MINOR IRRIGATION PROGRAMME - MAHARASHTRA

REPORTOF

INTERNATIONAL IRRIGATION AGRONOMIST AND EXTENSIONIST

James A LitsingerConsultant

9 JANUARY – 4 FEBRUARY 2010

February 2010

Minor Irrigation (Local Sector) Division (PPC)Office of Technical Assistance Team (For German Projects), Bungalow 7, Jail Road,Yerawada, Pune 411 066,INDIA

GITEC Consult GMBHBongardstr. 3,40479 Düsseldorf,

GERMANY

Table of ContentsI. Introduction.................................................................................................................1II. Current Status of Agriculture and PADP Training....................................................2

A. Scheme Visits....................................................................................................2B. Exposure Visit...................................................................................................3C. Field Day...........................................................................................................5D. Study Plot..........................................................................................................6E. Participation.......................................................................................................6

III. Improving the Delivery and Effectiveness of PADP Training................................7A. Refresher course for trainers.................................................................................7B. 15the Quarterly Meeting of the PADP Monitoring Committee..........................10

IV. Status of the Agricultural Production Groups (APGs)..........................................12V. Rate of Farmer Adoption.........................................................................................15VI. Benefits of PADP...................................................................................................18

A. Farmers’ testimonials..........................................................................................181. No more seasonal migration.............................................................................192. Better diet.........................................................................................................193. Increase in agricultural land.............................................................................194. Credit more available.......................................................................................195. Land value increased........................................................................................196. Increased profits and ability to enjoy a better lifestyle....................................19

B. Economic Benefits...............................................................................................20VII. Interest of WUAs in Sponsoring their Own Godowns.........................................23VIII. Lessons Learned..................................................................................................23

A. Agricultural production and water management.................................................23B. Benefits from adoption........................................................................................24C. PADP...................................................................................................................25

IX. Recommendations..................................................................................................26Appendix I. Key Informant Visits and Interviews.......................................................28Jain Irrigation Systems.................................................................................................28Jambrun Jahangir Scheme............................................................................................30Bibkhed Scheme...........................................................................................................31Kasari Scheme..............................................................................................................32Adgaon Jawale Scheme................................................................................................33Wanewadi Scheme.......................................................................................................35Warvanti Scheme.........................................................................................................37Varve Scheme..............................................................................................................39

I. Introduction1

This is the fifth report of the International Irrigation Agronomist and Extensionist (Consultant) for MIP-M. Mobilization took place from 9 Jan – 4 Feb, 2010. The Consultant worked under the direction of the Team Leader who arrived 1 Feb to overlap for two days. The Consultant mainly worked with the Technical Assistance Team (TAT) counterparts, National Agronomist Mr Gujare as well as the Project Management Unit (PMU) Agronomist Mr Mane, who were also in the office during the 24-day period in-country that included 9 days visiting project sites. The

1 Photo on cover shows farmers from Januna and Jambrun Jahangir MIP-M schemes meeting to exchange experiences during an exposure visit in a quiet setting under a mango tree

1

Consultant also met with the Participatory Agricultural Development Program (PADP) training coordinators from AFARM (the NGO that coordinates the training program), Mr Sakore and Mr Katare and the Executive Director Mr. Tamboli to discuss how well the recommendations from the last report were adopted.

The purpose of this short mobilization involved six tasks:

First was to continue to assess the variables for the MIP-M impact evaluation survey and make improvements and additions of analyses as seen necessary.

Second was to visit the AFARM PADP FSO project farmer trainers as well as schemes while training programs were ongoing to evaluate the effectiveness of training delivery. Travel to schemes included observing an exposure visit and a field day.

Third, of particular interest was to review the progress of the initiative of having project village-level farmers (Krishi Mitras) facilitate training within Agricultural Production Groups (APG). This would include noting the training method and measure the interest of farmers in a new training method especially their involvement in undertaking Study Plots (on-farm validation of recommendations) as a learning technique.

Fourth the Team Leader asked the TAT Agronomist and the Consultant to discuss with WUA members from several mature schemes to see their interest to construct godowns to store farm products, both to reduce storage losses but also to be able to wait until local prices rose to more favorable levels

Fifth a visit to the leading supplier of irrigation equipment was made and improved agricultural technologies were gleaned from their experts.

Sixth to write a submission for the Semi-Annual Project Report on PADP

The Consultant had the following schedule, reporting to the MIP-M office in Pune except for four trips:

1. Jain Irrigation System factory and research park on 13-14 Jan2. Jambrun Jahangir, Bikhed, Kasari, and Adgaon Jawale schemes 18-21 Jan3. Warwanti and Wanewadi schemes 27-29 Jan4. Varve scheme 2 Feb

The details of these visits are given in Appendix I.

II. Current Status of Agriculture and PADP Training

A. Scheme VisitsThe 2009-10 has been an average year wherein most locations rains fell to fill the tanks but there was a gap in rainfall in July-Aug, which led to some crop stunting. Rainfall resumed in Sep, but in Table 1 one can see that most tanks had low water levels by the end of Oct. In November widespread rain occurred in the Yavatmal region which filled up most tanks, as it was the heaviest rain of the crop year.

2

Farmers, with some exceptions, are slowly transitioning into becoming more efficient in the use irrigation water. In more organized WUAs like Bikhed and Varve farmers will be penalized if they waste water. Through adoption of micro-irrigation, farmers are growing more high value crops best suited to the local soil type. For example in Jambrun Jahangir all WUA members are presently irrigating through sprinklers. The sequence of saving irrigation water increases with each evolutionary step from furrow irrigation to sprinkler then to drip. But farmers in some schemes such as Adgaon Jawale have successfully moved from rainfed subsistence field crops to horticultural crops and drip irrigation in one leap, as lucrative markets were nearby and there was not enough water for furrow irrigation to grow cereals and pulses. Most schemes, however, small numbers of farmers are graduating from furrow irrigation to more efficient sprinklers, which distribute water more uniformly. Farmers now also know that yields can be reduced from too much water as well as not enough. Farmers have learned by experience not to grow crops that are not suited for the most efficient use of water. For example, those in Bibkhed experimented with banana on light soils have now shifted back to field crops. In some cases the pressure produced by electric pumps is not enough to deliver water through sprinkler systems due to low voltage of electric power. When solar powered pumps come into the market, many PADP farmers will readily purchase them. In a visit to Jain Irrigation Systems, this large provider of irrigation equipment has a dedicated unit that is developing solar powered pumps. It is hoped that such pumps would be available at reasonable cost within the next few years. This development will have a great impact on crop production. We noted that many WUAs are dithering about how to increase their irrigation capacity through purchase of larger pumps or transformers to generate more power, as many want the project to pay for it. Larger diameter pipes may also be in order.

B. Exposure VisitWe had an opportunity to observe an exposure visit for the first time. PADP farmers get two days a season to organize one or two field trips (2 days a season) for a number chosen by the WUA to visit, in the case of Januna, another farm community to observe improved practices. The exposure visit employs the process of visualization to show WUA members what new farming technologies are possible. Livestock raising, for example, becomes attractive when seen as integrating well with crop residue management through the making of compost or vermi-culture or biogas production to generate one’s electricity and cooking fuel as in Wanewadi. Seeing

3

Table 1. Characteristics of PADP schemes, 2009-10

Scheme

Number of WUA

members ICA (ha)Start of PADP

Year of PADP

WUA hall completed

Water status of tanks (%

full) 1/WUA building as

training facilityWarvanti, Osmanabad 103 113 May 08 2nd No 100 Completed 2/Khadakdari, Yavatmal 104 198 May 08 2nd No 15-20 Not completedGhanmukh, Yavatmal 102 124 May 08 2nd No 10-15 Completed 3/Kolwan, Amravati 119 138 May 08 2nd No 25 Not completedJanuna, Buldhana 145 138 May 08 2nd No 25 Completed 2/Gorja, Chandrapur 97 113 May 09 1st No 10 Completed just

recentlyMean 112 137

state, providing enough for the ongoing cotton crop as well as for the rabi crop in most locations2/ Far from village3/ Materials stored in meeting room

1/ As of 31 Oct, 2009, but in Nov the heaviest rainfall of the year occurred and was widespread across the

another farmer adopt such an integrated system is a powerful motivating force. Exposure visits can also be to research stations to see improved technologies or to progressive farms where a farmer has adopted practices that the PADP scheme members would benefit from if they adopted as well. The process uses the method of ‘seeing is believing’ to convince farmers to adopt new technology or process. Seeing other farmers like themselves adopt new practices is a very powerful motivator. Exposure visits are one of the most effective extension tools as they facilitate the direct observation of skills, knowledge, and experience between farmers. Farmers trust what other farmers say more than from other sources. Farm communities that are to be visited must have adopted some technologies relevant to Project farmers’ needs. This was the case for Januna farmers (a new scheme) when they visited J. Jahangir (a more mature scheme).

Farmers were first briefed on what they would see in the exposure visit. Accordingly some 40 members from Januna arrived in a Tempo truck to Jambrun Jahangir where adoption of irrigation is high. In earlier exposure visits the farmers visited a research station, an agricultural university, a KVK and a progressive farmer. Some 15 J. Jahangir farmers were their hosts. Both Januna and J. Jahangir sites have storage tanks with lift irrigation, thus well water recharging is not occurring in this situation, as farms are upstream of the tank. The Januna members (where PADP started in May 2008) are only now getting organized to accept irrigation. There are still problems among the members, as most are not agreeing to pay for the scheme. In a lift irrigation scheme the project engineers install some 20 electric pumps along with transformers to take off water from the reservoir. The take-off pipes are buried and serve the various parts of the ICA. Individual farmers then purchase small pumps and small pipes to tap the main pipes direct watering to their fields. In J. Jahangir all the farmers have purchased small pipes and 5 hp pumps to take advantage of water.

The Januna farmers first toured the fields and saw luxuriant wheat and gram crops. Wheat had been row seeded and the farmers were interested in the seeders as well as the irrigation set up. After the initial field tour, all the farmers gathered under a mango tree where a large tarp was laid out and farmers could sit in the shade and they shared experiences. There was no noise from the town as is common in cases when the training takes place in a temple or central meeting hall. WUA halls are also good venues, as they tend to be outside of the village center but are not always used (Table 1). Discussion turned to recommended practices to grow the common crops. The J. Jahangir farmers explained the crops and practices they adopted which have increased production and income levels. Two resource persons from the Agricultural Department joined the farmer meeting, one a village-level Extension Worker (Agent) and the other was his boss, an Agriculture Supervisor. One Agent covers about three villages or 1,000 farmers. The extension agents began visiting the scheme more regularly in recent times, due to the Project’s effect, and had offered a horticultural scheme; 14 acres have been planted to citrus and 10 to mango with the Agriculture Department supplying the saplings as well as all inputs for three years. The Supervisor explained the scheme and what the requirements were to join.

After lunch provided by AFARM, we went with the farmers for more field touring to visit the dam site with the lift irrigation system in place. The farmers spent an hour there and then decided they really wanted their own system. Their problem is that the WUA president, who did not accompany them, is not all that enthusiastic about the

4

project. They talked about replacing him! They clearly liked what they saw and now would confront their leader.

The exposure visit was successful partly because Januna was a good fit and partly because the crops were growing well in an irrigation system that all farmers had bought into. It may be worthwhile then for other WUAs with lift irrigation systems to visit J. Jahangir even if it means travelling long distances. The project should maximize showing off successful WUAs to those less successful even if the PADP is over. We are under-utilizing this training resource.

C. Field DayWe observed a Field Day in Warvanti. It started at 8:30AM as the farmers wanted to finish early, as due to load sharing, the power comes back on at 1PM so they wanted to end by then in order to turn on their pumps early. Some half of the farmers in the WUA participated which was very encouraging to see. The first activity was to visit four of the demoplots in the field. A demoplot is one acre in size marked at each corner by a red flag for all passerbys to see. There is a placard in front of the plot describing the nature of the trial. Arriving at each of the four demoplots, farmers were told the nature of the trial by the cooperating farmer with supplemental discussion by the FSO. Farmers’ questions were entertained before moving to the next demoplot. The crops are just about to be harvested so the yield can be estimated. When the yield is taken, it will be reported in a WUA meeting and written on a poster to be placed in the WUA hall. Not only the yield but the profits and B:C ratio will be shown and explained.

After the field tour, the participants assembled at the WUA building, and to loosen everyone up there was a group dynamics exercise where farmers interlocked arms and twisted themselves among one another so that no one could move. The purpose was to develop group solidarity and ‘break the ice’ so farmers would be more talkative and develop group solidarity. The formal program began with a session of experience sharing. The venue of the meeting was good as the WUA building is far from town and noise. The farmers sat on a tarp facing the front door. The cooperating demoplot farmers each got up and explained their experiments, once more repeating the technologies. This was followed by two invited farmers from the neighboring scheme of Wadewadi. The invited farmer Mr Geware explained how he cultivated papaya as a successful cash crop. There is no problem for marketing as middlemen will come to the village. As a result some 10 farmers volunteered to grow papaya this coming year. Warvanti has better irrigation resources than Wadewadi so they should do even better.

There was also discussion by the FSO on how to control white grub, a pest on ginger, groundnut, and various horticultural crops. There was discussion on the ‘ICRISAT method’ of growing groundnut on a raised bed. Most farmers regularly use the various seed treatments (Rhizobium, Azotobacter, PSB) as well as vermi-wash, neem extract, and Jerarot biofertilizer tonic. Following this, farmers known to have the highest yields for each of the main crops explained how they cultivated their crops so that the farmers could be informed and ask questions. Each farmer got a handout summarizing the findings of the demoplots. The handout was in large font, there were ample illustrations, and it was paginated. The Apex NGO coordiator also gave a good talk illustrating many good communication skills and as a result some of the farmers are ‘thinking about’ paying their water fees. The Field Day event was formerly closed and the participants

5

enjoyed the snack provided by AFARM. The Field Day was a success as the participation and speakers were good.

