 60 1000 0 550 275 0 0 275 0 14 1 0 pc M 19 a 4170 0 0 0 2080 -1 -1 625 310 5 310 0 0 0 0 0 50 2950 0 3000 3000 0 kg M 50 0 150 0 0 3000 -1 -1 3000 15 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3000 1500 -1 4500 4450 50 0 2000 2000 15 3 1 kh M 34 0 150 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 -1 -1 0 2250 -1 -1 1800 0 15 1785 15 3 1 pd M 18 a 9999 60 0 55 55 0 50 6025 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 15 3 2 pe M 18 0 0 2250 -1 -1 6075 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 44 0 2960 1850 3700 2070 2040 30 16 3 0 kh M 0 75 150 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 520 515 5 0 16 3 1 pc M 20 b 7030 0 0 0 1750 1250 2500 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 17 1 kc M 52 b 1090 75 75 0 2220 1480 2960 10430 5000 250 4080 1100 3 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 0 17 0 pc M 20 b 380 0 0 800 400 2000 2720 1020 70 1630 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 600 600 0 0 0 0 1640 1320 1970 490 470 20 18 3 0 kg M 65 0 0 0 0 0 250 125 125 0 0 5 18 1 pc M 20 a 1200 0 600 400 800 120 115 3 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 1 kh M 74 0 25 0 0 1850 740 2590 1300 1245 55 19 3 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 75 70 5 0 0 pc M 20 b 5620 0 0 19 3 0 750 400 1000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1000 ,1000 75 75 20 1 kh M 60 0 0 2220 1850 29G0 1550 1505 45 3 0 0 375 0 0 1500; 750 375 0 630 665 15 20 3 0 pc M 25 a 4140 0 0 1230 1060 1760 -1 -1 250C 2500 0 0 0 0 0 kg M 75 0 100 200 0 1970 1110 2470 1970 -1 -1 21 3 0 1500 1500 0 0 0 0 38 0 40 500 22 0 kg M 0 0 0 1730 1230 1970 1730 1190 3  224  FARM DATA SET 4: CROP YIHXS AND INPUTS page 2 Monsoon crop ID info Inputs kg/ha Yields kg/ha — T o t a l Use of Seed kg/yr Total Use of Residue kg/yr FarmrWard S o i l Rotn SeedCompost F e r t i l i z e r Seed Home Nxtyr Sold ExchgResid AnimlFuel Sold Com- Roof /SPSS # SampdCodSeaAiTciUTyp Amt Urea CcmplOtherAverYPoorYGoodYkg/yr Cons Seed Market kg/yr Feed Wood Farmspost Thatch 22 3 0 pc M 20 a 1500 0 0 0 800 660 1070 400 390 10 0 0 375 175 0 0 200 0 23 0 pc M 26 a 2000 0 0 3 0 1200 400 1400 600 585 15 0 0 700 300 0 0 400 0 1 kg M 45 24 3 0 40 75 0 1480 740 2220 1040 1005 0 35 0 1625 1625 0 0 0 0 24 0 pc M 20 b 0 0 0 3 211 0 1100 440 1780 235 225 10 0 1250 250 0 0 1000 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 25 3 0 kg M 55 0 150 115 0 5180 2220 3700 3630 900 40 2690 0 25 3 0 kh M 55 0 120 90 0 2370 1185 2960 2010 1800 50 160 0 1750 1750 0 0 0 0 0 kh M 74 26 0 75 75 0 1480 740 2220 2960 2710 150 0 100 1875 1875 0 0 0 3 0 0 pc M 25 b 3800 26 0 0 0 600 200 800 420 200 20 200 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 3 0 kg M 65 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 27 0 0 70 0 3380 2110 4650 780 500 15 265 0 3 27 0 pc M 20 b 7000 0 0 5 395 3 0 2000 800 3200 400 0 0 600 600 0 0 0 0 7 0 kc M 33 28 0 30 75 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 1900 1230 2220 1900 1875 25 28 7 0 pb M 40 0 0 6 130 0 250 250 0 0 0 0 800 400 1200 136 0 0 0 7 0 28 0 pc M 47 0 0 0 0 1250 1250 0 0 0 0 0 1750 1250 2500 2450 2400 50 29 7 0 kh M 20 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 2450 1835 3750 810 803 0 250 250 0 0 0 7 0 pb M 600 a 1785 0 300 0 0 480 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 29 0 6860 22B5 9140 480 7 0 kh M 74 30 0 60 0 0 0 500 500 0 0 0 1970 1480 2220 3945 3925 20 0 0 1 pa M 19 b 4688 2 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 30 7 0 0 0 1000 500 2000 200 198 0 0 31 7 0 kh M 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1480 1110 2220 990 990 0 0 500 500 0 7 0 pa M 20 b 3750 0 31 0 0 0 1800 1500 2000 900 615 15 270 0 300 50 0 0 250 31 7 1 pc M 22 b 3330 0 200 0 1000 0 0 1800 1500 2000 2700 2395 35 270 0 1200 200 0 0 32 7 0 kg M 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1700 1980 2220 1700 240 100 1360 0 4500 0 kh M 37 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 32 7 0 0 0 1700 1480 2220 1700 240 100 1360 0 0 7 1 pa M 22 a 8330 0 0 0 1250 625 625 0 0 32 0 780 330 1000 470 0 15 455 0 kg M 25 3 0 0 0 33 7 0 100 70 0 1973 1480 2960 197 194 0 100 100 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 7 0 pc M 18 b 3200 0 0 0 0 33 0 420 240 700 1010 940 70 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 34 7 0 kh M 74 0 0 0 48 0 0 1480 890 1480 250 235 15 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 7 0 pa M 34 b 5000 40 5 0 0 34 0 0 1665 1330 2000 330 325 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 35 7 0 kc M 25 b 0 500 20 0 1970 1450 2220 2000 2000 7 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 35 1 pc M 36 b 760 0 0 2725 2180 28G5 10090 6865 135 3090 0 0 500 36 7 0 0 0 0 1250 250 500 0 kg M 20 b 2280 0 800 200 800 560 536 24 0 0 375 0 0 1500 625 500 36 7 1 pc M 33 b 1875 0 0 0 1500 665 1665 1200 1175 25 0 0 0 37 7 1 0 0 300 300 0 1 kh M 74 0 30 30 0 1775 590 2370 355 354 4 0 0 500 0 37 7 0 pa M 37 b 9999 0 0 0 0 750 250 0 2000 500 2500 200 196 37 3 0 0 375 125 0 0 250 0 7 0 pc M 31 b 3750 0 0 0 1000 500 2000 100 97 0 0 0 0 0 375 0 375 0 kh M 20 a 5000 0 38 7 0 0 1330 1600 2665 1000 990 10 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 750 750 0 38 0 pa M 16 a 3000 0 0 1200 1120 1600 0 750 0 0 0 750 0 0 38 7 0 pc M 16 a 3000 0 0 0 1280 1120 1600 1085 1070 15 0 0 0 0 250 3750 3750 0 7 1 kh M 37 0 1725 230 2220 3505 3160 95 39 0 35 75 0 400 0 0 0 400 0 0 7 0 pb M 24 b 1500 0 0 1280 800 1760 435 2B0 10 145 39 0 0 0 650 0 0 650 7 0 pc M 24 b 1500 0 0 0 1280 800 1760 650 420 10 220 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 3750 3750 1 kh M 44 0 40 7 0 75 0 1775 1185 2960 3020 2945 75 0 1500 0 0 0 1750 250 0 7 0 pa M 18 b 4112 0 0 0 705 235 940 410 400 10 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 1250 1250 0 kh M 100 0 70 15 0 1850 1110 2220 1300 1250 50 41 7 0 0 875 0 0 10 600 0 1500 625 0 pa M 17 0 0 0 1530 510 2040 610 41 7 3750 0 0 0 0 0 0 375 375 7 0 ke M 80 0 1775 590 2370 285 273 12 42 0 30 60 0 1875 0 0 0 0 15 0 795 2125 250 7 1 pa M 30 0 0 0 1500 625 2000 810 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 325 325 0 pg M 50 b 3010 0 0 0 2080 625 2915 500 488 12 42 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1125 1125 0 kh M 30 43 7 0 30 60 0 1500 800 2200 750 735 15 0 1500 500 0 0 1000 0 0 0 1 pa M 20 b 3690 0 1200 400 2000 815 460 15 340 7 43 0 400 0 0 0 0 0 400 0 35 0 2960 2220 3700 2000 1975 25 44 7 0 kh M 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 1000 1000 0 0 0 1140 570 1470 800 280 20 500 7 1 pa M 25 0 44  225  FARM DATA SET 4: CROP YIELDS AND INPUTS page 3 Monsoon crop ID info Inputs kg/ha Yields kg/ha — T o t a l Use of Seed kg/yr Total Use of Residue kg/yr FannrWard Soil Rotn SeedCompost F e r t i l i z e r Seed Home Nxtyr Sold ExciigResid AnimlFuel Sold Com- Roof /SPSS # SampaCodSeaAmouTyp Amt Urea CtorrtplOtherAverYPoorYGoo3Ykg/yr Cons Seed Market kg/yr Feed Wood Farmspost Thatch 0 1260 590 1185 0 0 0 45 7 0 kh M 90 60 300 290 270 20 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 45 7 1 pa M 27 a 0 0 1090 730 1450 150 146 4 0 80 0 0 105 105 0 0 0 0 46 7 40 0 2330 1330 3000 1750 1150 600 0 0 kh M 0 65 0 0 750 750 0 0 0 0 46 7 1 pa M 23 b 2140 0 0 1200 500 1500 840 415 15 410 0 0 1750 0 0 1750 0 0 47 0 kh M 30 b 70 0 0 890 570 1470 1250 0 40 1210 0 2000 2000 0 9 0 0 0 0 47 9 0 pa M 23 0 0 0 1090 550 1640 545 265 10 270 0 1000 500 0 0 0 500 0 48 9 0 kg M 60 0 0 3670 3000 5000 1100 1080 20 0 75 150 0 1500 1500 0 0 0 0 48 0 pa M 18 b 6250 9 0 0 0 1700 850 2040 680 0 10 670 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 49 9 0 kh M 35 0 60 0 0 3120 1250 3750 1250 1235 15 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 1 pc M 25 b 9999 0 0 2040 1020 2720 49 9 0 100 100 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 50 9 0 kh M 30 b 5360 30 0 0 3570 1470 4430 2500 2460 40 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 50 1 pc M 25 b 5360 0 0 3570 1430 4430 1780 1765 15 0 9 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 1850 740 2220 1110 1090 20 0 51 0 kh M 30 0 40 40 0 0 1250 1250 0 0 9 0 51 1 pa M 30 b 8330 0 0 1200 600 1400 360 280 10 70 300 50 0 250 9 0 0 0 0 0 kh M 37 0 3700 2590 4440 2500 2400 100 0 0 52 9 0 110 0 0 1250 1250 0 0 0 1 pa M 20 b 2140 0 0 2270 910 2830 1360 340 15 1005 0 2000 500 0 1500 0 52 9 0 0 0 0 kg M 37 0 0 1700 1330 2960 2310 1810 250 250 0 4000 