ecological analysis of a cluster of villages emphasising ... · ecological analysis of a cluster of...

Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 31 (1990) 17-37 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam - - Printed in The Netherlands

17

Ecological Analysis of a Cluster of Villages Emphasis ing Land Use of Different Tribes in Meghalaya in North-east India

R.K. MAIKHURI and P.S. RAMAKRISHNAN I

Govind Ballabh Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and Development, Kosi, Almora, U.P. 263 643 (India)

(Accepted for publication 27 July 1989)

ABSTRACT

Maikhuri, R.K. and Ramakrishnan, 1990. Ecological analysis of a cluster of villages emphasising land use of different tribes in Meghalaya in north-east India. Agric. Ecosystems Environ., 31: 17-37.

The ecological and economic efficiencies of land-use systems, animal husbandry and domestic sub-systems of three tribal (Garo, Khasi and Mikir) and one non-tribal (Nepali} communities living in the same area, at lower elevations of Meghalaya in north-east India, were evaluated. The economic efficiency of slash and burn agriculture (jhum) by the Garos was more efficient than that of the Khasis or the Mikirs, because of higher labour input and the crop mixture used by the Garos. On the other hand, the economic output from one cropping in a year under valley cultivation of the Nepalis was higher than two croppings done by the Garos. Cash crops raised in the home gardens of the Mikirs provided higher returns than other agricultural systems. The energy efficiency ofjhum varied, but was generally high (output/input ratio of 18.1 to 55.2). Valley cultivation of the Nepalis had higher energy efficiency than that of others. Swine husbandry was done by all communities except immigrant Nepalis. The Nepalis and the Mikirs raised cows for milk production while others used them for meat. The output/input patterns varied depending upon the labour and food energy inputs and the frequency of slaughter of the animals. The Garos have more efficient slash and burn agriculture and animal husbandry systems compared with the others, who have more dependence upon the forest for food. The linkages between the agricultural systems, animal husbandry and domestic sub-systems of the different communities are considered, and the possibilities for village ecosystem redevelopment discussed.

INTRODUCTION

The village ecosystem function of traditional societies is based upon the recycling of resources within the system (Spedding, 1979; Mishra and Ramak- rishnan, 1982; Sundarraj and Mitchell, 1987) using human labour as an ira-

IAuthor to whom correspondence should be addressed. Present address: School of Environmental Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi 110067, India.

0167-8809/90/$03.50 © 1990 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.

18 R.K. MAIKHURI AND P.S. RAMAKRISHNAN

portant energy input (Leach, 1976; Revelle, 1976; Mitchell, 1979). Such systems have the advantage of a certain degree of flexibility, being able to adjust to changes that may be imposed on them, unlike more industrialised societies. Apart from the fact that a solar-powered human ecosystem is intrinsically interesting, an understanding of its function is critical because of the frequent rejection of outside advice by the local communities, which is increasingly per- ceived as a central problem in developing countries. This paper, therefore, con- siders the land use, animal husbandry and domestic sectors of the village and the inter-relationship between them and the linkages with the natural forest ecosystem.

Slash and burn agriculture (jhum) and valley cultivation of rice are two important land uses in the north-eastern hill region (Toky and Ramakrishnan, 1981 ). Some of the tribes traditionally have home gardens which may include cash crops. These land-use patterns show differences depending upon the socio-economic or socio-cultural background of the tribal communities, apart from obvious differences between the tribals and the non-tribals in the region (Ramakrishnan, 1985). Closely linked with the shifting agriculture is an animal husbandry system largely involving swine husbandry and poultry (Mishra and Ramakrishnan, 1982). Goat and cattle have been introduced by the immigrant Nepalis and the plain tribals (Mikirs) of the Assam valley.

Until recently, the indigenous agricultural villages of Asia, Africa and South America functioned as nearly independent systems (Norman, 1979). In more recent times, this self-sufficiency of village ecosystems has been more and more related to greater inter-dependence, because of the introduction of modern technology (Pimentel and Pimentel, 1979; Zuccetto and Jansson, 1979) or to the damage caused by environmental degradation (Mishra and Ramakrish- nan, 1982; Singh et al., 1983). The present study is an integrated comparative analysis of four traditional communities in north-east India with a view to understand: (1) the traditional land-management practices for agriculture and animal husbandry; (2) the link between the forests and the other land-management systems; (3) the self-sufficiency of village communities as it now op- erates. The aim is to look at possible ecosystem redevelopment strategies that would provide better returns to the rural societies on a sustainable long-term basis.

STUDY AREA AND C L I MA T E

The study area at Lailad, about 70 km north of Shillong (2.5 ° 45'N, 91°45'E), is at about 296 m, and is located in the Khasi hills of Meghalaya, with four communities, namely, the Garos, the Khasis, the Mikirs and the Nepalis. Slash and burn agriculture (jhum) is practised by all except the Ne- palis. The area receives an annual average rainfall of 1435 ram. The climate has three distinct seasons. The rainy season extends from May to October.

LAND USE BY TRIBES IN MEGHALAYA, NORTH-EAST INDIA 19

This is a warm period with high humidity. The average maximum temperature during this season is 35°C and minimum is 27°C. The mild winter, with an average maximum temperature of 28°C and an average minimum of 17 ° C, extends from November to mid-February. A dry and windy summer extends from mid-February to May with an average maximum temperature of 34 °C and a minimum of 23 ° C. The hilly terrain here has a temperature range of 20 °C to 40 ° C. The soil is a red sandy loam of laterite origin (oxysol) with pH ranging from 5.8 to 6.3.

