Impact Assessment _Agar_MadhyaPradesh

Impact assessment study

Agar cluster, M.P.

Anjali Kumar

10/22/2013

RF BIJ: Impact at Agar, M.P. 22nd, October 2013 1

CONTENTS PAGE

NUMBER

CONTENTS

I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 2

II ACRONYMS 3

III EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4

LIST OF TABLES 7

LIST OF GRAPHS 8

1.INTRODUCTION 9

2.BACKGROUND

2.1 OBJECTIVE OF PROGRAM

2.2OBJECTIVE OF IMPACT STUDY

11

11

12

3. STUDY AREA: BRIEF OVERVIEW 13

4.METHODOLOGY 15

5.EVALUATION AND FINDINGS

5.0

5.1LAND

5.2YEILD

5.3FERTILIZER

5.4FYM / POND SILT

5.5INCOME

5.6VFA CONTRIBUTION

5.7CROPPING INTENSITY

5.8FOOD WATER SHORTAGE(PRE / POST RF)

5.9QUALITATIVE

19

19

22

28

32

35

37

42

47

49

52

6.CONCLUSION 63

7.REFERENCES 64

8.ANNEXURES

8.1CHANGE IN TOTAL CULLTIVATED LAN –CLASS 1

8.2 CHANGE IN TOTAL CULTIVATED LAND – CLASS 2

8.3VILLAGEWISE CHANGE IN CULTIVATED LAND – CLASS1 AND CLASS

2

8.4 CHANGE IN NET INCOME –AGAR CLASS 1

8.5 CHANGE IN NET INCOME AGAR CLASS 2

8.6VILLAGE WISE CHANGE IN NET INCOME ACROSS ALL LAND

CATEGORIS

8.7CHANGE IN COST OF FYM / PONSD SILT APPLICATION AGAR CLASS 1

8.8CHANGE IN COST OF FYM / PONSD SILT APPLICATION AGAR CLASS 2

8.9 VILLAGE WISE CHANGE IN COST OF FYM / PONSD SILT APPLICATION

ACROSS LAND CATEGORIS

8.10CHANGE IN COST OF FERTILISER APPLICATION-AGAR CLASS 1

8.11CHANGE IN COST OF FERTILISER APPLICATION-AGAR CLASS 2

8.12VILLAGE WISE CHANGE IN COST OF FERTILISER APPLICATION

ACROSS LAND CATEGORIES

8.13CHANGE IN CROP YEILD ACROSS LAND CATEGORIES – CLASS 1

8.14 CHANGE IN CROP YEILD ACROSS LAND CATEGORIES – CLASS 2

8.15 VILLAGE WISE YEILD FOR CLASS 1 AND CLASS 2

8.16QUALITATIVE

8.17AGAR SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

65

65

65

66

68

68

69

72

74

75

77

77

78

80

81

82

84

85


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

A major part of the report is based on the field surveys conducted in Agar cluster in from mid-August

to mid-September. I am thankful to Mr Giriraj Shah and the entire team for their support and would

like to, in particular, extend my heartiest thanks to Mr Upendra Kharpuse , Mr Umesh Paliwal and Mr

Abhishek Sakalle who helped get the work completed in time. I would also like to acknowledge the

support from Para workers who helped in the survey and Kamal for fast data entries.

I would like to thank Sudarshan sir for allowing me to explore my potential and allowing me to take

on the task of impact assessment and Nishi for always lending a helping hand when needed.

Last but not the least; I would like to thank Mr Ravindranath Rangoori for helping with the study

wherever I needed guidance.


ACRONYMS

BK1: BASELINE KHARIF CROP 1

BK2:BASELINE KHARIF CROP 2

BK3:BASELINE KHARIF CROP 3

BK:TOTAL BASELINE KHARIF

BR1:BASELINE RABI CROP 1




BR:BASELINE RABI TOTAL

FFK1: FARMER’S FIELDS WITHOUT VFA SUPPORT KHARIF CROP 1 (YEAR 2011)

FFK2: FARMER’S FIELDS WITHOUT VFA SUPPORT KHARIF CROP 2(YEAR 2011)

FFK3: FARMER’S FIELDS WITHOUT VFA SUPPORT KHARIF CROP 3(YEAR 2011)

FFK: FARMER’S FIELDS KHARIF TOTAL (YEAR 2011)

FFR1: FARMER’S FIELDS WITHOUT VFA SUPPORT RABI CROP 1(YEAR 2011)



FFR: FARMER’S FIELDS RABI TOTAL(YEAR 2011)

DFK1:DHARTI FARM KHARIF CROP 1(YEAR 2011)

DFK2: DHARTI FARM KHARIF CROP 2(YEAR 2011)

DFK3: DHARTI FARM KHARIF CROP 3(YEAR 2011)

DF:DHARTI FARM TOTAL KHARIF(YEAR 2011)

DFR1: DHARTI FARM RABI CROP 1 (YEAR 2011)

DFR2: DHARTI FARM RABI CROP 2(YEAR 2011)

DFR3: DHARTI FARM RABI CROP 3(YEAR 2011)

DFR: DHARTI FARM TOTAL RABI(YEAR 2011)

FF12K1: FARMER’S FIELDS WITHOUT VFA SUPPORT KHARIF CROP 1(YEAR 2012)



FF12K: FARMER’S FIELD TOTAL KHARIF(YEAR 2012)

FF12R1: FARMER’S FIELDS WITHOUT VFA SUPPORT RABI CROP 1(YEAR 2012)



FF12R:FARMERS FIELD TOTAL RABI(YEAR 2012)

DF12K1: DHARTI FARM KHARIF CROP 1(YEAR 2012)



DF12K: DHARTI FARM TOTAL KHARIF(YEAR 2012)

DF12R1: DHARTI FARM RABI CROP 1(YEAR 2012)



DF12R:DHARTI FARM TOTAL RABI(YEAR 2012)


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Agar is one of the oldest clusters of Reliance Foundation BIJ. The objective to carry out an

impact assessment study was to assess the direction the team is working on and the short term

impacts in terms of

Income levels from baseline to after the project has been implemented

Change in production and yield

Changes in the food consumption patterns

Food and water relates issues pre and post RF

Water level trends in the project areas

A general perception of well-being from the stakeholders themselves

To develop internal capacity of monitoring and evaluation.

Methodology:

Villages with minimum one year of interventions till end of 2012 were taken,

members classified as per the baseline data available at cluster level. Classification

was done on the per capita land holdings and classified into small marginal (SM),

semi medium (SD) and medium large (MD) category.

Form the categories list, 25% of the people were randomly selected for interviews.

Survey was conducted with the help of Para workers from villages and data entry

done at the cluster level. A total of 471 VFA members were surveyed for the study.

Classified later into CLASS 1 and CLASS 2. CLASS 1 comprises of people with

whom DHARTI farm interventions started in the year 2011. For CLASS 2 the

Outcomes of the impact assessment study at Agar cluster have been majorly positive with a little scope for

improvement. The total land under cultivation increases over the impact year/s. Production and per Ha

yield have gone up, above the national and M.P averages. The net income, over the year/s, shows a

positive trend across all land categories. The small and marginal land holding class has witnessed a

significant jump of about 273%. Assets increase post RF interventions. The usage of FYM / pond silt to

increase fertility is one the rise, albeit in proportion to VFA help received. Fertiliser usage per Ha is high

and gives scope of improvement. A general positive response is observed from beneficiaries when it comes

to water and food availability post RF activities and a ray of hope even in the poorest of the poor about a

bright future ahead.97% of the people surveyed feel there has been an increase in the income levels.

Around 90% of them feel that crop yield and soil health have improved after RF interventions. Around 70%

people admit to having an increased awareness about health related issues and an increase in fruits and

vegetables in diet after RNG at homes.


DHARTI farms have been in existence only for 1 year as the intervention happened in

2012 for the first time.

As a result of the activities done in the fields of the VFA members, there has been a change in

the cultivated land holding, yield, production and income levels on the whole.

Land and assets:

The per capita land under cultivation has increased from baseline levels to the final impact

year across all land categories. The assets have increased majorly in terms of big farm

implements like tractors. The communication technology has seen a positive boost with 11%,

23% and 15% in SM, SD and MD categories respectively. Disposable income seems to have

increased as assets bought have shown a significant increase in entertainment section.

Yield:

Production has increased over the years at par with the cultivated land. The good part is the

increase in yield. The national average for soybean is 11.85q per Ha and M.P averages are

11.5 but the average yield for DHARTI farms is 12.75Q and 13.12Q in the CLASS 1 and

CLASS 2 fields respectively.

Same is the case with wheat where an average yield from DHARTI farms is about 32.2Q and

38.8Q in CLASS 1 and CLASS 2 respectively as compared to the national average of 31.4Q

per hectare.

Food and water shortage in the operational villages have gone down after BIJ interventions in

DHARTI farms.

Fertiliser and FYM/ pond silt:

Fertiliser application is prevalent in the DHARTI farms against the sustainable practices. Per

hectare application in fields is higher in Rabi season than the Kharif. The Kharif season sees

a somewhat similar application of fertilisers in DHARTI farms as well as fields where VFA

support is not sought by the farmer. This, however, changes in Rabi season where the

expenses on DHARTI farms on fertilisers go significantly higher from the farmers’ field

where VFA has not supported. FYM / pond silt usage shoots up with the proportion of

support received from the VFA. The application, however, has helped decrease the fertilisers

applied in Kharif season as most of the application of FYM and pond silt takes place in the

Kharif season.


Income:

The net incomes of all the farmers have increased significantly across all land categories. The

numbers per capita are higher in the MD category but the percentage increase in incomes per

capita has been highest in CLASS 1. The different land categories show a different increase

with SM category showing an increase of 273 %, SD 190% and MD 140% from the baseline

per capita income levels. In CLASS 2, which has been supported for only one year, the

increase has been of 71% in SM, 103% in SD and 94 5 in md category.

VFA contribution:

The VFA support to the farmers shows a corresponding increase in the total net incomes. The

vfa support sees a corresponding increase in the net incomes in the ratio of 1.47, 5.50 and

1.75 in class 12010-2011, CLASS 1 2011-2012 and CLASS 2 2011-2012 respectively. This

can be a good return on RF investments in the lives of a marginal farmer.

Conclusion:

The activities show a positive impact within a short span of 2 years. If the activities continue

with a strong institution building process simultaneously, the adoption of sustainable

practices by all land category classes can be achieved. The fertiliser usage can be reduced and

the proportion of FYM and pond silt to improve fertility of soil can be increased over the

years. BIJ still is in nascent stages of growth and it would take some time to bring about a

positive change in the farming practices that have been done in the past green revolution

boom.

Awareness about the ill effects of chemical on fertility of soil in the long term is low.

Wherever present, it was not practiced for the fear of compromising the present benefits of

high production and high incomes. Water levels show a positive trend as per qualitative

study.

Methodology of the study could be altered and instead of using 1 surveyor per village, 5 good

surveyors could be involved on a per day basis to complete survey of 1- 2 villages per day

depending on the numbers of people to be surveyed in a village.


LIST OF TABLES PAGE

NUMBER

1 AGAR CLUSTER AT A GLANCE 14

2 LAND CATEGORY CLASSIFICATION 15

3 LIST OF VILLAGES WITH TOTAL HH,MEMBER HH AND

NUMBER SURVEYED

16

4 LAND CATEGORY WISE LIST OF TOILETS 20

5 LAND CATEGORY WISE SOURCE OF POTABLE WATER 20

6 PER CAPITA CULTIVABLE LAND HOLDING SIZE 22

7 VILLAGE WISE PER CAPITA HOLDING 26

8 LAND DETAILS OF SURVEYED FARMERS 27

9 TOTAL LAND, PRODUCTION AND YEILD CLASS 1 SOYBEAN

2010-2012

28

10 TOTAL LAND, PRODUCTION AND YEILD CLASS 1 WHEAT 2010-

2012

29

11 TOTAL LAND, PRODUCTION AND YEILD CLASS 1 GRAM 2010-

2012

29

12 TOTAL LAND, PRODUCTION AND YEILD CLASS 2 SOYBEAN

2011-2012

30

13 TOTAL LAND, PRODUCTION AND YEILD CLASS 2 WHEAT 2011-

2012

30

14 TOTAL LAND, PRODUCTION AND YEILD CLASS 2 GRAM 2011-

2012

31

15 PER CAPITA FERTILISER EXPENSES CLASS 1 2010-2012 34

16 PER CAPITA FERTILISER EXPENSES CLASS 2 2011-2012 34

17 TOTAL PER CAPITA INCOMES IN CLASS 1 2010-2012 40

18 TOTAL PER CAPITA INCOMES IN CLASS 2 2011-2012 41

19 ACTUAL EXPENSES ON CLASS 1 2010-2012 43

20 ACTUAL EXPENSES ON CLASS 2 2011-2012 44

21 VFA EXPENSES V/S INCOMES CLASS 1 2010-2011 44



24 RATE OF RETURN ON VFA EXPENSES 46

25 CROPPING INTENSITY CHANGE IN CLASS 1 2010-2012 47

26 CROPPING INTENSITY CHANGE IN CLASS 2 2011-2012 48

27 COMMON WATER STRUCTURES IN AGAR CLUSTER 58


S.

NO.

LIST OF GRAPHS PAGE

NUMBER

1 AREA UNDER CULTIVATION IN DIFFERENT YEARS FOR CLASS 1 (2010-

2012)

22

2 % CHANGE IN PER CAPITA LAND HOLDING UNDER CULTIVATION FOR

CLASS 1(2010-2012)

23

3 ACTUAL RAINFALL IN 2012 ALONG WITH THE DEVIATION FROM LONG

TERM AVERAGE OF THE AREA.

23

4 AREA UNDER CULTIVATION IN DIFFERENT YEARS FOR CLASS 2 (2011-

2012)

24

5 % CHANGE IN PER CAPITA LAND HOLDING UNDER CULTIVATION FOR

CLASS 2 (2011-2012)

24

6 YIELD PATTERN IN SOYBEAN CLASS 1 (2010-2012) 28

7 YIELD PATTERN IN WHEAT CLASS 1 (2010-2012) 29

8 YIELD PATTERN IN GRAM CLASS 1 (2010-2012) 29

9 YIELD PATTERN IN SOYBEAN CLASS 2 (2011-2012) 30

10 YIELD PATTERN IN WHEAT CLASS 2 (2011-2012) 30

11 YIELD PATTERN IN GRAM CLASS 2 (2011-2012) 31

12 FERTILISER USAGE COST PER CAPITA FOR CLASS 1(2010-2012) 32

13 FERTILISER USAGE COST PER CAPITA FOR CLASS 2 (2011-2012) 33

14 EXPENSE ON FYM/POND SILT OVER THE YEARS IN CLASS 1 (2010-2012) 35

15 EXPENSE ON FYM/POND SILT OVER THE YEAR IN CLASS 2 (2011-2012) 36

16 PER CAPITA INCOMES OF CLASS 1(2010-2012) 37

17 % INCREASE IN INCOMES CLASS 1(2010-2012) 38

18 PER CAPITA INCOME FOR CLASS 2(2011-2012) 38

19 % INCREASE IN INCOMES CLASS 2(2011-2012) 39

20 VFA EXPENSES CLASS 1 (2011) 42



23 VFA SUPPORT V/S NET INCOME INCREASE 46

24 RATIO OF RETURN ON INVESTMENT 46

25 CHANGE IN CROPPING INTENSITY IN CLASS 1(2010-2012) 47

26 CHANGE IN CROPPING INTENSITY IN CLASS 2(2011-2012) 48

27 AVERAGE MONTHS OF FOOD SHORTAGE IN VILLAGES PRE AND POST RF

INTERVENTIONS

49

28 AVERAGE MONTHS OF WATER SHORTAGE IN VILLAGES PRE AND POST

RF INTERVENTIONS

50

29 AVERAGE GRAPH OF QUALITATIVE QUESTIONS AGRA OVERALL 52

30 VILLAGE WISE INCOME INCREASE 53

31 INCREASE IN ASSETS 53

32 DECREASE IN MIGRATION 54

33 INCREASE IN YIELD 54

34 ADDITION OF FRUITS AND VEG TO DIET POST RF 55

35 INCREASE IN VARIETY OF FRUITS AND VEGETABLES POST RF 55

36 INCREASE IN AWARENESS ABOUT HEALTH ISSUES AFTER RF 56

37 INCREASE IN WATER LEVELS POST RF 57

38 IMPROVEMENT IN HEALTH POST RF 61

39 IMPROVEMENT IN SOIL HEALTH POST RF 61


1. INTRODUCTION

Indian agriculture is a major source of livelihood to the rural areas where around 70% of our

population lives. The share of agriculture as a part of the total GDP has been shrinking. The

share of agriculture in national GDP has shrunk from around 30% share in 1990-1991 to 17%

in 2012-2013. This however does not mean that the work force employed has reduced in

actual number. Even at a 17% share of GDP, it employed about 51% of the total workforce.