D. Study PlotIn Warvanti we also saw a Study Plot Experiment of five treatments (100 m2)

appended to a sorghum demoplot. The unreplicated plots were all in a row and clearly labeled:1. Azotobacter and PSB only2. Azotobacter, vermi-wash, inorganic NPK , and FYM3. Inorganic (NPK) fertilizer only 4. Vermiwash only5. Only FYM

There were differences in growth due to the treatment effects, but the real basis for comparison will be the yield. The crop was entering heading stage and we will have to wait for the harvest to determine if the differences in growth translate to yield. The study plot method allows farmers to fine-tune technology on their own through simple means of adding or subtracting different inputs to see the crop growth response. The objective is to determine the needs and rates of inputs. Comparing varieties is also useful through the study plot method. An important lesson of study plots is to show how farmers can do their own fine tuning. This is a better method than observing different fields, as the soil, irrigation etc, can be very different between fields therefore this confounds the result. The FSO said that it was not difficult for the farmer to set up the study plots but mentioned that it took extra time, which is natural. It is hoped that at least some farmers would see this as a superior method of comparing different practices.

E. ParticipationAttendance for PADP training events it seems is always less than 50%, or even half of that, if you consider that women rarely attend. It seems that farmers value their time in the field or at home more than utilizing their time for education. This is probably the best training opportunity that farmers will get in their lifetimes, so it is surprising that more do not take advantage of it. The best explanation for this is that the farmers believe if just one family member attends then he will tell all the others. Thus when there are many brothers each having their own farm, they believe attendance by only one is necessary. Another reason perhaps is they do not worry, as they believe the government will always take care of them so they do have to improve themselves. So for them training is all about learning the names of a few inputs and nothing more. Farmers often ask to just give them the names of the best products, as that is all they want to know. In case or fertilizer the farmer said he learned to use DAP in place of 23-23-0, but actually both fertilizers contain N and P so just changing brands is not benefiting. The idea that they have to learn that each brand of fertilizer contains a different percentage of N, P or K is not appreciated nor that farmers really should know how many kg of each product should be applied. Therefore farmers are not following the recommended practice of inorganic fertilizer dosage for most crops.

As farmers do not write this information down, many will have forgotten the product name by next year. Farmers are given notepads by their trainers to write in as well as handouts. These events seem to be well publicized, as it is the duty of the KM to rally interest for farmers to attend. In many of the schemes there has not been any special

6

effort to encourage women to join the trainings aside from Women’s Field Days, Exposure Visits, and undertaking Marketing Surveys. Not having any female FSOs or KMs it is hard to attract women to training events. PADP in the six schemes in 2009-10 has trained 2,170 participants (Table 2). This is not to mean that this many farmers have been trained as many of the same farmers attend most trainings sessions given in each scheme. The table shows that AFARM has administered most of the trainings as planned. Discrepancies mean that, at times, the trainings have been postponed due to scheduling problems. Trainings are lectures delivered by hired specialists invited to the scheme by the WUA on subjects chosen by farmers. Demonstration plots are placed in one-acre fields in cooperating farmers’ fields who are ready to undertake the trial where new technologies will be tested. The demonstrations are conducted as per the working guideline provided by PMU / TAT at the beginning of the PADP program. The selection and finalization of demonstration takes place in the need assessment meeting with WUA at the beginning of the season.. The WUA members decide the most suitable demonstration and select the farmer cooperators in consultation with the FSO and KM. Demonstrations focus on new crops or varieties improved spacing, improved crop husbandry techniques such as integrated pest management, integrated nutrient management, organic farming, more efficient irrigation practices, or energy saving implements. Field days are held when the demoplots become mature so that crop growth can be seen in all of them. The yields are taken and compared to those of neighboring fields. Exposure visits have already been discussed.

III. Improving the Delivery and Effectiveness of PADP TrainingThe Consultant’s Report of Sept 2009 made a number of recommendations to improve the PADP training program. A meeting was held at the PMU office on 21 Sept 2009 to make a plan to follow up on the recommendations stemming from the report. As a result the TAT and PMU conducted a three-day refresher training exercise for the FSOs at the AFARM office in Yavatmal 5-7 Oct.

A. Refresher course for trainersWhen PADP began there was training for the first newly hired FSOs on how to conduct the various PADP activities (exposure visits, lectures, etc) which lasted one day. There is a TOT (Training of Trainers) report summarizing this training. In 2005 there were 3 FSOs and 5 schemes who were given two orientation trainings for the new ones plus refresher training for the original FSOs. In 2006 there were 7 FSOs and 14 schemes. The new FSOs received one orientation training; while in 2007 there were 20 schemes and refresher training for all FSOs. Training was also provided on ‘how to train’ by Mr Shirish Terkhedkar a master trainer and by the KVK and a contracted Extension Professor from a local university. The problem has been

7

Table 2. Kinds and attendance of training activities by PADP farmers, kharif 2008-09 1/

Total of six schemes

Number planned

Number completed

Number of expected partici-pants

Number of actual partici-pants

Training Lecture 5 22 19 600 603Demonstration Plot 5 30 30 262 262Farmers' Field Day 2 12 12 1,200 674Womens' Field Day 2 12 12 600 537Exchange Visits 1 6 4 150 94

82 77 2,812 2,1701/ Data are from PADP 15th Quarterly Monitoring Committee Meeting 15 Jan 2010

Total farmers attending

Number planned

per schemeActivity

turnover and new FSO staff who did not get the same level of training. The poor training skills exhibited by FSOs were pointed out during the last mobilization where three training lectures were observed.

As follow-on to the Consultant’s Report on this problem, the TAT Training Specialist Mr. S.S. Sunkar held a TOT session on 5 Oct for the four FSOs where training methods suited for farmers were reviewed. The following information stems from a report of this meeting written by the TAT Agronomist. Training for farmers should be delivered in a different manner than would be the case for more educated extension workers or university students. Farmers, being less used to formal training, require more reinforcement and engagement in the training process. Learning for them is more social than for college students. Information needs to be repeated and said in different ways; each person learns (concepts transferred to long-term memory) at a different rate and mode. Just saying the information once in a lecture is not enough to enter long-term memory. These subtleties have been missing in TOT to date and that is why when the Consultant quizzes farmers that he quickly finds out they do not understand much of the technology aside from the names of some inputs. Their lack of understanding and not following a standard package of practices has been documented in the first three mobilizations where the Consultant interviewed many farmers asking them to elaborate on improved technology such as inputs they use to grow crops. Just knowing the name of a fertilizer does not ensure that a recommended rate of NPK will be applied.

A large part of the reason for the low level of understanding among farmers is the low number of contact hours designed by PADP. The FSO visits once a week while the resident KM is only a part time employee and does not train farmers. The APGs, which could significantly increase contact hours, are not functioning. In schemes with more than one village, it is difficult for the KM to attend to the needs of those outside of his village.

AFARM directors Mr Tamboli was present on the first day of the workshop whereas Mr Sakore and Mr Katare were there for all three days. The key points covered were how to deliver a training lecture in terms of how to stand, use of hands in gesturing, if reading know to pause now and again to allow the farmers time for reflection. To ensure farmers understand the information, from time to time the trainer should ask a farmer by name to repeat what was just presented or ask what did he learn or what information was most useful. FSOs learned to respond to farmers’ questions as no question is out of place or wrong. A second part of Mr Sunkar’s training was how to use training aides such as posters or draft paper, if a whiteboard or blackboard is not available. Mr Sunkar, who understands how to train and the theories behind learning very well, told me that he learned training techniques from professors in Education not Agriculture Departments of colleges. Therefore if we need further input we should hire training specialists from Education. There is little evidence that such knowledge is available in Agriculture.

On the second day Mr Mane and Mr Gujare conducted the training focusing on how to make it more participatory, interactive, and effective. A session on role-playing gave the FSOs a chance to practice what they learned in front of one another. One of the constraints that emerged was the lack of competent resource persons to give the various specialty trainings. Most of those available are academic professionals so it

8

was decided to try to get more trainers with field experience that could talk at the level of farmers. AFARM will compile a directory of competent trainers for various subjects. A second topic covered was the training venue when the WUA building is not available. Going to training centers was suggested where better facilities exist. Perhaps combining two training sessions can take advantage of the resource. The farmers would stay overnight so videos and other prepared training programs could be presented. It is often difficult due to load sharing to hold trainings in such centers and the budget does not cover all of the expenses. The TAT and PMU team would visit training programs from time to time to ensure that they are conducted in as effective a way as possible based on what the FSOs learned.

On the third day there was discussion on the PADP activities during the last month as well as the role of the APGs. An outcome is that more APGs will be formed.

On 31 Oct Mr Sunkar and Mr Gujare observed a farmer training session in Gorja scheme and then held a short review of the training with the FSOs afterwards for a half day. The main observations were the following:

Greater interaction between trainer and farmer was encouraged during trainings

The Krishi Mitra also received training A blackboard or draft paper taped to the wall should be used by the lecturer to

write down key points with a marking pen A relevant handout should be provided to each farmer

The following were suggestions on how the training could be improved: It was noted that the trainer should summarize the relevance of the subject

matter for that day at the beginning of the training so farmers know what to expect

The trainer should repeat the information using different vocabulary each time to be sure farmers understand the key concepts fully

The lecturer should use analogies to explain concepts as much as possible All farmers should be given the opportunity to ask questions and if they do not

talk, then the trainer should ask them a direct question From time to time the trainer should change position or engage in another

activity to avoid monotony Where were women farmers to be trained? Specific questions should be asked at the end of the training to review the

content and assess comprehension of the key points

The following issues were discussed: Quality of speakers Noise and disturbance levels during training Timing of breaks and snack

Then the FSOs were asked to share their thoughts on how their training sessions went and what they can offer as suggestions on how to assure greater comprehension by the farmers. A review of the Brain Storming Technique presented by Mr Sunkar took place so that FSOs contributed to improving their lecturing skills. Also listening proficiency was covered as well as developing better interpersonal skills with the

9

farmers. Lastly it was decided that Mr Sunkar should observe each FSO give a training session once during the rabi season.

B. 15the Quarterly Meeting of the PADP Monitoring CommitteeThe 15the Quarterly Meeting of the PADP Monitoring Committee was held on 15 Jan 2010 where the following issues related to training were discussed:

1. Issue: PADP demoplot In the Monthly Reports prepared by AFARM there is no information on the yield and economic return for the technologies being tested in demoplots.

As a result of the Consultant’s Sept 09 Report, a recommendation was made to report the yields in the monthly reports as well as conduct economic analyses and compare them to neighboring fields. The yield information is reported to the WUA after harvest and written on a poster to be displayed at the WUA building for those to see. In addition the TAT agronomist was asked to prepare a format for economic data to be reported.

At the Quarterly Meeting of 15 Jan, the Consultant was present and noted that the TAT Agronomist was preparing the format as requested. AFARM gave the information on yields, which were presented:

In the 2008-09 kharif season demoplots of soybean were set out in all six PADP sites. Yields were highly variable between sites due to differences in rainfall, as this is a rainfed season. The soybean yield at Januna was excellent equaling that of the yield potential of the crop. Kolwan and Gorja sites had low yields. Averages of the demoplots compared to neighboring fields were only slightly higher (1.45 vs 1.22 t/ha) (Table 3). Januna site showed the greatest comparative difference. Technology to grow cotton on the other hand showed a clear advantage for PADP production practices compared to the farmers with the three fields, averaging 1.76 versus 1.16 t/ha in nearby farmers’ fields. All three sites showed improvements over farmers’ practices. Marigold was grown as a demoplot in only Kolwan, yielding 2.5 t/ha but there was no farmer nearby who grew a crop for comparison.

2. Issue: Training aids are seldom used during training.

AFARM is working on preparing more posters as training aids for the six PADP sites. A set of posters was initially provided to each scheme, but since the WUA office buildings were not available experience showed that hanging posters in public building leads to damage by the children. The posters should be in the care of the WUA or KM so that they can be used during trainings if no security can be provided. Training by TAT has shown FSOs how to improve their talks by writing the main points on a draft paper or blackboard during lectures. In this way farmers can read as well as hear the key points. After lectures by invited speakers, the FSO can summarize the messages, again both verbally and writing them down with a marking pen.

10

3. Issue: Training was not always conducted at the indicated times.Training should take place at the advertised time and also coordinated with the relevant field activities. Field visits after the training can reinforce the information presented by lecture.

The TAT staff have underscored this point to the FSOs during the TOT refresher trainings.

4. Issue: Lack of co-ordination between PADP Coordinator, FSO and KM.AFARM needs to schedule more meetings between FSO and KM, so times of trainings are known to all and will be well publicized.

Response: The number of internal monitoring visits by PADP coordinators has increased resulting in improved communication and coordination as well as quality of the training.5. Issue: Training materials were not always on the subject indicated.Handouts prepared by invited lecturers should reflect the subject matter requested by the farmers. It was observed that this did not always happen. The FSO also should read the handout before multiplying it to ensure quality and comprehensiveness; otherwise the lecturer should not be paid.

AFARM and FSOs are looking into this issue and TAT trainers will follow-up with the WUAs to ensure good quality of handouts. The Consultant noted that the handout for the field day in Waravanti was paginated, had photos, and with large font.