4000 0 0 53 9 75 75 0 0 kh M 37 0 1700 1330 2960 2310 1810 250 250 0 4000 4000 0 0 0 53 9 0 75 75 0 1 pc M 22 b 1710 0 1780 890 2220 1068 578 14 476 0 0 1000 0 53 9 0 0 2000 1000 0 9 0 kg M 28 0 70 70 0 2220 1480 2590 440 435 5 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 54 1 kh M 28 0 2220 1480 2590 1550 1530 20 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 54 9 0 70 70 0 0 500 200 700 2 0 125 50 0 75 0 0 pa M 20 b 1780 0 50 48 0 0 54 9 0 0 0 500 200 0 300 0 pc M 20 b 1780 0 0 500 200 700 300 288 12 0 0 54 9 0 0 2220 1480 2960 2000 1890 30 0 800 325 0 475 0 55 9 0 kg M 35 a 35 70 0 80 0 0 450 175 0 0 275 0 0 2220 1400 2960 1110 1070 20 20 0 kh M 35 b 35 35 70 55 9 5 130 0 250 50 0 200 0 0 pc M 25 a 2500 0 0 680 340 1020 135 0 0 9 0 55 0 0 1500 1500 0 0 0 0 2960 1480 3700 3850 3785 65 0 0 9 0 kh M 35 b 285 0 56 0 0 2220 1110 2590 1555 1525 30 0 0 750 750 0 0 0 0 57 9 0 kg M 43 0 0 0 0 875 375 0 0 500 0 pa M 29 b 6250 0 0 0 1090 410 1360 545 340 15 190 57 9 0 625 625 0 0 0 kg M 80 0 0 0 0 1500 1200 2000 750 710 40 0 0 0 58 3 70 69 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 pc M 25 b 500 0 1 3 0 0 2040 1360 2720 58 0 0 kg M 40 0 75 150 0 540 540 0 0 0 1 0 2220 1400 2590 1100 900 20 180 59 0 0 0 0 960 960 0 0 kh M 40 0 75 150 0 2220 1400 2590 2000 1645 35 320 1 59 0 2200 400 0 1800 0 0 0 15 1075 0 1 1 pa M 18 a 3380 0 0 1550 280 1840 3090 59 0 0 1500 1500 0 0 0 0 0 kg M 74 0 75 300 0 1480 740 2220 1000 930 70 4 60 0 2250 500 0 1750 0 0 0 0 60 4 1 pc M 14 a 1340 0 0 1070 640 1290 1010 995 15 0 1750 0 0 1750 0 0 0 4 2 kh M 40 0 20 70 0 2020 1010 2350 1410 1370 40 61 0 0 3300 300 0 0 3000 0 5 270 61 4 0 pc M 20 a 4500 0 0 0 1600 800 200 275 0 0 0 0 0 200 5625 5625 4 1 kh M 78 0 40 120 0 3115 1560 3890 3990 3650 140 62 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 4 0 kg M 55 b 5625 75 75 0 1330 1040 1480 840 770 70 63 7 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 4 1 pc M 33 b 1875 0 0 0 2000 1330 3000 400 393 63 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 4 0 kg M 102 0 0 0 4760 2040 5440 2380 2330 50 64 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 4 1 pc M 33 b 7500 0 0 0 520 310 530 340 330 10 64 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 0 kh M 78 0 30 90 0 1860 1240 2480 1580 1510 70 4 65 0 0 0 0 500 500 0 0 0 pc M 20 b 3750 0 0 340 200 490 240 225 15 4 0 65 0 0 0 0 250 250 0 0 2 pd M 30 a 2500 0 0 2000 1000 3000 1000 985 15 4 0 65 0 2000 2000 0 0 0 0 4 0 kh M 56 0 75 150 0 3061 1530 4080 2030 1300 50 680 66 0 0 375 0 0 750 375 4 1 pc M 13 a 2220 0 0 0 789 657 1053 2030 600 70 1360 66 0 0 1500 1500 0 0 0 0 0 kh M 102 0 75 0 4 0 1020 765 5100 1360 1225 135 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 250 250 0 4 0 pc M 20 a 2500 0 0 1220 680 1630 612 600 12 67 27 0 0 0 0 0 625 625 0 4 0 kc M 40 0 110 0 0 1480 740 2220 1039 1012 68 0 1250 0 0 1750 500 0 750 405 5 340 0 0 0 1230 990 1640 68 4 0 DC M 11 a 8330  226  FARM DATA SET 4: CROP YIELDS AND INPUTS page 4 Monsoon crop ™ • ID info Inputs kg/ha Yields kg/ha — T o t a l Use of Seed kg/yr Total Use of Residue kg/yr FarmrWard Soil Rotn SeedCompo3t F e r t i l i z e r Seed Home Nxtyr Sold ExchgResid AnimlFuel Sold Com- Roof /SPSS # SampdCodSeaAnouTyp Amt Urea ComplOtherAverYPoorYGoodYkg/yr Cons Seed Market kg/yr Feed Wood Farmspost Thatcl 0 0 0 1540 1270 2220 5076 5069 7 0 0 1250 250 0 0 1000 0 4 0 P= M 15 a 5770 69 0 750 750 0 0 0 0 2450 2040 4080 810 800 10 0 0 0 70 4 0 kc M 20 0 0 0 20 20 0 250 250 0 71 4 0 kc M 78 0 1940 1603 3100 560 540 20 0 0 0 0 71 4 0 0 0 1850 920 2460 410 405 0 1250 250 0 0 PC M 30 a 9999 5 0 0 1000 0 4 0 0 0 0 2040 1630 2450 610 580 30 0 300 300 72 1 kh M 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 250 50 0 4370 2910 5100 4370 4300 70 0 0 1000 1000 0 0 0 73 5 0 kh M 70 0 0 15 125 0 0 6250 6250 0 73 5 3 k i M 75 0 2040 1020 3060 815 785 30 0 0 0 0 250 73 5 1 PC M 25 b 3100 0 0 0 1530 1020 2040 610 300 10 150 150 1250 1000 0 0 6 0 0 0 180 2600 0 1500 1500 0 0 0 0 74 0 kk M 60 0 3750 5200 2500 85 2615 6 0 0 74 5 Pi M 60 0 0 2650 0 3750 5300 -1 - 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 6 0 0 210 1110 0 375 375 0 0 0 0 74 3 pk M 30 c 1920 0 1480 1500 550 40 910 4 75 0 kh M 24 a 3500 0 0 0 1200 400 1500 600 588 12 0 0 1125 1125 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 Pd M 35 a 4500 0 0 0 0 75 0 1500 800 2000 1275 1245 30 0 0 1250 1250 7 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 76 1 PC -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 total 67 +lgr  227 FARM DATA SET 4:  CROP YIELOS AND INPUTS  page 5  Second crop (winter crop or monsoon relayed crop) ID info Inputs kg/ha Yields kg/ha — T o t a l Use of Seed kg/yr —TotalUse of Residue kg/yr FarmrRotn Seed Compost F e r t i l i z e r Seed Home NxtyrSold F^cihgResidAnimlFuel Sold Com- Roof /SPSSCode SeasoAmounType Amt Urea ComplOtherAverYPoorYGoodYkg/yr Cons Seed Marke kg/yrFeed Wood Farmspost Thatc 1 kg W 100 a 3800 0 75 0 2000 1000 2500 2200 70 110 2020 0 1100 550 0 0 0 550 2 kh W 10 a 2200 100 150 0 600 300 1200 1140 200 20 920 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 3 kd W 7a 2680 40 0 0 130 65 130 60 57 3 0 0 100 50 0 0 50 0 3 P= W 16 0 0 0 0 1000 500 1500 200 195 5 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 4 kh W 70 a 2660 60 0 0 1480 740 1800 590 460 30 100 38 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 4 P= W 10 a 9000 0 0 0 410 330 570 14 13 0 1 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 5 kg W 110 a 3800 38 150 0 1500 500 2200 1010 200 70 740 0 1500 1000 0 0 0 500 6 kg W 125 0 100 200 0 1880 750 2750 940 875 65 0 0 625 0 0 0 0 625 7 kb W 100 b 1900 75 150 0 1500 1250 2000 4050 270 270 3510 0 3750 1250 0 0 0 2500 7 P= W 27 b 5000 0 330 0 670 370 830 200 192 8 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 8 kh W 7a 1800 0 0 0 130 65 196 110 104 6 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 20 a 8 P= W 1730 0 0 0 230 115 460 100 92 8 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 9 kg W 100 b 5000 50 0 0 800 670 1070 400 210 50 140 0 1250 0 0 0 1250 0 9 P= W 18 b 3750 0 0 0 150 120 180 30 27 0 3 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 10 kd w 8 0 0 0 0 670 -1 1000 200 100 2 98 0 175 175 0 0 85 0 10 kg w 23 b 3460 15 15 0 1670 1000 2670 330 210 20 100 0 300 0 0 300 0 0 10 kh w 5b 3460 30 60 0 500 250 750 200 150 5 45 0 300 300 0 0 500 0 10 PC w 8b 9380 0 0 0 640 430 860 210 0 0 3 207 0 0 0 0 180 0 11 kb w 100 0 150 300 75 2500 1250 3000 13500 -1 -1 -1 -1 5000 0 0 0 3750 1250 11 ke w 18 0 0 0 0 450 300 600 310 -1 -1 -1 -1 7500 0 0 7500 0 0 17 11 pc w 0 300 180 105 400 180 600 820 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 12 kh w 6 0 0 170 0 210 110 430 110 105 5 0 0 0 200 0 0 200 0 12 pa w 400 0 125 500 0 2000 1500 2500 400 400 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 13 kh w 7 0 0 0 0 180 90 270 200 200 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 13 Pb w 600 0 0 0 0 5600 2400 6400 560 160 0 400 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 7 13 PC w 0 0 0 0 330 170 660 100 100 0 0 0 500 0 0 0 500 0 14 kh w 10 a 156 60 120 0 625 -1 -1 500 90 10 400 0 200 0 0 0 200 0 14 P= w 10 a 30 30 0 0 670 -1 -1 200 0 5 195 0 75 0 0 0 75 0 15 kg w 80 0 50 150 50 3000 -1 -1 3000 0 80 2920 0 750 750 0 0 0 0 15 kh w 12 0 65 125 65 900 300 -1 1350 0 20 1330 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 15 Pd w 10 0 0 0 0 150 -1 -1 120 0 10 110 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 15 PS w 38 0 0 0 0 750 -1 -1 2025 0 100 1925 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 16 kh w 16 0 75 150 0 600 375 900 420 100 15 305 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 16 PC w 15 0 95 190 0 750 560 1120 225 220 0 5 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 17 kc w 16 b 1090 40 150 0 600 450 1070 2320 500 75 2245 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 17 P= w 16 b 270 75 150 0 750 600 1350 2550 0 55 2495 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 18 kg w 88 a 3750 170 170 0 1560 1330 1780 470 100 30 340 0 400 0 0 0 400 18 PC w 18 0 0 30 0 360 240 600 70 65 5 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 19 kh w 16 0 40 110 0 150 75 300 105 90 15 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 15 b 5620 60 120 19 P= w 7 0 80 40 110 8 0 1 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 20 kh w 18 0 75 75 0 450 300 