There has been a divergence between the growth trends in other sector of the economy and

the agriculture and allied services sector which indicates an under performance.

It suggests that unlike the overall economy, the growth in the agriculture sector has been very

volatile. The CV (coefficient of variation) has been 1.6 in 2000-2011 from 1.1 in 1992-2000

meaning that the agriculture has deviated more in the recent years from the overall economic

growth. Agriculture being dependent on many variables and majority farmers falling in the

rain fed agriculture practices category, the variation is expected to widen in the wake of

climate change events.

Crop yield per unit area of all crops have grown since 1950, due to the special emphasis

placed on agriculture in the five-year plans and steady improvements in irrigation,

technology, application of modern agricultural practices and provision of agricultural credit

and subsidies since the Green Revolution in India. However, international comparisons reveal

the average yield in India is generally 30% to 50% of the highest average yield in the world.

(Datt and Sundaram, 2009, pp499-501) even the green revolution impacted the states where

large landholdings and credit was available and the impacts were clearly visible in states like

Punjab and Haryana. The average marginal person with small landholding and vulnerable to

vagaries of monsoon was left behind. The average land holding as per the agriculture census

2010-2011 has come down to 1.23 Ha in all land size groups from an average of 1.16Ha in

2005-2006 census in a short span of 5years.This has happened due to continuous

fragmentation of land that has led to a decrease in cultivable land per household. The

government programs aimed to cater to this group of people often does not reach the actual

beneficiaries. There have been many funding agencies who have tried to respond to this

through NGOs working in developmental programs. The government itself has been trying to

provide assistance through MNREGS and RKVYs. Funds have been invested through

different channels to make farming more lucrative so that the next generation does not feel it

a compulsion to take to farming but sees it as a viable income source. A major concern had

been depletion of natural resource base and unsustainable farming practices in the areas


which not only put a strain in terms of input cost but also reduced the overall income of the

family.

However the situation is still bad in areas where rain fed agriculture is being practiced for

lack of resources to have a modern assured irrigation source in the farm. The problem

aggravates when climate change induced weather calamities occur in these areas. The areas at

times experience too much or too little of rains, both of which adversely affect the crop. Even

in cases of normal average rainfall, the distribution becomes a source of concern as the

rainfall received is distributed over a short span of time and not when critical irrigation is

needed for the crops to give a good production output. The marginal farmer is dependent on

uncertain monsoons, ever rising cost of cultivation, water table depletion and unsustainable

farming practices in practice extensively. This uncertainty of so many variables leaves the

farmer with not much choice but to pay heavily for inputs that are overpriced. All these

factors combined together, bring down the net income of the farmer from his piece of land

from agriculture. It is thus the reason behind the unwillingness of the farmers to hope for

their sons to follow in their footsteps in the professional sphere. Farmer suicides are common

so much so that it is not breaking news anymore.

To address the issue, Reliance Foundation has taken up the cause to work in the area of rural

transformation. Present in 10 states and 24 clusters, the foundation reaches out to 29000

farmers from about 366 VFAs as on date. RF aims to transform the lives by stabilizing the

livelihoods of the marginal farmer through farming and allied services. RF has tried to

address the issue with the help of on farm and off farm practices to make a move towards

sustainable agriculture practices. RF BIJ aims to improve the livelihoods of the marginal

farmers through different land development and soil moisture conservation techniques to

improve the soil health. The on farm activities include bunding of the farm, silt application,

FYM application, trenches along the bunds to trap the top soil in run off in case of heavy

rains. The off farm activities include promotion of cattle herding as a source of alternate

livelihood as it also provides clean fuel if dung is converted to biogas and can reduce the

drudgery of women in rural areas. The sludge can be of use in fields as a nutrient application

material. These all integrated farm practices aim towards empowering the farmer and helping

him attain a better way of life for himself and his family.


2. BACKGROUND:

2.1 OBJECTIVE OF THE PROGRAMME

Reliance foundation is a not for profit organisation focuses on five core pillars of Rural

Transformation, Education, Health, Urban Renewal and Arts, Culture & Heritage. Reliance

Foundation launched Reliance BIJ in October 2010. BIJ stands for 'Bharat India Jodo' and

aims to bridge the gap between rural and urban India. Reliance Foundation BIJ seeks to

achieve this by focusing on supporting marginalized farmers who are plagued by constraints

of low farm productivity and increasing natural resource degradation. The vision is “to make

farming first choice profession”. Objectives of RF BIJ are:

1. Income and well-being of farmers

2. To attain nutritional self-sufficiency and food security

3. To have an improved natural resource base.

4. To build sustainable community institutions.

These objectives are attained through activities like soil and water conservation (bunding,

levelling, trenches, farm ponds, dug wells, contour farming, seeds), RNGs (Reliance

Nutrition Gardens) VFAs (Village Farmer Associations) etc. The soil water conservation

activities done in a farmer’s field would help de risk him from the vagaries of monsoon,

increase his productivity in a sustainable manner and would help achieve well-being of the

family. The village farmers’ institution would be a community institution working for the

betterment of the village as a whole.

After these interventions it was expected that the soil erosion would decrease, moisture level

in the soil would increase, water level would increase, production from the farm would

increase, the area of land under cultivation would increase, and cropping pattern and cropping

intensity would change and would help the farmer. It would help the farmer by helping him

increase his production, increase his income, attain food security and along with RNGs attain

nutritional self-sufficiency.

Quantitative impacts would be in terms of

Increase in income and asset base

Increase in sustainable production

Irrigation coverage provided


Change in cropping intensity

Change in the cultivable area

Change in yield

Qualitative impacts could be in terms of

Nutritional self sufficiency

Health related incidents

Food consumption pattern of the family

Effects of RNG

Water level- a trend (since data has to be maintained yearly for a quantitative result)

2.2OBJECTIVE OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT STUDY:

The impact assessment study was aimed to assess how far RF has been able to achieve its

goal towards rural transformation in broader terms of

Income levels from baseline to after the project has been implemented

Change in production and yield

Changes in the food consumption patterns

Food and water relates issues pre and post RF

Water level trends in the project areas

A general perception of well-being from the stakeholders themselves.


3. STUDY AREA: AGAR

Agar is located in the heart of Malwa plateau of Agar district (elevation of about 500m).

Cluster spreads across 4 tehsils, namely; Agar, Nalkheda, Susner and Badod. Location is as

shown in the map.

Agar has red soil (murram) with patches of black soil. Deforestation has led to soil erosion

and shallow soil depth.

RF BIJ at the time of cluster selection for study was operational in 31 villages through 31

villages Farmers Association (VFA) and with 2561 farmers. Reasons for selecting the cluster

for the study:

It is an old cluster having been formed in 2010.

Soil and water conservation activities have been done in the cluster.

DHARTI farm activities have been taken up. (Land preparation, FYM tank silt

application, seed distribution etc.)

Reliance Nutrition Gardens have been made in the cluster

Nurseries have been established in the cluster.

Agro Ecological Region: Central Highlands (Malwa), Gujarat Plain And Kathiawar

Peninsula, Semi-Arid Eco-Region


Agro Ecological Sub Region: Madhya Bharat Plateau, Western Malwa Plateau, Eastern

Gujarat plain, Vindhya and Satpura range and Narmada valley

Rainfall: 800-1000mm

Soil type: medium and deep, clayey black soils (shallow black soils as inclusion)

Major crops: Soybean, Wheat, Jowar, Groundnut, Cotton, Maize

Table 1: Agar cluster at a glance

Activity Figures as on

September,2013

No. Of VFAs formed 35

No. Of HHs reached by RF BIJ 2976

Amount of membership fees collected 585000

Total extent of area under DF (Ha.) 2725.18

No. Of RNGs established 1417

Facility created for rainwater storage (lakh cum) 11.53

New farm pond / dug wells made 552

Number of trees planted on individual lands 157264

Number of vermin compost units 3

Compost pits /NADEP units 406

Biogas units 89


4. METHODOLOGY:

Area for study was selected based upon the availability of criteria under study which in this

case would be the activities done for which the impacts need to be studied. Area selection

would be followed by a pilot study. Based on the pilot study on a small number of farmers

and the response and time consumed, questionnaire was improved. The study was then

conducted in all the villages of the cluster with VFA members selected through justified

random sampling.

All the villages in the cluster were taken for the survey which had been taken up till

2012-2013.

In the villages itself, the members were selected based on the land holding and

classified as per regulations into marginal ,small, semi medium and medium. Farmers

with marginal and small land holding were clubbed together into small marginal

category with land holdings of upto2Ha. The second category formed was of farmers

with land holding between 2-4 Ha. The third category would comprise of mainly

farmers with land holding between 4-10Ha and above.

Table 2: Land category classification

CATEGORY LAND HOLDING (Ha)

MARGINAL < 1 Category

one SMALL 1-2

SEMI MEDIUM 2-4 Category

2

MEDIUM 4-10 Category

3

BIG >10

Big farmers constitute a very small margin and were taken up with the medium

category farmers.

Categorisation based on land classes was preferred over income classes for several

reasons.

1. Land classes are a standard practice for categorization.


2. Income based classification was not accurate and the incomes varied

widely within a land category group.

3. As per our classification, almost all the members are marginal but the category

classification based on land classes as per government of India regulations makes it

easily comprehensible even by a non RF employee.

The table below shows the number of respondents for each village which was

calculated based upon the membership base as per the last working year 2012-2013.

In villages the respondents fell in two sets. SET 1 was the set which had people with

whom RF worked in the very first year i.e. 2011. For this category of people, the

baseline data was for 2010 when they practised agriculture as they did without our

interventions. This set has received VFA help in two consecutive years in some form

or other.

The second SET 2 comprises of VFA members with who RF worked for the first time

in 2012. For this category of people, RF has intervened for only one year i.e. 2012 till

the survey was conducted. For this category of people, the baseline year was 2011.

The names of farmers were shortlisted from the baseline data maintained at the cluster

level. The shortlisted names with whom we had at least worked in 2011 or 2012 or

both were shortlisted village wise and the list was given to the respective surveyors to

carry out the survey. This number came out to be around 425 for 25% of the

membership base. The actual numbers surveyed were 471 which are 28% of the

members till 2012 end with whom we had worked. The names of the villages where

we had worked were decided in line with discussions with senior members of the

team and came out to be 24 in all.

Table 3: List of villages with total HH, member HH and numbers surveyed.

S. No. VILLAGE NAME Total number

of HHs Member HHs

% HH

covered

NUMBER OF

MEMBERS

SURVEYED

1 AHIRBARDIYA 242 152 62.81 23

2 AMLA 284 140 49.30 17

3 BADGONE 148 128 86.49 20

4 BAPCHA 179 129 72.07 16

5 BHADKA 43 43 100.00 9

6 BHANPURA 79 79 100.00 16

7 DABADIYA 400 159 39.75 35

8 DEVLI 165 140 84.85 20

9 JAGATPURA 105 80 76.19 14


10 JHALARA 32 206 643.75 31

11 JHIKADIA 99 87 87.88 15

12 KANKARIYA 178 80 44.94 13

13 KARWAKHEDI 134 63 47.01 19

14 KASAI DEHARIYA 125 97 77.60 29

15 MAHUDIYA 112 84 75.00 16

16 NIPANIYA 550 138 25.09 11

17 RAIPURIYA 67 67 100.00 18

18 RATANKHEDI 130 62 47.69 14

19 ROJHANA 83 75 90.36 15

20 ROJHANI 140 115 82.14 20

21 SALRI 157 154 98.09 30

22 SEMLI 158 53 33.54 11

23 SHIVGARH 289 76 26.30 18

24 SIRPOI 275 166 60.36 41

TOTAL 4174 2573 61.64 471

The member HH details is as per July, 2013

Village level youth were employed for the survey work, one from each village which

made the total to be 24. At a later stage 3 more Para workers were trained to complete

the villages that were lagging behind.

Survey forms were filled and data entry was done by 2 people at the cluster.

A pilot study was taken up first to asses if the questionnaire and the data entry sheets

need any change to improve it further, if need be. Then a full-fledged survey was

taken up in all the villages simultaneously. 6 days later, the data entry also could be

taken up simultaneously with the survey work.

The data was then compiled based on the base year and the first impact year. For

people who joined us in 2010 and got VFA support in 2011 for the first time and 2012

for the second time were in one category. The second category was of people who

received support in 2012 for the first time i.e. only one impact year has been spent

with them.


A mock training exercise at Badgone

One to one interaction with surveyors and beneficiaries


5. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

All the data received was compiled and checked for entry errors. It was then totalled and

averages recorded so that a meaningful analysis can be done. Analysis of major parameters

has been done as to what trend is being seen in the overall data for agar cluster as well as

village wise changes over the years of our association with the VFA. The major parameters

are per capita cultivable land each season, the yield from per Ha land, the expenses on

fertilisers and FYM/pond silt to give us a trend of the sustainable practices. Incomes per

capita are then plotted for total cluster as a whole and village wise difference in incomes from

the baseline in the Kharif and Rabi season have been recorded. This gives us a general idea of

the fertility of the land per village if we see the Kharif income levels.

Similarly consumption difference in baseline and final impact year has also been calculated

to record changes in patterns. The changes in DF12R area from BR area would give the

actual impact we have been able to make in a water scarce area.

5.0 GENERAL INFORMATION:

Household size of the area is somewhat constant with the average family size in each land

class category being similar. In SM category the average family size comes out to be 4.34, in

SD category it is 4.90 and in MD category it is around 5.14.

However the composition of the family is not the same. In SM category the ratio of children

to adults in a family is .49, in SD it is .45 and in MD it is the lowest .31. This tells us that the

dependent children in case of SM and SD category per adult are high. However it is less in

MD category.

Hygiene is a cause of concern as open defecation is the most prevalent modes of defecation

across all land class categories. Flush toilets are virtually absent for the Small and Marginal

land category class. It is in practise by some families in the medium land category as it is

expensive to construct. This is the land class category where they have slightly more incomes

to dispose of, which send their children to school and in general are ready to accept the

modern ways of living. They also seem to be slightly more aware of the perils of open

defecation. The percentage usage of toilets by each land class category of people is shown in

percentage and the average usage across all land categories is shown in the table below:


Table 4: Land category wise list of hygiene practices

Category Open defecation (%) Community toilets (%) Flush toilets (%)

SM 98.95 1.05 0.00

SD 98.09 0.00 1.91

MD 96.36 0.00 3.64

Averages across land

categories

97.80 .35 1.85

The source of potable varies from hand pump to rivers to streams. But the table shows the

most preferred water source within land category classes as well as across land classes.