DESCRIPTION OF VILLAGE ECOSYSTEM

Slash and burn agriculture

At lower elevations of Meghalaya, at Lailad, shifting agriculture (jhum) as practised by the Garos, the Khasis and the Mikirs differed in terms of crop mixtures, and the cultivation procedures. These differences are summarised in Table 1. However, jhum procedures are broadly the same as described by Toky and Ramakrishnan (1981). The jhum cycle (the length of the fallow period between two successive croppings at the same site) ranged between 5 to 20 years. The average size of the jhum plot differed from 1 to 1.5 ha for the Garos, from 2 to 2.5 ha for the Khasis and 3-3.5 ha for the Mikirs for an average family size of 5, 6 and 8 members for the Mikirs, the Khasis and the Garos, respectively.

Slashing the vegetation is done during the winter months of December-Jan- uary. Being laborious, slashing is done through community labour by the Garos and the Mikirs but through family labour by the Khasis.

Valley cultivation

Wet rice cultivation is done in valley lands, every year either with one or two croppings. Since valleys are enriched with nutrient wash-out from hill slopes, only some organic manure (386-1137 kg ha -1 ) may be applied. The first cropping is done between February and August, by transplanting rice raised separately in nurseries. Second cropping where applicable is done between August and November, but the seeds are broadcast. The average size of valley land per family varies from 0.75 to 2 ha.

Home garden

Cash crops, such as arecanut (Areca catechu), betel (Piper betel), black pepper (Piper nigrum) and banana (Musa sp. ) are cultivated in plots 0.5-1.5 ha per family by the Mikirs only. The harvesting of arecanuts and black pepper is done between October and November. The climbing perennials (betel and black pepper) are sown around a legume tree (Erythrina stricta) which pro-


TABLE 1

Major differences in cropping pattern between the communities of Meghalaya in north-eastern India

Agricultural system Tribal Non-tribal

Garos Khasis Mikirs Nepalis

Slash and burn agriculture Labour for slashing

Crop mixture Sowing time Organic manure input

Weeding 3-4 times Harvesting Sequential

(June-December) By-products Left in the plot

Community Community Family members: labour: labour: stems of larger trees stems of larger total slashing undisturbed trees undisturbed 10-13 10-13 4-7 April April February

Under 10 and 5 - year cycles only Once Sequential Simultaneous (June-October) (August-September) Left in the plot Removed as cattle

feed Valley

Yearly croppings 2 1 1 Labour input Human and Human Human and

animal animal Organic manure input Yes Yes Yes Weeding Once 3 times Harvesting of crop July first crop September September

(December for second crop)

By-products Left in situ - Removed as cattle Removed as feed cattle feed

- indicates land use not practised.

vides support. Betel leaf and the fruits of banana are harvested throughout the year. Harvesting operations are done manually.

Animal husbandry sub-system

Along with slash and burn agriculture, poultry, swine, goat and cattle are maintained. Pigs are maintained in enclosures and their farming is detritus based whereas poultry is based on scavenging within the village boundary. Pigs are not reared by the Nepalis. Goats are a recent introduction into the hills from the plains. Cattle are raised for meat by the Garos and the Khasis whereas Nepalis and Mikirs rear them for milk. They largely browse/graze in the forest.

Forest and domestic sub-system

Fuelwood for cooking, food from the wild for the humans, fooder for animals and materials for house construction are obtained from the forest. Agriculture


and animal husbandry providing food energy, human labour is used for all village activities.

M E T H O D S

Four villages belonging to each community were evaluated, based upon observations on 15 randomly selected fRmUies in the village of the Garos and the Khasis, and all the families (10) of the Mikirs and the Nepalis (4) (Table 2). Observations on energy and economic input and output for agriculture, animal husbandry and domestic sub-systems were made over a 2-year period.

Agriculture sub-system

Jhum agro-ecosystems under 20, 10 and 5-year jhum cycles by the Garos, the Khasis and the Mikirs were identified separately with three replicate plots

T A B L E 2

Structure of three tribal and non-tribal villages at lower elevations of Meghalaya in north-eastern India

Tribe/village

Garos/ Khasis / Mikira / Nepalis/ Nongladoh Nongkindrih Umsophy Tasku

Number of households 70 34 10 4 Total human population 624 205 86 27 Adult males 185 65 34 9 Adult females 178 54 30 8 Children 5-7 years old 58 18 10 3 Children 7-9 years old 66 22 6 2 Children 9-12 years old 137 46 6 5 Average family size 8.9 6.0 8.6 6.8 Total area under cultivation (ha) 94 30 25 4 20-year jhum cycle (ha) -~ 33 -

10-year jhum cycle (ha) 58 - - - 5 - year jhum cycle (ha) 20 - Valley (ha) 36 22 4 Home garden 3 - Total animal population 1071 462 123 49 Bullocks and cows for slaughter 176 32 Milking cows - 3 13 Bullocks for ploughing 46 4 Goats - 39 12 6 Swine 78 92 24 - Poultry 695 299 84 26 Ducks 76 -

- indicates no data.


for each cycle for each tribe at Lailad. Care was taken to ensure similar aspect and topographic conditions. Mixed cropping was done only for 1 year after slash and burn. Three replicate plots under valley cultivation and home garden were also selected for each tribe involved in these activities.

Vegetation analysis of the cropping systems was done when the majority of the crop species had attained maximum vegetative growth but just before the harvest of the first two crops, Zea mays and Setaria italica. The importance value indices (IVI) derived for each species is the sum of the relative frequency, relative density and relative abundance and is based on 20 quadrats per plot (Misra, 1968; Kershaw, 1973).

The economic yield per plant was determined in a plot as an average of 15 plants for each species. The economic yield per hectare in all cases was calculated on the basis of the yield from the entire plot.