600 315 300 15 0 0 0 200 0 0 200 0 16 20 PC w 0 90 90 0 530 350 710 290 280 10 0 0 0 200 0 0 200 0 21 kg w 100 b 2500 150 200 0 1670 1330 2000 1670 -1 -1 -1 -1 1250 625 0 625 0 0 22 kg w 85 0 50 100 0 1670 1330 2010 1670 585 85 1000 0 0 1250 0 1250 0 0  228 FARM DATA SET 4: CROP YIELDS AND INPUTS page 6 Second crop (winter crop or monsoon relayed crop) ID info Inputs kg/ha Yields kg/ha — T o t a l Use of Seed kg/yr —TotalUse of Residue kg/yr FarmrRotn Seed Compost F e r t i l i z e r Seed Home NxtyrSold ExchgResidAnimlFuel Sold Com- Roof /SPSSCode SeasoAmounType Amt Urea CcmplCtterAverYPoorYGoodYkg/yr Cons Seed Marke kg/yrFeod Wood Farmspost Thatch 22 PC W 12 0 100 200 0 400 200 600 200 195 5 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 23 PC W 18 0 20 20 0 1000 0 0 500 90 10 0 400 750 750 0 0 0 0 kg W 24 100 0 0 0 1000 500 1500 0 700 630 0 70 0 1750 750 0 0 1000 0 24 PC W 10 b 70 140 0 330 165 660 0 100 95 5 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 kg 25 W 90 0 75 150 0 1200 800 1600 840 250 70 520 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 25 W kh 6 0 60 120 0 480 240 600 410 200 10 200 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 kh W 17 26 0 0 600 100 750 1200 200 75 75 35 965 0 500 500 0 0 0 0 W 17 26 P= 0 75 75 0 600 150 750 400 12 388 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 27 kg W 100 0 35 0 2570 860 3430 65 25 425 590 140 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 27 W 15 0 48 48 0 300 150 600 PC 60 0 5 55 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 W 28 kc 15 b 3800 30 150 0 350 300 400 350 100 25 225 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 W 28 Pb 600 b 7500 60 360 0 5650 3760 9410 960 240 0 720 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 28 PC W 38 b 1875 38 225 0 450 225 525 630 0 50 580 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 29 kh 13 0 0 0 4500 225 6000 1500 495 w 30 5 1000 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 29 25 0 0 0 0 2000 1000 3000 140 138 2 0 Pb w 0 50 0 50 0 0 0 30 kh 7 0 0 0 0 250 75 500 50 1 w 49 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 600 30 pa w 0 30 30 0 6000 300 9999 1200 1120 80 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 16 0 31 kh w 40 0 450 150 600 0 300 200 0 100 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 480 b 6000 31 pa 0 0 0 9600 7200 9999 6400 1600 w 0 4800 0 50 0 0 0 50 0 31 PC 13 b 2500 80 0 530 500 665 w 0 795 0 795 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 32 kg w 100 a 650 75 0 600 500 750 75 600 400 200 0 0 4000 0 0 0 0 4000 32 kh 17 0 25 100 0 1600 500 750 1600 100 w 40 1460 0 625 0 0 0 625 0 32 534 a 8330 w 80 170 0 7840 3920 9999 4700 400 320 3980 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 pa kg 33 100 0 60 0 1330 670 2000 w 90 133 123 10 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 10 33 w 0 25 75 0 310 210 470 745 100 35 610 0 -1 -1 PC -1 -1 -1 -1 34 kh 12 0 w 0 0 0 985 490 1310 170 168 2 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 34 pa 400 0 0 0 8000 6000 9999 1600 1600 w 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 35 kc 11 0 0 750 0 1000 800 1500 1020 w 40 0 980 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 35 41 11 b 0 0 810 410 1090 3030 300 w 0 PC 40 2690 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 36 kg 110 b 2280 75 0 750 300 1200 75 w 525 450 75 0 0 500 250 0 0 250 0 17 b 36 PC 1250 60 125 0 625 250 750 w 500 200 15 295 0 -] -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 37 kh 33 0 30 0 600 300 1200 w 30 120 115 5 0 0 500 0 0 500 0 0 37 w 600 0 40 0 9000 6000 9999 50 pa 900 80 0 820 0 250 250 0 0 0 0 37 PC 15 0 0 0 450 150 600 45 45 w 43 2 0 0 375 0 0 0 375 0 38 kh 11 0 30 100 w 0 400 200 600 6 300 294 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 30 pa 750 a 300 0 7500 6000 9999 5085 100 500 4405 75 75 w 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 38 PC 14 a 60 12 60 0 360 240 490 w 305 25 280 0 200 0 0 0 0 200 0 39 kh 16 w 0 35 0 300 150 900 -1 75 610 100 510 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 39 pb 600 b w 1875 0 300 0 7200 3600 9600 2440 160 -1 0 2280 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 39 PC 16 b w 1250 40 0 600 150 600 -1 0 305 200 0 105 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 40 kh 11 0 w 0 0 0 240 120 360 410 100 20 290 -1 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 40 706 w 0 0 175 0 8470 4235 9999 4910 410 410 4090 -1 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 PQ 41 kh 16 0 140 w 35 0 430 215 570 300 100 10 190 0 625 0 0 0 625 0 41 pa 600 0 w 0 125 0 7000 2000 8000 2800 320 0 2480 0 1500 625 0 0 875 0 42 ke 5 w 0 0 0 0 340 190 470 55 54 1 0 0 55 0 0 55 0 0 42 590 0 0 185 w 0 7400 0 9999 4000 400 0 3600 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 Pa 42 12 0 0 150 0 625 415 830 150 147 0 -1 w 3 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 pg 43 kh 16 w 0 30 100 0 500 200 600 250 100 10 140 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 43 Pa w 600 0 20 150 0 3000 3600 9600 2035 320 -1 0 1715 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 44 kh 10 0 0 430 285 570 w 0 70 300 100 0 200 0 150 0 150 0 0 0 44 570 b 9990 0 0 8110 740 9999 5500 300 -1 w 0 0 5200 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 pa  FARM DATA SET 4:  CROP YIELDS AND INPUTS  page 7  Second c r o p (winter c r o p o r monsoon r e l a y e d crop) ID i n f o  Inputs kg/ha  FarmrRotn  Seed Compost  /SPSSCode SeasoAmounType  Y i e l d s kg/ha — T o t a l Use o f Seed kg/yr — T o t a l U s e o f Residue kg/yr Fertilizer  Seed Home N x t y r S o l d ExchgResidAnimlFuel S o l d Com- Roof  Amt Urea ComplOtherAverYPoorYtkxdYkg/yr Cons Seed Marke  kg/yrFced Wood Farmspost Thatch  45  kh  W  20  0  20  100  0  500  80  30  5  45  0  100  100  0  0  0  0  45  pa kh  W  600  0  30  135  0 8000 2280 9999  1120  160  0  960  0  -1  -1  -1  -1  -1  W  130  0  0  130  6  -1  10  190  0 1500  pa kh  W  570  0  0  0  46 46 47 47 48 48 49 49 50 50 51 51 52 52  140  70  140  300  200  150  150  0  0  0 8000 5600 9600  4000  400  W  220  0  50  300  0 2720 1810 3400  820  65  pa kh  W  500  0  125  125  0 8181 8750 9999  3000  0  W  13  0  60  35  0  250  125  325  100  W  20 b  9999  0  0  0  380  110  550  20  W  20 b  5360  0  30  0  290  150  370  W  30 b  5625  24  0  0  375  150  450  0  250  170  P= kh P= kh pa kh  54  PC kg  54  kh  54  pa  54 55  PC kg  55  kh  55  PC  56  kh  57  kg  57  pa kg  59  PC kg  59  kh  59  pa kg  61  P= kh  62  P= kh  63  kg  63  PC kg  64 64 65  P= kh  65  PC  65  pa  66  kh  66  PC kh  67 67 68 68  320  12 b  kh  61  100  640 b  53  60  300 6400  W  53  60  400 130 530 0 9140 4570 9999  W  pa kg  58  60  pa kg  53  58  350  P= kc PC  W  4  W  530 b  W  12  0  150  110  0  -1  -1  -1  0 1500  0  -1  -1  33  0  -1  -1  -1  -1  -1  -1  0 3600  0  125  0  0  0  125  0  0 1120  560  0  0  560  0  75  680  -1  -1  -1  -1  -1  -1  95  5  0  0  -1  -1  -1  -1  -1  -1  20  0  0  0  -1  -1  -1  -1  -1  -1  215  50  15  150  0  -1  -1  -1  -1  -1  -1  180  100  15  65  0  -1  -1  -1  -1  -1  -1  100  0  40  40  500  150  0  0  0 9300 2670 9990  2800  0  0  0  0  280  0  -1  0  0  140  17  0  0 3000  8330  215  0 6080  150  20  30  0  750  0  0  0  750  80 2720  0  0  625  625  0  0  0  0  10  40  0  -1  -1  -1  -1  -1  -1  0  -1  -1  -1  -1  -1  -1  0 1000  0  0  0  100  W  80  0  0  0  0 8000 4000 9999  4900  160  w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w  100 a  2470  0  0  0 2000 1200 2500  1360  410  70  16 b  1140  40  75  0  225  150  300  155  145  10  0  0  250  0  0  0  250  18 b  2470  0  83  0  450  300  600  270  200  10  60  0  500  200  0  0  300  0  100 b  9990  70  140  0 2500 1500 3000  500  135  20  345  0  800  125  0  275  0  400  0  80  0 4640 880  0 1000 0  0  40  70  200  100  -1  -1  -1  -1  -1  -1  1780  140  210  0 9999 9140 9999 10400  160  0 100 60 *****  0  570 b  0  -1  -1  -1  -1  -1  -1  16 b  1780  70  140  0  430  215  645  260  100  10  150  0  -1  -1  -1  -1  -1  -1  65 a  715  110  110  0  900  400 1000  1225  680  90  455  0  800  50  0  0  0  750  17 b  3000  0  100  0  400  200  600  200  0  10  190  0  250  0  0  0  250  0  14 a  1250  125  125  0  375  250  500  75  72  3  0  0  100  0  0  0  100  0  0  0  235  0  150  115  300  150  50  0  100  0  -1  -1  -1  -1  -1  -1  80  290  0 1000  500  0  0  500  0  