11

Table 3. Comparison of yields from demoplot and a neighboring field, 2008-09 kharifY i e l d

Soybean Cotton Marigold

DemoplotNearby

field DemoplotNearby

field DemoplotNearby

field1 Warvanti

Qtl/acre 8.25 7.0t/ha 1.98 1.68

2 KhadakdariQtl/acre 6.5 6.0 6.0 4.0

t/ha 1.56 1.44 1.44 0.963 Ghanmukh

Qtl/acre 5.5 6.0t/ha 1.32 1.44

4 GorjaQtl/acre 3.0 2.5 12.0 7.0

t/ha 0.72 0.60 2.88 1.685 Januna

Qtl/acre 10.4 6.0t/ha 2.50 1.44

6 KolwanQtl/acre 2.5 3.0 4.0 3.5 2.5

t/ha 0.60 0.72 0.96 0.84 0.60Mean (t/ha)

1.45 1.22 1.76 1.160.73 1.00

2.70 2.50

Scheme

Standard DeviationYield potential (t/ha)

6. Issue: Hired resource specialist was observed not to go to the field with the farmers as required on the training dayInvited trainers should spend a minimum of five hours at the training site during the day he/she is contracted. The hired lecturer should give a talk and accompany farmers on a field visit as required and interact with the farmers in the field. It was observed that some speakers leave after delivering the lecture, skipping the field visit saying they have no time to spare. Farmers want and should spend more time with their trainers to increase contact hours so they can ask questions and enter into discussions to reinforce learning.

AFARM and the FSOs will underscore this point during the contract discussions with selected trainers.

7. Issue: Training environment often too noisy with many distractions.Training should take place in an environment conducive to learning. Farmers cannot hear the lecturers in a noisy environment where vehicles honk and drive by noisily as is common in a village center. Also the many bystanders that congregate add to the interruption by their talking and moving about distracting from farmers paying attention to speakers and hearing what they say. People answering cell phones or answering calls further disrupts training. Animals such as dogs fighting next to the place where lectures are being given cause farmers to lose their concentration. Furthermore farmers in such situations resort to initiating conversations with others in the audience further increasing distraction. Such venues as temples, panchayat halls, or porches in front of building are not set up for training and can be very noisy. Schools are a better choice as there is usually a blackboard. Placing a tarp under a mango tree next to town can assure quietude.

As PADP takes place during the first two years of the project at a scheme, thus in most cases the WUA halls have not been constructed so these cannot be used for training venues. In Table 1 it is seen that of the six PADP schemes, few are suitable as training venues.

The FSOs will take more thought into the choice of a training venue when WUA halls are not built or available. Also the FSO should remind people making noise to take the conversation outside.

IV. Status of the Agricultural Production Groups (APGs)Farmers learn better in groups rather than individually. As an activity of PADP, farmers were asked to form groups based on a particular crop (ie., cotton, soybean, gram, onions) in order to act as discussion groups to review the merits of new and/or improved practices (ie., drip irrigation, integrated pest management) and/or to address related agricultural issues (ie., crop processing, marketing). These groups are called APGs (Agriculture Production Group). According to the PADP curriculum outline, those farmers with a shared interest should take the initiative to form an APG. The aim is to initially resolve a shared problem/constraint through the implementation of one or more collective activities, such as demonstrations, trials, exposure visits, and/or short training courses. In addition, each APG may also function as a profitable marketing channel for its members through the establishment of delivery contracts with wholesalers and/or processing industry. Thus each APG brings together farmers, who share a common desire to improve the productivity of a particular enterprise. The

12

establishment of APGs builds upon and expands the skills and experience of group members for mutual benefit. The APGs can be permanent or formed at the beginning of each season. The size of the group should be 25 farmers or less. They are formed under the aegis of the WUA. The APG will create a more favourable forum of learning for smaller farmers rather than a large meeting format. Small farmers generally do not ask questions in large meetings. As such small farmers represent some 80% of WUA members; this is significant.

When he first arrived, the Consultant thought the APGs were learning groups being led by the KMs, as is the case in a number of Asian countries with improved farmer training programs that use experiential learning methods rather than just telling the farmers about the new technologies. These training programs are advanced compared to PADP, as they teach farmers the concepts behind the technologies. Several examples rose from this visit in talking to farmers in the schemes that underscore this point.

In Bibhked, farmers said there was a question over whether to direct fertilizer above or below seeds in double-barreled seeders. It turned out that by observing the growth of the crop in fields where each of the two methods was tested, that below the seed was better. If farmers knew the concept that roots took up nutrients it should have been obvious because roots grow below the seed. A second example, sweet orange is a very popular cash crop in many sites and one of the large constraints is the dieback or gummosis disease (Phytophthora fungus) that on heavy soils reduces 10% of the trees each year. When a group of leading farmers in Adgaon Jawale was asked what causes dieback, answers varied from an insect, the soil, or the sapling. Only one farmer knew it was a fungus. Farmers may have been told in lectures that dieback is a fungus but none of the eight farmers the Consultant interviewed knew this. If the farmers had been told that dieback is a fungus just like athlete’s foot is a fungus and that it thrives in moist conditions, then farmers may have paid known to keep the soil dry around the trunk, as we learned is the best practice from Jain’s research staff. A third example from Adgaon Jawale farmers occurred when we interviewed farmers on the fertilization practices of sweet orange, mango, and pomegranate. Farmers had followed the information given to apply micronutrients to sweet orange but when asked if they applied them to mango and pomegranate they did not. Generally speaking if micronutrients are deficient in the soil they should be added for not only sweet orange but also other tree crops and perhaps even field crops. Farmers should have been alert to this possibility. The study plot method the Consultant tried to introduce would have given them the means to find out (connecting the dots so to speak). In this case by adding micronutrients to a dozen trees to see if there is a growth response as a trial would have been called for. An APG would have been the best format for undertaking this as farmers learn best in groups.

In the Kasari scheme we asked the WUA secretary what technologies have they changed on the basis of their experience. He mentioned that before they used 23-23-0 on wheat but now use DAP, as they saw those that did got a better crop. The farmer has not been properly trained. It is not the brand of fertilizer that counts, it is being able to measure the correct dosage for the need of the crop regardless of fertilizer type. There are, of course, differences in price for the same kg level of NPK between fertilizers, and through proper training in an APG format that the Consultant elaborated in earlier reports, these farmers could have that knowledge. One lesson the

13

Consultant wrote up for the APG curriculum dealt with this subject including providing conversion tables for different fertilizers that were suggested should be posted at the WUA building. Mr Sakore said that farmers use proportions of bags and are not able to measure the amounts in kgs as they lack a scale. Perhaps AFARM could provide a scale for each scheme so farmers can weigh with greater accuracy as it would save them money. Fertilizer application is one of the most basic inputs in agriculture and getting it right is the difference between low and high yields and profits as well as using too much fertilizer. It is disappointing to learn that our trainers have such low expectation levels for PADP farmers. The time to weigh the fertilizer is trivial in comparison with the anticipated advantage. Farmers could store unused fertilizer for the next crop.

The Consultant has been trying for over a year to introduce a program where KMs utilize the forum of APGs to undertake experiments as well as reinforce the information presented in training lectures in much the same way as a Chemistry Lab is to a chemistry course. Here the teaching assistant (think KM) facilitates exercises organized the professor (think FSO). The exercise does the teaching. Introducing this initiative has totally failed in PADP. The Consultant went over this issue for several hours with Mr Sakore on our travels and the problem is a lack of understanding of this kind of training. The Consultant suggested that he visit an NGO called PRDIS in Hyderabad (email prdis@hotmail.com Mr. P.C. Pande, State Project Director, cell 9826135222) where this method (called the Farmers Field School) has been the training method for cotton farmers. In order for AFARM to adopt this method they need to see it working in India. It was suggested that Mr Sakore visit one of their farmer training sites to see this in action. There he would see farmers as facilitators (think lab assistant and not the lecturing professor) for groups of 20-25 farmers (think APG). Such training groups undertake the kind of learning activities that were outlined for the proposed study plots, trying to retrofit this into an ongoing training program. Mr Sakore and even Mr Mane have seen farmer field schools but in all of them there is lecturing so the true method is not being followed. Mr Sakore needs to see the real method as groups often take short cuts and thus undercut the method so that it does not produce the desired result. The negative impression that many have for this method is due to the fact that it is not successfully being carried out. In a Farmers Field School, the training curriculum is based on teaching concepts to support the introduced technologies and learning by doing where the study plot becomes the focus of training. As a result farmers become educated to make informed decisions on crop management.

As now designed in PADP, each scheme forms some 3-4 APGs each season with each APG having 6-40 members. There may be more than one APG per commodity. The original intent of APGs would be for the farmers who grow the particular crop would meet regularly and share experiences, exchange technology, discuss marketing strategies, and possibly to apply for credit jointly. As far as is known this has rarely been done in the schemes because most KMs are not active in ensuring that APG meetings are scheduled. Most of the APGs are formed for crops that the vast majority of farmers grow. APGs would make more sense in its present format if they would be for new crops where farmers had little experience growing. But the fact is, based on my experience, farmers share ideas with each other when they meet in the village center, especially in the evenings. So the idea behind the APG to share information is not necessary. The other group functions may have been possible if the farmers had

14

been trained by the NGO who teaches organization to the WUA where self-help groups may be formed around APGs. As this has been lacking in most schemes, even this function has not been possible. APGs mostly are just on paper. The Consultant had asked APG members how often they met and what they did and rarely have they met as a small group with the KM guiding them. When asked how many APG meetings were held the members gave the number of general meetings where their crop was discussed by the FSO. Thus the intimate learning environment has been lost as well as group cohesiveness. The current training method of a large meeting and lecture format benefits those farmers who have the most education who will ask the most questions while the smaller farmers (80% silent majority) will not engage as much and thus not learn as much from such a large format.

To make APGs function would take a large effort on the part of AFARM to train the KMs. AFARM could give FSOs training on Farmers’ Clubs which is the closest type of organization to an APG. They could talk to Mr. Ghewari of Wanewadi about his Farmers Club to get ideas of how APGs could function. The vegetable APG formed during PADP emerged into a Farmers’ Club which now has 32 members in Wanewadi. They meet once a month and have invited speakers. Each meeting lasts 1.5-2 h. They get their agricultural information from agriculture magazines and from exposure visits that they arrange themselves. They went to the Sugarcane Institute and saw the research being done including the performance of the latest varieties. Club members have dug 5 farm ponds as a result of their mutual support. It should be mentioned, however, that the WUA is not active in Wanewadi and that Farmers’ Clubs are being promoted by the Department of Agriculture and serve the same functions as the APGs.

V. Rate of Farmer AdoptionOn a happier note it is interesting to report that farmers seem to be learning from one another despite not regularly meeting in APGs. It is said that experience is the best teacher. We asked farmers in some schemes during our field visits regarding any new technologies that they found through experience and observing other farmers. Each scheme visited has reported some (Table 4).

Table 4. Examples of farmer experimentation from interviews during site visits, January 2010

Scheme TechnologyJambrun Jahangir Farmer testing ratooned tur

Self sown soybean after seeds shatteredBikhed Whether fertilizer should be above or below soybean seed

Farmers increased cotton plant density from 3 x 3’ to 3 x 1’Kasari Farmer switched from 23-23-0 to DAP fertilizerAdgaon Jawale Farmers testing mango and pomegranate and other fruit speciesWarvanti Farmer is growing wheat with only organic and biofertilizer Wanewadi Progressive farmer is experimenting with many new cash crops and

livestock enterprises and earning muchFarmers plan to renovate grain godown

Varve Farmer testing urea brickets developed for rice as root placement in brinjal and tomato cropsThree farmers now testing potato

15

From this limited survey, we see a variety of technologies that farmers stated that they learned and adopted from PADP training or on their own. Some of these are highly experimental and were not part of the training program such as ratooning pigeon pea or allowing soybean seeds, which shattered during harvest, to sow a rabi crop as self-sown seed. For the farmer that switched fertilizer brands, that is not as important as knowing how to calculate the required dosage using several sources of fertilizer. But clearly many farmers experiment to greater or lesser degrees. Strictly speaking each time a farmer grows a crop it is an experiment, although unreplicated. In Varve the laborer forgot to apply FYM to a portion of a brinjal field so he unknowingly made a study plot where plants appeared more stunted showing the value of FYM. We have met farmers who undertake comparison trials where a new variety or method was grown in the field on a small plot and then tested against the farmer’s current practice.