The input of energy through seeds was calculated on the basis of the total energy expended to produce that fraction of the crop yield. Energy input through animal power (1 bullock hour=3.03 MJ) was based on Mitchell (1979). La- bour input in man and woman hours was calculated for different cropping systems. Total food energy consumed was apportioned to each activity (Leach, 1976) according to the relative duration on the basis of grouping, involving either sedentary, mode-rate or heavy work. For an adult male per hour energy expenditure was based on 0.418 MJ for sedentary work, 0.488 MJ for moderate work and 0.679 MJ for heavy work. For an adult female the values were 0.331 MJ for sedentary work, 0.383 MJ for moderate work and 0.523 MJ for heavy work. These values were used to calculate the labour energy input into the system (Gopalan et al., 1978). The input of organic manure into agro-ecosys- terns was converted into energy by multiplying their quantities with the standard replacement cost values in terms of commercial fertilizers given in Table 3. For calculating the output of energy under different agro-ecosystems, the total economic yield of various crops was converted into MJ of energy by multiplying with the standard values of various edible parts of crops as given in Table 3. The energy efficiency of each system was calculated as the output/ input ratio.


The estimation of the feed/fodder consumed by livestock was based on the daily ration consumed by the animal and converted to an energy equivalent by multiplying the quantities consumed with standard values (Table 3). The dif- ference between the standard food energy requirement under Indian conditions for each category of animal (Ranjhan, 1977) was subtracted from the stall feeding values to obtain the food energy consumed through grazing/ browsing.

The weight gained by each category of animal at the time of slaughter was used for calculating annual meat production. The values thus obtained were


TABLE 3

Energy value for different items used in the villages (values expressed as dry wt. MJ equivalent)

Category Energy value (MJkg -1)

Crops Grain I 16.2 Pulses (various beans) ~ 17.1 Leaf vegetables ~ 15.8 Roots and tubers ~ 15.3 Castor 2 25.9 Seasamum 2 26.6 Arecanut 2 15.1 Betel leaf ~ 12.3 Banana 2 14.9 Black pepper 2 14.7

Feed/fodder Vegetable waste 1 16.4 Straw I 14.0 Rice bran 2 16.4 Green fodder 1 15.8 Tree and shrub leaves 1 16.8 Banana (rhizome) and Colocasia (petiole) 11.2

Forest products I~af vegetables 10.1 Fruits 9.1 Roots and tubers 12.7 Mushrooms 16.4 Bamboo shoot 2 16.4 Wild animal meat 3.9 Fuel wood 16.8 Milk 2.9 Mustard oil 39.5 Kerosene oil 46.7

Manure (Replacement cost 3) Swine dung 1.3 Goat dung 2.0 Poultry dung 4.8 Cow dung ~ 2.1 Farmyard manure 4 7.3

~Mitchell (1979) 2Gopalan et al. (1978) 3Percentage of N, P205 and K20 in various items was as follows: in swine dung 1, 4, 0.83 and 1.3; in goat dung 2.2, 0.8 and 1.97, in poultry dung 5.14 4.19 and 2.5; in cattle dung 1.61, 0.85 and 1.2. 4Dung is just the faecal matter of the animal whereas farmyard manure is a composted mixture with vegetable matter.


corrected using a dressing percentage of 75, 56 and 70 for pig, lamb and fowl, respectively (Ranjhan, 1977), and 70 for beef (based on our observation). Us- ing energy values 4.94, 4.56, 5.46, 2.9, 17.22 and 7.24 MJ kg -1 for goat meat, chicken, duck meat, cow's milk, beef and egg, respectively (Gopalan et al., 1978 ) and 17.121 MJ kg - 1 for pork (Ranjhan, 1977 ), the energy equivalent of secondary production through animal husbandry was calculated. The total dung/manure production per animal of each category was expressed on a dry weight basis. This then was converted into energy by multiplying their quantities with standard values given in Table 3.

Domestic sub-system

The estimation of the amount of food/fuel consumed by humans was worked out on the basis of regular observations in the village with energy equivalents calculated on the basis of values given in Table 3.

For obtaining the theoretical food energy/protein requirement for humans, the total consumption unit (adult man value) for the whole village was calculated from the energy consumption scale suggested by Gopalan et al. (1978); one adult male, i unit, one adult female 0.9 unit, children aged 5-7 years, 7-9 years and 9-12 years, 0.6, 0.7 and 0.8 units, respectively. The total number of units for the Garos, the Khasis, the Mikirs and the Nepalis worked out to be 537, 176, 76 and 24, respectively. These were multiplied by the food energy equivalent of an adult (1 unit) of 10.042 MJ day- 1 and the protein equivalent of an adult (1 unit) of 55 g day-1 (Gopalan et al., 1978) to calculate daily food energy/protein requirements. The values of food energy thus obtained (nutritive values) were then corrected to the heat of combustion by multiplying with the coefficient of 1.149 (Mitchell, 1979).

The energy values of wild food plants were estimated after burning the sam- ples in a bomb calorimeter on the basis of oven dry (80 ° C) weight of the sam- ples. The values of food energy thus obtained (nutritive values) were then corrected to the heat of combustion by multiplying with the coefficient of 1.149 (Mitchell, 1979). The protein content of wild plants was estimated by multiplying the percentage of nitrogen estimated kjeldahl method by a factor of 6.25 (Allen et al., 1974). The protein equivalent of all food (crop and meat) harvested and that part of it consumed by villagers was determined by multiplying the quantities consumed with the respective protein values, based on Gopalan et al. (1978).

For monetary input/output analyses, labour charges for male and female workers and animal labour cost were calculated on the basis of prevailing daily rates of Rs. 10, 8 and 10, respectively. The monetary returns in terms of crops, feed, milk, meat, egg and organic manure were calculated based on the prevailing market price for each commodity.