0  0  0  375  0 250  16 116  290  140  290  0  145  215  0 1500  800 2000  1050  680  3750  100  300  0 5600 3200 6400  2300  160  100  0  100  100  0 1090  7  0  20  20  100  0  100  960 b  480 2160  0  375  950 1360 240 400  545  155  50  340  0  250  0  0  0  0  300  15  15  0  0  0  -1  -1  -1  -1  -1  -1  300  0 1200  400 1600  600  140  50  410  0  500  0  0  0  0  500  0  220  10  300  0  -1  -1  -1  -1 -1  -1  0  -1 -1  -1  320 2630  -1  -1 -1  0  10  0  55  110  435  0  0  75  440  100  0  200  290  0 1200  800 2000  805  0  70  735  0  500  0  0  0  0  500  55  215  0  640  430  750  600  150  10  440  0  -1  -1  -1  20  140  0  545  270  820  400  100  0  300  0  -1  -1  -1  -1 -1  -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1  880  400  90  0 4570 1000 5450  3270  320  11  0  12  0  30  60  0  600  300 1200  100  0  5  95  0  -1  -1  -1  13  0  40  120  0  800  470 1180  1000  200  20  780  0  -1  -1  -1  3750  75  75  0  500  300  700  260  260  0  0  0  -1  -1  -1  10  0  0  0  0  440  370  740  90  88  2  0  0  102  0  0  0  0 2180 1090 2710  1090 1090 1040  50  0  -1 -1  -1 -1  -1 -1  -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1  10  0  0  0  0  500  375  750  100  98  2  0  0  -1  -1  -1  -1  -1  13  0  30  120  0  300  200  400  255  150  15  90  0  625  0  0  0  625  0  16  0  28  107  0  235  140  420  200  0  10  190  0  525  0  0  0  525  0  8  0  0  0  0  180  120  240  90  20  4  66  0  20  20  0  0  0  0  15  0  75  150  0  300  450  600  200  100  0  100  0  -1  -1  -1  -1  -1  -1 -1  9  100 b  -1 -1 -1  -1 -1  5  0  0  60  0  240  320  395  600  0  12  588  0  -1  -1  -1  -1  -1  17  0  75  0  0  600  300  800  800  200  22  578  0  -1  -1  -1  -1  -1  -1  20  0  30  150  0  600  200 1000  300  100  10  190  0  -1  -1  -1  -1  -1  -1  123 16  0 0  50 80  150  0  600  300  100  10  190  0  -1  -1  -1  -1  -1  -1  0  450 500  300  170  330  670  300  0  10  290  0  -1  -1  -1  -1  -1  -1  230  FARM DATA SET 4: CROP YIELDS AND INPUTS page B Second crop (winter crop or monsoon relayed crop) ID info Inputs kg/ha Yields kg/ha — T o t a l FarmrRotn Seed Compost F e r t i l i z e r Seed /SPSSCode SeasoAtnounType Amt Urea CbmplOtherAverYPoorYGoodYkg/yr 69 P= W 27 0 0 0 0 460 230 690 200 70 kc W 24 0 75 150 0 600 300 900 198 71 kc w 17 0 110 90 0 220 110 930 50 71 PC w 14 0 20 90 0 460 230 520 100 72 kh w 12 0 150 0 0 790 390 1180 240 73 kh w 7 0 25 50 0 660 430 1070 860 w 73 k i e 0 25 125 0 600 450 750 240 73 P= w 6 b 0 60 12 0 600 450 600 240 74 kk w 80 0 0 0 180 1180 0 1770 400 74 P i w 120 0 0 0 180 1180 0 1760 400 w 74 P k 20 c 0 1920 0 0 300 0 420 500 75 kh w 12 0 50 100 0 300 150 360 150 w 75 P d 8 0 0 0 0 235 150 265 200 76 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1  Use of Seed kg/yr —TotalUse of Residue kg/yr Home NxtyrSold ExchgResidAnimlFuel Sold Com- Roof Cons Seed Marke kg/yrFeed Wood Farmspost Thatch 100 10 90 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 8 190 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 5 30 15 0 250 0 0 0 250 0 50 5 45 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 40 0 200 0 200 0 0 0 200 0 7 853 0 0 300 300 0 0 0 0 0 10 230 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 3 87 150 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 400 0 0 0 150 150 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 265 35 200 0 625 625 0 0 0 0 138 12 0 0 375 0 0 0 375 0 7 168 25 0 3125 3125 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1  23 1  FARM DATA SET 4:  ID info FarmrRotn /SPSSCode 1 kg 2 kh 3 3 4 kh 4 5 kg 6 kg 7 7 8 kh 8 9 kg 9 10 kd 10 kg 10 kh 10 11 11 ke 11 12 kh 12 pa 13 kh 13 13 14 kh 14 15 kg 15 kh 15 Pd 15 pe 16 kh 16 17 17 18 kg 18 19 kh 19 20 kh 20 21 kg 22 kg  CROP YIELDS AND INPUTS  page 9  Third crop (pre-monsoon crop or winter relayed crop) Inputs kg/ha Yields kg/ha —TotalUse of Seed kg/yr —TotalUse of Residue kg/yr Seed Compost F e r t i l i z e r Seed Home NxtyrSold ExchgResidAnimlFuel Sold Com- Roof SeasoAmounType Amt Urea ConrplCltherAverYPoorYGoodYkg/yrCons Seed Marke kg/yrFeed Wood Farmspost Thatch P 40 a 3800 0 0 0 1800 1050 2100 1980 1930 50 0 0 2500 0 0 0 2500 0 P 20 a 2200 0 0 0 1500 600 1800 2850 2785 40 0 25 2500 0 0 0 2500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P 40 a 3040 0 0 1500 900 1800 600 585 15 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P 20 a 3800 0 0 0 900 200 1000 600 585 15 0 0 2000 500 0 0 1500 0 P 25 a 4690 100 200 0 1000 375 1250 500 487 13 0 0 1500 500 0 0 1000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P 28 a 1800 0 0 0 6400 160 960 540 516 24 0 0 1500 500 0 0 1000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P 67 b 2500 0 0 0 530 270 800 265 230 35 0 450 200 0 0 0 250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P 20 b 2880 0 0 1230 380 1690 370 180 0 5 120 65 500 325 0 0 175 0 P 20 b 2880 0 0 0 1230 380 1690 250 120 5 85 40 325 225 0 0 100 0 P 20 b 2880 0 0 1230 380 1690 490 250 10 145 85 600 400 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P 20 a 3750 0 0 0 500 300 700 340 -1 -1 . -1 -1 1500 0 0 0 1500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P 15 a 5360 0 0 0 570 260 710 280 270 10 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 P 100 0 125 500 0 1200 400 1600 240 220 20 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 P IB a 1820 0 0 540 180 730 590 590 0 0 0 0 500 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P 16 a 3120 0 0 1880 -1 -1 1500 1485 15 0 0 0 1500 800 0 0 700 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P 18 a 5000 0 0 0 1500 -1 -1 1500 0 20 1480 0 500 500 0 0 0 0 P 12 a 9999 0 0 0 1500 750 -1 2250 2220 30 0 0 500 300 0 0 200 0 P 18 0 60 120 0 900 -1 -1 720 0 15 705 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 P 18 0 40 50 20 600 -1 -1 1620 0 50 1570 0 -1 • -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 P 20 b 0 3750 0 0 1400 1000 2000 980 965 15 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P 22 a 3750 0 0 670 440 880 200 190 10 0 0 0 500 250 250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P 25 b 1900 0 0 0 400 200 600 280 260 20 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P 20 a 5350 0 0 1700 700 2100 1200 1185 15 0 0 0 1500 375 0 0 1125 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P 20 b 5000 0 0 800 670 1340 800 -1 -1 -1 -1 625 250 0 0 0 0 375 P 20 a 750 0 0 730 530 800 730 40 20 670 0 0 625 250 0 0 375 0  232  rARM DATA SET 4: CROP YIELDS AND INPUTS pngc 10 Third crop (pre-monsoon crop or winter relayed crop) ID info Inputs kg/ha Yields kg/ha —TotalUse of Seed kg/yr —TotalUse of Residue kg/yr FarmrRotn Seed Compost F e r t i l i z e r Seed Hone NxtyrSold FjtchgResidAnimlFuel Sold Com- Roof /SPSSCode SeasoAmounType Amt Urea CcniplOtherAverYPoorYC<>odYkg/yrCons Seed Marke kg/yrFeed Wood Farmspost Thatch 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 1750 250 0 0 1500 24 kg P 20 b 3800 0 0 0 1200 500 1600 840 825 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 kg P 25 b 5625 0 0 0 800 400 1200 560 140 20 400 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 125 125 0 24 b 4500 0 0 0 800 320 1120 680 300 20 360 0 0 0 25 kh P 26 kh P 7500 0 0 0 470 200 700 940 135 50 755 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 25 b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 27 kg P 1500 0 0 1714 571 2860 400 0 5 395 0 200 200 0 21 b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1500 0 0 0 1225 510 2040 4.10 405 5 0 0 250 250 0 0 0 0 29 kh P 13 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 2 0 17 a 0 1330 330 2000 265 263 0 375 75 0 0 300 0 3750 0 0 30 kh P 0 400 200 0 0 1000 500 2000 200 191 9 0 0 0 200 0 30 pa P 100 0 30 0 1250 625 500 0 375 0 0 0 2250 1200 2700 1510 1385 25 100 0 125 20 b 31 kh P 0 1800 1200 2000 900 225 0 675 0 500 500 0 0 0 0 126 0 75 150 31 pa P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 3750 1250 0 2500 0 20 a 650 0 0 1200 1000 1500 1200 140 40 1020 0 32 kg P 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 20 a 650 0 0 1200 1000 500 1200 140 40 1020 32 kh P 0 1500 750 0 0 0 750 0 1670 560 2000 1000 0 30 970 32 pa P 100 0 80 170 17 b 1 0 0 225 75 0 0 150 0 6250 0 0 0 1330 670 2000 133 132 33 kg P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 5 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 40 b 6000 0 0 0 1200 800 1600 200 195 34 kh P 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 