More reports of adoption come from AFARM’s data given by FSOs at the various PADP schemes which show a wide array of new technologies being adopted from the various PADP training events. A number of farmers are purchasing livestock which are the ‘savings bank’ of farmers because if the crops fail the farmer can always sell his livestock for cash. Other adopted technologies fall under improvement of water harvesting and irrigation whereas others are

16

Table 5. Examples of farmer adoption reported by FSOs 1/Scheme Technology

1 farmer bought 2 improved cows as a result of Exchange Visit3 farmers prepared compost

4 farmers adopted a weedicide

5 farmers installed bird perches which attract birds to prey on pests6 farmers willing to follow dense cotton planting next year as result of Field Day

9 farmers purchased improved breed of cows and 3 buffaloes from govt scheme2 farmers leveled their land, 1 constructed a pond

13 farmers applied Vermi-wash (nitrogen) on soybean plants30 farmers sprayed Neem insecticide on soybean and pigeon pea85 farmers sprayed Lithocine flowering hormone on soybean15 farmers used pheromone trap on cotton

1 farmer purchased onion seed after exchange visit1 farmer purchased an electrical pump

3 farmers purchased irrigation pipes1/ Data taken from PADP Quarterly Report for Kharif 2009 from six schemes

All schemes

Ghanmukh

Khadakdari

Warvanti

Table 6. Change in crop diversity comparing two irrigated cropping years with rainfed before the project 1/

Name of scheme

No. of crops before project

No. of crops grown

2007-08

No. of crops grown

2008-091 Pimpri Hatgaon 3 6 62 Kasari 6 12 123 Bibkhed 6 12 124 Bolegaon 6 10 115 Varve 5 12 136 Khandala 6 9 67 Walki 6 8 58 Jambrun Jahangir 4 12 7

Average 5.3 10.1 9.01/ Data from the impact evaluation surveys

We also note that farmers with irrigation sow more diverse kinds of crops than they did when they were under rainfed conditions. We compared two years, 2007-08 with 2008-09 where farmers used their irrigation to grow crops they never grew before. Interestingly from this data (Table 6), we see that from rainfed to 2007-08 the number of crops doubled. Also in the following year in the same schemes, the overall mean was one crop less, but this came from three schemes (Khandala, Walki, and J. Jahangir). Reduction could have been due to the drier conditions that occurred in 2008-09 or because farmers were experimenting the year before with new crops and decided that some were not as profitable as desired and decided not to grow them anymore.

It is most likely that those farmers who are adopting are those that paid more attention during the trainings and were among the most motivated 20% of farmers in each WUA. The 80% who are the slower adopters are those for whom lectures given during training are not enough to convince them. The Consultant has stated that PADP is probably missing this silent majority, but still as ‘seeing is believing’, if the 20% do adopt, then over time the 80% will also too. The point is how much time will it take for them to adopt.

In Table 7 we have some evidence. We took data from the impact evaluation survey, which as it includes a sampling of average farmers, must contain mostly the silent majority. Taking the yields for the various crops in both kharif and rabi season we see, that yields increased from the average of the first two crop seasons (2004-05 and 2005-06) compared to the average of the two most recent years (2007-

17

Figure 1. Mean yield of rice in Varve scheme over a five-year period. Data from annual project impact evaluation surveys.

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Year

Yiel

d ( k

g / h

a )

Table 7. Mean yields of crops grown by MIP-M farmers 1/2008-09 Yield (t/ha)

CropYield (t/ha)

(mean ± Stdev) 2004-06 2/ 2007-09 3/Kharif cropsSoybean 5/ 1.23 ± 0.69 1.22 1.48Cotton 5/ 1.25 ± 0.96 0.78 1.14Sorghum 4/ 0.82 ± 0.25 1.06 1.16Black gram 0.59 ± 0.76 0.86 0.76Green gram 0.67 ± 0.42 0.57 0.76Pigeon pea 4/ 0.90 ± 0.37 0.06 0.84Rice 3.10 1.33 2.65

Rabi cropsWheat 2.19 ± 0.75 2.04 2.35Gram 0.82 ± 0.42 0.53 0.86Sorghum 1.50 ± 0.71 0.74 1.31Maize 4.50 1.91 5.66Safflower 0.63 2.00Beans 1.58 2.16 1.84Peas 1.27 1.29 1.52Sweet orange 13.9 6.00 9.00Flowers 5.89 ± 6.69 1.75 7.52Sugarcane 7.71

Mean 1.43 2.551/ Data taken from the Impact Evaluation Survey, April '092/ Mean of yields from the same farmers for the first two years of PADP3/ Yields of the same farmers over the most recent two years to compare the trend over time. It was expected that yields would increase as farmers gain more experience growing crops under irrigation4/ Severely limited by intercropping5/ Moderately limited by intercropping

09 and 2008-09). Averaging two seasons at each end of the time series evens out the drought years.

The average of the earlier two years over the five-year period was 1.43 t/ha while that of the most recent two years was 2.55 t/ha. This is a 78% yield gain! These were the same farmers, and the large increase can only be explained from their learning by experience as well as PADP training on how to grow these crops under irrigation. This effect is most dramatically seen in the example of rice in Varve, which is grown in a flooded condition and thus did not suffer drought. We see a linear increase in yield over the five-year period (Figure 1) as each year incremental increases in yield occurred. The reason for the higher yield in rice was due to farmers’ improved plant spacing (25 x 15 cm), use of 21-d-old seedlings, and placing urea brickets by pushing one between every four hills. N is released slowly during crop growth. The most dramatic increases came not only with rice but also with maize, pigeon pea, safflower, flowers, and sweet orange, which represents a wide divergence in crops between subsistence and cash crops.

Most likely the greatest cause of yield increase has come from farmers learning how to more efficiently manage their irrigation system and water delivery. Often when irrigation first comes, farmers over flood their fields and water logging occurs which decreases the yields. We have heard from farmers that they now are more careful regarding water usage, both in terms of conservation, but also more by providing even delivery. They are flooding only smaller compartments, while some are purchasing sprinkler systems, which do this better than furrow irrigation, which tends to soak the soil at the inlet and under water the ends of furrows. This is like harvesting low hanging fruit at this stage, as other increases will take more knowledge on the part of farmers. Other sources of increase come from better matching crops to soil type and improving on application of inputs.

What is significant, however, is that most technologies being taught in PADP are being taken up by at least a small minority of farmers in each scheme. Those farmers who learned most readily and paid attention the most during the trainings have adopted. These ‘seeds’ now will act as demoplots; and neighbors upon seeing the improved growth over one or two years will eventually adopt. After the input of PADP is over, farmers will depend on each other for agricultural information as well as the extension services, TV shows, and private dealers. The role of PADP has been to ‘plant the seeds’ in each farm community.

VI. Impact Assessment and Benefits of PADPBenefits of the project are discussed from the point of view of reporting farmers’ testimonials of how they have gained as well as more the traditional method of economic analyses based on stratified surveys.

A. Farmers’ testimonialsWe corroborated the increase in income that the impact survey has reported annually through interviews with groups of farmers during visits to the sites.

18

1. No more seasonal migrationJambrun Jahangir farmers told us that they no longer migrate away looking for jobs in the larger cities contributing to overcrowding. In turn this helps urban areas that have difficulty keeping up infrastructure for its greatly expanding population.

2. Better dietFish are being cultured in the tanks and each WUA lets out contracts to those who wish to catch and sell fish. This earns money for the WUA and makes a new source of high protein food available. Most of the fish is consumed locally, and as farmers now have more income from farming, they can afford to purchase the fish from the tank. We saw in Table 6 than farmers are growing more kinds of crops including horticultural crops which they will not only sell but also consume.

3. Increase in agricultural landA noticeable impact of irrigation is that in areas where fallow/uncultivated fields lie in or near the command area being converted to agriculture where the average ICA is now 238 ha versus 167 before (Table 9). Each farmer, as a WUA member, gets an allocation of water for 2 ha and as the field size of many farmers averages < 2 ha, there is an incentive to expand holdings in sites where fallow and uncultivated land is available. Farmers are using their increased income to purchase land and convert it to agriculture by leveling and increased dosages of FYM to build up the fertility.

4. Credit more availableIn Bibkhed the farmers stated they can get loans from the State Bank with irrigated land as collateral and pay 8-9% interest per year. As rainfed farmers few could get loans.

5. Land value increasedIn Wanewadi land values have gone up due to irrigation. Five years ago Mr Ghewari’s farmland was valued at 1 lak/acre ($2,250). Now other farmland around him, which is not developed into irrigation, is valued at 2.5 lak/acre ($5,700), while his irrigated land is valued at 6 lak/acre ($13,600), six times higher.

In Varve the value of farmland has increased from Rs1,000/ahr (0.01 ha) when rainfed to Rs100,000 or 100-fold because of irrigation.

6. Increased profits and ability to enjoy a better lifestyleIn Kasari the WUA secretary stated that profits have increased three-fold and they are purchasing more land, spending on religious and marriage functions, home construction, farm implements, tractors, and motorcycles.

In Bibkhed farmers report over 10 times the income compared to rainfed (from Rs8-10, 000/acre to Rs100,000/acre. With this income they have purchased three autos and some tractors and motorcycles, improved their home structures, and had more to spend on marriages increasing their social status.

Adgaon Jawale farmers said that they are now earning about three times what they did as rainfed farmers. With their extra income they purchased motorcycles, 6 tractors,

19

cars, and improved their fallow. They have not expanded their farm sizes as there is no fallow land and no one has offered to sell their own farm land.

In Varve as a measure of how much more farmers now make than during the pre-project rainfed years when they grew sorghum. A 0.1 ha field would yield 4 quintals or Rs1200 whereas the same field now with irrigation would yield 50 quintals or if planted to vegetables to Rs22,000. These are increases of > 10 times their former income. Although farmers now work twice as hard as they did when rainfed dominated and do not take a vacation, they are able to visit religious sites more frequently and have a TV at home.

B. Economic BenefitsWe report on the outcome of the Impact Evaluation Survey of 2008-09 in terms of net benefits earned by WUA farmers who became transformed due to irrigation from their

life during rainfed farming. The net income before the project was reported in the DPR surveys which averaged Rs7,500 per hectare in 2002 (Table 8). Based on the value of the INR in 2002, the expected mean net return by project planners was double this. These values are different in each scheme as the designers took into

20

planned by project design, 2008-09

Scheme Taluka

Income/ha before project Rs/ha

Income/ha expected by project design 1/ 2/

Expected % increase

Actual income/ha in 2008-09

Rs/ha 2/Actual % increase

Pimpri Hatgaon Yavatmal 3,028 10,478 246% 6,012 99%Kasari Lonar 4,022 11,615 189% 12,264 205%Bibkhed Lonar 4,022 11,418 184% 8,922 122%Bolegaon Gangapur 6,921 9,137 32% 17,741 156%Varve Bhor 10,177 14,017 38% 28,137 176%Khandala 3/ Ner 10,296 20,523 99% 13,183 28%Walki 3/ Ner 10,296 20,523 99% 6,498 -37%J. Jahangir 3/ Washim 11,315 16,785 48% 11,587 2%

7,510 14,312 117% 13,043 94%1/ Target made in 2002 INR2/ Based on 2002 INR by the World Bank annual GDP deflator indicies (13.3% in 2005 and 30.4% in 2008)3/ Tanks less than 40% filled due to drought conditions

Table 8. Change in net returns per ha farmed before and after the project compared to that

Mean

Table 9. Net income at the scheme level after irrigation and two-year PADP farmer training 2008-09 1/

SchemeNo. WUA members

Area of ICA (ha)

Total cropped

area before project

(ha)

Income before project

(Rs/ICA)

Expected cropped area (ha)

Income/ ha

expected by project

design

Expected income (Rs

/ ICA)

2008-09 Total

cropped area (ha)

2008-09 income

Rs / ha 2/

2008-09 Income

(Rs / ICA)1 P. Hatgaon 114 171 142 429,042 251 10,478 2,630,038 167 6,012 1,001,2242 Kasari 153 240 240 965,300 346 11,615 4,018,617 358 12,264 4,390,6543 Bibkhed 83 202 202 812,461 291 11,418 3,322,580 393 8,922 3,506,2104 Bolegaon 152 159 199 1,375,477 291 9,137 2,658,773 267 17,741 4,736,9605 Varve 116 133 159 1,614,537 284 14,017 3,979,353 175 28,137 4,924,0526 Khandala 72 115 110 1,136,685 167 20,523 3,427,300 124 13,183 1,634,6477 Walki 87 130 125 1,284,949 189 20,523 3,878,801 133 6,498 864,2028 J. Jahangir 175 145 131 1,434,059 235 16,785 3,944,420 286 11,587 3,313,952

119 162 163 1,131,564 257 14,312 3,482,485 238 13,043 3,046,4881/ Data from Impact Evaluation Survey data. 2/ INR based on 2002 (deflated 30.4% from 2008-09)

Mean

consideration nearness to markets, soil type, rainfall pattern etc. so that the expectations varied from 32% in Bolegaon to 246% in Pimpri Hatgaon. As 2008-09 was a drought year particularly in some schemes the net returns were below (Walki at –37%) barely above rainfed levels (J. Jahangir 2%, Khandala 28%). P. Hatgaon, however, averaged 99% increase while Kasari averaged the highest at 205% (Rp 12,264 per ha). Average returns gave a 94% increase or Rs13,043 per ha adjusted for inflation.

We then scale up these returns per hectare to per scheme that includes all of the ICA. We see in Table 9 that the ICAs increased greatly in some schemes as farmers converted more fallow land into agriculture. Those sites having much fallow land were Jambrun Jahangir (108%), Bibkhed (80%) , Kasari (69%), and Bolegaon (53%). Thus during rainfed times farm size averaged 1.1 ha (mean of 162 ha for 119 WUA members) but now it is double (2.0 ha) (238 ha for 119 WUA members).

Multiplying the average income values in Table 8 with the 2008-09 cropped area we get the mean income per scheme (ICA) (Table 9). Highest was Varve (Rs4,900,000, followed by Bolegaon and Kasari. Varve farmers earn from growing mainly cash crops. The lowest was Walki at Rs864,000 per scheme.

In Table 10 we can take the mean income per scheme in Table 9 (Rs3,046,488) and multiply it by the 29 schemes that have been developed so far in the project and take that product and multiply it by the estimated life of a tank at 50 years from project data and get the gross returns from the project (Rs3,605,807,157). The project was initially funded at a value of $30 million but $11 million is still unspent, thus using

the mean value of 2008-09, the net return of the project to the farmers is 444% or 4.4 times the investment ($81 million). This is seen as a conservative estimate due to the drought year. Perhaps an average year would yield a fairer figure. However, it is expected that net returns will increase each year as farmers will strive to gain more profits from new technologies and their increasingly better managerial skills.