Table 5: Land category wise source of potable water

Land class Common

well

Hand

pump

Open well River Tap water Tube well

SM 31.94 52.88 5.76 0.52 7.85 1.05

SD 33.12 56.05 2.55 0.00 7.01 1.27

MD 36.36 55.45 2.73 0.00 5.45 00.00

Across all land

categories

33.41 54.59 3.93 0.22 6.99 0.87

Hand pumps seem to the most favoured among all categories for clean source of water

closely followed by common wells. And the trend continues across and within land category

classes.

ASSET BASE:

Asset base has seen an increase in tractors in all the land category classes. However, SM

category has seen only 2 additions as compared to 3 in SD category and 6 in the MD

category. With the advent of technology, the bullock carts are slowly decreasing in number.

The numbers pre and post RF are somewhat constant in SM category with a decrease in

number y only 2. However, the decrease in SD (55 to 42) and MD (58 to 40) category has

been considerable.


The SD category has invested most in sprayers. The numbers have gone up from 76 to 88 pre

and post RF. The MD category seems to be going for pipelines (17 to 20) with other assets

more or less constant.

The most commonly bought asset across all land categories seems to the motor bike. It has

gone from 23 to 30 in SM category, from 33 to 42 in SD category and from 54 to 58 in the

MD category. Percentage wise, the maximum per cent increase has been in the SM category

(30%) followed by SD category (27 %) and MD category (7%).

The entertainment section also seems to have been a big hit with the number of VCD and

DVD players increasing in from 10 to 17 in the SM category with an increase of 70%. The

SD category shows an increase of 81% from 11 to 19. The MD category already had the

items but the numbers have not shown a positive increase. The reason could be the additional

income from farming which has now enabled the SM and SD category to be able to invest in

assets that were considered a luxury and hence were not bought earlier.

The communication has been revolutionised in the villages by mobile phones. The numbers

have increased by 11% in SM category from 138 to 153.

In SD category the increase has been from 121 to 149 showing an increase of 23%

The MD category shows an increase of 15% with the numbers increasing from 109 to 125.

These increases in asset numbers are not mere numbers but they show the income levels, the

thought process of the marginal farmers who not only think about assets to be bought but also

are also being able to buy them. Finances seem to be improving with money left to be spent

on items that were beyond the reach earlier. The change in the thoughts of the community

which earlier could not afford these items is more important than the actual numbers.

Enabling in thinking has a more deep rooted impact than the numbers themselves. Numbers

show a trend quantitatively.


5.1 LAND

Land is the source of livelihood for agriculture based economy in Indian villages. As per

government of India classification there are 4 categories of people with different land

holdings in their names. The classes are marginal (<1Ha), small (1-2Ha). Semi medium (2-

4Ha), medium (4-10Ha) and big (>10Ha) . The average land holding in each category as per

agriculture census 2010-2011 and as per our membership records is in the table below

Table 6: Comparison of per capita land holding sizes

Land

classes

Average land holding

size per capita

(all India)


size per capita (M.P.)


size per capita (Agar

cluster)

Marginal 0.38 0.49 0.66

Small 1.42 1.41 1.34

Semi

medium

2.71 2.73 2.67

Medium 5.76 5.76 5.44

Big 17.37 15.73 15.52

Graph 1: Area under cultivation in different years for CLASS 1 (2010-2012)

0123456789

10

Kharif Rabi Total Kharif Rabi Kharif Rabi Total Kharif Rabi Kharif Rabi Total

Farmer Field Dharti Farm Farmer Field Dharti Farm

Base Year 2010 Impact year 2011 Impact year 2012

PER CAPITA AVERAGE AREA (in Ha )UNDER CULTIVATION

Small Farmer (27) Medium Farmer (33) Large Farmer (41)


Graph 2: % change in per capita land holding under cultivation for CLASS 1(2010-2012)

As seen from the graph total land under cultivation in SM category of farmers increased

from the baseline in 1st year of impact then decreased in the second year especially in Rabi

season. For the SD and MD categories the change has not been significant in the totals. It

explains that the effect of uncertain monsoons majorly affect the poor farmer who does not

have a sustained water source for irrigating his fields. The year 2011records an increase in all

the categories but the year 2012 shows a decrease in the SM category presumably due to the

year being deficient in rainfall and almost all the months deviating negatively from normal in

terms of average monthly rainfall of the area as is seen from the graph below that tells us the

average rainfall and the deviation from normal.

Graph 3: Actual rainfall in 2012 along with the deviation from long term average of the area.

Source: Indian Meteorological Department

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00


52.04

31.44

4.73

32.29 28.40 17.59

% CHANGE IN PER CAPITA CULTIVATED LAND HOLDING

% INCREASE IN FIRST YEAR % INCREASE OVERALL

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

RAINFALL DEVIATION FROM NORMAL AVERAGES

ACTUAL RAINFALL AVERAGES FOR THE DISTRICT(IN mm)


The change in land area under cultivation for different categories has been different even in

the CLASS 1 where RF interventions started in the same year 2011 and continued in 2012.

The different land category classes viz. SM (small marginal) SD (semi medium) and MD

(medium and big) experienced different growth rates.

Graph 4: Area under cultivation in different years for CLASS 2 (2011-2012)

Graph 5: % change in per capita land holding under cultivation for CLASS 2 (2011-2012)

In CLASS 2, it is seen that there has been only one year of intervention with this group of

farmers till the study was taken up. It can be seen from the graph that the average land

holding in case of the SM category is the least and in a majority of the cases it was seen that

012345678

Kharif Rabi Total Kharif Rabi Kharif Rabi Total

Farmer Field Farmer Field Dharti Farm

Base year 2011 Impact year 2012

PER CAPITA AVERAGE LAND (IN Ha) UNDER CULTIVATION

Small Farmer (164) Medium Farmer (125) Large Farmer(70)

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

Small Farmer (164) Medium Farmer(125)

Large Farmer(70)

13.85 16.37

11.58

% CHANGE IN PER CAPITA CULTIVATED LAND HOLDING

% INCREASE IN LAND HOLDING


the entire land that was under cultivation was supported by VFA hence the graph in farmer’s

field in 2012 in case of SM category is very low and almost all the fields have been converted

to DHARTI farms. There has not been much increase in the land from baseline as the land

developed is almost equal to the land owned by the category of people and the low rainfall in

the impact year. In both SD and MD categories, the land under cultivation for Kharif has

increased as they are the people in the villages who have spare land that can be converted for

agricultural purpose.

These are cumulative figures for the entire cluster. Village wise change differs from one

village to other. The village wise difference in Kharif and Rabi baseline to the final impact

year have been plotted for different baseline years and are shown below.

The highest difference in Kharif can be seen I case of Shivgarh (Avg 11) where it has

increased by 2.54Ha per capita and lowest in case of Semli (Avg 10) where the land has gone

down by 1.4Ha.

In Rabi the highest impact has been for Sirpoi where cultivated land increased by 3.21Ha and

the lowest in this is Jhikadiya where the land under cultivation in 2012 decreased due to low

rainfall.

Bunding in Kankariya Village

Stone Bunding

Hamari banjar bhumi me levelling karai aur kali mitti dalwai jiske baa dab zamen dono fasal dene lagi

hai.Pehle 1 beegha me rabi kar paate the ab 2 beeghe me kar lete hain.

Jor Singh Driyav Singh, Badgone


Table 7: Village wise per capita change in cultivated land holding

VILLAGE base year DIFFERENCE

KHARIF DIFFERENCE RABI

Shivgarh Avg11 2.54 -0.86

Dabadiya Avg10 2 2.47

Mahudiya Avg10 1.99 2.37

Bhadka Avg11 1.73 1.53

Salri Avg11 1.64 0.49

Ratankhedi Avg10 1.51 2.21

Bapcha Avg11 1.3 1.73

Jhkadiya Avg11 1.3 2.23

Nipaniya baijnath Avg10 1.3 -1.2

Rojhana Avg10 1.13 -0.4

Kankariya Avg10 1.11 1.85

Kankariya Avg11 1.11 1.26

Karwakhedi Avg11 1.11 1.26

Badgone Avg11 1.05 1.22

Dabadiya Avg11 0.94 2.42

Kasaidehariya Avg10 0.92 -0.89

Ratankhedi Avg11 0.88 2

Rojhani Avg11 0.86 0.92

Amla Avg10 0.83 0.1

Mahudiya Avg11 0.81 0.71

Badgone Avg10 0.8 0.8

Karwakhedi Avg10 0.75 -1.1

Bhanpura Avg10 0.73 0.55

Raipuriya Avg11 0.72 0.62

Sirpoi Avg10 0.72 1.15

Sirpoi Avg11 0.72 3.21

Jhalara Avg10 0.7 1

Rojhani Avg10 0.65 1.2

Amla Avg11 0.54 1.26


Shivgarh Avg10 0.52 0.6

Jhalara Avg11 0.49 0.87

Bhadka Avg10 0.47 0.53

Semli Avg11 0.46 -0.41

Kasaidehariya Avg11 0.41 -1.04

Jhkadiya Avg10 0.4 -1.27

Jagatpura Avg11 0.39 0.14

Salri Avg10 0.35 0.5

Bhanpura Avg11 0.27 0.79

Deoli Avg10 0.12 -0.38

Ahirbardiya Avg11 0 0.22

Nipaniya baijnath Avg11 -0.09 0.6

Rojhana Avg11 -0.09 1.74

Semli Avg10 -1.4 0.33

Table 8: The Land details as per the people surveyed

Land type Area in Ha.

Irrigated 715.1

Unirrigated 370.5

Cultivable wasteland 228.2

Total 1313.8

Of this total area, an additional 97.3 Ha of area has been brought under irrigation due to farm

ponds and dug wells made on private land with the help of VFA.

There is also a category where well deepening has been done. As a result the area which was

already under irrigation was improved upon. As a result, the area of 116 Ha which was

irrigated but deficient in irrigation has now become well irrigated but is overlapping with the

already reported irrigated area hence cannot be reported as brought under irrigation as solely

by VFA efforts.


5.2YEILD AND PRODUCTION

The yield and hence the overall production varies from year to year. In case of agar, the

economy depends upon soybean which is the major crop of the area and reaps a good price of

about 3000 per quintals. This increase in price has been a recent phenomenon where the price

hike has seen a steep slope in the past 2 - 3 years from around 1800 per quintal in 2010 to

around 3000per quintal in 2012.Overall this has impacted the farmers in a positive way. He

farmers not only has experienced an increase in the production thanks to the VFA support in

land development activities but has also seen an increase in yield due to the soil water

conservation techniques being implemented in the field. The trend has been generally

upwards in both the fields where VFA (DHARTI farm) has supported and where the VFA

has not supported but the increase is more in case of DHARTI farms. The change in yield can

be seen from the graph below.

Graph 6: Yield pattern in Soybean CLASS 1 (2010-2012)

Table 9: The actual land and production details of soybean are as follows:

Soybean Baseline year 2010 Farmers field 2012 DHARTI farm 2012

Production (Q) 2710.65 1834.75 1917.75

Land (Ha) 255 152.1 150.4

Yield (Q/Ha) 10.63 12.062 12.751

10.63

12.06

12.75

9.5

10

10.5

11

11.5

12

12.5

13

soybean per Ha yeild

SOYBEAN

BASELINE FARMERS FIELD 2012 DHARTI FARM 2012


Graph 7: Yield pattern in wheat CLASS 1 (2010-2012)

Table 10: Actual land and production details of wheat

Wheat Baseline year 2010 Farmers field 2012 DHARTI farm 2012

Production (Q) 3046.7 2227.9 1726.05

Land (Ha) 102.9 88.4 53.6

Yield (Q/Ha) 29.60 25.20 32.20

Graph 8: yield pattern in Gram CLASS 1 (2010-2012)

Table 11: Actual land and production details of Gram

Gram Baseline year 2010 Farmers field 2012 DHARTI farm 2012

Production (Q) 460 342.5 213

Land (Ha) 57.9 31.80 21.90

Yield (Q/Ha) 7.94 10.77 9.73

29.6 25.2

32.2

0

10

20

30

40

wheat per Ha yeild

WHEAT

baseline 2010 farmers field 2012 farmers field 20122

7.94

10.77 9.72

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

GRAM YEILD PER Ha

GRAM

BASELINE 2010 FARMERS FIELD 2012 DHARTI FARM 2012


Graph 9: Yield pattern in Soybean CLASS 2 (2011-2012)

Table 12: The actual land and production details of soybean are as follows

Soybean Baseline year 2011 Farmers field 2012 DHARTI farm

2012

Production (Q) 7701.35 4505 5483.95

Land (Ha) 687 345.8 418.1

Yield (Q/Ha) 11.21 13.03 13.12

Graph 10: Yield pattern in Wheat CLASS 2 (2011-2012)

Table 13: Actual land and production details of Wheat

Wheat Baseline year 2011 Farmers field 2012 DHARTI farm 2012

Production (Q) 9641 4734 7058.5

Land (Ha) 278.9 140.2 181.9

Yield (Q/Ha) 34.57 33.77 38.80

11.21

13.03 13.12

10

11

12

13

14

YEILD

SOYBEAN

BASELINE 2011 FF12K DF12K

34.57 33.77

38.8

30

32

34

36

38

40

YEILD

WHEAT

BASELINE 2011 FF12K DF12K


Graph 11: Yield pattern in gram CLASS 2 (2011-2012)

Table 14: Actual land and production details of Gram

Gram Baseline year 2011 Farmers field 2012 DHARTI farm 2012

Production (Q) 1271 863.9 907.6

Land (Ha) 123 68.3 80.3

Yield (Q/Ha) 10.17 12.65 11.30

10.17

12.65 11.3

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

YEILD

GRAM

BASELINE 2011 FF 12 K DF 12 K

Maine samiti ki sahayata se apne khet par med bandhan tatha plough ka kaam karaya hai jis se

mere zameen k utpadan me bahut vridhhi hui hai.

Mai samiti ki gatividhiyon se bahut khush hun.

Mukesh Pannalal , Salri


5.3FERTILIZER USAGE

Graph 12: Fertiliser usage cost per capita for CLASS 1(2010-2012)

Average cost of fertiliser usage was high in baseline. It shows positive increase in the first

impact year more so in the DHARTI farms. The logical reason for this increase could be the

basic assumption that since a lot of interventions had been already been supported on the

same patch of land by VFA, it would give more benefits to invest on fertilizers on the same

patch. But the usage per capita in spite of an increase in the land per capita has gone down. It

has gone down also keeping in mind an increase in fertiliser prices over the years. This is a

positive trend towards sustainable practice. The same is the case with semi medium land

category group. It can be said that they are moving towards sustainability if the trend is

followed over a few years. However, a cause for concern is the continuous rise in the per

capita investment by the medium and big farmer category. It keeps on increasing over the

years as compared with the small marginal and semi medium category. RF has been able to

convince the small marginal farmers but the big farmers it seems are not ready to

compromise on the output they have been getting with the extensive usage of fertilizers.

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

Kharif Rabi Kharif Rabi Kharif Rabi Kharif Rabi Kharif Rabi

Total Farmer Field Dharti Farm TOTAL Farmer Field DHARTI FARM TOTAL

BASE YEAR 2010 IMPACT YEAR 2011 IMPACT YEAR 2012

PER CAPITA FERTILISER USAGE IN DIFFERETN FIELDS



Graph 13: Fertiliser usage cost per capita for CLASS 2 (2011-2012)

There has been a negligible change in the per capita consumption of fertilisers in case of SM

category. It can be considered positive as the land per under cultivation has increased and the

cost of fertiliser has also increased but the corresponding change in the per capita cost on

fertiliser usage has not been that high. This is not the case with SD category of people where

the per capita consumption has increased. In case of MD category the per capita change in

fertiliser cost has slightly increased which is good keeping in mind the highest amount of per

capita land under this category.