34 pa P 5000 0 40 0 1000 665 1665 200 175 25 133 b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 0 0 1000 1000 0 0 0 67 b 2280 150 150 0 2220 1480 2960 1555 1510 45 36 kg P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 0 0 5 0 0 750 250 0 0 500 37 kh P 30 b 9999 0 0 0 2400 800 3200 430 475 0 0 250 250 0 37 Pa P 125 0 38 53 0 1250 0 2500 125 113 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 750 750 0 0 0 0 0 3450 2960 3945 2590 2340 250 38 kh P 49 0 30 100 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 300 75 75 0 1500 800 2250 1020 300 100 620 38 pa P 150 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 0 0 0 830 600 1200 1690 680 70 940 20 39 kh P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 0 0 3750 0 0 4250 500 0 800 400 1200 1400 1365 35 0 40 kh P 20 b 1824 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 40 pa P 100 0 0 175 0 1410 350 2000 820 205 60 555 0 0 1500 500 0 0 1000 0 5360 0 0 0 1500 300 2000 1050 1035 15 41 kh P 20 b 0 500 0 0 0 750 250 0 1530 510 2040 610 340 50 220 41 pa P 130 0 50 125 0 0 375 0 5 0 0 500 125 0 0 1200 800 2000 190 185 42 ke P 30 b 3810 0 0 1000 0 0 0 0 1000 0 90 90 0 1260 1010 2015 680 270 55 355 42 pa P 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 0 0 0 0 1000 0 0 0 1625 625 20 b 5000 0 0 0 1330 1270 2000 665 645 20 43 kh P 0 375 0 0 0 1125 750 0 1200 800 2000 815 680 70 65 100 0 75 165 43 pa P 0 0 0 0 0 750 750 0 200 4280 0 0 0 570 430 710 400 200 22 b 44 kh P 0 0 0 0 0 250 250 0 430 285 570 300 140 60 100 44 pa P 90 0 0 140  233  FARM DATA SET 4: CROP YIErZIS AND INPUTS pvjc 11 Third crop (pre-monsoon crop or winter relayed crop) ID info Inputs kg/ha Yields kg/ha —TotalUse of Seed kg/yr —TotalUse of Residue kg/yr FarmrRotn Seed Compost F e r t i l i z e r — Seed Home NxtyrSold F-xchgRisidAnimlFuel Sold Com- Roof /SPSSCode SeasoAmounType Amt Urea OxiplCtherAvrerYPcorY^cndYkg/yrCtons Seed Marke kg/yrFeed Wood Farmspont Tlintcti 45 kh P 20 a 2030 0 0 1500 500 1800 345 330 15 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 45 pa P 175 0 30 30 0 2000 1000 2500 280 260 20 0 0 150 0 0 0 0 150 46 kh P 23 b 2000 0 0 0 1090 360 1270 820 410 20 390 0 2000 500 0 0 1500 0 46 pa P 150 0 0 210 0 1200 500 1500 840 410 100 330 0 750 500 0 0 250 0 47 kh P 25 0 0 0 0 225 150 450 300 266 34 0 0 875 250 0 0 625 0 47 pa P 300 0 25 100 0 820 680 1360 410 0 150 260 0 125 0 0 0 125 0 48 kg P 40 b 9990 0 0 0 2270 1810 2720 680 545 15 120 0 750 750 0 0 0 0 48 pa P 45 b 6250 0 0 0 1450 1700 2040 545 0 20 525 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 49 kh P 24 b 7500 0 0 0 1190 390 1700 475 465 10 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 kh P 25 b 5360 0 0 0 580 290 680 410 375 35 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 kh P 30 b 4170 0 0 0 600 400 1000 240 225 15 0 0 1500 500 0 0 1000 0 51 pa P 90 0 330 330 0 1000 600 1800 300 200 30 70 0 125 0 0 0 125 0 52 kh P 20 a 3570 0 0 0 400 200 500 280 265 15 0 0 2000 500 0 0 1500 0 52 pa P 100 0 670 0 0 1130 890 1330 680 620 60 0 0 375 200 0 0 0 175 53 kg P 20 a 3800 0 0 0 850 500 1000 1150 866 14 270 0 1250 625 0 0 625 0 53 kh P 20 b 3800 0 0 0 850 500 1000 1150 866 14 270 0 1250 625 0 0 625 0 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 kg P 24 b 2680 35 0 0 700 500 900 70 67 3 0 0 625 250 0 0 375 0 54 kh P 24 b 2680 35 0 0 700 500 900 490 470 20 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 54 pa P 40 0 70 140 0 2000 1000 3000 200 135 5 60 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 kg P 17 a 715 0 0 0 1000 800 1250 720 500 15 205 0 800 800 0 0 0 0 17 b 55 kh P 715 0 0 0 1000 800 1250 400 390 10 0 0 450 450 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 kh P 25 0 0 0 0 300 200 400 390 390 0 0 0 1750 750 0 0 1000 0 57 kg P 24 b 3570 0 0 0 1000 800 1200 700 680 20 0 0 1625 750 0 0 875 0 57 pa P 100 0 100 400 0 820 270 1090 410 140 50 220 0 375 50 0 0 0 325 58 kg P 20 b 2500 0 0 0 826 680 1090 410 130 10 270 0 1000 500 0 0 500 0 58 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 a 2680 0 59 kg P 0 0 750 250 900 375 120 10 245 0 130 180 0 0 0 0 59 kh P 20 a 2680 0 0 0 750 250 900 675 220 20 435 0 320 320 0 0 0 0 59 I» P 127 0 35 35 0 730 180 910 550 455 95 0 0 5000 0 0 5000 0 0 60 kg P 15 a 1900 0 0 0 1000 800 1600 670 0 10 660 0 600 0 0 5000 100 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 kh P 14 a 3070 0 0 0 730 270 910 510 495 15 0 0 700 0 0 0 750 0 61 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 kh P 3950 0 21 b 0 0 1050 530 1500 1345 1025 35 270 15 1250 1250 0 0 0 0 63 kg P 15 b 3750 0 0 0 700 400 900 430 420 10 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64 kg P 27 0 0 0 0 1090 820 1360 545 545 15 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 kh P 21 b 3125 0 0 0 330 165 495 280 190 20 70 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 Pd P 10 0 50 100 0 300 240 350 150 0 5 145 0 125 0 0 0 0 125 66 kh P 15 a 7500 0 0 0 1020 816 1530 670 660 10 0 0 625 250 0 0 375 0 66 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 kh P 0 20 a 3750 0 0 510 200 1020 680 653 27 0 0 750 750 0 0 0 0 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 34  FARM DATA SET 4: CROP YIELDS AND INPUTS page 12 Third crop (pre-monsoon crop or winter relayed crop) ID info Inputs kg/ha Yields kg/ha —TotalUse of Seed kg/yr —TotalUrse of Residue kg/yr FarmrRotn Seed Compost F e r t i l i z e r Seed Home NxtyrSold ExchgResidAnimlFuel Sold Com- Roof /SPSSCode SeasoAmounType Amt Urea CCTipl0therAverYPoorYGoodYkg/yrCon3 Seed Marke kg/yrFeed Wood Farmspost Thatch 69 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 71 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 71 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 a 4500 0 150 0 1220 820 1430 370 365 0 0 625 500 0 0 72 kh P 5 0 125 73 kh P 24 b 0 2000 0 0 1460 870 1820 1460 0 25 1435 0 2000 1500 0 0 500 0 18 b 73 k i P 2500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 73 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 kk P 20 0 0 0 180 930 0 1070 1300 850 30 420 0 200 200 0 0 0 0 74 P i P 75 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 9999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 kh P 40 0 10 50 0 0 2960 740 5920 1480 1440 40 0 750 750 0 0 0 0 P 9 0 625 625 75 Fd 0 30 90 0 240 175 295 200 100 8 92 0 0 0 0 76 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1  235  APPENDIX &  SUMMARIES OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS  BASELINE OR AVERAGE CONDITIONS SUMMARIES FOR CR0PPIN6 ROTATIONS Basis of 1 ha of r o t a t i o n Cropping P r o f i t Margin: Total crop incose (Rs) Total Costs (Rs) Gross Margin (Rs) Selected Resource Requiresents: Land: i r r i g a t e d 'khet' iha) n o n i r r i g a t e d 'pakho' (ha) Labor: san days (ad) woaan days (Md) Poser: b u l l o c k days (bd) C a p i t a l : operating (Rs)  kc 1.0  kd 1.0  kg 1.0  kh 1.0  PC 1.0  pd 1.0  pa 1.0  Pi 1.0  9650 4963 4687  6170 3364 2806  10380 6650 3730  11400 6429 4971  6573 3333 3240  7293 3675 3618  26398 8409 17989  8253 4033 4220  1.0 0.0 70 107 42 934  1.0 0.0 51 94 24 264  1.0 0.0 84 160 48 1168  1.0 0.0 85 150 60 1086  0.0 1.0 37 72 36 728  0.0 1.0 40 84 36 753  0.0 1.0 69 169 48 3174  1.0 0.0 47 92 36 728  kg 1.0  kh 1.0  PC 1.0  pd 1.0  pa 1.0  Pi 1.0  10380 6650 3730  11400 6429 4971  6573 3240  7293 3675 3618  26398 8409 17989  8253 4033 4220  1.0 0.0 84 160 48 1168  1.0 0.0 85 150 60 1086  0.0 1.0 37 72 36 728  0.0 1.0 40 84 36 753  0.0 1.0 69 169 48 3174  1.0 0.0 47 92 36 728  SCENARIO: 100 average p r i c e s and average y i e l d s assuied SUMMARIES FOR CROPPING ROTATIONS kc kd Basis of 1 ha of r o t a t i o n 1.0 1.0 Cropping P r o f i t Margin: Total crop incose (Rs) 9650 6170 Total Costs (Rs) 4963 3364 Gross Margin (Rs) 4687 2806 Selected Resource Requiresents: Land: i r r i g a t e d 'khet' (ha) 1.0 1.0 n o n i r r i g a t e d 'pakho' (ha) 0.0 0.0 Labor: san days (ad) 70 51 Hosan days (wd) 107 94 Power: b u l l o c k days (bd) 42 24 C a p i t a l : o p e r a t i n g (Rs) 934 264  I CHANGES FROM BASELINE Cropping P r o f i t Margin: Total crop incoae (Rs) Total Costs (Rs) Gross Margin (Rs) Selected Resource Requiresents: Land: i r r i g a t e d 'khet' (ha) n o n i r r i g a t e d 'pakho' (ha) Labor: san days (ad) woean days (wd) Power: b u l l o c k days (bd) C a p i t a l : operating (Rs)  • J 7 7 7  kc  kd  kg  kh  PC  pd  pa  Pi  0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  ZCHANBES DF ASSUMPTIONS:INPUT COSTS (Rs per unit) tractor rental /hour bullock teai rental /day labor hire/ianday (id) labor hire/ttonanday ( M d ) urea f e r t i l i z e r /kg couples f e r t i l i z e r /kg ituriate of potash /kg pesticide /bottle food for labor /day yearly tax /ha i r r i g a t i o n cost/ha  aver 150 30 20 15 3.5 3.3 1.6 50 7 100 35  CROP PRICES (Rs per kg) average Crop rice 1 2.50 2.00 rice e itaize 2.10 •ustard 7.50 wheat 2.00 3.00 potato 2.40 lentil soybean 5.00 fuelwood (Rs/25kg) 10.00 CROP YIELDS (kg/ha) Crop rice 1 rice e •aire 1 •aize e Bustard k  •ustard p wheat k wheat p potato lentil fuelwood consunptn  high 200 50 30 25 3.8 3.7 10 60  used i n low analysis 100 150 25 30 15 20 10 15 . 