LAND USE BY TRIBES IN MEGHALAYA, NORTH-EAST INDIA

R E S U L T S

25

All the tribes emphasised grain and seed crops under all jhum cycles (Table 4). The Khasis emphasised more on maize than the Garos. The emphasis on the crop mixture did not show any clear patterns with shortening of the jhum cycle, within a tribe.

Economic yield from grain and seed crops declined significantly (P < 0.01) with the shortening of the jhum cycle (Table 5) within a given cycle, the Garos obtained more yield (P< 0.05 ) from grain and seed crops, and from tuber and rhizome crops compared with the Khasis; the yield was least for the Mikirs. In general, the economic yield from leaf and fruit vegetables was higher under a 5-year cycle than under longer ones. The yield from tuber and rhizome crops

T A B L E 4

I m p o r t a n c e va lue ind ices ( IVI ) 1 o f c rop species under different j h u m cycles o f the different t r iba l c o m m u n i t i e s of M e g h a l a y a in n o r t h - e a s t e r n I n d i a

Crop spec ies Jhum cycle (year)

20 yea r s 10 yea r s 5 years

Garos K h a s i s M i k i r s Garos K h a s i s Mik i r s Garos K h a s i s Mik i r s

Grain and seed Oryza sativa 154 142 146 141 136 163 157 124 155

Zea mays 23 36 64 29 52 39 29 78 64 Eleusine coracana . . . . . 61

Seasamum indicum 30 40 33 25 24 52 25 17 Ricinus communis 13 - - 12 - 10

L e a f a n d f ru i t vegetables Hibiscus sabdariffa 17 13 11 9 10 12 10 13 Capsicum frutesence 12 16 12 14 13 13 13 13 Cucurbita maxima 6 - - 7 8 - 10 10 8 Cucumis sativa 6 9 - 8 10 - 12 9 Solanum melongana - - 5 . . . . Musa sapien tum 9 - 13 12 - - -

Lagenaria leucantha 7 1O 12 9 7 - 6 9 12

Tuber and rhizome Colocasia ant iquorum 18 18 22 17 16 21 15 27 Zingiber officinalis 6 . . . . . Maniho t esculentus 8 - 11 12 - 13 -

IIVI is the sum of relative frequency, relative density and relative abundance which could have a maximum value of 300 (after Misra, 1968; Kershaw, 1973 ). - indicates no data.

t~

TA

BL

E 5

Mea

n ( -

+ S

E)

econ

omic

yie

ld (

kg h

a- 1

) un

der

diff

eren

t jh

um

cyc

les

of th

e di

ffer

ent

trib

al c

omm

unit

ies

of M

egha

laya

in

nort

h-ea

ster

n In

dia

Cro

p ca

tego

ry

Jhu

m c

ycle

(ye

ar)

20 y

ears

10

yea

rs

5 ye

ars

Gar

os

Kha

sis

Mik

irs

Gar

os

Kha

sis

Mik

irs

Gar

os

Kha

sis

Mik

irs

Gra

ins

and

seed

s 21

88 +

174

19

20 +

168

12

44_+

104

16

25 _

+ 131

10

07 +

96

807

+ 67

95

3 +

71

642

+ 43

58

3 +

32

Lea

ves

and

frui

t 3

70

+2

7

29

0+

22

7

4+

6

34

9+

31

4

01

+2

9

141+

11

37

4+

22

4

95

+3

7

40

3+

34

T

uber

s an

d rh

izom

es

87

2+

68

4

52

+4

0

468-

+37

9

88

+8

1

859-

+56

41

1_+3

3 1

307+

97

453-

+32

-

Gra

nt t

otal

34

30 +

238

26

62-+

189

17

86-+

154

29

62_+

211

22

67_+

169

13

59-+

113

26

34 +

178

15

90 +

128

98

6 +

76

-ind

icat

es n

o da

ta.

Z


increased with shortening of the jhum cycle for the Garos only, whereas the Khasis obtained maximum yield under a 10-year cycle.

Arecanut and banana were emphasised in the home garden by the Mikirs along with black pepper and betel leaf (Table 6). The energy and economic inputs into this system are minimal but have a high return. The energy and economic efficiencies (output/input ratio) are high.

Labour was the major energy input into all jhum systems (Table 7). The Khasis alone used some organic manure under 10-year and 5-year jhum cycles. The energy input was minimal under a 5-year cycle. The output/input ratio ranged between 18.1 and 55.2 with minimal values under 10 and 5-year jhum cycles of the Khasis. The monetary input and output as well as economic efficiency declined with shortening of the jhum cycle. Energy and monetary efficiencies ofjhum were generally more efficient for the Garos and least for the Mikirs.

The Garos with two croppings in a year had a higher energy input for each cropping under valley agriculture compared with other tribes; the Nepalis expended least energy (Table 8). With the Nepalis obtaining higher yield from one cropping compared with the total from two croppings of the Garos, the former community had higher energy and economic efficiencies (output/input ratio) for their system.

The energy output/input ratio was lower for the poultry of the Khasis and the Nepalis but showedbetter economic efficiency for the Nepalis alone (Table 9). With a slaughtering frequency of 6 months, 1 year and 3 years, respectively, for the pigs maintained by the Garos, the Khasis and the Mikirs, the energy input and output varied. The energy efficiency of the swine husbandry of the Khasis was higher than that of others, whereas the monetary efficiency of the pigs maintained by the Garos was higher. The energy efficiency for goat rearing

T A B L E 6

Mean plant density, economic yield, monetary ( _+ SE) and energy input and output pattern under home garden of the Mikirs of Meghalaya in north-eastern India

Production measures/ Density Yield Money Energy crop species (ha -1 ) (kg ha -1) (Rs. ha -1 year -~ ) (MJ ha -~ year -~ )

Input (total) 1650 _+ 110 1140 Output (total) 14667 ± 685 26794

Arecanut 1250 1112 +_ 98 10489 16791 Betel leaf 450 81 + 6 3240 996 Banana 800 568 ± 36 568 8463 Black pepper 90 37 ± 2 370 544

Net return 13014 - Output / input ratio 8.8 23.5

-indicates no data.

t~

00

TA

BL

E 7

Ene

rgy

inp

ut a

nd

ou

tpu

t (M

J ha

- 1 y

ear -

1 )

un

der

dif

fere

nt jh

um

cyc

les

of th

e di

ffer

ent t

riba

l co

mm

un

itie

s of

Meg

hala

ya i

n n

ort

h-e

aste

rn In

dia.