In Kharif, the per hectare cost in both CLASS 1 and CLASS 2 are lower in DHARTI farms

than the farmer’s field. When it comes to Rabi, per Ha cost of fertiliser goes up in DHARTI

farms as compared to the farmers’ field without VFA support. A logical reason could be the

application of FYM /pond silt by VFA support in the Kharif season hence the decrease in per

Ha cost in DF as compared to the farmers field without VFA support. In Rabi season, there is

hardly any support from the VFA in terms of FYM/pond silt application. The general trend is

higher cost of fertiliser application in Rabi season as compared to the Kharif season.

However, the increase in DHARTI farm per hectare expenses on fertiliser for the same year

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

Kharif Rabi Total Kharif Rabi Kharif Rabi total



PER CAPITA COST OF FERTILIZER APPLICATION IN FIELD



and season are far more than the farmers field expenses on which he cultivated without any

VFA support.

Table 15: Per hectare cost of fertiliser usage for CLASS 1:

Change in the cost of Fertilizer application from 2010 to 2012

Land Category


Total

Kharif

Total

Rabi

Total

Kharif Kharif DF

Total

Rabi Rabi DF

Small Farmer (27) 34,950 27,300 34,900 32,400 30,300 29,800

Medium Farmer (33) 1,12,500 85,610 1,03,300 57,800 1,20,500 94,100

Large Farmer (41) 2,59,200 2,85,285 2,45,500 89,600 2,68,180 96,200

Total (101): 4,06,650 3,98,195 3,83,700 1,79,800 4,18,980 2,20,100

Per capita Cost: 4,026 3,943 3,799 1,780 4,148 2,179

Area in Ha. 258 172 306 153.76 215 84.50

Cost per Ha. : 1,575 2,311 1,253 1169.35 1,946 2604.73

Table 16: Per hectare cost of fertiliser usage for CLASS 2:

Change in the cost of Fertilizer application from 2011 to 2012

Land Category


Total Kharif Total Rabi

Total

Kharif

Kharif

DF

Total

Rabi

Rabi

DF

Small Farmer (164) 2,91,030 2,24,985 3,13,690 2,44,860 2,61,970 2,16,070

Medium Farmer (125) 4,26,260 3,53,220 5,66,260 3,10,360 4,59,332 2,63,452

Large Farmer(70) 6,16,020 3,54,850 6,13,330 1,86,280 4,59,520 2,30,070

Total (360): 13,33,310 9,33,055 14,93,280 7,41,500 11,80,822 7,09,592

Per capita Cost: 3,704 2,592 4,148 2,060 3,280 1,971

Area in Ha. 702 433 786 432.00 506 282

Cost per Ha. : 1,899 2,156 1,901 1,716 2,333 2,516

It is interesting to note that the per capita expenses on farmers field without VFA support is

higher than that of DHARTI farm but the per hectare cost in DHARTI farm is higher when

both the fields are compared. This means that the intensity of fertilizer application is more in

DHARTI farms.


5.4FYM USAGE

Graph 14: Expense on FYM/pond silt over the years in CLASS 1 (2010-2012)

The above graph shows the per capita and per hectare expenses on FYM/Pond silt application

over the years keeps pace with the VFA support. It has shown a direct proportion to the VFA

support. The peaks in FYM/tank silt application tend to match with the peaks in VFA

contribution for that particular season in that year.

In the baseline years, as expected, the per capita expenditure on FYM and pond silt has been

the highest in the MD category followed by the SD category and the lowest in SM category.

The SM category farmers seem to be spending more percentage share on per Ha land as the

land holding in this group is very low. As compared, the per Ha expense on FYM and tank

silt seem to be on the lower side in the SD and MD category as their expense is high but the

per capita land is also much higher. So a per Ha would give somewhat similar expenses by

both categories in spite of having a greater capacity to afford in case of the MD category.

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

Kharif Rabi Kharif VFA Rabi VFA Total Kharif Rabi Kharif VFA Rabi VFA Total

Kharif Rabi Total FarmerField

Dharti Farm FarmerField

Dharti Farm


Per capita expense on FYM/POND SILT



Graph 15: Expense on FYM/pond silt over the year in CLASS 2 (2011-2012)

The expense over the year keeps pace with the VFA support for the same. The graph rises

where the VFA support graph rises in proportion. However, over the year of interventions

with the farmers, the per capita expense on FYM and pond silt have increased considerably

for each category of farmers be it small or big. In SM category, the increase has been from

1000 per capita to 4000per capita. In SD category it has increased from around 2000 to

around 7000 per capita. In MD category it has been an increase from around 4000 per capita

to 8000 per capita.

0.00

1000.00

2000.00

3000.00

4000.00

5000.00

6000.00

7000.00

8000.00

9000.00

Kharif Rabi Total Kharif Rabi Kharif VFA Rabi VFA Total



Per capita expense on FYM /pond silt



5.5INCOME

Graph 16: Per capita incomes of CLASS 1(2010-2012)

The incomes in all the classes show a positive trend throughout the impact years. The average

income of SM category has increased from around 10,000 to around 40,000 per annum which

are significant. The most significant increase has however been in the big farmer category in

the set 1 group where the per capita incomes have changed from around 110,000 in 2010 to

220,000 per farmer household in 2012, an increase of 100%.

The net increase in the incomes of the farmers across all categories has been due to

Increase in area of cultivation

Increase in application of FYM/Tank silt+ land development activities-increase in

yield

Increase in sale price of the major cash crop like soybean. (From 1800-2000 in 2010

to an average of 3000 per quintals in 2012

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

Kharif Rabi Total FarmerField

DhartiFarm

Total FarmerField

DhartiFarm

Total




Graph 17: % increase in incomes CLASS 1(2010-2012)

Even though the actual per capita incomes remain highest in the biggest land category group

that is MD category, the percentage increase in per capita income levels in two years of

interventions have been in the small marginal category of people with the minimum land

holding. The phenomenal increase is partly because of our interventions and partly because of

the price rise. A reason also is the ultra-low income levels before RF interventions.as result

even if the increase is low in actual numbers; the percentage increase is the highest in all the

categories.

Graph 18: Per capita income for CLASS 2(2011-2012)

0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

Small Farmer (27) Medium Farmer(33)

Large Farmer (41)

272.91

190.01 139.51

% INCREASE IN INCOMES:CLASS 1

% INCREASE IN INCOMES

0.00

20000.00

40000.00

60000.00

80000.00

100000.00

120000.00

140000.00

160000.00

180000.00

200000.00

Kharif Rabi Total Kharif Rabi Kharif Rabi Total





The incomes of SM category farmers have risen from around 18000 per capita per annum to

around 30000 per annum in just a year, an increase of 67%. For the SD category of farmers

the change has been from 40000/annum/family to around 80000/annum/family which is

around a 100 % increase. For the big farmer category the change has been from around

96000per household per annum to 185000 per household per annum which is also an increase

of around 100%.

The net increase in the incomes of the farmers across all categories has been due to

Increase in area of cultivation

Increase in application of FYM/Tank silt+ land development activities-increase in

yield

Increase in sale price of the major cash crop like soybean. (From an average selling

price of around 2500/Q to an average of 3000/Q in 2012.)

Graph 19: % increase in incomes CLASS 1(2011-2012)

The number of small and marginal land category of farmers has increased in the class 2 as

these were the people who had very low income levels, who could not experiment with a new

design and methods initially till they saw some proof of concept working for others. These

are people who did not and in many cases, could not be helped in the first year of

intervention. In the first year of interventions which formed class1 the majority of big farmers

came forward and the lowest number was of small and marginal land holding category. This

gets reversed in the second year when the small and marginal category of land holding people

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00


71.00

102.59 93.97

% INCREASE IN INCOMES:CLASS 2

% INCREASE IN INCOMES


forms the chunk of the total numbers we worked with. The percentage increase is high but

not as high as the class 1 as the prices in base year 2011 were higher than class where base

year was 2010.

The numbers in CLASS 1 for SM category was also low so even if a few of them were very

poor, the entire per capita average would come down below 10000 per annum. This income

however, also includes the Rabi crop which is entirely for consumption in case of wheat. This

does not get depicted in the net income levels of the graph as they do not earn revenue but the

expenses get accounted for. The self-consumption amounts have gone up after RF

intervention in fields in SM category the highest as they were the poorest of the poor and the

impact is thus highest in their case.

Table 17: Total incomes for CLASS 1 (2010-2012)

Land Category


Total Kharif

Total

Rabi Total

Total

Kharif

Total

Rabi Total

Small Farmer (27) 1,77,150 68,764 2,45,914 6,83,340 2,33,710 9,17,050

Medium Farmer

(33) 5,13,100 4,92,290 10,05,390 17,68,072 11,47,660 29,15,732

Large Farmer (41) 19,48,885 17,89,958 37,38,843 75,10,675 26,90,540 1,02,01,215

Total (101): 26,39,135 23,51,012 49,90,147 99,62,087 40,71,910 1,40,33,997

Per capita Income: 26,130 23,277 49,407 98,635 40,316 1,38,950

Area in Ha. 258 172 306 215

Income per ha. 10,221 13,645 32,528 18,913


Table 18: total incomes for CLASS 2 (2011-2012)

Land Category


Total

Kharif

Total

Rabi Total

Total

Kharif Total Rabi Total

Small Farmer (164) 16,09,670 13,40,795 29,50,465 31,53,714 18,91,716 50,45,430

Medium Farmer

(125) 25,38,125 25,07,425 50,45,550 57,27,480 44,94,280 1,02,21,760

Large Farmer(70) 32,65,440 34,84,625 67,50,065 74,99,134 55,93,777 1,30,92,911

Total (360): 74,13,235 73,32,845 1,47,46,080 1,63,80,328 1,19,79,773 2,83,60,101

Per capita Income: 20,592 20,369 40,961 45,501 33,277 78,778

Area in Ha. 701.93 432.8 786 506

Income per Ha. 10,561 16,943 20,845 23,671

The difference in Kharif in baseline to the impact year per Ha is seen because of mainly 2

reasons: one is the improvement in soil health due to emphasis on sustainable practices in

DHARTI farm plus the fact that the main Kharif crop is soybean and the prices have shot up

from the baseline years. So per hectare production and the net income per hectare has gone

up. As with Rabi, the yield has increased a lot in the DHARTI farms for wheat which is a

major crop for Rabi season.as a result the per capita consumption and also the saleable

quintals have gone up along with the selling price. The net income increase is thus seen in

both the classes of farmers.

Kheti se avak badhi hai. Ab hum karz nahi lete. Apna makan bhi pakka karaya hai humne.gadi

kharidi hai. Samiti dwara sahayata se bio – gas banwaya hai. Mahila ko bahut aram hua is se.

Kalu Singh, Ratankhedi

Hamari banjar padi zameen par kaarya hone se hamari aamdani double ho gayi hai. Bahut fayada

hua hai.

Maan Singh, Mahudiya


5.6 VFA CONTRIBUTION

Contribution occurred for two CLASSES of people. For the first CLASS, VFA support was

given for 2 years for different interventions. For CLASS 2 group members with who work

started in 2012 for the first time, VFA contribution happened only once. The pie chart below

shows the assistance provided by VFA to CLASS 1 people in 1st year of intervention i.e.

2011.

Graph 20: VFA expenses CLASS 1 (2011)

Farm pond expenses form the major chunk as the farm ponds made initially were of bigger

dimensions and the primary focus went on securing water for the second crop.

The trend shifted in the second year of assistance when land development seemed to be a

major area of concern and a major chunk was deployed in land development activities like

ploughing levelling and bunding activities. It can be very clearly seen from the pie chart

below which depicts the percentage share of each assistance provided in the second phase to

CLASS 1 members. Land development and border bund together account for around 51% of

the total support provided by the VFA to farmers for different activities.

12%

14%

0%

9% 65%

IMPACT YEAR 2011

LAND DEVELOPMENT

FYM POND SILT

SEED SUPPORT

BORDER BUND

FARM POND



The actual contribution on VFA members in the first and second year of intervention for the

first set is as follows under expense headings:

Table 19: actual expenses on CLASS 1(2010-2012)

EXPENSE HEADING VFA CONTRIBUTION TO

MEMBER (INR)

VFA CONTRIBUTION TO

MEMBER (INR)

Year 2011 2012

LAND DEVELOPMENT 2,45,150 4,64,805

FYM/POND SILT 2,91,750 3,80,661

SEEDS 0 5,300

BORDER BUND 1,76,200 98,232

FARM POND 13,16,981 1,52,375

There was a second set of people for whom the interventions happened for the first time in

the year 2012. So for this category the base year was 2011 and the first and only impact year

till the study was conducted has been 2012.the contribution has been under the same heads

with the percentage expenses are as follows:

42%

35%

0%

9%

14%

IMPACT YEAR 2012

LAND DEVELOPMENT

FYM/POND SILT

SEEDS

BORDER BUND

FARM POND



The actual contribution for the year 2012 for the second set of members is as follows under

various headings:

Table 20: Actual expenses on CLASS 2 (2011-2012)

HEADING VFA CONTRIBUTION TO MEMBER (INR)

LAND DEVELOPMENT 19,55,307

FYM/POND SILT 15,36,005

SEEDS 38,985

BORDER BUND 7,07,148

FARM POND 35,58,471

The investment versus corresponding increase in incomes for class 1 in the year 2011 is as

follows:

Table 21: VFA expenses V/S incomes CLASS 1 (2010-2011)

VFA EXPENSES V/S INCOME CHANGE : CLASS 1

LAND

CATEGORY

BASELINE NET

INCOMES 2011 NET INCOMES

DIFFERENCE IN

INCOMES (2010-2011)

SM 245914 687290 441376

SD 1005390 2424560 1419170

MD 3738843 4865850 1127007

TOTALS 49,90,147 79,77,700 29,87,553

25%

20%

-1%

9%

46%

IMPACT YEAR 2012

LAND DEVELOPMET

FYM/POND SILT

SEEDS

BORDER BUNDS

FARM POND


The investment in the year 2011 was 20, 30,081 rupees against which a total of increase in

incomes has been 29, 87,553 rupees.

The support by RF in the year 2012 to class 1 group of members was to the tune of11, 01,373

rupees. The corresponding increase in income levels is shown in the table below:



LAND

CATEGORY 2011 NET INCOMES 2012 NET INCOMES

DIFFERENCE IN

INCOMES (2011-2012)

SM 6,87,290 9,17,050 2,29,760

SD 24,24,560 29,15,732 4,91,172

MD 48,65,850 1,02,01,215 53,35,365

TOTALS 79,77,700 1,40,33,997 60,56,297

The support by RF in the year 2012 to CLASS 2 group of members was to the tune of

77,95,917 rupees. The corresponding increase in income levels is shown in the table below:



CLASS

BASELINE PER

CAPITA INCOMES

(ACROSS ALL

CLASSES)

IMPACT YEAR 2012 PER

CAPITA INCOMES

(ACROSS ALL CLASSES)

DIFFERENCE IN INCOMES

(2011-2012)

SM 29,50,465 50,45,430 20,94,965

SD 50,45,550 1,02,21,760 51,76,210

MD 67,50,065 1,30,92,911 63,42,846

TOTALS 1,47,46,080 2,83,60,101 1,36,14,021

This group of farmers has benefitted only for a year as the first time work done was in the

year 2012.