3.5 2.8 2.7 3.3 1.0 1.6 22 50 5 7 100 0 35  low -33.3 -16.7 -25.0 -33.3 -20.0 -18.2 -37.5 -56.0 -28.6 -100.0 -100.0  -100.0 42.9 -100.0 71.4  high 33.3 66.7 50.0 66.7 8.6 12.1  ERR  high 3.25 2.60 3.00 11.00 3.00 4.50 2.70 6.00  used i n low analysis 2.35 2.50 1.80 2.00 1.80 2.10 6.50 7.50 1.80 2.00 3.00 1.25 2.00 2.40 4.00 5.00  -6.0 -10.0 -14.3 -13.3 -10.0 -58.3 -16.7 -20.0  30.0 30.0 42.9 46.7 50.0 50.0 12.5 20.0  15.00  5.00  10.00  -50.0  50.0  used i n poor analysis 1500 2180 1600 2340 970 1380 560 1200 250 560 270 490 890 1590 660 1250 3500 7000 175 300  -31.2 -31.6 -37.4 -53.3 -55.4 -44.9 -44.0 -47.2 -50.0 -41.7  60.6 41.0 25. B 21.7 41.1 34.7 27.7 44.8 35.7 123.3  -85.1  221.4  average 2180 2340 1550 1200 560 490 1590 1250 7000 300  good 3500 3300 1950 1460 790 660 2030 1810 9500 670  4200  13500  625  4200  TABLE 5.  : SUMMARY OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS  BASELINE OR AVERAGE CONDITIONS SUMMARIES FOR CROPPING ROTATIONS B a s i s of 1 ha of r o t a t i o n Cropping P r o f i t Margin: T o t a l c r o p i n c o a e (Rs) T o t a l C o s t s (Rs) B r o s s M a r g i n (Rs) S e l e c t e d Resource R e q u i r e m e n t s : Land: i r r i g a t e d 'khet' (ha) n o n i r r i g a t e d 'pakho' (ha) L a b o r : f a n days ( i d ) N o a a n days (ltd) Power: b u l l o c k days (bd) C a p i t a l : o p e r a t i n g (Rs)  23 7  kc 1.0  kd 1.0  kg 1.0  kh 1.0  PC 1.0  pd 1.0  pa 1.0  pi 1.0  9650 4963 4687  6170 3364 2806  10380 6650 3730  11400 6429 4971  6573 3333 3240  7293 3675 3618  26398 8409 17989  8253 4033 4220  1.0 0.0 70 107 42 934  1.0 0.0 51 94 24 264  1.0 0.0 84 160 48 1168  1.0 0.0 85 150 60 1086  0.0 1.0 37 72 36 728  0.0 1.0 40 84 36 753  0.0 1.0 69 169 48 3174  1.0 0.0 47 92 36 728  kg 1.0  kh 1.0  PC 1.0  pd 1.0  pa 1.0  Pi 1.0  9234 6608 2626  10012 6391 3621  5669 3304 2365  6269 3641 2628  13484 7430 6054  6509 4004 2505  1.0 0.0 84 160 48 1168  1.0 0.0 85 150 60 1086  0.0 1.0 37 72 36 728  0.0 1.0 40 84 36 753  0.0 . 1.0 69 169 48 2229  1.0 0.0 47 92 36 728  SCENARIO: 101 IOH p r i c e s and a v e r a g e y i e l d s a s s u a e d SUMMARIES FOR CROPPING ROTATIONS kc kd B a s i s of 1 ha of r o t a t i o n 1.0 1.0 Cropping P r o f i t Margin: T o t a l c r o p i n c o a e (Rs) 8763 5723 T o t a l C o s t s (Rs) 4936 3353 B r o s s M a r g i n (Rs) 3827 2370 S e l e c t e d Resource R e q u i r e a e n t s : Land: i r r i g a t e d 'khet' (ha) 1.0 1.0 n o n i r r i g a t e d 'pakho' (ha) 0.0 0.0 Labor: aan days (ad) 70 51 Hocan days (wd) 107 94 Power: b u l l o c k days (bd) 24 42 C a p i t a l : o p e r a t i n g (Rs) 934 264  7. CHANGES FROM BASELINE Cropping P r o f i t Margin: T o t a l c r o p i n c o a e (Rs) T o t a l C o s t s (Rs) B r o s s M a r g i n (Rs) S e l e c t e d Resource R e q u i r e a e n t s : Land: i r r i g a t e d 'khet' (ha) n o n i r r i g a t e d 'pakho' (ha) Labor: aan days (ad) ttoaan days (wd) PoMer: b u l l o c k days (bd) C a p i t a l : o p e r a t i n g (Rs)  kc  kd  kg  kh  PC  pd  pa  Pi  -9.2 -0.5 -18.4  -7.2 -0.3 -15.5  -11.0 -0.6 -29.6  -12.2 -0.6 -27.2  -13.8 -0.9 -27.0  -14.0 -0.9 -27.4  -48.9 -11.6 -66.3  -21.1 -0.7 -40.6  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 -29.8  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  TABLE 5.._: SUMMARY OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS BASELINE OR AVERAGE CONDITIONS SUMMARIES FOR CROPPING ROTATIONS Basis of 1 ha of r o t a t i o n Cropping P r o f i t Margin: Total crop incose (Rs) Total Costs (Rs) 6ross Margin (Rs) Selected Resource Requirements: Land: i r r i g a t e d 'khet' (ha) nonirrigated 'pakho' (ha) Labor: i a n days (id) wosan days (wd) Power: bullock days (bd) C a p i t a l : operating (Rs)  238  kc 1.0  kd 1.0  kg 1.0  9650 4963 4687  6170 3364 2806  10380 6650 3730  1.0 0.0 70 107 42 934  1.0 0.0 51 94 24 264  SCENARIO: 102 high p r i c e s and average y i e l d s assuied SUMMARIES FOR CROPPING ROTATIONS kd kc 1.0 Basis of 1 ha of r o t a t i o n 1.0 Cropping P r o f i t Margin: Total crop incose (Rs) 13245 7895 3401 Total Costs (Rs) 5066 8179 4494 Gross Margin (Rs) Selected Resource Requiresents: 1.0 1.0 Land: i r r i g a t e d 'khet' (ha) 0.0 nonirrigated 'pakho' (ha) 0.0 Labor: san days (ad) 70 51 107 94 wosan days (wd) 24 Power: bullock days (bd) 42 934 264 C a p i t a l : operating (Rs)  X CHANGES FROM BASELINE Cropping P r o f i t Margin: Total crop incose (Rs) Total Costs (Rs) Gross Margin (Rs) Selected Resource Requirements: Land: i r r i g a t e d 'khet' (ha) n o n i r r i g a t e d 'pakho' (ha) Labor: san days (ad) wosan days (wd) Power: bullock days (bd) C a p i t a l : operating (Rs)  kh • 1.0  1.0  pd 1.0  pa 1.0  Pi 1.0  11400 6429 4971  6573 3333 3240  7293 3675 3618  26398 8409 17989  7933 4033 3900  1.0 0.0 84 160 48 1168  1.0 0.0 85 150 60 1086  0.0 1.0 37 72 36 728  0.0 1.0 40 84 36 753  0.0 1.0 '69 169 48 3174  1.0 0.0 47 92 36 728  kg 1.0  kh 1.0  pc 1.0  pd 1.0  pa 1.0  Pi 1.0  14454 6824 7630  15844 6552 9292  9530 3432 6098  10340 3776 6564  39390 9368 30022  12050 4132 7918  1.0 0.0 84 160 48 1168  1.0 0.0 85 150 60 1086  0.0 1.0 37 72 36 728  0.0 1.0 40 84 36 753  0.0 1.0 69 169 48 3984  1.0 0.0 47 92 36 728  PC  pd  pa  Pi  41.8 2.8 81.4  49.2 11.4 66.9  51.9 2.4 103.0  kc  kd  kg  kh  37.3 2.1 74.5  2B.0 1.1 60.2  39.2 2.6 104.6  39.0 1.9 86.9  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  PC  45.0 3.0 88.2  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0  nc c /J.J  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  TABLE 5. : SUMMARY OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS BASELINE OR AVERASE CONDITIONS SUMMARIES FOR CROPPING ROTATIONS Basis of 1 ha of r o t a t i o n Cropping P r o f i t Margin: Total crop i n c o i e (Rs) Total Costs (Rs) Gross Margin (Rs) lected Resource Requireaents: Land: i r r i g a t e d 'khet' (ha) n o n i r r i g a t e d 'pakho' (ha) Labor: tan days ( i d ) woaan days ( M d ) Power: bullock days (bd) C a p i t a l : operating (Rs)  239  kc 1.0  kd 1.0  kg 1.0  kh 1.0  pc 1.0  pd 1.0  pa 1.0  pi 1.0  9650 4963 4687  6170 3364 2806  10380 6650 3730  11400 6429 4971  6573 3240  7293 3675 3618  26398 8409 17989  8253 4033 4220  1.0 0.0 70 107 42 934  1.0 0.0 51 94 24 264  1.0 0.0 84 160 48 1168  1.0 0.0 85 150 60 10B6  0.0 1.0 37 72 36 728  0.0 1.0 40 B4 36 753  0.0 1.0 69 169 48 3174  1.0 0.0 47 92 36 728  kg 1.0  kh 1.0  pc 1.0  pd 1.0  pa 1.0  pi 1.0  6156 6650 -494  6251 6429 -178  4062 3333 729  4482 3675 807  13857 8409 5448  4312 4033 279  1.0 0.0 84 160 48 1168  1.0 0.0 85 150 60 1086  0.0 1.0 37 72 36 728  0.0 1.0 40 84 36 753  0.0 1.0 69 169 48 3174  1.0 0.0 47 92 36 728  SCENARIO: 103 average p r i c e s and low y i e l d s assuaed SUMMARIES FOR CROPPING ROTATIONS kc kd Basis of 1 ha of r o t a t i o n 1.0 1.0 Cropping P r o f i t Margin: 4170 Total crop incoae (Rs) 5625 3364 Total Costs (Rs) 4963 662 806 Gross Margin (Rs) lected Resource Requireaents: 1.0 Land: i r r i g a t e d 'khet' (ha) 1.0 0.0 0.0 n o n i r r i g a t e d 'pakho' (ha) Labor: aan days (ad) 70 51 94 woaan days (wd) 107 24 Power: bullock days (bd) 42 C a p i t a l : operating (Rs) 934 264  1 CHANGES FROM BASELINE Cropping P r o f i t Margin: Total crop incoae (Rs) Total Costs (Rs) Gross Margin (Rs) Selected Resource Requireaents: Land: i r r i g a t e d 'khet' (ha) n o n i r r i g a t e d 'pakho' (ha) Labor: aan days (ad) woaan days (wd) Power: bullock days (bd) C a p i t a l : operating (Rs)  T7T7 OJJJ  kc  kd  kg  kh  PC  pd  pa  Pi  -41.7 0.0 -85.9  -32.4 0.0 -71.3  -40.7 0.0 -113.3  -45.2 0.0 -103.6  -38.2 0.0 -77.5  -38.5 0.0 -77.7  -47.5 0.0 -69.7  -47.8 0.0 -93.4  