V

alue

s in

par

enth

eses

for

mo

net

ary

inp

ut/

ou

tpu

t pat

tern

(R

s h

a- 1

yea

r- 1

) -+

SE

Prod

ucti

on

Jhum cycle (year)

mea

sure

s 20

yea

rs

10 y

ears

5

year

s

Garos

Khasis

Miki

rs

Garos

Khas

is

Miki

rs

Garos

Khasis

Miki

rs

Inp

ut

(tot

al)

1688

13

52

1043

12

00

1659

79

4 81

0 14

70

546

(13

54

+6

6)

(15

54

+8

5)

(12

08

+5

8)

(15

77

+9

2)

(15

14

+8

0)

(938

_+46

) (1

165_

+54

) (1

20

9+

60

) (8

40_+

42)

Out

put

Gra

ins

and

see

ds

4108

9 37

487

2464

9 31

509

1806

5 14

642

1885

2 11

934

9462

L

eave

s an

d f

ruit

58

46

4582

11

69

5517

63

36

2228

59

09

7821

63

67

Tub

ers

and

rhi

zo-

1334

2 69

16

7160

15

116

1314

3 62

88

1999

7 69

31

-

me

s

Tot

al

6027

7 48

985

3297

8 52

142

3754

4 23

158

4475

8 26

686

1582

9 (4

30

3+

19

6)

(30

28

+1

25

) (1

822-

+82

) (3

110-

+13

5)

(176

0_+

68)

(12

28

+6

0)

(23

92

+1

05

) (1

02

3+

52

) (7

29

+4

0)

Ou

tpu

t/in

pu

t rat

io

35.7

36

.2

31.6

43

.4

22.6

29

.2

55.2

18

.1

29.0

(4

.2)

(2.9

) (2

.5)

(3.0

) (2

.2)

(2.3

) (3

.0)

(1.8

) (1

.9)

- indicates no data.


TABLE 8

Energy input and output (MJ ha - ~ year-1) under valley cultivation among the different tribal and non-tribal communities of Meghalaya in north-eastern India. Values in parentheses for monetary input/output pattern (Rs ha -1 year -1 ) +_ SE

Production measures Garos

1st crop 2nd crop Total

Mikirs Nepalis

Input (total 6382 5219 11601 4313 3479 (1400+_68) (988+_36) (2388_+ 123) (1333_+62) (1316+-58)

Output (total) 27656 14282 41938 34895 43172 (1156+_52) (332+_18) (1488+-72) (2107+_96) (3144_+ 122)

Output/input ratio 4.3 2.7 3.6 8.0 12.4 (1.8) (1.3) (1.6) (2.6) (3.4)

was similar for all communities, but the economic efficiencies differed, with higher values obtained from the Mikirs; the labour cost of rearing goats was low for them. The Garos and Khasis raise cattle for meat whereas the other two use them for milking. The output/input ratio was not very different between the three tribes for rearing cows. The economic output, however, differed, with a maximum for the Khasis and a minimum for the Mikirs.

The food energy and protein consumption from agriculture was maximum for the Garos followed by the Khasis (Table 10). Though the energy consumption from animal husbandry was higher for the Nepalis, the animal protein consumption by them was only next to that of the Khasis. The dependence of the Garos and the Khasis on the forest sub-system was higher than by the other two communities. Food energy import was higher for the Nepalis followed by the Mikirs. The total food energy consumption was maximum for the Garos and minimum for the Mikirs.

Apart from food items such as grain, vegetables and cooking oil, kerosene is used for lighting. The energy cost for clothing, medicine and other miscella- neous items, such as tobacco, salt and matchboxes are not included in this calculation because of the difficulty in calculation, though they were considered for monetary analysis (Table 11 ). Mikirs alone exported cash crop produce such as betel nut, arecanut, banana and pepper out of the home gardens maintained by them. With agriculture and animal husbandry products exported, the monetary efficiency was maximum for the Khasis and minimum for the Nepalis. However, the economic return through export of agricultural and animal husbandry products was maximum for the Garos and minimum for the Mikirs.

TA

BL

E 9

Ann

ual

ener

gy i

np

ut/

ou

tpu

t pa

tter

n (M

J ±

SE

) fo

r pe

r fo

wl,

duc

k, p

ig,

goat

and

cow

rai

sed

by d

iffe

rent

com

mun

itie

s in

Meg

hala

ya i

n no

rth-

ea

ster

n In

dia.

Val

ues

in p

aren

thes

es f

or m

onet

ary

inp

ut/

ou

tpu

t pa

tter

n (R

s ye

ar -

~ ) ±

SE

Pro

duct

ion

Gar

os ~

K

hasi

s 2

Mik

irs 3

N

epal

is4

Inp

ut

Fow

l 41

30 ±

364

(24

± 2

) 41

53 ±

335

(8

± 0.