Table 24: Rate of return

CLASS VFA CONTRIBUTION

INCREASE IN

INCOMES

RATIO OF

INVESTMENT TO

RETURN

CLASS 1 (10-11) 20,30,081 29,87,553 1.47

CLASS 1 (11-12) 11,01,373 60,56,297 5.50

CLASS 2 (11-12) 77,95,917 1,36,14,021 1.75

Graph 23: VFA support v/s net income increase

Graph 24: Ratio of return on investment

0 2000000 4000000 6000000 8000000 10000000 12000000 14000000

class 1 (10-11)

class 1 (11-12)

class 2 (11-12)

2030081

1101373

7795917

2987553

6056297

13614021

VFA SUPPORT AND NET INCOME INCREASE

increase in incomes vfa contribution

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

class 1 (10-11)

class 1 (11-12)

class 2 (11-12)

1.47

5.50

1.75

Ratio of investment to return

Ratio of investment to return


5.7CROPPING INTENSITY:

Cropping intensity is defined as a fraction of the cultivated area that is harvested. (FAO)

Or in simpler terms, it is the gross cropped area for a net sowing area available.

Hence

Cropping intensity= Gross cropped area × 100

Net sown area

Where gross cropped area is the area on which crop has been taken in one year.

Net sown area is the actual land available for sowing.

Table 25:For Class 1 the cropping intensity comes out to be:

Land class category BASELINE 2010 IMPACT YEAR 2011 IMPACT YEAR 2012

SM 143.69 172.59 142.20

SD 158.01 166.58 160.25

MD 172.81 167.31 178.56

Graph 25: change in cropping intensity in CLASS 1(2010-2012)

Cropping intensity increases as the sown area in Rabi increases for the same patch of land

that was cultivated in Kharif also. As a result the more land under cultivation in Rabi season,

the more will be the cropping area. In Rabi wheat is the major crop and gram seems to be the

second most favoured crop of the region. Wheat is a water intensive crop. The cropping

intensity seems to vary with the land category and hence the income levels of the

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

200%

SM SD MD

BASELINE 2010

IMPACT YEAR 2012


respondents. The respondents with small marginal land holding show a less intensity as

compared to their bigger land holding counterparts. The general trend shows an increase in the

cropping intensity over the years. However there is a small dip in case of small and marginal category

due to less rainfall.

Table 26: For Class 2 the cropping intensity comes out to be:

Land category classes BASELINE 2011 IMPACT YEAR 2012

SM 157.69 161.63

SD 164.35 167.69

MD 161.47 162.97

Graph 26: Change in cropping intensity in CLASS 2(2011-2012)

152%

154%

156%

158%

160%

162%

164%

166%

168%

170%

SM SD MD

BASELINE 2011

IMPACTT YEAR 2012


5.8FOOD AND WATER SHORTAGE

Graph 27: Average months of food shortage in villages’ pre and post RF interventions

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

ahirbardiya

amla

badgone

bapcha

bhadka

bhanpura

dabdiya

deoli

jagatpura

jhalara

jhikdiya

kankariya

karwakhedi

kasaidehriya

mahudiya

nipaniya

raipuriya

ratankhedi

rojhana

rojhani

salri

semli

shivgarh

sirpoi

average post

average pre

Mere jeevan me kabhi aisi company nahi aayi jo hum gareebo ki arthik sthiti me sudhar laye.pehle

mujhe bhojan ki kami hoti thi savan bhadva k mahine me.Aaj wo karki nahi rahi. Sahib ke samjhane

se mai kheti pe dhayna bhi dene laga. Ab achhi paidawaar aane lagi hai.

Shyam Singh Nain Singh, Devli Piplon


Graph 28: Average months of water shortage in villages’ pre and post RF interventions

0 1 2 3 4 5

ahirbardiya

amla

badgone

bapcha

bhadka

bhanpura

dabdiya

deoli

jagatpura

jhalara

karwakhedi

kasaidehriya

mahudiya

nipaniya

raipuriya

ratankhedi

rojhana

rojhani

salri

semli

shivgarh

sirpoi

average post

average pre


Well excavation at Rojhana

Dam full of water at Ratankhedi

Hamare yahan utpadan me vridhhi hui hai mittti dalne se.Jahan ek quintal soyabean hota tha

waha aaj 4 quintal tak soyabean hota hai. Jahan 2 quintal tak gehu hota thaw aha aj 8 quintal

tak aata hai.

Manohar Yadav, Nipaniya Baijnath


5.9 QUALITATIVE

Graph 29: Average graph of qualitative questions Agra overall

Overwhelming positive response is seen in terms of income, yield, water levels and soil health where

it reaches close to hundred when we compile the data received from all the villages. Almost all of the

respondents feel that these parameters have shown a positive change over the past year/years of

intervention. The activities done to make farming a profitable livelihood option include improving the

soil fertility through application of FYM/pond silt, bringing cultivable wasteland under agriculture by

land levelling border bunds and farm ponds. All these activities help improve the fertility, increase the

yield and directly increase the net income of the farmer hence the positive responses.

RNG seems to be improving the lives but the issue is non-availability of water in the hotter months of

the year. The soil is loose murram soil and loses moisture content very soon. As a result, the RNGs

that are established are short lived and not perennial. They are difficult to sustain in the harsh

conditions where the temperature reach around 50 degrees in May.

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00

HAS THE INCOME INCREASED AFTER BIJINTERVENTIONS?

HAS THERE BEEN AN ADDITION TO THE ASSET BASEAFTER RF INTERVENTIONS?

HAS THE INCIDENCE OF MIGRATION DECREASED

HAS THE CROP YEILD INCREASED

HAS THERE BEEN AN ADDITION OF FRUITS ANDVEGETABLES IN THE DIET OF PEOPLE?

HAS THE VARIETY OF FRUITS AND VEGETABLESINCREASED AFTER RF INTERVENTION?

HAS THE WARENESS ABOUT NUTRITIONAL DIETINCREASED AFTER RF?

HAS THE WATER LEVEL INCREASED AFTER RFACTIVITIES

HAS THE EXPENSE ON VEGETABLES DECREASEDAFTER RNG

HAS THE HEALTH IMPROVED?

HAS THE SOIL HEALTH IMPROVED AFTER RFACTIVITIES?

AVERAGE OF AGAR CLUSTER

AVERAGE OF AGAR CLUSTER


Graph 30: Village wise income increase

Income from the sale of crops has increased considerably after RF intervention. The primary reason is

the increase in quantity as well as the quality of the farm land. Quantity was increased by conversion

of cultivable wastelands into farm land and quality was ensured through adoption of sustainable

farming practices.

Graph 31: Increase in assets

The increase in asset base would not necessarily mean an addition of big farm equipment. It could

also imply the addition to the general household stuff like mobile phones, motorcycles, and increase

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

AH

IRB

AR

DIY

A

AM

LA

BA

DG

ON

E

BA

PC

HA

BH

AD

KA

BH

AN

PU

RA

DA

BD

IYA

DEO

LI

JAG

ATP

UR

A

JHA

LAR

A

JHIK

AD

IYA

KA

NK

AR

IYA

KA

RW

AK

HED

I

KA

SAID

EHA

RIY

A

MA

HU

DIY

A

NIP

AN

IYA

RA

IPU

RIY

A

RA

TAN

KH

EDI

RO

JHA

NA

RO

JHA

NI

SALR

I

SEM

LI

SHIV

GA

RH

SIR

PO

I

PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE WHO RESPONDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE

HAS THE INCOME INCREASED AFTER BIJ INTERVENTIONS?

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

AH

IRB

AR

DIY

A

AM

LA

BA

DG

ON

E

BA

PC

HA

BH

AD

KA

BH

AN

PU

RA

DA

BD

IYA

DEO

LI

JAG

ATP

UR

A

JHA

LAR

A

JHIK

AD

IYA

KA

NK

AR

IYA

KA

RW

AK

HED

I

KA

SAID

EHA

RIY

A

MA

HU

DIY

A

NIP

AN

IYA

RA

IPU

RIY

A

RA

TAN

KH

EDI

RO

JHA

NA

RO

JHA

NI

SALR

I

SEM

LI

SHIV

GA

RH

SIR

PO

I


HAS THERE BEEN AN ADDITION TO THE ASSET BASE AFTER RF INTERVENTIONS?


in number of general farm needs. It could also mean addition to the existing livestock or the

improvement in the livestock quality.

Graph 32: Decrease in migration

Graph 33: Increase in yield

Yield of crops shows a positive increase in all cases under normal circumstances because of major

land development activities being taken up by the VFA with RF support.

Almost all crops have shown an increase in yield. The major crops being soybean in Kharif and wheat

and gram in Rabi season.

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

AH

IRB

AR

DIY

A

AM

LA

BA

DG

ON

E

BA

PC

HA

BH

AD

KA

BH

AN

PU

RA

DA

BD

IYA

DEO

LI

JAG

ATP

UR

A

JHA

LAR

A

JHIK

AD

IYA

KA

NK

AR

IYA

KA

RW

AK

HED

I

KA

SAID

EHA

RIY

A

MA

HU

DIY

A

NIP

AN

IYA

RA

IPU

RIY

A

RA

TAN

KH

EDI

RO

JHA

NA

RO

JHA

NI

SALR

I

SEM

LI

SHIV

GA

RH

SIR

PO

I


HAS THE INCIDENCE OF MIGRATION DECREASED

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

AH

IRB

AR

DIY

A

AM

LA

BA

DG

ON

E

BA

PC

HA

BH

AD

KA

BH

AN

PU

RA

DA

BD

IYA

DEO

LI

JAG

ATP

UR

A

JHA

LAR

A

JHIK

AD

IYA

KA

NK

AR

IYA

KA

RW

AK

HED

I

KA

SAID

EHA

RIY

A

MA

HU

DIY

A

NIP

AN

IYA

RA

IPU

RIY

A

RA

TAN

KH

EDI

RO

JHA

NA

RO

JHA

NI

SALR

I

SEM

LI

SHIV

GA

RH

SIR

PO

I


HAS THE CROP YEILD INCREASED


Graph 34: Addition of fruits and veg to diet post RF

Graph 35: Increase in variety of fruits and vegetables post RF

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00


HAS THERE BEEN AN ADDITION OF FRUITS AND VEGETABLES IN THE DIET OF PEOPLE?

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00


HAS THE VARIETY OF FRUITS AND VEGETABLES INCREASED AFTER RF INTERVENTION?

Krishi bhoomi sudhri hamari jis se aamdani badhi hai. Aarthik sthiti majboot hui hai. Reliance

RNG se hari sabjiyon ki jankari prapt hui jiske karan swasth ko vitamin milne laga.

Kripal Singh Karan Singh, Badgone


Graph 36: Increase in awareness about health issues after RF

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

AH

IRB

AR

DIY

A

AM

LA

BA

DG

ON

E

BA

PC

HA

BH

AD

KA

BH

AN

PU

RA

DA

BD

IYA

DEO

LI

JAG

ATP

UR

A

JHA

LAR

A

JHIK

AD

IYA

KA

NK

AR

IYA

KA

RW

AK

HED

I

KA

SAID

EHA

RIY

A

MA

HU

DIY

A

NIP

AN

IYA

RA

IPU

RIY

A

RA

TAN

KH

EDI

RO

JHA

NA

RO

JHA

NI

SALR

I

SEM

LI

SHIV

GA

RH

SIR

PO

I


HAS THE WARENESS ABOUT NUTRITIONAL DIET INCREASED AFTER RF?

TYPE 1 RNG AT JAGATPURA

VEGETABLES FROM RNG AT BADGONE


Graph 37: Increase in water levels post RF

The cluster is a plateau region which receives around 800-1200 rainfall per year but the soil

type is light murram soil which has a tendency to lose water very soon. As a result, the area

experienced acute water scarcity in summer months to an extent that people would decrease

the number of cattle to be maintained for lack of water availability.

Later on before RF, a lot of work on common land was done with the initiative of FES

(Foundation for Ecological Security) which secured the common land from becoming barren

and supplied them with seasonal fruits. Water conservation strategies were also planned out

and dams and lakes constructed. RF initiated work on commons s well as private lands of the

farmers. This along with the works done by FES have brought the area from an acute water

shortage area to an area where water is available and gradually the water table is getting

higher in places where interventions have happened. The VFAs have, at places, constructed

new water structures or renovated some existing water structures. This combined with the

dug wells and farm ponds constructed on individual lands will help increase the water table to

a higher level. As of now, the monitoring of wells has not been done so the results are

qualitative with the perception of the villagers being taken into account for survey.

No. Of new farm ponds and dug wells made: 552

Number of old wells renovated (as on 31st July, 2013): 355

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

AH

IRB

AR

DIY

A

AM

LA

BA

DG

ON

E

BA

PC

HA

BH

AD

KA

BH

AN

PU

RA

DA

BD

IYA

DEO

LI

JAG

ATP

UR

A

JHA

LAR

A

JHIK

AD

IYA

KA

NK

AR

IYA

KA

RW

AK

HED

I

KA

SAID

EHA

RIY

A

MA

HU

DIY

A

NIP

AN

IYA

RA

IPU

RIY

A

RA

TAN

KH

EDI

RO

JHA

NA

RO

JHA

NI

SALR

I

SEM

LI

SHIV

GA

RH

SIR

PO

I


HAS THE WATER LEVEL INCREASED AFTER RF ACTIVITIES


Table 27: Common water structures Agar cluster

New Earthen Dam Expenses Total water

storage capacity (Cum)

(Rs.)

Jhalara 5200000 480000

Mahudiya 299000 21762.048

Bhanpura 3300000 380000

Dabadiya 211000 22000

New Masonry Dam

Ratankhedi 650000 16982

Bapcha 3800000 45225

Shivgrah 1000000 31878

Renovated Earthen Dam

Rojhana 67227 4481

Rojhani 119436 2288

Kasai dehriya 444191 29613

Rojhani 3000

Rojhani 31500

Bhanpura 12000

Bhanpura 12000

Bhanpura 400

Water harvesting from desiltation of tanks

Salri 204315 2043.15

Mahudiya 35565 355.65

Amla 58495 584.95

Raipuriya 46880 468.8

Sirpoi 14932 149.32

Deoli 260611 2606.11

Badgaon 99469 994.69

Semli 22350 223.5

Bhanpura 6442 64.42

Nipaniya Baijnath 56115 561.15

Kankariya 128775 1287.75

Dabadiya 583743 5837.43

Ratankhedi kheda 17800 178

Karwakhedi 112090 1120.9

Kasai dehriya 675881 6758.81

Jhikdiya 239013 2390.13

Rojhani 1200 12

Rojhana 1600 16

Ahir badiya 11300 113


Abhaypurkheda 92619 926.19

Kundlakheda 106472 1064.72

Pachora 84262 842.62

Farm ponds and dug wells

Salri 72750 780

Mahudiya 58862 840

Amla 93276 1650

Jagatpura 37924 540

Bhadka 60830 450

Shivgarh 7562 300

Jhalara 78311 540

Sirpoi 201600 1530

Deoli 328549 3900

Badgaon 14965 270

Bhanpura 41718 450

Nipaniya Baijnath 78412 690

Bapcha 384116 2610

Dabadiya 99638 1800

Ratankhedi kheda 166130 1080

Karwakhedi 155100 1260

Kasai dehriya 108000 810

Jhikdiya 171000 1440

Rojhani 333522 2880

Rojhana 242322 1620

Ahir badiya 584612 4770

Abhaypurkheda 20867 270

Kundlakheda 77990 900

Dhandeda 11514 90

TOTAL 2,13,80,353 11,53,198.34


Fishing at Jhalara dam : Multi purpose umbrella


Graph 38: Improvement in health post RF

Graph 39: Improvement in soil health post RF

DHARTI farms promote sustainable on farm activities such as application of FYM and pond silt to

increase the fertility. Bunds along the border of the farm along with trenches help retain the runoff

water as well as soil in times of high rainfall and help stop top soil erosion.