To figure out the mean income per family in 2008-09, the net income per ha of Rs13,043 is based on the INR of 2002, but valuating it by 30.4% comes to Rs17,008/ha in 2008-09 INR. From Table 9, the average farm size is 2.0 (119 farmers/scheme with an ICA of 238 ha) so income is Rs34,046/2 ha. Per day this comes to Rs93/day or $2.00 per family of five. This is perhaps why some 41% of respondents have off-farm income that annually averages Rs22,461 each ($478). If we

21

Table 10. Estimated economic benefit of MIP-M project based on economic data of 2008-09. 1/

Currency

Average net returns per

scheme 2008-09 (ICA / year)

Number of ICA in project

Expected life of ICA (years) 2/

Total gross returns to the

state from project

Cost of project 3/

Total net returns to the state from

project

% Gain over

invest-ment

INR 3,046,488 29 50 4,417,407,157 811,600,000 3,605,807,157 444%

US$ 68,615 29 50 99,491,152 18,279,279 81,211,8731/ Data based on the impact evaluation survey covering eight schemes and eight farmers per scheme2/ By the plan, but 60 years is often used based on the rate of siltation3/ The amount approved was $30 million but only $19 million was spent

assume that most of those who engaged in off farm work were the lowest earning families, then their income would be double. In addition the number of WUA members is not equal to that number of families as sometimes two or three members belong to one family so farmers’ farm size will be somewhat larger. Furthermore a farmers’ family labor is considered as a cost but actually translates as income for the family, further pushing up the amount earned per day, which probably lies between $3-4, which in India puts the farmers into the lower middle class defined as having some expendable income. PADP farmers there fore have joined the 500 million formerly impoverished that mostly due to globalization have taken the same journey.

A key economic indicator to compute is the benefit:cost (B:C) ratio. The B:C measures the rate of return per unit cost and thus the higher the value the more acceptable the technology to farmers for growing the crop. Thus a value >2 is desirable. The highest (> 5) was for pigeon pea, rice, and potato with the lowest (< 2) being soybean, black gram, tomato, and brinjal. The fact that there are only four crops with unacceptably low B:C levels is a good sign that the technologies being recommended are not excessively costly, otherwise farmers are risking too much in growing them even though the crop turns a profit. If Bt brinjal is approved, this may improve profits in the same way Bt cotton did. Among the four crops with low B:C ratios, soybean is the most widely grown so more attention needs to be paid to lowering its cost of production. In four of the sites, however, the B:C ratio was above 2. This analysis shows how robust pigeon pea is and almost all farmers have accepted it where grown. It is the key crop in intercroppings that commonly occur, as pigeon pea is rarely grown as a monocrop. Cotton is right at the borderline, and being below in three of the five schemes where it is grown. Sites with the most favorable average B:C ratios are Walki and Kasari. Walki got a high 13.2 B:C for hybrid sorghum which placed it first as few crops are grown there. Bolegaon was the only site where all crops exceeded the desired B:C ratio.

Photo shows Adgaon Jawale farmers hauling irrigation pipes and hoses to his fruit trees. This scheme has the highest proportion of farmers using drip systems and as a result save over 70% of irrigation water over furrow systems.

22

VII. Interest of WUAs in Sponsoring their Own GodownsIndian government reports estimate that some 40% of food produced by farmers goes to waste after harvest. The post-harvest loss figure would be even higher for perishable foods. One way to avoid such losses would be for the WUAs to construct godowns or warehouses to store produce more securely. The project is considering a plan to assist WUAs to do just that by using government subsidies (25%) and perhaps from the WUAs themselves from money saved after the distribution system is complete.

On our visits to several sites we gauged the farmers’ interest in such a scheme. Eight WUA members from Bibkhed were asked about the possibility of constructing a godown. WUA members estimated that 3,000 q each of soybeans and wheat are harvested annually and they save 1/3 of the soybean harvest and 2/3 of wheat. This year’s harvest should reach 5,000 q for wheat. Thus a godown would make sense. Furthermore the WUA president talked about his problems with storing grain in his house. Rats got into it so he moved the bags outside into a shed, but rats still found their way in.

If stored in a godown grain should be graded and bags from each grade piled in separate areas to assist the middlemen who will eventually purchase. We discussed the grading system for soybean and there are three grades. Farmers believe they have grade one seed but they say that middlemen cheat them by insisting the grade is 2. Between the lower prices for the crop and the losses in storage, the farmer is out some 30-40% of the value of his crop. Therefore farmers readily welcomed the idea of a godown run by the WUA. They can find a place to construct it by the road.

We also discussed godowns with a group of farmers in Wanewadi. A godown was built in their village in 1992 constructed by Primary Agriculture Credit Society, but since then it has been abandoned. Farmers now have a plan to renovate it. Some villagers store their grain in rented space in a godown in Osmanabad by paying monthly rental charges of Rs2.5/q. All farmers in the scheme store grain in their homes and have rat problems. In the house where we were meeting there were 20 bags of maize piled near the door. Losses from rats and stored product beetles are high. The WUA farmers would welcome an opportunity to renovate the godown in their village and use it for not only storing grain to keep pests away, but in the case of soybean to store it until higher prices occur. Another use of the godown would be to store fertilizer. To be sure that he has fertilizer for the year, Mr Gheware purchases 10 t in April when supplies are good but he needs a place to keep it until the fields are planted.

VIII. Lessons LearnedWe have gleaned the following lessons learned from the report:

A. Agricultural production and water management1. Farmers with some exceptions are slowly transitioning into becoming more

efficient in the use of irrigation water.

23

2. In more organized WUAs such as Bikhed and Varve farmers who waste water are penalized

3. After adoption of irrigation, farmers experiment with a variety of field and cash crops to determine those most lucrative under local conditions. The number of crops grown is more than double the total in rainfed conditions

4. Through adoption of micro-irrigation farmers are growing more high value crops that are best adapted to the local soil types.

5. WUA farmers are improving water use efficiency in the furrow system by purchasing more pipes to replace open earthen canals to reduce percolation loss. In Varve the farmers lined the main canal with concrete.

6. Yields are steadily increasing in most schemes for most crops being grown, an indication that farmers are learning through experience how to grow crops better. Such improvements we would hope would continue into the future as new technologies come into play.

7. Farmers have learned by experience to grow crops that are most suited in terms of water use efficiency and soil type. For example, those in Bibkhed experimented with banana on light soils have now shifted back to field crops.

8. Irrigated farmers grow twice as many crops as when rainfed and yields now average 56% of the crops’ potential

9. Cropping intensity increased from irrigation in the schemes averaging 143% compared to 98% when rainfed (100% = 1 crop).

10. Average income per day for scheme farmers averaged some $3-4 if one includes off-farm income and values family labor as income.

11. The sequence of adoption is from furrow irrigation to sprinkler to drip. Furrow irrigation is the most common method in most schemes with a handful of farmers purchasing sprinkler sets

12. Adgaon Jawale and Varve successfully went quickly from rainfed to horticultural crops, the former via drip irrigation and the later by gravity furrow irrigation (but with small irrigation compartments), as lucrative markets were nearby.

13. Farmers want to move to sprinkler and drip systems, but cost constraints prevent this from happening to all but the richest farmers. They realize that furrow irrigation is wasteful of water and crop losses can occur from water-logging but see no recourse until they save enough money to move to sprinklers. Only some farmers can grow vegetables which earn enough so they can pay for the labor to have small earthen bunded irrigation compartments

14. Although sprinkler and drip systems are more efficient and desired by farmers, often there is not sufficient electrical power to produce the necessary pressure to operate them

15. Successful schemes will also attract private enterprises that offer to arrange contract farming

B. Benefits from adoption1. Economic data when compared over years needs to be adjusted for inflation

for unbiased comparison2. Farmers who have benefited no longer need to migrate during the rabi and dry

season to add to overcrowded urban areas.3. Irrigation has meant a more diversified diet of crops but also including the fish

cultured in the tanks to improve the farmers nutrition

24

4. Agricultural land area has almost doubled due to irrigation as farmers bring more land into cultivation

5. Farmers with irrigated land are more likely to get credit and avail of government subsidies

6. Increased profits mean farmers can purchase more durable goods and live a better lifestyle although they do not take vacation and work twice as hard as before

7. Off farm income was earned by 41% of farmers ($478/year)8. Farmers have become richer as irrigated land is much more valuable than

rainfed land, in places 100 times more9. An average of 82 person-days of labor is generated by irrigated agriculture10. Farmers are spending more on religious and marriage functions, home

construction, farm implements, tractors, cars and motorcycles11. Farmers get better health care as they can afford to see a doctor when

necessary12. Attendance in schools by children is greater and farmers can afford private

schools. The children can now get higher paying jobs in the cities13. Investment in irrigation projects such as MIP-M pays handsome returns, at

least triple the cost of the investment even using data from a drought affected year

C. PADP1. Even though WUA buildings are completed, training sessions do not

necessarily occur there due to remoteness and the building being used for storage

2. Exposure visits between schemes are powerful motivators of farmers in new schemes to accept the formation of WUAs and actively participate in the program. When made to research stations or progressive farms, project farmers will be more motivated to try new agricultural technologies including new crops, better irrigation equipment, new management methods as well as new farm enterprises such as livestock raising

3. Inter-scheme exposure visits will be more successful if both schemes have the same mode of irrigation

4. Livestock raising becomes attractive when seen as integrating well with crop residue management through the making of compost or vermi-culture or biogas production to generate ones electricity and cooking fuel

5. Schemes which have successfully adopted irrigation can attract Agricultural Extension agents to visit more frequently and offer government subsidies for a variety of programs

6. Farmers trust what other farmers say more than from other sources.7. Field days are successful if enough time is allocated to visit all of the

demoplots, and if the field tour is capped by a meeting where the demoplot farmers and more successful farmers speak and if successful farmers from outside the scheme are also invited to speak

8. Group dynamics exercises should be included in each Field Day to instill solidarity among the attending group of farmers and make it more conducive for them to talk

9. Participation in project training events will always be low, as each family will send only one member as their thinking that training is only knowing the brand names of inputs or crops that farmers should try

25

10. Handouts to farmers during trainings should be illustrated with photos or figures, produced in large font, and pages numbered for easy reference

11. A KM cannot directly teach his fellow farmers unless he is well respected12. When food is served at trainings, participation is higher13. Role-playing is an effective technique to train FSOs how to deliver technical

information to farmers14. An important lesson of the study plot method is to show farmers how they can

do their own field testing.

IX. Recommendations1. The most costly crops to grow (where B:C ratios < 2) were soybean, black

gram, tomato, and brinjal. We need demoplots with reduced input usage to make these crops more attractive for farmers. But it is a credit to the project that only four crops fall into this category.

2. Next impact evaluation survey team should ask farmers 1) if they can get credit and what percentage interest is charged, 2) attendance in schools of farm children, 3) how much their land has appreciated, and 4) do they now get better health care

3. Training should take place in facilities which are least noisy4. AFARM to continue to summarize the results of demoplots compared to the

nearest field in their reports5. AFARM should organize a workshop for FSOs to be trained by TAT and

PMU Agronomists on how to calculate economic returns and B:C ratios from demoplots compared to nearby plots

6. AFARM to produce sets of posters for FSOs to use in PADP training lectures7. Invited speakers at PADP training lectures should accompany the farmers on a

field visit afterwards spending a minimum of five hours at the training site8. If the training site has no blackboard the FSO should provide sheets of draft

paper to tape to a wall and a marking pen for the speaker to make notes9. More participants should be encouraged to join exposure visits10. The project should maximize showing off successful WUAs such as J. Jahangi

r to newer schemes even if the PADP is over. We are under-utilizing this training resource.

11. Farmers interested in growing sweet orange should be encouraged if their soil is light textured and they can ensure saplings are grafted to rough lime root stock

12. FSOs to emphasize to farmers that inorganic fertilizer application requires that several kinds of fertilizers should normally be purchased and mixed to give the correct dose of NP and K at a time when required by the crop. Fertilization is not just purchasing one particular brand of fertilizer, thus DAP is not necessarily any better than 23-23-0. More instruction is needed in helping farmers determine the proper dosage of fertilizers for their particular field size

13. APGs have not functioned as intended. They are at best a forerunner of Farmers’ Clubs, a movement encouraged by the Dept of Agriculture. It is the role of the KM to convene the APG meetings and only in some schemes such as Jambrun Jahangir are meetings being held. AFARM should give training to FSOs and KMs on the role of Farmers’ Clubs, how to form them, and what activities they can engage in.

14. AFARM to visit NGO in Hyderabad to observe a farmer field school session hosted by PRDIS.

26

15. Future study plots should involve one treatment with the recommended package of practices and successive treatments each with a different component omitted. In this way the contribution of each component can be assessed in a package. If the component is not increasing yield then it should be removed saving money and increasing the B:C ratio.

16. The study plot method should be explained to farmers as something they can do on their own in the future. Showing them the method is more important than dwelling on results

17. Farmers should continue to receive small note pads with each training to encourage them to jot down information

18. TAT Trainer should be encouraged to attend trainings by FSOs to monitor their delivery methods and use of training aids

19. If PADP needs further inputs in TOT, and Mr Sunkar is not available, the project should hire training specialists from Education Departments as there is little evidence that such knowledge is available in colleges of agriculture.