4)

4129

_ 3

30 (

20 ±

1.6

) 41

38 ±

340

( 1

9 _+

1 )

Duc

k 41

49 ±

326

(40

_+ 2

) P

ig

2512

± 2

26 (

38 +

2 )

5037

± 4

60 (

92 ±

5 )

5070

± 4

67 (

164

_ 1

1 )

Goa

t -

4143

± 3

35 (

72 ±

5)

4151

± 3

40 (

37 _

+ 2)

4163

± 3

57 (

65 ±

2 )

Cow

24

060±

2022

(16

0_+

13)

2387

9+18

88 (

64

±4

) 22

772+

1781

(85

_+6)

23

133+

1856

(1

57

±1

2)

Out

put

Fow

l 9

1±

6 (

12

9±

10

) 74

_+5

(10

4±

8)

78_+

6 (1

25

±9

) 6

5±

5 (

98

±5

) D

uck

91 ±

7 (

96 _

+ 6)

- _

Pig

29

4 _+

26 (

240

_+ 1

8 )

690

± 60

(54

0 ±

33 )

282

± 31

(27

0 ±

16 )

- G

oat

- 25

2 _+

22 (

540

_+ 40

) 26

0 _+

24 (

560

_+ 47

) 21

1 _+

17

(410

± 2

8)

Cow

88

52-+

658

(121

0___

18)

9

13

4±

68

6 (

1500

± 1

05)

6791

-+41

2 (5

56

±3

0)

8073

-+52

2 (1

242_

+ 11

0)

Ou

tpu

t/in

pu

t ra

tio

Fow

l 0.

02 (

5.4)

0.

01 (

13.0

) 0.

02 (

6.2)

0.

01 (

5.1)

D

uck

0.02

(2.

5)

- _

Pig

0.

12 (

6.3)

0.

14 (

5.9)

0.

06 (

1.6)

G

oat

0.06

(7.

2)

0.06

(15

.1)

0.05

(6.

3)

Cow

0.

4 (6

.6)

0.4

(23.

4)

0.3

(6.5

) 0.

4 (7

.9)

Sla

ught

erin

g in

terv

al o

f pi

g: ~

6 m

onth

, 21

-yea

r, S

3-ye

ar.

Sla

ught

erin

g in

terv

al o

f go

at:

2'31

-yea

r, 4

2-ye

ar.

Sla

ught

erin

g in

terv

al o

f ca

ttle

: 13

-yea

r, 2

2-ye

ar.

Cow

mil

ked

afte

r ag

e of

: 33-

year

, 44-

year

. -

indi

cate

s no

dat

a.

>

> z >


TABLE 10

Mean food consumption pattern (capita -I year-i) by different communities of Meghalaya in north-eastern India. Values in parentheses represent protein consumption (kg)

Category Energy ( M J )

Garos Khasis Mikirs Nepalis

Agriculture sub-system 5822 (31.2) 5007 (29.1) 3888 (22.2) 4554 (26.8)

Animal husbandry sub-system 86 (2.1) 188 (5.0) 96 (3.1) 306 (4.8)

Forest sub-system 205 (1.3) 183 (1.7) 67 (0.5) 3 (0.1) Imported 44 (0.4) 32 (0.2) 81 {0.5) 102 (0.7) T o t a l _ S E 6157+__350 (35.0) 5404+_300 (36.0) 4132+_205 (26.3) 4965+290 (32.4)

TABLE 11

Monetary ( Rs × 103 -+ SE) output/input pattern and efficiency ratio of the village ecosystem ( family - 1 year - ~ ) of different communities of Meghalaya in north-eastern India. Value in parentheses for annual energy export (MJX 10 s )

Category Garos Khasis Mikirs Nepalis

Input Vegetable and legume 0.05 0.02 0.07 0.11 Mustard oil 0.12 0.06 0.24 0.20 Kerosene oil 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.06 Clothing 0.21 0.37 0.41 0.50 Medicine 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.10 Others 0.26 0.10 0.37 0.68

Total 4- SE 0.71 -+ 0.04 0.61 _+ 0.02 1.15 + 0.08 1.65 4- 0.10

Output Agriculture sub- system Home garden Animal husbandry sub-system

Total 4"_ SE

1.72 (19.9) 2.98 (18.5) 1.24 (8.7) 2.43 (15.1) _1 _ 3.78 (4.3)

2.97 (4.73) 2.49 (2.94) 4.69_+0.30 (24.63) 5.47_+0.40 (21.44)

1.27 (0.61) 2.42 (2.31) 6.29__.0.33 (13.61) 5.84___0.31 (17.41)

Output/input ratio 6.6 8.4 5.5 2.9

i_ indicates no data.

DISCUSSION

Agriculture sub-system

Amongst the communities considered here the Nepalis, being non-tribal, do not practise slash and burn agriculture (jhum). Though mixed cropping is an


essential feature of this land-use system (Nye and Greenland, 1960; Mutsaers et al., 1981; Ramakrishnan, 1984), the number of cultivars are minimal for the Mikirs who are tribes of the plains, and this is suggestive of their affinity to the plains people of the Assam valley who only mono-crop rice. On the other hand, the hill tribes, like the Khasis and the Garos, do sequential harvesting (Ramakrishnan, 1984), but not the Mikirs. Again, the Khasis and the Garos recycle their organic residue (Mishra and Ramakrishnan, 1982) into the jhum plots, unlike the Mikirs. Such differences in the jhum procedures based on socio-cultural affinities of the tribals are significant.