It also is a good method of soil water conservation as the water that is trapped in the trenches

percolates down and the soil that gets deposited in the trenches is the fertile loosely bound layer of top

soil which when applied to the farm helps increase the fertility. Hence, when soil and water are

conserved in the farm, the productivity of the fields increases. This is agreed upon by around 98 per

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00


HAS THE HEALTH IMPROVED?

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

AH

IRB

AR

DIY

A

AM

LA

BA

DG

ON

E

BA

PC

HA

BH

AD

KA

BH

AN

PU

RA

DA

BD

IYA

DEO

LI

JAG

ATP

UR

A

JHA

LAR

A

JHIK

AD

IYA

KA

NK

AR

IYA

KA

RW

AK

HED

I

KA

SAID

EHA

RIY

A

MA

HU

DIY

A

NIP

AN

IYA

RA

IPU

RIY

A

RA

TAN

KH

EDI

RO

JHA

NA

RO

JHA

NI

SALR

I

SEM

LI

SHIV

GA

RH

SIR

PO

I


HAS THE SOIL HEALTH IMPROVED AFTER RF ACTIVITIES?


cent of farmers interviewed who say that the same field which earlier would not yield more than 1.5

quintals of soybean now yields around 3 quintals per bigha which comes to around 15 quintals per

hectare from 7.5 quintals earlier.(5bighas= 1 Ha of land)


6.0 CONCLUSION

The study brings to light the efforts the entire team is putting in helping the rural transformation goal

come true. Cultivable waste lands have been converted to cultivable lands on which crops are being

taken by farmers who, as they themselves admit, would never have been able to develop the land

without Reliance Foundation’s initiative in rural India. Irrigation support has either been provided on

completely rained part or, in some instances, where irrigation source was already present but in a sad

shape. With both the efforts, area was brought under irrigation, either completely with our assistance

or by joined efforts of farmer and RF.

The yield and production show a positive trend in both the classes. Class one is the group who we

have worked with for 2 years till the survey was conducted and class2 has been with us for 1 year till

completion of survey. The degree of increase varies in both the cases but overall the increase in seen

in spite of 2012 being a rainfall deficient year and deviations from normal rainfall going up to 100%

in some months. There has been an increase in the cultivable land per capita in all the cases. Incomes

have increased significantly majorly due to the increase in yield and production and also due to the

increase in selling price of major cash crop of the area Soybean.

A considerable amount of money has been spent on water harvesting structures in common land as

well as on individual lands. This has improved the food and water shortage in the cluster as observed

by the average shortage months of pre and post RF interventions. It has considerably gone down.

Food security has majorly been brought about in the lives of small and marginal people majorly but

the water woes of all the land categories have been addressed to a considerable extent as of now.

Major water structures have also been constructed post 2012 which would bring the water levels to

even better levels than before.

However, a point of concern is the application of chemical fertilisers in DHARTI farms and the per

hectare cost exceeding the cost of application in farmers field for the same year. RNGs seems to be

another area which needs attention as the water scarcity has, till now , restricted the RNGs to be of

seasonal kinds instead of the year round RNGs we envisage. Type I RNGs seem to be hit with the

community with over whelming numbers as compared to type II RNGs.

Kheti me to badlav aaya hi. Sabse bada badlaav aaya ki gaon ek sangathan ki tarah kaam karne laga

hai.

Gopal Singh Joravar Singh, Deoli Piplon


7. REFERENCES

Agriculture census 2010-2011-all India report on number and operational land

holdings

Monsoon report 2012 –edited by D. S. Pai and S. C. Bhan

www.imd.gov.in

Indian Agriculture : performance and challenges

(pib.nic.in/archive/others/2012/mar/d2012031302.pdf)

Farm size and productive efficiency-booklet number 516-agriculture situation in India

http://www.imd.gov.in/


Change in total cultivated land from 2010 to 2012 –AGAR CLASS 1

Land Category Total Land

Base Year 2010 Impact year 2012

Kharif Rabi Total Farmer Field DHARTI Farm

Total Kharif Rabi Total Kharif Rabi Total

Small Farmer (27) 32.80 22.20 9.70 31.90 3.30 2.00 5.30 26.40 10.50 36.90 42.20

Medium Farmer (33) 90.80 62.40 36.20 98.60 26.60 17.60 44.20 52.40 30.00 82.40 126.60

Large Farmer (41) 248.60 173.60 126.40 300.00 122.60 111.20 233.80 74.96 44.00 118.96 352.76

Total (101): 372.20 258.20 172.30 430.50 152.50 130.80 283.30 153.76 84.50 238.26 521.56

Comparison of Kharif: 258.20 306.26

Comparison of Rabi: 172.30 215.30

Change in total cultivated land from 2011 to 2012 – AGAR CLASS 2



Farmer Field Farmer Field DHARTI

Farm Total

Kharif Rabi Total Kharif Rabi Total Kharif Rabi Total

Small Farmer (164) 193.10 159.80 92.20 252.00 29.40 17.70 47.10 148.10 91.70 239.80 286.90

Medium Farmer (125) 328.30 254.53 163.80 418.33 120.60 84.70 205.30 169.70 111.80 281.50 486.80

Large Farmer(70) 405.90 287.60 176.80 464.40 203.60 121.70 325.30 114.40 78.50 192.90 518.20

Total (360): 927.30 701.93 432.80 1134.73 353.60 224.10 577.70 432.20 282.00 714.20 1291.90

Comparison of Kharif: 701.93 785.80

Comparison of Rabi: 432.80 506.10

ANNEXURES


VILLAGE

Land_category TOTAL

BK

TOTAL

BR

TOTAL

FFK

TOTAL

FFR

TOTAL

DFK

TOTAL

DFR

TOTAL

FF12K

TOTAL

FF12R

TOTAL

DF12K

TOTAL

DF12R

AHIRBARDIYA Avg11 1.17 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.17 0.82

AMLA Avg10 2.57 3.40 1.80 2.00 1.53 1.40 1.80 2.00 1.60 1.50

AMLA Avg11 2.26 2.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.72 2.33 1.08 1.60

BADGONE Avg10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.80

BADGONE Avg11 2.16 1.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.03 1.65 1.19 1.14

BAPCHA Avg11 2.39 1.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.45 1.60 2.25 1.87

BHADKA Avg10 1.23 1.57 1.20 1.03 0.87 1.45 1.10 1.50 0.60 0.60

BHADKA Avg11 2.27 1.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.10 2.20 1.90 0.60

BHANPURA Avg10 3.04 2.37 2.80 1.79 0.91 0.90 2.69 2.23 1.09 0.68

BHANPURA Avg11 2.23 1.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.93 2.02 0.57 0.40

DABADIYA Avg10 3.93 4.27 3.20 3.20 1.87 2.53 4.20 4.20 1.73 2.53

DABADIYA Avg11 2.97 2.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.21 3.48 1.70 1.56

DEOLI Avg10 3.37 6.68 6.10 10.00 2.45 2.23 6.60 18.00 2.88 2.18

JAGATPURA Avg11 1.09 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 1.07 0.64

JHALARA Avg10 1.60 1.30 1.60 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.60 1.30 0.70 1.00

JHALARA Avg11 3.80 3.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.10 2.25 1.19 1.68

JHKADIYA Avg10 1.14 1.27 0.60 0.00 1.34 1.57 0.00 0.00 1.54 0.00

JHKADIYA Avg11 1.35 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.08 1.00 1.58 2.48

KANKARIYA Avg10 2.85 4.00 3.10 3.00 0.78 0.90 3.10 5.00 0.86 0.85

KANKARIYA Avg11 2.54 2.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.76 3.01 0.89 0.90


KARWAKHEDI Avg10 6.25 4.60 5.00 3.80 0.70 0.40 5.50 11.50 1.50 0.00

KARWAKHEDI Avg11 2.54 2.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.76 3.01 0.89 0.90

KASAIDEHARIYA Avg10 3.00 4.44 1.88 1.67 1.34 1.36 2.05 1.57 1.87 1.98

KASAIDEHARIYA Avg11 1.53 3.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.01 0.76 0.93 1.31

MAHUDIYA Avg10 1.83 1.43 2.05 1.73 1.06 1.80 2.13 2.13 1.69 1.67

MAHUDIYA Avg11 2.04 1.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.00 2.25 2.49

NIPANIYA

BAIJNATH Avg10 2.70 3.40 2.60 1.20 1.20 1.20 2.80 1.20 1.20 1.00

NIPANIYA

BAIJNATH Avg11 1.86 1.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.16 1.37 0.61 0.97

RAIPURIYA Avg11 1.39 1.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 1.71 2.04

RATANKHEDI Avg10 3.10 3.34 3.80 4.57 0.97 0.90 3.64 4.95 0.97 0.60

RATANKHEDI Avg11 2.07 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.88 2.00 1.07 2.00

ROJHANA Avg10 2.87 2.60 2.80 1.50 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.20 1.00 1.00

ROJHANA Avg11 2.79 1.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.78 2.08 0.92 1.13

ROJHANI Avg10 1.03 1.00 0.65 0.80 0.77 0.80 0.65 1.00 1.03 1.20

ROJHANI Avg11 1.38 1.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.90 1.20 1.34 1.18

SALRI Avg10 1.90 0.80 1.15 0.20 0.95 0.87 1.15 0.40 1.10 0.90

SALRI Avg11 2.36 2.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.03 2.08 0.96 0.63

SEMLI Avg10 4.40 0.80 0.00 0.60 3.00 1.17 0.00 0.00 3.00 1.13

SEMLI Avg11 1.80 1.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.26 1.10

SHIVGARH Avg10 3.73 3.33 3.33 4.67 1.80 0.60 3.13 3.13 1.12 0.80

SHIVGARH Avg11 3.23 3.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.62 1.88 2.16 0.68

SIRPOI Avg10 2.64 2.10 1.73 1.53 1.52 2.40 1.40 1.40 1.96 1.85

SIRPOI Avg11 2.14 1.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.50 3.22 1.36 1.71


Change in net income from 2010 to 2012-AGAR (across all land categories) CLASS 1

Land Category


Total Kharif Total Rabi Total Total Kharif Total Rabi Total

Small Farmer (27) 1,77,150 68,764 2,45,914 6,83,340 2,33,710 9,17,050

Medium Farmer (33) 5,13,100 4,92,290 10,05,390 17,68,072 11,47,660 29,15,732

Large Farmer (41) 19,48,885 17,89,958 37,38,843 75,10,675 26,90,540 1,02,01,215

Total (101): 26,39,135 23,51,012 49,90,147 99,62,087 40,71,910 1,40,33,997

Per capita Income: 26,130 23,277 49,407 98,635 40,316 1,38,950

Area in Ha. 258 172 431 306 215 522

Income per ha. 10,221 13,645 11,592 32,528 18,913 26,908

Change in net income from 2011 to 2012- AGAR (across all land categories) CLASS 2

Land Category


Total Kharif Total Rabi Total Total Kharif Total Rabi Total

Small Farmer (164) 16,09,670 13,40,795 29,50,465 31,53,714 18,91,716 50,45,430

Medium Farmer (125) 25,38,125 25,07,425 50,45,550 57,27,480 44,94,280 1,02,21,760

Large Farmer(70) 32,65,440 34,84,625 67,50,065 74,99,134 55,93,777 1,30,92,911

Total (360): 74,13,235 73,32,845 1,47,46,080 1,63,80,328 1,19,79,773 2,83,60,101

Per capita Income: 20,592 20,369 40,961 45,501 33,277 78,778

Area in Ha. 701.93 432.8 1134.73 786 506 1,292

Income per Ha. 10,561 16,943 12,995 20,845 23,671 21,952


VILLAGE WISE CHANGE IN INCOMES ACROSS ALL LAND SIZES

VILLAGE

LAND_

CAT TOTAL

BK

TOTAL

BR

TOTAL

FFK

TOTAL

FFR

TOTA

L DFK

TOTA

L DFR

TOTAL

FF12K

TOTAL

FF12R

TOTA

L

DF12K

TOTA

L

DF12R

AHIRBARDIYA

11

PER

HA. 14,203 4,928 0 0 0 0 0 0 13,862 3,942

AMLA 10

PER

HA. 12,010 8,627 9,278 3,383 19,466 8,833 15,019 2,517 25,285 7,067

AMLA 11

PER

HA. 11,497 6,069 0 0 0 0 13,000 9,514 18,509 6,802

BADGONE 10

PER

HA. 0 0 0 0 17,225 0 0 0 36,450 7,275

BADGONE 11

PER

HA. 10,024 5,397 0 0 0 0 7,604 3,422 27,288 11,579

BAPCHA 11

PER

HA. 5,731 8,024 0 0 0 0 1,577 983 21,595 25,513

BHADKA 10

PER

HA. 14,497 14,209 22,389 24,042 4,288 4,253 24,273 16,011 20,417 7,167

BHADKA11

PER

HA. 14,576 15,289 0 0 0 0 15,095 14,659 4,070 7,414

BHANPURA 10

PER

HA. 4,129 5,497 7,073 8,872 3,175 -2,025 16,546 13,488 8,995 3,007

BHANPURA 11

PER

HA. 1,553 2,615 0 0 0 0 16,721 14,767 33,815 -3,071

DABADIYA 10

PER

HA. -5,530 -125 3,083 2,021 8,643 3,658 6,087 8,984 11,462 7,855

DABADIYA 11

PER

HA. -250 -15 0 0 0 0 4,752 2,476 7,410 3,798

DEOLI 10

PER

HA. 13,362 6,708 5,148 2,591 18,496 12,761 5,417 685 20,793 20,369

JAGATPURA 11

PER

HA. 11,186 11,244 0 0 0 0 1,000 0 22,649 14,081

JHALARA 10 PER 1,750 26,615 21,250 30,692 31,500 10,250 16,844 33,192 16,286 17,275


HA.

JHALARA 11

PER

HA. 9,425 15,214 0 0 0 0 12,047 12,406 24,752 18,312

JHKADIYA 10

PER

HA. -905 10,362 1,143 0 20,048 37,782 0 0 20,921 0

JHKADIYA 11

PER

HA. 6,952 7,240 0 0 0 0 10,388 411 21,695 22,175

KANKARIYA 10

PER

HA. 14,547 9,450 20,226 13,427 23,846 12,222 24,574 7,240 32,767 13,859

KANKARIYA 11

PER

HA. 30,680 40,579 0 0 0 0 36,751 41,245 32,324 7,917

KARWAKHEDI

10

PER

HA. 6,360 12,152 7,330 21,908 -6,429 -1,875 11,882 10,478 18,767 0

KARWAKHEDI

11

PER

HA. 30,680 40,579 0 0 0 0 36,751 41,245 32,324 7,917

KASAIDEHARI

YA 10

PER

HA. 8,566 3,056 9,144 9,147 3,660 4,884 10,868 16,157 16,221 12,144

KASAIDEHARI

YA 11

PER

HA. 5,222 1,481 0 0 0 0 8,531 5,606 11,543 3,959

MAHUDIYA 10

PER

HA. 8,406 5,088 9,840 3,808 23,473 9,611 9,382 1,446 25,833 15,000

MAHUDIYA 11

PER

HA. 21,649 24,592 0 0 0 0 2,010 0 33,921 32,813

NIPANIYA

BAIJNATH 10

PER

HA. 9,111 -265 -6,346 -417 5,458 3,000 7,152 333 22,500 5,400

NIPANIYA

BAIJNATH 11

PER

HA. 1,317 2,098 0 0 0 0 11,569 -2,122 36,230 11,381

RAIPURIYA 11

PER

HA. 13,095 21,922 0 0 0 0 1,125 0 23,044 29,626

RATANKHEDI

10

PER

HA. 14,156 8,790 9,262 3,664 16,055 18,015 13,791 6,608 18,798 8,658

RATANKHEDI

11

PER

HA. 8,698 6,496 0 0 0 0 12,480 5,592 26,719 4,338

ROJHANA 10 PER 9,924 994 1,393 4,400 3,303 -4,433 7,467 222 23,083 3,600


HA.