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  TABLE 5...: SUMMARY OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS BASELINE OR AVERAGE CONDITIONS SUMMARIES FOR CROPPING ROTATIONS B a s i s Df 1 ha of r o t a t i o n Cropping P r o f i t Margin: Total crop incoae (Rs) Total Costs (Rs) Gross Margin (Rs) S e l e c t e d Resource R e q u i r e s e n t s : Land: i r r i g a t e d 'khet' (ha) n o n i r r i g a t e d 'pakho' (ha) Labor: san days ( i d ) wosan days (wd) Power: b u l l o c k days (bd) C a p i t a l ; o p e r a t i n g (Rs)  kc 1.0  kd 1.0  kg 1.0  kh 1.0  PC 1.0  Pd 1.0  pa 1.0  Pi 1.0  9650 4963 46B7  6170 3364 2806  10380 6650 3730  11400 6429 4971  6573 3333 3240  7293 3675 3618  26398 8409 17989  8253 4033 4220  1.0 0.0 70 107 42 934  1.0 0.0 51 94 24 264  1.0 0.0 84 .160 48 1168  1.0 0.0 85 150 60 1086  0.0 1.0 37 72 36 728  0.0 1.0 40 84 36 753  0.0 1.0 69 169 48 3174  1.0 0.0 47 92 36 728  kg 1.0  kh 1.0  PC 1.0  Pd 1.0  pa 1.0  Pi 1.0  13726 6650 7076  15591 6429 9162  9045 5712  10653 3675 6978  36215 8409 27806  14445 4033 10412  1.0 0.0 84 160 48 1168  1.0 0.0 85 150 60 1086  0.0 1.0 37 72 36 728  0.0 1.0 40 84 36 753  0.0 1.0 69 169 4B 3174  1.0 0.0 47 92 36 728  SCENARIO: 104 average p r i c e s and h i g h y i e l d s assumed SUMMARIES FOR CROPPING ROTATIONS kd ' kc B a s i s of 1 ha of r o t a t i o n 1.0 1.0 Cropping P r o f i t Margin: Total crop i n c o s e (Rs) 14675 10358 Total Costs (Rs) 4963 3364 Gross Margin (Rs) 9712 6994 S e l e c t e d Resource R e q u i r e s e n t s : 1.0 Land: i r r i g a t e d 'khet' (ha) 1.0 n o n i r r i g a t e d 'pakho' (ha) 0.0 0.0 Labor: san days (ad) 70 51 107 wosan days (wd) 94 Power: b u l l o c k days (bd) 24 42 934 C a p i t a l : o p e r a t i n g (Rs) 264  1 CHANGES FROM BASELINE Cropping P r o f i t Margin: Total crop i n c o s e (Rs) Total Costs (Rs) Gross Margin (Rs) S e l e c t e d Resource R e q u i r e s e n t s : Land: i r r i g a t e d 'khet' (ha) n o n i r r i g a t e d 'pakho' (ha) Labor: san days (sd) wosan days (wd) Power: b u l l o c k days (bd) C a p i t a l : o p e r a t i n g (Rs)  kc  kd  kg  kh  PC  Pd  pa  pi  52.1 0.0 107.2  67.9 0,0 149.3  32.2 0.0 89.7  36.8 0.0 84.3  37.6 0.0 76.3  46.1 0.0 92.9  37.2 0.0 54.6  75.0 0.0 146.7  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  241  TABLE 5.  : SUMMARY OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS  BASELINE OR AVERAGE CONDITIONS SUMMARIES FOR CROPPING ROTATIONS B a s i s of 1 ha of r o t a t i o n Cropping P r o f i t Margin: T o t a l c r o p i n c o a e (Rs) T o t a l C o s t s (Rs) G r o s s M a r g i n (Rs) S e l e c t e d Resource R e q u i r e m e n t s : Land: i r r i g a t e d 'khet' (ha) n o n i r r i g a t e d 'pakho' (ha) L a b o r : aan days (ad) Moian days (wd) Power: b u l l o c k days (bd) C a p i t a l : o p e r a t i n g (Rs)  SCENARIO: 105 average p r i c e s , f e r t i l i z e r SUMMARIES FOR CROPPING ROTATIONS B a s i E of 1 ha of r o t a t i o n Cropping P r o f i t Margin: T o t a l c r o p i n c o a e (Rs) T o t a l C o s t s (Rs) G r o s s M a r g i n (Rs) S e l e c t e d Resource R e q u i r e a e n t s : Land: i r r i g a t e d 'khet' (ha) n o n i r r i g a t e d 'pakho' (ha) L a b o r : aan days (ad) woaan days (wd) Power: b u l l o c k days (bd) C a p i t a l : o p e r a t i n g (Rs)  I CHANGES FROM BASELINE Cropping P r o f i t Margin: T o t a l c r o p i n c o a e (Rs) T o t a l C o s t s (Rs) 6 r o s s M a r g i n (Rs) S e l e c t e d Resource R e q u i r e a e n t s : . Land: i r r i g a t e d 'khet' (ha) n o n i r r i g a t e d 'pakho' (ha) L a b o r : aan days (ad) woaan days (wd) Power: b u l l o c k days (bd) C a p i t a l : o p e r a t i n g (Rs)  1.0  kc  kd 1.0  kg 1.0  kh 1.0  PC 1.0  9650 4963 4687  6170 3364 2806  10380 6650 3730  11400 6429 4971  1.0 0.0 70 107 42 934  1.0 0.0 51 94 24 264  1.0 0.0 84 160 48 1168  1.0 0.0 85 150 60 1086  pd 1.0  pa 1.0  Pi 1.0  6573 3333 3240  7293 3675 3618  26398 8409 17989  8253 4033 4220  0.0 1.0 37 72 36 728  0.0 1.0 40 84 36 753  0.0 1.0 69 169 48 3174  1.0 0.0 47 92 36 728  pd 1.0  pa 1.0  Pi 1.0 11193 4536 6657  >e d o u b l e d and 3 0 ! i n c r e a s e d y i e l d s a s s u a e d kh kc kd PC kg 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0  .  12545 5433 7112  8021 3389 4632  13494 7818 5676  14820 7289 7531  9009 3B36 5173  9945 3 4 7 8 1 ^ 9737 4202 5743 25044  1.0 0.0 70 107 42 1404  1.0 0.0 51 94 24 288  1.0 0.0 84 160 48 2335  1.0 0.0 85 150 60 1946  0.0 1.0 37 72 36 1231  0.0 1.0 40 84 36 1280  0.0 1.0 69 169 48 4502  1.0 0.0 47 92 36 1231  kc  kd  kg  kh  PC  pd  pa  Pi  30.0 9.5 51.7  30.0 0.7 65.1  30.0 17.6 52.2  30.0 13.4 51.5  37.1 15.1 59.7  36.4 14.4 58.7  31.8 15.8 39.2  35.6 12.5 57.8  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 50.3  0.0 0.0 0.0 9.3  0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 79.3  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 69.1  0.0 0.0 0.0 70.1  0.0 0.0 0.0 41.9  0.0 0.0 0.0 69.1  TABLE 5. : SUMMARY OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS BASELINE OR AVERAGE CONDITIONS SUMMARIES FOR CROPPING ROTATIONS Basis of 1 ha of r o t a t i o n Cropping P r o f i t Margin: Total crop incose (Rs) Total Costs (Rs) Gross-Margin (Rs) Selected Resource Requiresents: Land: i r r i g a t e d 'khet' (ha) n o n i r r i g a t e d 'pakho' (ha) Labor: san days (sd) Hosan days (wd) Power: bullock days (bd) C a p i t a l : operating (Rs)  242  kc 1.0  kd 1.0  1.0  kh 1.0  PC 1.0  pd 1.0  pa 1.0  Pi 1.0  9650 4963 4687  6170 3364 2806  10380 6650 3730  11400 6429 4971  6573 3333 3240  7293 3675 3618  26398 8409 17989  8253 4033 4220  1.0 0.0 70 107 42 934  1.0 0.0 51 94 24 264  1.0 0.0 84 160 48 1168  1.0 0.0 85 150 60 1086  0.0 1.0 37 72 36 728  0.0 1.0 40 84 36 753  0.0 1.0 69 169 48 3174  1.0 0.0 47 92 36 728  pd 1.0  pa 1.0  Pi 1.0  SCENARIO: 106 average p r i c e s , p r i c e of labour i n c r e a s e d 50X kd SUMMARIES FOR CROPPING ROTATIONS kc 1.0 1.0 Basis of 1 ha of r o t a t i o n Cropping P r o f i t Margin: 9650 6170 Total crop incose (Rs) 4499 6306 Total Costs !Rs) 3344 1671 Gross Margin (Rs) Selected Resource Requiresents: 1.0 1.0 Land: i r r i g a t e d 'khet' (ha) 0.0 0.0 n o n i r r i g a t e d 'pakho' (ha) 70 51 Labor: san days (ad) 94 107 wosan days (wd) 24 Power: bullock days (bd) 42 934 264 C a p i t a l : operating (Rs)  7. CHANGES FROM BASELINE Cropping P r o f i t Margin: Total crop i n c o s e (Rs) Total Costs (Rs) Gross Margin (Rs) Selected Resource Requiresents: Land: i r r i g a t e d 'khet' (ha) n o n i r r i g a t e d 'pakho' (ha) Labor: san days (sd) wosan days (wd) Power: bullock days (bd) C a p i t a l : operating (Rs)  and average y i e l d s assused kh PC kg 1.0 1.0 1.0 10380 8522 1858  11400 8182 3218  6573 4109 2464  7293 4577 2716  26398 10221 16177  8253 5179 3074  1.0 0.0 84 160 48 1168  1.0 .0.0 85 150 60 1086  0.0 1.0 37 72 36 728  0.0 1.0 40 84 • 36 753  0.0 1.0 69 169 48 3174  1.0 0.0 47 92 36 728  kc  kd  kg  kh  PC  Pd  pa  Pi  0.0 27.1 -28.7  0.0 33.8 -40.5  0.0 28.1 -50.2  0.0 27.3 -35.3  0.0 23.3 -24.0  0.0 24.6 -24.9  0.0 21.6 -10.1  0.0 28.4 -27.2  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  TABLE 5. : SUMMARY OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS BASELINE OR AVERASE CONDITIONS SUMMARIES FOR CROPPING ROTATIONS Basis of 1 ha of rotation Cropping Profit Margin: Total crop income (Rs) Total Costs (Rs) Gross Margin (Rs) Selected Resource Requirements: Land: irrigated 'khet' (ha) nonirrigated 'pakho' (ha) Labor: ian days (id) woman days <Nd) Power: bullock days (bd) Capital: operating (Rs)  2 4 3  kc 1.0  kd 1.0  kg 1.0  kh 1.0  PC 1.0  pd 1.0  pa 1.0  pi 1.0  9650 4963 46B7  6170 3364 2806  10380 6650 3730  11400 6429 4971  6573 3333 3240  7293 3675 3618  2639B 8409 17989  8253 4033 4220  1.0 0.0 70 107 42 934  1.0 0.0 51 94 24 264  1.0 0.0 84 160 48 1168  1.0 0.0 85 150 60 1086  0.0 1.0 37 72 36 728  0.0 1.0 40 84 36 753  0.0 1.0 69 169 48 3174  1.0 0.0 47 92 36 728  increased 50% and1 averageyields assumed kd kg kh pd PC 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0  pa 1.0  Pi 1.0  SCENARIO: 107 average prices, price of bullock hire SUMMARIES FOR CROPPING ROTATIONS kc 1.0 Basis of 1 ha Df rotation Cropping Profit Margin: Total crop income (Rs) 9650 5278 Total Costs (Rs) 4372 Gross Margin (Rs) Selected Resource Requirements: Land: irrigated 'khet' (ha) 1.0 nonirrigated 'pakho' (ha) 0.0 Labor: nan days (md) 70 107 woman days (wd) 42 Power: bullock days (bd) 934 Capital: operating (Rs)  X CHANGES FROM BASELINE Cropping Profit Margin: Total crop income (Rs) Total Costs (Rs) Gross Margin (Rs) Selected Resource Requirements: Land: irrigated 'khet' (ha) nonirrigated 'pakho' (ha) Labor: nan days (md) woman days (wd) Power: bullock days (bd) Capital: operating (Rs)  6170 3544 2626  10380 7010 3370  11400 6879 4521  6573 3603 2970  7293 3945 3348  26398 8769 17629  8253 4303 3950  1.0 0.0 51 94 24 264  1.0 0.0 84 160 48 1168  1.0 0.0 85 150 60 1086  0.0 1.0 37 72 36 728  0.0 1.0 40 84 36 753  0.0 1.0 48 3174  1.0 0.0 47 92 36 728  kc  kd  kg  kh  PC  pd  pa  Pi  0.0 6.3 -6.7  0.0 5.4 -6.4  0.0 5.4 -9.7  0.0 7.0 -9.1  0.0 8.1 -8.3  0.0 7.3 -7.5  0.0 4.3 -2.0  0.0 6.7 -6.4  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  6? 