Generally the economic yield under jhum declined with the shortening of the jhum cycle; this is due to decreased soil fertility maintenance (Ramakrishnan and Toky, 1981; Mishra and Ramakrishnan, 1983) and to increased herbaceous weed potential (Saxena and Ramakrishnan, 1984) under shorter cycles. Labour is the chief energy input into jhum and this is minimal under a 5-year cycle because less effort is required for slashing the herbaceous vegetation. The net economic return from jhum systems was generally higher for the Garos, perhaps because of better organisation of the crop mixtures by these traditional jhum farmers (Ramakrishnan, 1984), with emphasis on grain and seed crops and tuber and rhizome crops. With high energy efficiencies for the jhum of the different tribes considered here, which agrees with similar results of others (Rappaport, 1971; Steinhart and Steinhart, 1974; Toky and Ramak- rishnan, 1982), these agroecosystems are less costly to maintain than the energy-intense agriculture systems of the developed countries (Spedding, 1979; Altieri et al., 1983 ), if forest resources are abundant and the length of the jhum cycle is longer than 10 years (Ramakrishnan, 1984).

Valley cultivation, which is a monoculture of rice, is tenable both ecologically and economically in north-eastern hill regions. It receives nutrient wash-out from the adjoining hill slopes which ensures sustained yield year after year. Unlike jhum valley cultivation it is relatively less energy efficient but has the advantage of yearly cropping, unlike the former, where a correction factor of 1/5, 1/10 or 1/20 is required to calculate the trade-off between cropping and land use, depending upon the cycle length. At the lower elevations of Megha- laya, the Nepalis and the Mikirs take only one crop during the monsoon, whereas the Garos make more effective use of the land by taking two crops, one during the monsoon and another during winter. However, the Garos are less efficient than the Nepalis, who take only one crop in a year, perhaps because of their preoccupation with a well-organised cattle husbandry system for milking. The Nepalis, who traditionally do sedentary agriculture, obtain greater returns from valley cultivation compared with the tribals and the returns are equal to those from jhum under the 20-year cycle of the Garos. The home garden with effective organisation of the crop mixture and use of space by strati- fication in the plant community is a highly organized production system


(Mitchell, 1979) of the Mikirs and, therefore, it is reasonable to find 3-5-fold economic returns from it rather than under jhum.


While swine husbandry and poultry are two traditional animal husbandry systems of the tribals (Mishra and Ramakrishnan, 1982 ), goat and cattle rearing are introduced into the region by the immigrant Nepalis and practice by traditional communities is therefore restricted. Further, while the objective of cattle rearing by the Nepalis and the plains tribal Mikirs is for milk production, the hill tribes such as the Garos and the Khasis, maintain them exclusively for meat.

The animal husbandry of the humid tropics is a low cost sub-system (Payne and Hancock, 1957; Payne, 1985) and this contrasts sharply with that of the temperate region. Greater availability of natural resources in the humid tropics (Gome-Pompa et al., 1972; Raven, 1981), with lesser population pressure as in the north-eastern hill region of India (Ramakrishnan, 1985), are the reasons for this. However, the reduced cost for animal husbandry is reflected in the generally lower output from it.

Of all the animal husbandry practices, swine husbandry is one of the cheap- est to maintain (Ramakrishnan, 1985). Swine husbandry is ideal for efficient recycling of resources between it and the agricultural system. The waste bio- mass from agriculture, including food items unfit for human consumption, are recycled through swine husbandry. Therefore, it is reasonable to find that this detritus-based system is closely interlinked with slash and burn agriculture throughout the world (Rappaport, 1968; Pimentel and Pimentel, 1979; Mishra and Ramakrishnan, 1982). Marked differences exist in the input/output patterns for different animals partly because of differing frequencies for animal slaughter by different tribes. Thus with slaughter at 6-monthly intervals, the annual return was lower for the Garos than for the Khasis who slaughter at yearly intervals. Further, Khasis do not feed their fowl any grain and they graze cattle as a community effort between a few families so that the input cost is much reduced with a consequently higher economic efficiency.

The energy flow diagram (Fig. 1) showing interlinkages between animal husbandry, agriculture and domestic sectors suggest differences between the different tribes. Whilst per capita food consumption was highest for the Ne- palis, the Khasis were better offthan the other three tribal communities. How- ever, the Garos exported the most food outside the village boundary, through the local market. With a high per capita output of organic manure from the animal husbandry of the Garos, the input into agriculture was higher than that by others. Nepalis wasted a high proportion of the organic manure as the animals are grazed in the forest, making it difficult to collect the dung.

34

(Q) Fg175.5 lDg 17.2

~Dg 5.2 j

R.K. MAIKHURI AND P.S. RAMAKRISHNAN

L Fr ] (b) Fg 13~.9 log 6.9

. ,Dg 2.1 ,

p 6J) :, Animal husbondry

(c}

i :o, Ag p 7.5

I

I Fr J Fg I ,6.1 log2.o

I 0.85 I I Animal husbandry J ] = " ' J

( Fr ] {d) Fg Sg.S I TVg 26.S

V~ °g 28 I' '0~~ IAg ~A10.2 |Animal husbandry

L._._I B p 11+.3 - t J

Fig. 1. Energy flow through animal husbandry (family-1 year-1) amongst the different communities in Meghalaya in north-eastern India. Unit=MJ× 10 3. (a) Garos, (b) Khasis, (c) Mikirs, (d) Nepalis. Fr, Forest; Ag, agriculture; Din, domestic; Dg, dung; A1, animal labour; Bp, crop by- products; Fg, fodder and grazing.

Domestic sub-system

The hill tribes of the Garos and the Khasis had greater dependence upon wild sources than the plains tribe Mikirs or the non-tribal Nepalis. The tribals had a highly diversified food base with items such as rats, snails, ants and termites. This is one of the reasons not only for the absence of malnutrition but for a protein-rich diet among the traditional societies in spite of their sub- sistence farming. This is also perhaps true of other traditional societies else-


where in the humid tropics (National Research Council, 1982). Though the communities are self-sufficient in animal protein, at the present level of population in this region, further planning should aim at redeveloping their animal husbandry to meet increasing demands.