20. The following are suggestions on how the training could be improved: It was noted that the trainer should summarize the relevance of the

subject matter for that day at the beginning of the training so farmers know what to expect

The trainer should repeat the information using different words to be sure farmers understand the key concepts more fully

The lecturer should use analogies to explain concepts as much as possible

All farmers should be given the opportunity to ask questions and if they do not talk, then the trainer should question them

From time to time the trainer should change position or engage in another activity to avoid monotony of speaking, also pause from time to time

Where are women farmers to be trained? Specific questions should be asked at the end of the training to review

the content and assess comprehension of the key points21. Listening proficiency was covered as well as developing better interpersonal

skills with the farmers. PADP should test the role of micronutrients in each of the major soils per site. This could be done on a demoplot that is demonstrating the recommended practice for a crop. On a 200 m2 portion of the demoplot, a solution of micronutrients could be applied to see if there is a growth stimulation effect.

22. In the next round of Impact Evaluation Surveys farmers can be questioned on: Source of credit and interest charged Assess changes in land values compared to rainfed farming, how much

is the difference Assess if scheme farmers who adopt irrigation have better health care

and can see a doctor when needed, to see if children benefit from better education (more attendance), to see if households have better diets (consume more diverse foods including fish cultivated in the scheme tank)

27

Appendix I. Key Informant Visits and Interviews

Table of Contents

Jain Irrigation Systems.....................................................................................................................................30Jambrun Jahangir Scheme................................................................................................................................32Bibkhed Scheme...............................................................................................................................................33Kasari Scheme..................................................................................................................................................34Adgaon Jawale Scheme....................................................................................................................................35Wanewadi Scheme...........................................................................................................................................37Warvanti Scheme.............................................................................................................................................39Varve Scheme..................................................................................................................................................41

Jain Irrigation SystemsWed Jan 13 7AM left for Jalgaon with Gujare and Mane arriving 3PM. Met VB Patil Sr. Manager and head of agricultural projects for Jain Irrigation Systems

Jain Irrigation Systems is the second largest producer of irrigation equipment in the world and they have a large complex in Jalgaon occupying a hillock where their office headquarters, training center, agricultural research center and research fields are located. Mr Patil escorted us for two hours. Bhanarlal Jain who was in the agro-inputs business founded the company in 1978. He partnered with an Australian firm that made irrigation equipment especially for micro-irrigation (drip and sprinkler irrigation). After learning how to make such equipment, they built a factory in Plastic Park Jalgaon, which we later toured. Some 30% of their output is exported internationally. As the area is famous for growing bananas, they not only started manufacturing the equipment, but they test how it is used in the field. They also develop technologies to further the improvement of crops that would benefit from irrigation such as onion, banana, mango, custard apple, and guava. They have an onion dehydration plant and contract farmers to grow white onion. They have a processing plant that makes banana pulp and juices of mango and pomegranate, which we also toured. Banana pulp is sold to buyers for baby foods, ice cream, and juice and such companies as Nestle are buyers. Mr Patil went to Costa Rica and acquired about a dozen popular bananas, which they grew in Jalgaon for five seasons before selecting one that they now clone by tissue culture in their 24 h facility. A bud of the banana is cloned and it reproduces some ten new buds in about two weeks. These are each cut off and grown on a tissue culture medium until larger. Then they are transferred to a green house to grow to a size ready for sale as a ‘sapling’. The advantage of tissue culture is that they are cloning the most productive genotype that is also free of diseases and nematodes. Contract farmers then grow the banana according to Jain’s specifications and at harvest the bananas are brought to the pulp factory. In the pulping process the bananas are received from the farm and then ripened in a controlled atmosphere of ethylene for several weeks. Then the bananas are washed and treated with Clorox and the peeled by some 60 workers by hand and thrown on a conveyor belt for cooking and sterilizing and finally packing at –20oC in plastic containers ready for packing and shipment in barrels. Banana pulp is made for about 6 months of the year but they can simultaneously run juice making of mango, guava, and pomegranate (clarified juice) that have shorter seasons of 3-5 months each. They have a machine that removes the mango seed from the fruit. In the process the final stage is to boil off water to a specified concentration before packaging to buyers. They also process tomatoes to make catsup.

Mr. Patil gave us a tour of their research park that is on the top of a hill which they purchased and then terraced. They mostly have planted fruit trees and have a collection of some 200 varieties of

28

mango, 20 varieties of pomegranate, as well as 20 of sweet orange and some of custard apple. They undertake trials to determine the best cultural practices for each variety including the common field crops grown in the area. All of this information is for their use and we could not get a copy of their manual. They are experimenting with intercropping chickpea with mango, guava, and custard apple by growing dense rows (3 m x 3 m) and then severely pruning the trees to make the rows that look like hedges. Each tree is less than 6’. Such a tree is only productive for 3 years or so but they then cut the tree at the base and graft a new one on it. Apparently this works but is very labor intensive. By having small trees they can intercrop field crops in between with minimal shading.

They undertake so-called ‘turnkey’ projects where they will not only supply the irrigation equipment they will set up an irrigation system for the purchaser. Right now they participate in a 7,000 ha scheme with the state government to set up a drip system with buried pipes to each farm in some 57 villages. Each village is a WUA and they are training the WUAs much like MIP-M with hired NGOs. There is one large 1,000 hp pump that draws water from a river to distribute to each of the WUAs where 100 hp pumps take water to the farm. The hardware has been installed and they have dedicated electric lines called ‘express feeders’ to ensure no cuts in electricity. These farmers are going from being rainfed to drip irrigation. This is quite a jump in technology for them. In the drip system there are machines that filter the water all along the system. This is a Mercedes Benz system that is being installed for them but they will pay for it over time. If they do not pay, the water will be cutoff. In smaller projects such as this farmers prefer to purchase sprinkler systems as they are cheaper and less technical to use. The government will pay the electric bill for a few years and afterwards the WUAs must take over.

There is a visitors’ center where since 2001 when 10,000 farmers came. Last year’s total was 47,000. In the 750-acre Agripark there are demonstrations of each type of micro-irrigation system with the sprinklers and drip systems all working. Then farmers are taken to see the various agricultural enterprises for how the various irrigation systems are used including livestock, row crops, and horticultural crops. Fertilizer can also be applied through the drip system. They also offer specialized farmer training for 1,3,5 and 15 days and have a team of trainers.

I took the opportunity of being with Mr Patil to seek out his knowledge of growing sweet orange, which is the most preferred fruit tree by farmers in our schemes. He confirmed our belief that the die back farmers showed us in several schemes is due to Phytophthora fungus called gummosis or dieback. The reasons farmers have the disease is that they do not use the correct rootstock which should be rough lime (Ranjapur). They use Jambheri that is preferred as it fruits earlier but is susceptible to gummosis. They further exacerbate gummosis by over-watering creating water logging, by not apply generous amounts of compost in the planting hole, and not using balanced fertilizer. Ranjapur will last 15 years whereupon the farmer can cut the tree at its base and graft on a new scion, which could be Jambheri in the next cycle. For best results sweet orange should not be over-watered, thus drip systems are best with four drippers having a capacity of 4 l/h set 2’away from the trunk (where the new roots are issuing). Phytophthora attacks the base of the trunk so it is important to keep it as dry as possible. A guideline for irrigation is that the soil should be soft and not muddy or hard after each irrigation. P and K should be applied under the soil once a year and urea applied at quarterly. If drip systems are installed, it is important to also have filters from the water source. Only one filter is needed if the water is clear, two if less clear, and three if dirty. Mr Patil also recommended applying micronutrients. There is a brand called Multiplex which supplies the most common seven. According to him cotton needs boron. I discussed with Gujare and Mane about setting up demoplots with cooperating farmers in those of our schemes where sweet orange is popular. It will take three years, however, before the results become visible so the cooperating farmers should bear the costs. It was interesting that Mr Patil shared our same conclusion on the competency of Agricultural University scientists. We had visited Akola and asked the researchers

29

there about the die back of sweet orange. None could tell us what Mr Patil did. Agricultural technology is in the hands of private industry not the ‘centers of learning’.

Lastly we visited the plastics factory where Jain manufactures pipes of all sizes from 1600 to 20 mm. Their sprinkler pipes can reach from 15-64 m in diameter and drip systems deliver from 0.8-8 liters/h. They manufacture all the plastic parts of sprinkler and drip systems but anything made of metal is imported including the timers, etc. We were told if furrow irrigation is changed to drip, yields will double as well as saving 70% of the water. One of the reasons for dieback probably is that farmers normally overwater and thus waterlog the root systems which need oxygen to grow at their best.

We returned 14 Jan leaving Jalgaon at 2PM. The Jain company paid for our meals and the rest house for which we are very grateful.

15 Jan Discussion with Mr Apte regarding the performance of sprinkler systems in the schemes as per his experience in recent visits. 1) Some farmers are over-watering, 2) no farmer was observed to install air valves in their system which if not installed may lead to equipment breakage if the pipes go over a rise, 3) the pump capacity is too small for the area to be irrigated.

Jambrun Jahangir Scheme18 Jan Mon Left Pune 2PM for Aurangabad. Arriving 6:30 PM19 Jan Tues Left 7AM for Washim and Jambhrun Jahangir Scheme to see Exchange Visit from Januna Scheme WUA members arriving 11:30AM.

Some 40 members from the Januna scheme arrived in a Tempo truck to the site. Jambrun Jahangir is a storage tank with a lift irrigation scheme, thus well water recharging is not occurring under in this situation. The Januna members whose PADP only started in May 2008 are only now getting organized to accept irrigation. There are still problems among the members, as most are not agreeing to pay for the dam. In a lift irrigation scheme the project engineers set up some 20 electric pumps to take off water from the reservoir and they install buried pipes to the various parts of the ICA. Individual farmers then purchase small pumps and small pipes to tap the take off from large pipes to direct water to their fields. In J. Jahangir all the farmers have purchased pipes and 5 hp pumps to take advantage of water. They also have installed air valves in the system. They were hit last year by the drought but this year they have had ample water. There is still water in the tank, and wheat and gram are near harvest. Tur is now being harvested.

While walking to meet the farmers, we passed a wheat field which we were told was abandoned land before a year ago before the farmer availed of irrigation. He now has a great looking wheat crop and has irrigated some 5-6 times. They make furrows and irrigate sets of furrows by making compartments to irrigate. Before the project the farmer migrated to nearby towns seeking work in the off-season. With irrigation he is staying home. About 3 weeks ago there was heavy rain with hail which caused some limited damage from lodging. The crops still produced, so the losses should be minor. We saw one farmer who was experimenting ratooning tur. He had replaced his harvested soybean with maize and was taking advantage of the irrigation still available. We finally reached a large mango tree where a tarp was set out for farmers to sit on for a meeting. In the field adjacent to the mango tree the farmer had experienced the soybean crop shattering seeds before harvest. He took advantage of this and has irrigated and allowed the soybean crop to grow. Many things become possible with irrigation.

30

The training venue under the mango tree was excellent. There was no noise from the town as is common in cases when the training takes place in a temple or central meeting hall. WUA halls are also good venues, as they tend to be outside of the village center.

The farmers had just toured the fields and saw the luxuriant crops of wheat and gram. Wheat had been row seeded and they were interested in the seeders as well as the irrigation set up. Discussion turned to recommended practices to grow the common crops. Several outsiders joined the farmer meeting. Two were from the extension service in Washim, one a village level Extension Agent and his boss, a Supervisor. One Agent covers about three villages. The extension agents began visiting the scheme more regularly in recent times and had offered a horticultural scheme and 14 acres have been planted to citrus and 10 to mango with the Agriculture Dept supplying the saplings as well as inputs for three years. The Supervisor explained the scheme and also talked about marketing horticultural crops. We saw the field where citrus was intercropped with gram. The Agricultural Agents were well aware of micronutrients and mentioned Zn (zinc sulfate) and Fe (ferrous sulfate) in particular. Another field of citrus was intercropped with wheat. Another person was from a local Agricultural Tourism Resort that is funded by an industrialist from Mumbai. They want to offer extension support to some 5,000 farmers and the representative brought planting material of a medicinal plant which he gave to a farmer to plant and he will receive Rs6000 at harvest as a set price. I also gave a short talk translated by Gujare.

Some 15 members of J. Jahangir WUA were receiving the Januna farmers. The exchange visit was successful partly because Januna was a good fit and partly because the crops were growing well in an irrigation system that all farmers had bought into. Januna has the same type of storage tank-lift irrigation system. After the meeting where we had lunch, we went with the farmers for more field touring and a visit to the dam site with the lift irrigation system in place. They spent an hour there and they decided they really wanted their own system. Their problem is that the WUA president, who did not accompany them, is not all that enthusiastic about the project. They talked about replacing him.

We returned to Washim at 6PM

Bibkhed Scheme20 Jan Thurs Left 8AM Washim for Malegaon for Bibkhed scheme for farmer meeting, arriving 9:30AM.

We met the WUA president at the WUA building. He has been newly re-elected and we joined in a discussion with some eight other WUA members. I inquired about the banana production that was evident in my last visit but due to light soil and low yields they have given up on this cash crop. They got only Rs450/quintal for the bananas and it took a lot of water. Heavier soils are better for bananas so they now grow field crops instead. The WUA president has set up a drip system for his sweet orange because of frequent power outages. When the power is on, he fills a large tank and then runs the drip system by gravity. We talked about sweet orange culture and he uses the Ranjapur lime rootstock and uses only compost as fertilizer, but did not apply inorganic NPK. He also does not use micronutrients. He had planted the oranges three years ago but he became sick for a year with cancer, so in the meantime with neglect cattle had eaten many of his trees. He replanted and now is satisfied with the production. Due to the light soil and drip system, he probably will not suffer dieback. The size of his planting hole was 2’ x 2’. He also put BHC insecticide into the hole for soil pests such as white grub. We told him to set up a study plot by applying NPK to some trees to see if they respond.