16?  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  TABLE 5.__:  SUMMARY OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 244  BASELINE OR AVERAGE CONDITIONS SUMMARIES FOR CROPPING ROTATIONS B a s i s of 1 ha of r o t a t i o n Cropping P r o f i t Margin: T o t a l c r o p i n c o a e (Rs) T o t a l C o s t s (Rs) G r o s s M a r g i n (Rs) l e c t e d Resource R e q u i r e s e n t s : Land: i r r i g a t e d 'khet' (ha) n o n i r r i g a t e d 'pakho' (ha) L a b o r : aan days ( i d ) Moaan d a y s <Hd) Power: b u l l o c k days (bd) C a p i t a l : o p e r a t i n g (Rs)  kd 1.0  kg 1.0  kh 1.0  pc 1.0  pd 1.0  pa 1.0  1.0  9650 4963 4687  6170 3364 2806  10380 6650 3730  11400 6429 4971  6573 3333 3240  7293 3675 361B  26398 8409 17989  8253 4033 4220  1.0 0.0 70 107 42 934  1.0 0.0 51 94 24 264  1.0 0.0 84 160 48 1168  1.0 0.0 85 150 60 1086  0.0 1.0 37 72 36 728  0.0 1.0 40 84 36 753  0.0 1.0 69 169 48 3174  1.0 0.0 47 92 36 728  pa 1.0  1.0  SCENARIO: 108 average p r i c e s , p e s t i c i d e s . f o r l u s t a r d r e q i r e d SUMMARIES FOR CROPPING ROTATIONS kc kd B a s i s o f 1 ha o f r o t a t i o n 1.0 1.0 Cropping P r o f i t Margin: 9650 6170 T o t a l c r o p i n c o a e (Rs) T o t a l C o s t s (Rs! 3364 5063 G r o s s M a r g i n (Rs) 4587 2806 Selected Resource Requireaents: Land: i r r i g a t e d 'khet' (ha) 1.0 1.0 n o n i r r i g a t e d 'pakho' (ha) 0.0 0.0 L a b o r : san days (ad) 70 51 94 Hoaan days (wd) 107 24 Power: b u l l o c k days (bd) 42 264 C a p i t a l : o p e r a t i n g (Rs) 934  X CHANGES FROM BASELINE Cropping P r o f i t Margin: T o t a l c r o p i n c o a e (Rs) T o t a l C o s t s (Rs) G r o s s M a r g i n (Rs) Selected Resource Requireaents: Land: i r r i g a t e d 'khet' ( h a ! n o n i r r i g a t e d 'pakho' (ha) L a b o r : can days (ad) woaan days (wd) Power: b u l l o c k days (bd) C a p i t a l : o p e r a t i n g (Rs)  Pi  kc 1.0  t o l a i n t a i n average y i e l d s assuaed kh pd PC kg 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0  Pi  10380 6650 3730  11400 6529 4871  6573 3433 3140  7293 3775 3518  26398 8409 17989  8253 4133 4120  1.0 0.0 84 160 48 1168  1.0 0.0 85 150 60 1086  0.0 1.0 37 72 36 728  0.0 1.0 40 84 36 753  0.0 1.0 69 169 48 3174  1.0 0.0 47 92 36 728  kc  kd  kg  kh  PC  pd  pa  Pi  0.0 2.0 -2.1  0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 1.6 -2.0  0.0 3.0 -3.1  0.0 2.7 -2.8  0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 2.5 -2.4  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  TABLE 5. I  SUMMARY OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 245  BASELINE OR AVERA6E CONDITIONS SUMMARIES FOR CROPPINB ROTATIONS kc B a s i s of 1 ha of r o t a t i o n ,;• 1.0 C r o p p i n g P r o f i t Margin: T o t a l crop income (Rs) 9650 T o t a l C o s t s (Rs) , 4963 Gross M a r g i n IRs) 4687 S e l e c t e d Resource Requirements: Land: i r r i g a t e d 'khet' (ha) 1.0 n o n i r r i g a t e d 'pakho' (ha) . 0.0 Labor: man days ( i d ) 70 woman days (wd) 107 Power: b u l l o c k days (bd) 42 C a p i t a l : o p e r a t i n g (Rs) 934 :  kd 1.0 6170 3364 2806 i.O 0.0 51 94 24 264  Cropping P r o f i t Margin: T o t a l crop income IRs) 50.0 Total L o s t s (Rs) B.5 B r o s s M a r g i n (Rs) 94.0 S e l e c t e d Resource R e q u i r e m e n t s : Land: i r r i g a t e d 'khet' (ha) 0.0 n o n i r r i g a t e d 'pakho' (ha) Labor: man days lad) -30.2 woman days (wd) 0.0 Power: b u l l o c k days (bd) -100.0 C a p i t a l : o p e r a t i n g (Rs) 112.4  pd 1.0  pa 1.0  Pi 1.0  11400 6429 4971 .  6573 3333 3240  7293 3675 361B  2639B 8409 179B9  8253 4033 4220  0.0 1.0 40 B4 36 753  0.0 1.0 69 169 48 3174  1.0 0.0 47 92 36 728  y i e l d s i n c r e a s e d 502 assumed kh pd pa PC 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0  P» 1.0  1.0 0.0 81 . 160 4B' 1168 •  :  kc  PC 1.0  10380 6650 3730  SCENARIO: 109 average p r i c e s , t r a c t o r h i r e d r a t h e r than b u l l o c k s and SUMMARIES FOR CROPPINB ROTATIONS kd kc kg B a s i s of 1 ha of r o t a t i o n 1.0 1.0 1.0 Cropping P r o f i t Margin: 15570 T o t a l crop income (Rs) 14475 9255 T o t a l C o s t s (Rs) 3604 7130 5383 B r o s s Margin (Rs) 5651 6440 9092 S e l e c t e d Resource Requirements: Land: i r r i g a t e d 'khet' (ha) 1.0 1.0 1.0 n o n i r r i g a t e d 'pakho' (ha) • 0.0 0.0 0.0 Labor: man days (sd) 39 ; 49 60 woman days (wd) 107 94 160 Power: b u l l o c k days (bd) 0 0 0 C a p i t a l : o p e r a t i n g (Rs) 1984 864 236B  I CHANGES FROM BASELINE  kh 1.0  i.O  1.0 : 0.6 0.0 ! 1.0 . 85 , .! 37 150 ! i 72 60 ! 36 .. 1086 i j 728  >  17100 7029 10071  10395 3693 6702  11475 40132.5 8889 4035 31244 7440  12915 4393 8522  1.0 0.0 55 150 0 25B6  0.0 1.0 19 72 0 162B  0.0 1.0 22 84 0 1653  0.0 1.0 45 169 0 4374  1.0 0.0 29 92 0 1628  kd  kg  kh  PC  pd  pa  P»  50.0 7.1 101.4  50.0 7.2 126.3  50.0 9.3 102.6  58.1 10.B 106.9  57.3 9.8 105.6  52.0 5.7 73.7  56.5 B.9 102.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  -23.8 0.0 -100.0 227.7  -28.7 0.0 -100.0 102.B  -35.5 0.0 -100.0 13B.2  0.0 , -49.3 : 0.0 ,-100.0 123.6  -45.0 0.0 -100.0 119.6  -34.8 0.0 -100.0 37.8  -38.7 0.0 -100.0 123.6  246  APPENDIX M: FOREST BIOMASS DATA (adapted from Chapa, 1985) Data for natural forest (fa)  Plot* 72 73 75 76 77 78 79 81 total mean st.dev.  Forest products /plot lgTim.ftJ snffim.ft3 fuelwd.kg /plot 113.0 84.3 298 788.7 825.3 5143 10.6 28.6 194 82.9 100.5 626 16.7 25.1 150 24.4 7.5 152 171.8 182.2 1138 86.0 131.1 643 1430.2  1248.5  8344  fodd.#  regen.#  107 14 0 0 3 0 2 9  1055 333 669 605 393 304 180 250  135  3789  fodd.ft  regen.O  0 18 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 1  185 30 141 232 40 44 110 125 169 36  27  1139  Forest products /ha lgTim.m3 mfrtrn.m3 fuelwdjnt fodder.# regener.fl /ha 238.8 10700 320.0 29.8 105500 2337.1 2233.8 514.3 1400 33300 81.0 30.0 19.4 0 66900 234.8 284.6 62.6 0 60500 71.1 47.3 15.0 300 39300 69.1 21.2 15.2 0 30400 515.9 -200 486.6 113.8 18000 243.6 371.2 64.3 900 25000 4050.0 506.2 708.5  3536.0 442.0 692.7  834.4 104.3 158.2  13500 1688 3439  378900 47363 27035  Data for degraded forest (fd)  Plot* 74 80 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 total mean st.dev.  Forest products /plot lgTim.ft3 srtfTim.ft3 fuelwd.kg /plot 37.3 44.1 356 17.3 14.5 104 306.4 298.0 2112 0.9 0.0 6 87 14.0 0.0 254.9 213.0 1588 0.0 0.0 0 96.4 74.6 624 0.0 0.0 2 0.0 0.0 0 734.0  637.4  4879  Forest products /ha lgTim.m3 smTim.m3 fuelwd.mt fodder.* regener.* /ha 124.9 105.6 35.6 0 18500 49.0 41.1 10.4 1800 3000 0 867.7 844.0 211.2 14100 0.0 0 2.5 0.6 23200 8.7 39.6 0.0 400 4000 400 603.3 158.8 4400 721.8 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 11000 211.3 0 12500 273.0 62.4 0.0 0.2 0 16900 0.0 100 3600 0.0 0.0 0.0 2078.5 173.2 321.2  1805.3 150.4 298.4  Abbreviations used i n table: lgTim.ft3 large timhpr volume i n cubic feet per 10 by 10 meter plot lgTim.m3 " " " in cubic m e t e r B per hectare suffinuftJ small timber volume i n cubic feet per 10 by 10 meter plot smTim.m3 " " " i n cubic meters per hectare fuelwd.kg fuelwood i n kilograms per 10 by 10 meter plot fuelwd.mt " in metric tonnes per hectare fodd.ff fodder tree species i n numbers per 10 by 10 meter plot fodder.# " " " i n numbers per hectare regen.t regeneration species i n numbers per 10 by 10 meter plot regener.# " " " i n numbers per hectare  487.9 44.4 75.4  2700 245 554  111200 10109 6687  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0096874/manifest

Comment

Related Items