ROJHANA 11

PER

HA. 20,103 13,933 0 0 0 0 23,535 7,534 32,594 6,956

ROJHANI 10

PER

HA. 15,694 4,883 14,615 4,750 15,413 11,542 14,718 3,250 19,806 8,222

ROJHANI 11

PER

HA. 18,109 9,486 0 0 0 0 2,465 943 19,237 8,420

SALRI 10

PER

HA. 14,382 18,813 9,326 6,619 23,868 16,455 14,674 9,938 30,068 44,658

SALRI 11

PER

HA. 14,800 12,928 0 0 0 0 13,243 13,135 18,273 18,913

SEMLI 10

PER

HA. 1,985 -2,375 0 -333 13,644 3,171 0 0 26,200 8,441

SEMLI 11

PER

HA. 7,135 3,994 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,385 7,321

SHIVGARH 10

PER

HA. 22,223 22,580 28,400 25,593 2,407 2,944 33,670 38,936 10,595 9,375

SHIVGARH 11

PER

HA. 15,177 22,396 0 0 0 0 26,840 35,696 5,844 20,812

SIRPOI 10

PER

HA. 4,841 6,981 5,763 8,876 4,197 3,950 6,643 11,529 15,827 8,761

SIRPOI 11

PER

HA. 4,617 9,868 0 0 0 0 5,437 1,852 20,437 11,282

The FFK FFR DFK DFR fields are zero for some villages. This is because the villages where interventions happened in 2012 for the first time, the baseline is

2011. Hence, the fields are empty and the data is instead in baseline columns as BK and BR.


Change in the cost of FYM/Pond silt application from 2010 to 2012 –AGAR CLASS 1

Land Category Total

Land

Base Year 2010 Impact year 2011

Kharif Rabi Total Farmer Field DHARTI Farm

Total Kharif Rabi Total Kharif VFA Rabi VFA Total

Small Farmer

(27) 32.80

32,400

3,200

35,600

1,000

1,000

2,000

1,03,350

71,250

5,200

4,000

1,08,550

1,10,550

Medium Farmer

(33) 90.80

51,800

4,000

55,800

18,400

1,700

20,100

1,53,700

1,02,100

4,000

4,000

1,57,700

1,77,800

Large Farmer

(41) 248.60

86,500

26,300

1,12,800

43,200

8,300

51,500

1,42,900

93,400

21,200

17,000

1,64,100

2,15,600

Total (101): 372.20

1,70,700

33,500

2,04,200

62,600

11,000

73,600

3,99,950

2,66,750

30,400

25,000

4,30,350

5,03,950

Per capita Cost:

1,690

332

2,022

620

109

729

3,960

2,641

301

248

4,261

4,990

Area in Ha. 372.20 258.20 172.30 430.50 158.50 104.10 262.60 135.20 94.50 229.70 492.30

Cost per Ha. : 661.12 194.43 474.33 394.95 105.67 280.27 2958.21 1973.00 321.69 264.55 1873.53 1023.66


Land Category Total

Land

Impact year 2012

Farmer Field DHARTI Farm Total

Kharif Rabi Total Kharif VFA Rabi VFA Total

Small Farmer (27) 32.80 - - -

62,450

54,950

9,000

9,000

9,000

9,000

Medium Farmer (33) 90.80 58,200 -

58,200 1,71,611 1,55,611 - -

58,200 1,16,400

Large Farmer (41) 248.60 88,450 5,500

93,950 1,79,600 1,61,100 - -

93,950 1,87,900

Total (101): 372.20 1,46,650 5,500 1,52,150 4,13,661 3,71,661

9,000

9,000 1,61,150 3,13,300

Per capita Cost:

1,452

54

1,506

4,096

3,680

89

89

1,596

3,102

Area in Ha. 372.20 152.50 130.80 283.30 153.76 84.50 238.26 521.56

Cost per Ha. : 961.64 42.05 537.06 2690.30 2417.15 106.51 106.51 676.36 600.70

For baseline year 2010 both the impact years have been shown as FYM / pond silt application happened majorly in the first year through VFA support. Once

the FYM / tank silt is applied it need not be applied in consecutive 2 years. hence representation of both the years.


Change in cost of FYM/Pond silt application from 2011 to 2012 – AGAR CLASS 2

Land Category Total

Land


Farmer Field Farmer Field DHARTI Farm Total

Kharif Rabi Total Kharif Rabi Total Kharif VFA Rabi VFA Total

Small Farmer

(164)

193.1

0

1,77,60

0 15,200

1,92,80

0 21,300

11,50

0 32,800 6,07,400 5,13,600

29,57

2

11,87

2 6,36,972 6,69,772

Medium Farmer

(125)

328.3

0

2,16,20

0 42,700

2,58,90

0

1,08,30

0

39,30

0

1,47,60

0 6,68,783 5,92,783

29,40

0

16,00

0 6,98,183 8,45,783

Large Farmer(70)

405.9

0

2,15,50

0 86,500

3,02,00

0

1,17,52

0

17,30

0

1,34,82

0 4,12,430 3,89,750

17,00

0

12,00

0 4,29,430 5,64,250

Total (360):

927.3

0

6,09,30

0

1,44,40

0

7,53,70

0

2,47,12

0

68,10

0

3,15,22

0

16,88,61

3

14,96,13

3

75,97

2

39,87

2

17,64,58

5

20,79,80

5

Per capita Cost: 1,693 401 2,094 686 189 876 4,691 4,156 211 111 4,902 5,777

Area in Ha. 701.93 432.80

1,134.7

3 353.60

224.1

0 577.70 432.00 3,463.27 282 141 714 1,292

Cost per Ha. : 868 334 664 699 304 546 3,909 3,463 269 141 2,471 1,610

Change in application from baseline 2011 to impact year 2012.


VILLAGE WISE CHANGE IN FYM/POND SILT APPLICATION ACROSS LAND CATEGORIES:

VILLAGE

TOTA

L BK

TOTA

L BR

TOTA

L

FFK

TOTA

L FFR

TOTA

L

DFK

TOTAL

VFA

SUPPORTD

FK

TOTA

L

DFR

TOTAL

VFA

SUPPORTD

FR

TOTA

L

FF12

K

TOTA

L

FF12

R

TOTA

L

DF12

K

TOTA

L

DF12

K

TOTA

L

DF12

R

TOTA

L

DF12

R

AHIRBARDIY

A 1654 3333 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1989 0 2449 0

AMLA 1169 588 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4682 0 0

AMLA 3931 6177 0 0 0 0 0 0 4935 643 3250 4717 1438 0

BADGONE 0 0 0 0 7500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

BADGONE 1513 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1872 818 4040 8722 4211 877

BAPCHA 2717 2469 0 0 0 0 0 0 1724 0 3563 3385 0 963

BHADKA 1216 128 417 0 1212 0 828 0 0 0 1667 0 0 0

BHADKA 2132 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 526 1316 0 0

BHANPURA 1182 0 0 0 3951 3841 0 4444 2634 0 0 3673 0 0

BHANPURA 1795 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1037 0 0 5542 0 0

DABADIYA 1102 0 1406 0 0 2893 0 0 1429 0 3029 2596 0 0

DABADIYA 1265 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1684 0 1473 3659 0 6395

DEOLI 1670 2244 0 0 1684 4082 0 0 0 0 0 5208 0 0

JAGATPURA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1089 1633 0 0

JHALARA 1979 38462 0 0 0 8500 0 0 5146 0 8571 0 0 0

JHALARA 833 16324 0 0 0 0 0 0 2659 0 5045 9081 0 2377

JHKADIYA 10500 0 0 0 3500 10283 0 0 0 0 0 9711 0 0

JHKADIYA 9444 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9678 0 0

KANKARIYA 2281 1250 613 1083 4274 5769 4444 5000 6796 1100 0 5233 0 4706

KANKARIYA 1351 1449 0 0 0 0 0 0 1293 1294 2366 4367 0 2222

KARWAKHED

I 0 0 0 0 34286 57143 0 0 0 0 0 6667 0 0

KARWAKHED 1351 1449 0 0 0 0 0 0 1293 1294 2366 4367 0 2222


I

KASAIDEHAR

IYA 980 0 2385 0 3731 4478 0 4426 1683 0 0 10924 0 0

KASAIDEHAR

IYA 2424 3215 0 0 0 0 0 0 2629 0 2159 29231 0 0

MAHUDIYA 2256 1570 2927 0 6243 5014 0 0 2656 0 2595 4864 0 3000

MAHUDIYA 2480 1919 0 0 0 0 0 0 7500 0 3889 4148 2011 3218

NIPANIYA

BAIJNATH 0 0 0 0 9250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NIPANIYA

BAIJNATH 2016 1149 0 0 0 0 0 0 2457 2073 2459 28503 1546 4091

RAIPURIYA 1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 571 0

RATANKHEDI 1935 0 855 0 0 3972 0 0 1374 0 4138 5000 0 0

RATANKHEDI 1573 1000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1401 1100 3609 2203 0 0

ROJHANA 0 1077 0 1867 11100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ROJHANA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ROJHANI 0 0 0 0 0 5217 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ROJHANI 5430 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2233 0 0 0

SALRI 0 1250 3478 0 0 3158 0 0 2174 0 0 0 0 0

SALRI 5055 1436 0 0 0 0 0 0 659 0 4538 9120 0 0

SEMLI 909 0 0 0 0 1383 171 0 0 0 1000 2017 0 0

SEMLI 833 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000 0 0

SHIVGARH 0 0 0 0 0 1111 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SHIVGARH 762 525 0 0 0 0 0 0 618 1673 1750 464 0 0

SIRPOI 1212 1429 2308 1109 1809 5263 0 0 0 0 2551 9184 0 0

SIRPOI 1513 1572 0 0 0 0 0 0 1170 668 1954 4423 1989 0


Change in the cost of Fertilizer application from 2010 to 2012 –AGAR CLASS 1

Land Category Total Land Base year 2010 Impact year 2012

Total Kharif Total Rabi Total Kharif Kharif DF Total Rabi Rabi DF

Small Farmer (27) 32.80 34,950 27,300 34,900 32,400 30,300 29,800

Medium Farmer (33) 90.80 1,12,500 85,610 1,03,300 57,800 1,20,500 94,100

Large Farmer (41) 248.60 2,59,200 2,85,285 2,45,500 89,600 2,68,180 96,200

Total (101): 372.20 4,06,650 3,98,195 3,83,700 1,79,800 4,18,980 2,20,100

Per capita Cost: 4,026 3,943 3,799 1,780 4,148 2,179

Area in Ha. 372.20 258 172 306 153.76 215 84.50

Cost per Ha. : 1,575 2,311 1,253 1169.35 1,946 2604.73

Change in cost of Fertilizer application from 2011 to 2012 –AGAR CLASS 2



Total Kharif Total Rabi Total Kharif Kharif DF Total Rabi Rabi DF

Small Farmer (27) 193.10 2,91,030 2,24,985 3,13,690 2,44,860 2,61,970 2,16,070

Medium Farmer (33) 328.30 4,26,260 3,53,220 5,66,260 3,10,360 4,59,332 2,63,452

Large Farmer (41) 405.90 6,16,020 3,54,850 6,13,330 1,86,280 4,59,520 2,30,070

Total (101): 927.30 13,33,310 9,33,055 14,93,280 7,41,500 11,80,822 7,09,592

Per capita Cost: 3,704 2,592 4,148 2,060 3,280 1,971

Area in Ha. 927.30 702 433 786 432.00 506 282

Cost per Ha. : 1,899 2,156 1,901 1,716 2,333 2,516


VILLAGE WISE CHANGE IN FERTILISER APPLICATION ACROSS LAND CATEGORIES:

VILLAGE

TOTAL

BK

TOTAL

BR

TOTAL

FFK

TOTAL

FFR

TOTAL

DFK

TOTAL

DFR

TOTAL

FF12K

TOTAL

FF12R

TOTAL

DF12K

TOTAL

DF12R

AHIRBARDIYA PER HA. 858 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1716 3673

AMLA PER HA. 1870 1250 6667 1125 1304 1571 667 1575 1875 2000

AMLA PER HA. 2866 874 0 0 0 0 1742 2126 3733 1813

BADGONE PER HA. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1250

BADGONE PER HA. 2134 5384 0 0 0 0 6705 1134 2048 1813

BAPCHA PER HA. 1574 3083 0 0 0 0 1931 2031 1312 2558

BHADKA PER HA. 1351 2298 0 1613 231 621 0 1000 2000 500

BHADKA PER HA. 2713 3553 0 0 0 0 1905 0 1263 2000

BHANPURA PER HA. 985 1377 1089 1604 2049 1944 1091 1910 1301 3309

BHANPURA PER HA. 1907 1357 0 0 0 0 1141 2179 0 0

DABADIYA PER HA. 2458 2109 2813 2188 2143 987 2381 2262 2019 1053

DABADIYA PER HA. 1645 3531 0 0 0 0 1906 1101 1615 4158

DEOLI PER HA. 2372 2015 1530 3950 2139 5500 1667 3389 1080 4248

JAGATPURA PER HA. 2314 10060 0 0 0 0 2500 0 2160 6586

JHALARA PER HA. 4656 3500 4844 3038 5500 6000 4969 3115 3143 1800

JHALARA PER HA. 2221 3571 0 0 0 0 2515 4614 4796 4085

JHKADIYA PER HA. 2094 1053 1250 0 2298 3555 0 0 2074 0

JHKADIYA PER HA. 3269 1820 0 0 0 0 2450 6000 2060 3869

KANKARIYA PER HA. 1140 750 1008 917 2083 2778 1089 700 4070 2353

KANKARIYA PER HA. 1498 1602 0 0 0 0 1584 1531 2085 0

KARWAKHEDI PER HA. 2800 565 1120 1118 1000 1500 909 348 2233 0

KARWAKHEDI PER HA. 1498 1602 0 0 0 0 1584 1531 2085 0

KASAIDEHARIYA PER HA. 952 766 1676 1195 1211 1082 1451 1135 1256 1152

KASAIDEHARIYA PER HA. 1657 1013 0 0 0 0 2049 1613 2313 2424


MAHUDIYA PER HA. 1617 1698 1707 1538 1986 4389 2422 1797 1572 2340

MAHUDIYA PER HA. 1194 1250 0 0 0 0 2000 0 1206 1190

NIPANIYA

BAIJNATH PER HA. 3704 294 2500 1333 3542 3000 2393 1417 2583 0

NIPANIYA

BAIJNATH PER HA. 1613 1221 0 0 0 0 1724 1463 2541 1526

RAIPURIYA PER HA. 2156 1710 0 0 0 0 2500 0 1519 1428

RATANKHEDI PER HA. 677 1044 987 1022 0 0 1319 700 1241 0

RATANKHEDI PER HA. 4677 1217 0 0 0 0 1404 1100 984 0

ROJHANA PER HA. 2738 1654 2179 2233 4250 2400 2617 1417 3100 0

ROJHANA PER HA. 1966 3896 0 0 0 0 2515 3836 2720 2892

ROJHANI PER HA. 2194 1550 3077 2000 1304 2500 769 500 823 1667

ROJHANI PER HA. 2059 3252 0 0 0 0 1667 833 686 1973

SALRI PER HA. 816 1563 1152 2500 1053 2654 1022 2500 1091 1944

SALRI PER HA. 1493 1884 0 0 0 0 1269 1683 1947 2113

SEMLI PER HA. 636 1500 0 0 1056 2571 0 0 1667 4676

SEMLI PER HA. 2667 3673 0 0 0 0 0 0 1285 3568

SHIVGARH PER HA. 1991 3150 2380 3886 4667 4167 1862 2553 893 2500

SHIVGARH PER HA. 2850 1392 0 0 0 0 1474 1766 1540 4122

SIRPOI PER HA. 7424 3238 1327 1500 1421 3958 1607 2321 1939 2338

SIRPOI PER HA. 2100 2605 0 0 0 0 2572 2559 2303 3001


Change in Crop yield from 2010 to 2012 -AGAR


Base Year 2010

Kharif Rabi Total

Small Farmer (27) 32.80 232.95 187.20 420.15

Medium Farmer (33) 90.80 667.30 854.80 1522.10

Large Farmer (41) 248.60 1927.41 2616.20 4543.61

Total (101): 372.20 2827.66 3658.20 6485.86

Per capita Yield:

28.00 36.22 64.22

Area in Ha. 372.20 258.20 172.30 430.50

Yield per Ha. :

10.95 21.23 15.07

Impact year 2011


Kharif Rabi Total Kharif Rabi Total

56.10 53.50 109.60 248.32 317.80 566.12 675.72

384.00 448.00 832.00 630.18 896.50 1526.68 2358.68

1468.75 1975.00 3443.75 742.83 895.60 1638.43 5082.18

1908.85 2476.50 4385.35 1621.33 2109.90 3731.23 8116.58

18.90 24.52 43.42 16.05 20.89 36.94 80.36

158.50 104.10 262.60 135.20 94.50 229.70 492.30

12.04 23.79 16.70 11.99 22.33 16.24 16.49

Impact year 2012


Kharif Rabi Total Kharif Rabi Total

40.00 28.00 68.00 308.90 243.25 552.15 620.15

323.50 458.00 781.50 788.76 885.30 1674.06 2455.56

1501.55 2117.40 3618.95 927.60 917.00 1844.60 5463.55

1865.05 2603.40 4468.45 2025.26 2045.55 4070.81 8539.26

18.47 25.78 44.24 20.05 20.25 40.31 84.55

152.50 130.80 283.30 153.76 84.50 238.26 521.56

12.23 19.90 15.77 13.17 24.21 17.09 16.37


Change in Crop yield from 2011 to 2012

Land Category Total

Land



Kharif Rabi Total Kharif Rabi Total Kharif Rabi Total

Small Farmer (164) 193.10 1836.30 2479.70 4316.00 389.00 447.90 836.90 1907.70 2593.50 4501.20 5338.10

Medium Farmer

(125) 328.30 2866.39 4319.00 7185.39 1531.20 2142.50 3673.70 2259.55 3417.60 5677.15 9350.85

Large Farmer(70) 405.90 3301.50 4477.50 7779.00 2755.00 3191.50 5946.50 1552.70 2158.50 3711.20 9657.70

Total (360): 927.30 8004.19 11276.20 19280.39 4675.20 5781.90 10457.10 5719.95 8169.60 13889.55 24346.65

Per capita Yield: 22.23 31.32 53.56 12.99 16.06 29.05 15.89 22.69 38.58 67.63

Area in Ha. 701.93 432.80 1134.73 353.60 224.10 577.70 432.20 282.00 714.20 1291.90

Yield per Ha. : 11.40 26.05 16.99 13.22 25.80 18.10 13.23 28.97 19.45 18.85


VILLAGE WISE YEILD FROM PER Ha LAND FOR BOTH CLASSES:

VILLAGE LAND_CAT TOTAL

BK

TOTAL

BR

TOTAL

FFK

TOTAL

FFR

TOTAL

DFK

TOTAL

DFR

TOTAL

FF12K

TOTAL

FF12R

TOTAL

DF12K

TOTAL

DF12R

AHIRBARDIYA PER HA. 12.01 13.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.57 11.43

AMLA PER HA. 12.21 20.59 11.67 18.75 12.93 11.43 11.67 18.75 13.65 9.17

AMLA PER HA. 12.28 15.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.87 15.60 14.54 16.41

BADGONE PER HA. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.00 20.00

BADGONE PER HA. 10.66 17.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.43 18.79 14.09 27.54

BAPCHA PER HA. 11.40 22.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.97 23.13 16.06 29.13

BHADKA PER HA. 11.54 15.96 15.00 19.03 3.51 3.79 15.00 20.33 11.67 10.00

BHADKA PER HA. 16.99 27.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.19 23.64 17.50 35.00

BHANPURA PER HA. 9.80 13.58 9.85 15.18 5.00 17.22 9.99 18.36 6.51 12.94

BHANPURA PER HA. 6.45 21.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.56 15.41 28.15 6.25

DABADIYA PER HA. 6.10 11.64 9.14 14.38 9.29 9.21 10.00 15.71 11.92 11.32

DABADIYA PER HA. 7.65 13.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.93 13.76 9.23 14.20

DEOLI PER HA. 12.14 11.93 18.11 20.25 14.97 22.80 17.88 26.67 12.99 24.88

JAGATPURA PER HA. 9.87 47.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 11.98 30.83

JHALARA PER HA. 15.00 38.08 16.25 40.00 18.75 45.00 15.00 45.00 14.29 40.00

JHALARA PER HA. 13.80 27.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.62 25.60 17.06 32.35

JHKADIYA PER HA. 7.94 30.00 7.50 0.00 12.50 35.27 0.00 0.00 12.04 0.00

JHKADIYA PER HA. 13.70 31.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.77 40.00 13.64 22.31

KANKARIYA PER HA. 13.95 15.00 14.03 12.50 14.36 20.74 15.08 13.00 15.12 27.06

KANKARIYA PER HA. 15.05 16.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.79 17.30 15.07 15.00

KARWAKHEDI PER HA. 12.44 21.20 10.00 31.71 17.14 35.00 10.00 10.65 15.00 0.00


KARWAKHEDI PER HA. 15.05 16.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.79 17.30 15.07 15.00

KASAIDEHARIYA PER HA. 12.53 18.20 12.87 31.20 7.76 19.26 10.06 29.64 31.13 25.76

KASAIDEHARIYA PER HA. 11.38 13.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.54 34.81 12.17 28.41

MAHUDIYA PER HA. 13.45 23.72 12.44 19.62 16.76 26.11 15.63 14.53 14.92 44.00

MAHUDIYA PER HA. 12.55 42.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.00 0.00 16.83 43.91

NIPANIYA

BAIJNATH PER HA. 9.63 5.00 0.00 9.17 10.00 7.92 10.00 5.83 0.00 5.00

NIPANIYA

BAIJNATH PER HA. 15.27 20.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.31 18.05 20.98 25.89

RAIPURIYA PER HA. 11.80 34.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.75 0.00 14.42 36.83

RATANKHEDI PER HA. 10.00 11.63 10.00 12.77 11.94 7.41 10.55 9.04 11.64 8.33

RATANKHEDI PER HA. 10.00 19.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.13 20.00 13.20 11.25

ROJHANA PER HA. 11.34 12.12 15.54 19.00 11.00 8.33 12.50 5.83 12.67 5.00

ROJHANA PER HA. 13.74 21.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.71 16.24 15.72 14.00

ROJHANI PER HA. 10.00 19.00 10.00 25.00 10.26 18.75 10.00 15.00 10.00 20.00

ROJHANI PER HA. 11.72 17.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 10.00 10.70 16.86

SALRI PER HA. 10.07 28.75 9.35 35.00 11.32 37.12 9.35 35.00 22.05 41.11

SALRI PER HA. 11.54 18.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.16 18.32 11.07 29.32

SEMLI PER HA. 7.50 17.50 0.00 5.00 10.83 16.57 0.00 0.00 13.00 21.32

SEMLI PER HA. 9.49 11.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.14 17.88

SHIVGARH PER HA. 14.46 30.10 18.80 32.21 8.52 6.67 17.87 37.87 9.52 35.00

SHIVGARH PER HA. 11.35 38.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.23 38.01 7.02 12.80

SIRPOI PER HA. 8.52 24.05 11.15 35.22 9.46 23.33 10.71 40.00 10.77 19.19

SIRPOI PER HA. 9.72 23.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.58 33.96 12.22 23.27



AGAR SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE:

AGAR CLUSTER SURVEY

Surveyor:…………………………………….

Date:……………………………………………

Village:……………………………………………………………….. VFA code:……………………………………

Farmer name:…………………………………………………….. Farmer code:………………………………

Date of joining VFA:……………………………………………. Phone number:………………………….

Cast: ⃝GEN ⃝ OBC ⃝ SC ⃝ ST BPL: ⃝YES ⃝ NO

Family details:

House: ⃝ Own ⃝ Rented

⃝ Kutcha ⃝ Pucca ⃝ Semi Pucca

Toilet: ⃝ Flush toilet ⃝ Community toilet ⃝ Pit latrine ⃝ Open defecation

SrNo Name DOB Age

(yrs.)

Relation with

family Head

Education Present status of Education

(Completed/Continuing/Drop out)

Occupation

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.


Drinking water sources: ⃝Tube well/bore well ⃝ hand pump ⃝ Open well ⃝ Community well ⃝ River ⃝ Stream

⃝ Pond ⃝ Tap water supply ⃝ others

House Electrified: ⃝ Yes ⃝ No

Farm electrified: ⃝ Yes ⃝ No

Land details: Irrigated-………………..(Ha) Unirrigated-………..(Ha) Cultivable wasteland-……………(Ha)

Asset base

Farm based asset Number before

RF

Number added

after RF

interventions

Non-farm based

assets

Number before

RF Intervention

Number added

after RF

intervention

Livestock asset Number Before

RF intervention

Number added

After RF

intervention

Plough Bicycle Cow - local

Hoe / Harrow Television Cow – cross

breed

Bullock car Refrigerator Buffalo

Tractor, Trolley Radio Bullock

Drip sprinkler Sewing machine Goat

Seed drill Motorcycle /

scooter

Sheep

Pump set Car / Jeep Poultry

Weeder Tempo/Truck Others (fish etc)

Sprayer Almirah/dressing

table

Power tiller VCD/DVD

Pipeline Mobile

Genset Landline

Thresher Other (pls.

specify)

TOTAL= TOTAL= TOTAL=

BASE LINE INFORMATION OF FARM: Year20……… to 20……..


Season # Crop Item/

Activity

*

Cost to the

farmer

Area

(bigha)

Yield

(Q/

Bigha)

Production (Q

for the total

land)

Self

consumption

Sale

(Quintal)

Rate of produce

(Rs.per

quintal)

Total income

from sale of

produce (Rs.)

Q Kg Q Kg

Total=

Total=


*Item: 1.ploughing 2.Fertilizer 3.Sowing 4.FYM/pond silt 5.Seeds 6.Pesticides 7.Weeding 8.Harvesting 9. Packaging and handling and Transport

to mandi 10.Bunding 11. Farm pond/Dug well

#Season: K= Kharif, R= Rabi, Z= Zaid

Crop: 1. Soybean 2.Wheat 3. Lentils 4.Ground nut 5.Sorghum 6. Black gram 7. red gram 8.Green Gram 9.Coriander 10. Maize

11. Til 12.Chauli 13.mausr 14.Rye

Irrigation information:

Year Season Total land Irrigated Source of

irrigation

Crops taken Unirrigated RF

intervention

Volume of the

water

structure(L*B*H)

Area brought

under

irrigation

Crops taken

Baseline (before

2010)

Kharif

Rabi

Zaid

2011-2012 Kharif

Rabi

Zaid

2012-2013 Kharif

Rabi

Zaid

Source of irrigation: 1. Own Well 2.Own pond 3. Shared well 4.common pond 5.River 6.tubewell /bore well 7. Lift irrigation 8.Spring/bauri 9.canal

RF Intervention: 1. Dug Well 2. Farm pond 3.community farm pond 4.lift irrigation

Crop: 1. Soybean 2.Wheat 3. Lentils 4.Ground nut 5. Sorghum 6. Black gram 7.red gram 8.Green Gram 9.Coriander 10. Maize

11. Til 12.Chauli 13.masur 14.Rye

Year 2011-2012 (Farmer’s Field where VFA has not provided any support)


Season # Crop Item/

Activity

*

Cost to the

farmer

Area

(bigha)

Yield

(Q/

Bigha)

Production (Q

for the total

land)

Self

consumption

Sale

(Quintal)

Rate of produce

(Rs.per

quintal)

Total income from

sale of produce (Rs.)

Q Kg Q Kg

Year 2011-2012 (DHARTI farm)


Season # Crop Item/

Activit

y *

Cost to the

farmer

Cost borne

by RF

Area

(bigha)

Yield

(Q/

Bigha)

Production (Q

for the total

land)

Self

consumption

Sale

(Quintal)

Rate of

produce

(Rs.per

quintal)

Total income from

sale of produce

(Rs.)

Q Kg Q Kg

YEAR 2012-2013 (Farmer’s Field where VFA has not provided any support)


Season # Crop Item/

Activity

*

Cost to the farmer Area

(bigha)

Yield

(Q/

Bigha)

Production (Q

for the total

land)

Self

consumption

Sale

(Quintal)

Rate of produce

(Rs.per

quintal)

Total income from

sale of produce (Rs.)

Q Kg Q Kg

Year 2012-2013 (DHARTI farm)


Season # Crop Item/

Activity

*

Cost to the

farmer

Cost borne by

RF

Area

(bigha)

Yield

(Q/

Bigha)

Production (Q

for the total

land)

Self

consumption

Sale

(Quintal)

Rate of

produce

(Rs.per

quintal)

Total income

from sale of

produce (Rs.)

Q Kg Q Kg


Sources of income Before RF interventions After RF interventions

Agriculture

Livestock #

Agricultural labour

Non-agricultural labour

Grocery shop

Tailor

Para medical

Government service

Others

Livestock

information#

EXPENSES Total

expenses

Cost of

purchase

Feed Protein

mix

Veterinary

expenses

Insurance

cost

Yield per

day (L)

Self-

consumption

Sold per

day (L) /

number

Unit

price per

litre / per

kg /Per

unit

Income Net

income (

total

income –

total

expenses)

Cow

Cow cross

bred

Buffalo

Ox

Goats

Sheep

Poultry


Food

shortage

months

January February march April May June July August September October November December

Before RF

After RF

Water

shortage

months

January February march April May June July August September October November December

Before RF

After RF

Qualitative survey:

1. Has the income increased after BIJ interventions? □ Yes □ No

2. Has there been addition to asset base after BIJ? □ Yes □ No

3. Has the incidence of migration for work decreased after BIJ? □ Yes □ No

4. Has the crop yield increased? □ Yes □ No

5. Has there been addition of fruits and vegetables in the diet? □ Yes □ No

6. Has there been increase in variety of fruits and vegetables consumed after RNG? □ Yes □ No

7. Is there an improved awareness about balanced diet and nutrition after BIJ interventions? □ Yes □ No

8. Has the water level increased after BIJ interventions? □ Yes □ No

9. Has the expense on vegetables from market decreased after RNG? □ Yes □ No

10. Do you think has there has been a decrease in health related incidents after better consumption of fruits and vegetables? □ Yes □ No

11. Has the soil quality improved after RF BIJ activities? □ Yes □ No


HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THE RF BIJ INTERVETIONS?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------

Impact Assessment _Agar_MadhyaPradesh

Documents