We talked about technologies that they had learned by experience since the PADP training. One mentioned was whether in a double-barreled row seeder to put the fertilizer on top of the seed or vice

31

versa. By experience they learned to put the fertilizer below the seed (where the roots are). They also increased the planting density of cotton from 3’ x 3’ to 3’ x 1’. Yield doubled to 5 quintals/acre with denser planting. With better soil fertility and water delivery, crops grow better so densities ideal for rainfed cropping are too sparse.

Other cash crops are some vegetables, groundnut as a summer crop, and papaya. This year they have enough water for a summer crop. On the field visit was saw farmers planting rabi sorghum and another in maize which they were irrigating and will use as forage.

This and last year were good as far as irrigation water. This is a lift system and 52 irrigation groups have been formed. Everyone is getting water and line pressure is adequate. The WUA is getting more efficient in use of water. Farmers are warned if they waste water. We saw some leakages with water flowing back to the reservoir. To save water they are building better field channels. They want to use sprinklers but the pumps do not give enough pressure due to the large head. If they were to get a bigger pump there is not enough power to run it. What would be needed are solar powered pumps which are coming in the near future.

We then engaged into a conversation about godowns. They gave a figure of 3,000 q each of soybean and wheat that were harvested by all WUA members. This year harvest should reach 5,000 q for wheat. The village sells 2/3 of its soybean harvest and 1/3 of wheat and stores the rest. The WUA president talked about his problems with storing grain in his house. Rats got into it so he placed it outside in a shed, but rats also quickly found it so he is unhappy with the current situation.

We discussed the grading system for soybean and there are three grades. Farmers believe they have grade one seed, but that the middlemen cheat them by insisting the grade is number 2. Between the lower prices for the crop and the losses in storage, the WUA president estimates that he is out some 30-40% of the value of his crop annually.

Therefore farmers readily welcomed the idea of a godown for their WUA and accepted the terms of the subsidies from state government and the project. They said they could easily find a place for it by the road which would be good for accessibility by trucks.

We talked about how the project has benefited them. They report over 10 times the income compared to rainfed (from Rs 8-10 thousand/acre to Rs100,000/acre. With this income WUA farmers have purchased three autos, some tractors and motorcycles, improved their homes through additions and refurbishing, and had more to spend on marriages thereby increasing their social status. They no longer migrate to the cities looking for work during the dry season. In fact they are looking for more laborers to help them with farming operations. All the farmers now can get loans (State Bank) with irrigated land and pay 8-9% interest per year. As rainfed farmers few could get loans. The value of their land has increased. Others now raise fish in the tank in the village which they can purchase so they are eating better. There is an annual contract for fishermen which brings income to the WUA.

Kasari SchemeAt noon left for Lonar storage tank and arrived at Kasari scheme 2PM for field visit. 5PM left for Jalna and then Aurangabad arriving 8PM.

Because we were late the WUA farmers were not waiting for us but we managed to track down the secretary at the dam site. The dam has lots of water left but their main problem is that of the 17 pumps 3 for the lift system are overloaded and cannot irrigate so they need a new transformer. The DP capacity is 63 KV but it should be 85 KV. Thus in some areas only 3-4 irrigations were given to wheat, whereas they want 5, so yield will suffer. Wheat is the

32

main rabi crop with some gram planted. Farmers now were sowing a summer crop of groundnut.

Technology that has changed on the basis of their experience is that before they used 23-23-0, but now use DAP as they saw those that did get a better crop. The reason is the concentration of P is higher in DAP.

Only 10% use sprinklers, but more would if the pressure could be increased. Their profits have increased three-fold and they are using the money to purchase more land as well as religious functions, tractors, and motorcycles. One trend that can be seen from the data is that they are bringing more fallow land into cultivation. They are given water for 2 ha each, but many have less land so they are trying to expand into former fallow lands.

There were not enough farmers to comment on the godown proposal, but the Secretary said that because they had paid more out-of-pocket money for their scheme than other PADP schemes, that a greater percentage of subsidy should be allocated for them than is in the current plan explained by Gujare. Basically he was unhappy with his current situation.

Adgaon Jawale Scheme21 Jan Thurs 8AM to Adgaon Jawale scheme where at 9AM we were met by a former FSO as Mr Sakore left during the night for Pune. We met a group of 8 farmers in their WUA building

Due to the nearness of Aurangabad, farmers in this site grow mainly horticultural cash crops. There are only a few fields of wheat. Most farmers plant sweet orange with some now branching off to pomegranate and mango although they do intercrop field crops for three years in new plantings. We later saw a field ready to be planted to onion so vegetables are also selected. Farmers said that they are now earning about three times what they did as rainfed farmers. With their extra income WUA farmers have purchased motorcycles, 6 tractors, cars, and converted their fallow to agricultural land. They have not expanded their farm size, as there is no more fallow or uncultivated land.

In the scheme farmers have mostly drip irrigation, as sprinkler systems are not recommended for horticultural crops. Farmers can also use gravity irrigation in furrows that we saw for onion but it causes over-watering in fruit trees facilitating disease. They also construct compartments around each tree to keep water away from the base. With onion the farmer made very small compartments of < 2 m length and were irrigating a row at a time. Therefore they are very careful to not waste water. Before the project the farmers planted rainfed sorghum, millet, etc. and right away purchased drip systems taking advantage of a 50% subsidy. So it does show farmers can make this large jump which was a high risk for them. This is the scheme that we first heard of dieback in sweet orange and now we know better how farmers should control it so we reviewed this problem with farmers.

We had a group discussion on the technology to grow sweet orange. Farmers obtained their information mostly from the dealers who sold them the drip systems. Jain Irrigation Systems for example have technical personnel that give advice to farmers. The technology begins with farmers digging a planting hole and using FYM, micronutrients, and each year applying NPK. NPK is correctly dug into the soil and not placed on the surface. They also apply FYM each year. Most have cattle so they have their own FYM, while those that do not, purchase it. Farmers correctly place 4 drip outlets per tree each 2’ away from the trunk on a square. But they do not adjust the width from the tree as the tree grows. New roots are always at the outer edge and water needs to go to living roots. Thus farmers need to widen the delivery location

33

based on the growing shadow of the tree canopy. They then said there was a stem borer which occurs from time to time. Their control of the insect is to apply kerosene into the bore holes when they see them. We told them of a systemic insecticide to use if they wanted but the problem is minor. They also paint copper sulfate onto the trunk as directed, although they did not know it was to control a disease, they just followed instructions.

They sell the crop to traders who come and do the harvest so the farmers save labor. Farmers are satisfied to receive some Rs45-50,000/acre. Even as most of the labor requirement is born by the traders, there still is labor needed to weed and apply inputs. The families supply most of the labor, but they do hire local laborers from their village as needed but sometimes the supply is limited.

For rootstock, none used saplings having resistance such as the recommended Ranjapur lime. They plant Jambheri as it is the only available choice. When asked what was the cause of die back, some said insects, others said it was from the sapling, while others said it came from the soil. No one knew it was a fungus even though farmers know what fungi are. We told them it was a fungus like athletes’ foot that is moisture loving. It is best to explain concepts to farmers using analogies. Drying the feet can control athletes’ foot, and keeping the soil dry near the trunk can control dieback. We told them Ranjapur lime was resistant and Jambheri was susceptible to the disease. We used wheat rust to illustrate what resistance was and they seemed to get that. We then talked to Mr Jawale Rhushiendar who was producing saplings to sell to his neighbors, as we felt if we educated him he would make the change. Dieback still is a problem in the scheme. He needs to find a sure supply of Ranjapur lime.

Pomegranate has only recently been introduced. Farmers plant Baguwah variety that they brought from Jalgaon. We suggested however that they would be best served by testing other varieties as well. Likewise only one variety of mango (Kashier) is grown. We asked about cultural practices on both fruits. They do not use micronutrients however. We asked why not as if the soil is deficient for orange it must also be for the other fruits. We then visited the field and saw the various fruit trees. The farmer’s field we visited was different from last time and he did not suffer from dieback. We asked about the differences in soil and there are three soil types in the scheme, light, medium, heavy. Most of the dieback we deduced is in the heavy soils and the farmer we were visiting does not have the problem but has light soil. This makes sense as the fungus thrives on moisture and heavy soils hold more moisture.

These farmers have been trained by PADP and from Jain and local suppliers of irrigation equipment but they still lack important knowledge to be able to optimize their management skills. The FSO that visited with us knew dieback was from Phytophthora and that it produced symptoms of gummosis and dieback, but the farmers did not know this. The farmers have been they have trouble connecting the dots. Why didn’t they apply micronutrients to other fruit trees if they were instructed to apply to sweet orange? They have trouble connecting the dots as they just follow orders and are not thinking. They do not understand the concepts that are crucial to knowledge. In Bikhed, farmers did not know whether to place fertilizer above or below the seed. If they knew the concepts that fertilizers are not all soluble in water and that roots take up the fertilizer, they should have deduced that placing the fertilizer below the seeds, where the roots emerge, would be the answer. To train farmers’ concepts as is the theme of the farmer field school training method that I was trying to introduce with study plots, would require more trainers and contact hours which our project has not budgeted. I suppose with time and experience being their teacher, that they will learn how to grow their crops but if they had been educated this would happen more quickly and assuredly.

34

11AM we returned to Pune arriving 4:30PM.

Wanewadi Scheme27 Jan Wed 8AM traveled to Osmanabad and Wanewadi scheme with Mane, Gujare, and Mr Sakore arriving at 1:30 PM

We went directly to the farm of Mr Rajendra Gheware who with his 7 brothers farms 40 acres and are progressive farmers. He has 3 sisters as well but only 6 of the men are farming while the other 2 have moved away. Mr Gheware has only 2 children! On the way to his land we saw a field of gram, which was being harvested planted to Degvijay a 95-d variety. PADP is now over and ran for two years from 2006-08. The price of gram now is Rs2,200/quintal which is much better than last year. The crops looked good.

There is 70-80 ha of irrigated land in the WUA. All farmers who grew gram treated the seed with Rhizobium with a strain recommended for gram, which is very good. In the view of farmers, PADP was very successful and they want one more year of training. The tank is now 30% full but there was not a good rain until Sep-Oct, for a period of 6 weeks, so the kharif crop was heavily affected by lack of water. In Nov however heavy rain came and filled the tanks.

We had visited Mr Gheware’s farm last year and learned now that the 3.5 acres of papaya he grew earned him Rs7 lak or $16,000! With that and other income he has invested most of it in his farm. Due to a shortage of water this year he will not grow papaya, as he cannot be sure to have water in the hot season, as papaya is an annual crop. Instead he will grow pomegranate which is drought resistant

Mr Dheware said that 15 years ago his farm was rainfed where he grew sorghum, tur, wheat, gram, sunflower, safflower, linseed etc. Then he dug a well and soon after contracted for a bore hole and electric pump. He started with 25 acres and with his first successes with mainly field crops he purchased an additional 15 acres. With irrigation, his income soared to 20 times the rainfed amount and after PADP rose an additional 5 times.

We saw that he is building a biogas facility where he got subsidy of 30% from the government on labor in construction, but hired a backhoe to dig out the soil. He has cemented the base and will set the tank in soon. Right next to it, also in construction, is a livestock pen made of concrete and rebar where 12 cows and buffaloes will be kept. He will install an automatic watering and feeding facility for the cattle and will build another unit in the next few months to double his number of livestock. There is a vet in a nearby village that gives vaccinations to his livestock and has recommended the supplements of vitamins and fortified food for them. He wants both milk and FYM for the biogas from the cattle. The biogas will give him cooking fuel and electricity for his farm. Currently power is out 8 h per day at random times.

Four months ago he set up a drip system, which he says saves 75% water over flood irrigation and has allowed him to double the area on his farm that is under irrigation. The drip system will irrigate 4 ha and cost him Rs220,000 ($2,700) and was installed by the dealer. It has a water filter unit and a tank for fertigation and the water comes from the borehole. He saw the drip setup during a PADP exposure visit to Rahur Agr University. The system has an automatic switch that shuts off when there is no power or water. He has laborers living in a

35

shelter he constructed near the drip system and livestock who will turn on the pump when the electricity comes on but clearly he wants to generate his own power with biogas.

Nearby he has an organic matter-generating operation where he has stover from the maize crop just harvested and purchased a Rs30,000 ($700) electric powered chopper that cuts the stover into 2” pieces. He will use the chopped stalks in a vermi-culture facility to generate compost for his horticultural crops.

We saw an acre of potatoes that is growing well and is furrow irrigated and intercropped with fruit trees and other vegetables. He purchased virus free potato planting material in Pune and has purchased an 8 t Tempo truck in which he will carry the harvested potatoes either to Pune or Solipur markets whichever has the higher price. He also has his own tractor and implements such as a row planter.

He showed us a booklet he made for judges as he will is entering his farm into a state government contest to be ‘Committed Farmer of the Year’ which has color pictures showing all his enterprises. The winner will be announced in Sep.

We then moved to his ginger, watermelon, mango intercropping. Last year he grew ginger which he harvested 3 quintals which now is his planting material and hopes to harvest 30 quintals from that this year. He spent 2 lak ($4,500) on the drip tubing for this crop, which he hopes he will sell as seed to his neighbors. He uses crop rotation and has moved the ginger to where he grew maize last year.

We saw his maize crop sown to Parmeshaar hybrid which is 4 month variety that was just harvested. He planted 6.5 acres last year and harvested 175 100lb-bags or 6.5 t/ha. He has a corn sheller and his grains are now drying in the sun on a large tarp.

He gets loans from the District Cooperative Bank at 6% interest. The bank’s agriculture officer has visited his farm several times. His land values have gone up. Five years ago his land was valued at 1 lak/acre ($2,250). Now other farmland around him, which is not developed into irrigation, is valued at 2.5 lak/acre ($5,700) while his land now is valued at 6 lak/acre ($13,600).

He also has other crops. Sweet orange that he bought saplings at a KVK in Baramati but does not know the name of the rootstock but the saplings are just starting to grow. He has black cotton soil, which perhaps is not best suited to sweet orange. He also has a crop of muskmelon. He has 4 acres of sugarcane as this is sugarcane land. There are two refineries in Latpur. It now fetches Rs2,100/t which is up 3 times from last year. This farmer is a money machine!

He had a disappointing experience when he grew 4 acres of broccoli at the suggestion of AFARM. The broccoli grew well but could not sell it, as no one knows the crop. He wants AFARM to reimburse him.

We then drove to town to attend a meeting of former WUA farmers.

I asked whether any one takes a vacation and even Mr Gheware with all of his money has never taken one and works every day on his farm. The family brothers clearly are in a testing and experimenting phase of farming as a business so until they find the best-suited crops, Mr

36

Gheware may never go on vacation. No farmer has traveled on an airplane or visited other countries.

We discussed godowns and there was one built in their village in 1982 as a government sponsored coop society which has been abandoned for many years. There is now a plan to renovate it. Some farmers store their grain in rented space in a godown in Osmanabad. All farmers store grain in their homes and have rat problems. In the house where we were meeting had 20 bags of maize near the door. Losses from rats and stored product beetles are high according to the farmers. The WUA farmers would welcome an opportunity to renovate the godown in their village and use it for not only storing grain to keep pests away, but in the case of soybean to keep until higher prices occur. Another use of the godown would be to store fertilizer. To be sure that they have their fertilizer for the year, Mr Gheware purchases 10 t in April when supplies are good but he needs a place to keep in throughout the year.

I asked about the value of APGs. Mr Gheware was a member of a vegetable APG during PADP where farmers met and discussed crop management and field problems. This has now emerged into a Farmers’ Club which has 32 members. They meet once a month and invite speakers. Each meeting lasts 1.5-2 h. They get their agricultural information from agriculture magazines and from exposure visits that they arrange. They last went to the Sugarcane Institute and saw the research being done along with the latest varieties. Club members have dug 5 farm ponds.

We tried to talk to other farmers with smaller landholdings. Some 50% are still rainfed as the lift system that was designed has not functioned. The WUA however has never really functioned well and no farmer has paid water fees. Those rainfed farmers cannot build bore wells as the government has stopped encouraging their construction as the aquifer is drying up. It is arguable how much the tank recharges the aquifer although last year the tank filled up and then dried up so the water went somewhere as there are no canals or lift pumps in operation. The aquifer is 300 to 600’ deep and cost 1 lak to dig a bore well thus the average farmer cannot get credit to dig one. So the rainfed farmers are looking to the lift system to save them. Those with bore wells already want the lift to supplement their wells.

Other benefits from PADP by those having irrigation are better education (better attendance by children), better health care (can see a doctor when needed), and better nutrition by eating better and having a more diverse diet.

Discussion turned to the need for erosion control in the watershed as the members notice siltation occurring. Rainfall averages only 700 mm/year but comes down heavily. They are mad at the contractor for using the reservoir land to pile rubble from construction instead of hauling it a way and want it cleared out to increase water storage. They also want the dam raised higher.

PADP will arrange an exchange visit of the Warvanti WUA to Wanewadi soon to show them what irrigation can do.

6PM to Jatur

Warvanti Scheme28 Jan Thurs 9AM to Warvanti scheme to attend Field Day arriving 10:AM at WUA building with 50 farmers. Present was the FSO, an Irrigation Dept Engineer, and the AFARM Apex NGO coordinator and CO

37

The field day started at 8:30AM as the farmers wanted to finish early due to load sharing and the power will come back on at 1PM. They want to end by then so as to be able to turn on their irrigation systems. When we met them they were playing a group dynamics game and having fun. They had toured all of the demoplots in the field and were to begin a session of experience sharing. The farmers whose fields were the demoplots each got up and explained the experiments. The Mr Dheware and his brother gave a talk on how to cultivate papaya followed this. Next on the program were talks by those farmers known to have the highest yields for each of the main crops who explained their practices.

The venue of the meeting was good as the WUA building is far from town and noise. The farmers sat on a tarp just near to the front door. Some 10-15 said they were willing to try growing papaya and they learned how to control the virus disease. Marketing is no problem as middlemen come to the village to purchase.

There was also discussion on how to control white grub on ginger, groundnut, and various horticultural crops. There was discussion on the ICRISAT method of growing groundnuts on a raised bed.

Most farmers are using the various seed treatments as well as vermi-wash and Jerarut tonic. One farmer is purely organic and only uses compost, vermi-wash, and neem extract.

The sorghum field that we saw last year where the farmer used a bold grain variety harvested 30 q/3 acres (2.4 t/ha) which is a high yield.

The Apex NGO coordinator gave a good talk and as a result some of the farmers are ‘thinking about’ paying their water fees. I guess that is good news.

We each gave a short talk and then the farmers were dismissed. We then took a field walk to see some of the trials.

Only some five farmers have sprinklers and none has a drip system. The first wheat field (variety HD2189) we saw had five furrow irrigations with large portions of the field being flooded at once. Water is plentiful but so much is wasted.

We then saw the organic farmer’s wheat field where he irrigates only 3 times and uses compost, vermi-wash, and neem extract (for aphids). His compost is in a powder form and he dispensed from his seeder as one would with inorganic fertilizer. His dosage is 2.5 q/acre. As he uses compost every year in the field, N releases slowly. A discussion followed about the need to apply P as that cannot be provided via organic farming except by PSB. It is true that the seeds were treated by PSB but that may not be enough. Also we asked if next year the farmer could treat 100 m2 with DAP and then micronutrients on 50 m2 of that area making two treatments for comparison with his main field. His wheat looked a little pale so that maybe some nutrients are needed.

Another farmer grew onion with vermi-wash and organic matter and used neem extract for thrips control. He got the highest yield of onion and best quality.

We saw one farmer grow banana. The crop was young and he intercropped fenugreek and coriander. The coriander suffered from cold and looked anemic. The fenugreek was fine but most other inter-rows were full of weeds. He will inter-row cultivate but as he flood irrigates

38

he also irrigates the weeds versus the recommended drip that does not. As water is not a problem he flood irrigates every 8 days. The soil is medium texture so it will hold some water. He realizes that he is being inefficient with the water use but cannot afford a drip system just yet. His plan is to grow banana for a few years and save for a drip system. He can fetch Rs600/quintal of banana which is a good price.

As an aside we found that farmers give names to their cattle and dogs. His buffalo was Lakshmi and the dog was Tiger. This show the concern and care they have with their livestock.

Another farmer was going to plant cluster bean or lablab for the summer season. Farmers are in the experimental stage of testing crops to see what yield they can get with irrigation.

We then saw a Study Plot Experiment of 5 treatments on sorghum. Each treatment was 100 m2.6. Biofertilizer, PSB and Azotobacter only7. Biofertilizer, vermi-wash, inorganic NPK and FYM8. Inorganic NPK only9. Vermiwash only10. Only compost

There were differences in growth as the crop was entering heading stage and we will have to wait for the yield to determine if the differences in growth translate to yield but the best growing were inorganic only followed by vermi-wash only and treatment 2.

The FSO said that it was not hard for the farmer to set it up but the farmer did mention that it took extra time which is natural. We left at 5PM.

Varve Scheme2 Feb 2PM went with Gujare and Mr Sakore to Varve scheme

We met a family in the field harvesting brinjal. Also present were the former KM and the water tender. They had planted the variety Manju (round variegated purple and white fruit) in August. He applied 2 trolley loads of FYM (4 t) on the 0.1 ha field along with 25 kg of 10-26-26 (as a ring around each plant) (25-65-65 kg NPK/ha) and a slow release urea bricket under each plant. The urea brickets were developed for use on rice where one bricket is pressed into the soil at planting around four hills of rice. But they experimented on doing this with brinjal and tomato, which if you have the labor to do it is a very good practice as it is highly efficient as there is little loss and release is steady. There was a section in the field where the laborer did not apply the full amount of FYM and the growth of the plants was noticeably stunted. This became an accidental study plot! The farmer’s wife and daughter and a hired woman were harvesting. There is a person from the village who has a truck and carries to crop to market and returns with cash for the farmers. The farmer rents plastic crates from him paying Rs5 each. There are three markets they sell at: 1) Pune, 2) Mumbai, and 3) Bilgao in Karnataka state 10 h drive away. The latter is for selling onions. The driver calls up the markets before leaving to choose the best one for that day. The driver collects the money from the sale of the vegetables and brings it back to the farmers on his return.

The farmer had planted groundnut during the kharif on raised beds. All of the fields have constructed small irrigation compartments each irrigating a few m2 so it is highly efficient use

39

of furrow irrigation. The system is gravity fed from an open concrete canal leading from the dam at the head of the valley into non-lined canals along the road. The valley is surrounded by barren hills of rocky soil that does not erode much anymore as erosion is probably to bedrock. The site is one of favorable rainfall and the tank was now 45% full and had been 85% full earlier. The last drought occurred in 2003 before the dam was built.

After the brinjal crop he will rotate to onion. An onion field (red bulb variety) was next to the brinjal field and was near to harvest. So far this season 6 t of brinjal have been harvested at a value of Rs22,000 ($500) and there are several more months of harvesting left. The farmer had sprayed mancozeb fungicide in response of seeing some brown spots. One or two plants looked like they were affected from bacterial wilt while a few others had some fungal damage but all in all the crop was fine. There was no fruit borer in the site. This is usually more of a pest in the kharif season but in addition brinjal is grown only in rabi and the site is highly isolated by the barren hills, thus there is no source for the fruit borer to span the seasons nor colonize from nearby.

The family was grading the brinjal based on size of the fruits. Large fruit fetch Rs200/kg while the small only Rs70. Each crate holds 40 kg of fruit and they harvest twice a week.

There is no need of credit as cash is coming in all the time from the vegetables and field crops. The farmer plants rice, brinjal, onion, pea, winged bean, wheat, sorghum, tomato, and groundnut on his 2.5 acres of land.

Rice is planted on the lowland medium textured soil using Indraini and Basmati varieties which are high quality. Yields have been increasing due to the farmer adopting better technologies such as urea brickets, spacing of 25 x 15 cm, sowing 22-day-old seedlings. As a result of these practices yields have doubled as reported in the impact survey from the site.

An estimate was made of how much more they now earn than during the pre-project rainfed years when they grew sorghum. A 0.1 ha field would yield 4 quintals or Rs1,200 whereas the same field now with irrigation would yield 50 quintals or if planted to vegetables to Rs22,000. These are increases of > 10 times the former income.

The value of his land has increased from Rs1,000/ahr (0.01 ha) to Rs100,000 or 100-fold because of irrigation. In the valley some 5-6 ha of uncultivated land has been brought into production but there is not much scope for further increases in the ICA. The farmer is a member of the WUA which meets once a month.

The farmers are still testing new crops such as potato, but essentially they have found the most productive cropping patterns based on expected income.

Farmers have adopted some water saving methods such as lining an earthen canal with concrete or extending a pipe in place of an open canal to reduce percolation loss. The farmers and water tender look for wastage of water by WUA members. If water is running too much the water tender closes the inlet.

Other benefits the family has enjoyed are that their five children go to a private school and are being educated to get jobs in Pune and not farming. The parents have never had a vacation and in fact work twice as hard as they did when it was a rainfed system. They have taken no vacations but travel to religious places more frequently with their new income. They

40

can see a doctor or get medical help anytime when needed due to the steady stream of income from farming.

The farmer hires a tractor for land preparation at Rs300/hour and hires laborers as needed on a daily basis. They have a TV but no refrigerator and watch Bollywood movies on DVD as well as a daily agriculture program at 7PM daily.

We moved up the valley to the dam site. There are 6-7 farmers that have the largest farms of 2.5 ha each so there is no very large farmer in the valley. The farmers are surprisingly satisfied with the construction of the dam and the canals. The WUA contracted to construct the distribution system which is well made and holding up well. Some farmers are now trying grow guava and sapota fruit with three farmers growing mangoes. Earlier some farmers grew broccoli but only on a small area but could not market it. One farmer grew figs but the soil was not suitable so he switched to another fruit.

There are three soil types and on the light murum soil that is < 10 cm depth where they grow sorghum, pulses and sesame. On the heavy soil they grow vegetables, pulses and groundnut. When PADP was active the training took place in the AFARM training center just a few minutes away.

Just below the dam are farmers who have constructed bore wells. Before the project the wells became dry by December but now they have water year-round. They were told by the Engineers that they would not have to pay for that water so that the well-based farmers do not belong to the WUA but still they enjoy the benefits! They have electric pumps that have an auto-switch that turns on and off with the power as 5 hours per day are load-sharing. We saw one farmer who had just purchased a 5 hp pump for Rs15,000 ($340). The farmers do pay for their electricity.

At 5PM we returned to the office after a refreshing drink of date toddy by the roadside.

41