It is interesting to note that the non-tribal Nepalis and the Mikirs, who are closer to the plains people of Assam, consume milk, and that this contrasts with the two hill tribes. This suggests that introducing milk-yielding cattle into traditional societies where consumption of this item is not part of the culture should be approached with caution. This is particularly significant in view of the past attempts by Governmental agencies to introduce cattle which were often rejected by the tribal societies.

The diagrammatic presentation of energy flows through the different village ecosystems, presented in Fig. 2 for the Garos communities, shows the linkages between agriculture, animal husbandry, forest and domestic sectors. Out of the total organic manure available only a very small fraction is recycled into agriculture by these communities. Improved recycling of dung is an approach for increasing productivity of the agriculture sub-system. This could be either in the form of direct use of this commodity or through biogas generation. With abundant natural resources and relatively low population pressure these vil-

Village e ~ boundry

Food productmn boundry

1207.0

__-----" L Dungweste

I 6B.3 )I JHUM 10 yr cycle

32.2 26.0 362.0 )] VALLEY

62.2

ANIMALS

1510-0 Crop.

26"0 Labour

J l Egg for hatchint Veqetab e waste & crop by F

I.a bour 20/,.7 DOMESTIC

25.9 Kerosene oil 23.6 Food

t+2.0 Fooder & -- FOREST graz)ng

)duct

r°du-~ 1 Expor[

Meot #~ egg 331.0

I Ex port crop 1312.8

163~.5

Crop by product recycled back

Fig. 2. Energy-flow diagram for the Garo village ecosystem at Nongladhoh in Meghalaya in north- eastern India. Unit= MJ X 10 3.


lage communities are self-sufficient. Some like the Mikirs have cash income through their home gardens. Strengthening the home garden concept could be an alternative to slash and burn agriculture and a way to improve the village economy.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was supported by a research grant from the Department of Sci- ence and Technology, Government of India, and was done at the Centre for Eco-Development of the North-Eastern Hill University, Shillong, India. We thank the anonymous referees for their comments, on the basis of which the paper was revised and condensed.

REFERENCES

Allen, S.E., Grimshan, H.m., Parkinson, J.A. and Quarmby, C., 1974. Chemical Analysis of Eco- logical Materials. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, 561 pp.

Altieri, M.A., Letourneau, D.K. and Davis, J.R., 1983. Developing sustainable agro-ecosystems. BioScience, 33: 45-49.

Gomez-Pompa, A., Vazguez-Yanes, C. and Guevara, S., 1972. The tropical rain forest: a non- renewable resource. Science, 172: 762-765.

Gopalan, C.B., Ramasastri, V. and Balasubramanian, S.C., 1978. Nutritive Value of Indian Foods. National Institute of Nutrition, Hyderabad, 204 pp.

Kershaw, K.A., 1973. Quantitative and Dynamic Plant Ecology. Edward Arnold, London, 308 pp. Leach, G., 1976. Energy and Food Production. IPC Science and Technology Press, Guildford, 137

pp. Mishra, B.K. and Ramakrishnan, P.S., 1982. Energy flow through a village ecosystem with slash

and burn agriculture in North-Eastern India. Agric. Systems, 9: 57-72. Mishra, B.K. and Ramakrishnan, P.S., 1983. Slash and burn agriculture at higher elevations in

North-Eastern India. II. Soil fertility changes. Agric. Ecosystems Environ., 9: 83-96. Misra, R., 1968. Ecology Workbook. Oxford and IBH Publishing Co,. New Delhi, 244 pp. Mitchell, R., 1979. An Analysis of Indian Agro Ecosystems. Interprint, New Delhi, 180 pp. Mutsaers, H.J.W., Mbouemboue, P. and Boyomo, M., 1981. Traditional food crop growing in the

Yaourde area (Cameroon). Part II. Crop associations, yields and fertility aspects. Agro-Eco- systems, 6: 289-303.

National Research Council, 1982. Ecological Aspects of Development in the Humid Tropics. Na- tional Academy Press, Washington, DC, 297 pp.

Norman, M.J.T., 1979. Annual Cropping Systems in the Tropics. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, FL, 246 pp.

Nye, P.H. and Greeland, D.J., 1960. The Soil under Shifting Cultivation, Tech. Commun. 51, Comm. Bur. Soils, Harpenden, 152 pp.

Payne, W.J.A., 1985. A review of the possibilities for integrating cattle and tree crop production systems in the tropics. For. Ecol. Manage., 12: 1-36.

Payne, W.J.A. and Hancock, J., 1957. The direct effect of tropical climate on the performance of European-type cattle. Part II. Production, Emp. J. Exp. Agric., 25: 321-338.

Pimentel, D. and Pimentel, M., 1979. Food, Energy and Society. Edward Arnold, London, 165 pp.


Ramakrishnan, P.S., 1984. The science behind rotational bush fallow agriculture systems (jhum). Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. (Plant Sci.), 93: 379-400.

Ramakrishnan, P.S., 1985. Tribal man in the humid tropics of the North-East. Man in India, 65: 1-32.

Ramakrishnan, P.S. and Toky, O.P., 1981. Soil nutrient status of hill agro-ecosystems and recov- ery pattern after slash and burn agriculture (jhum) in North-Eastern India. Plant Soil, 60: 41- 64.

Ranjhan, S.K., 1977. Animal Nutrition and Feeding Practices in India. Vikas Publishing House, New Delhi, 339 pp.

Rappaport, R.A., 1968. Pigs for the Ancestors: Rituals in the Ecology of a New Guinea People. Yele University Press, 311 pp.

Rappaport, R.A., 1971. The flow of energy in an agricultural society. Sci. Am., 225: 117-132. Raven, P.H., 1981. Tropical rain forests: a global responsibility. Nat. Hist., 90: 28-32. Revelle, R., 1976. Energy use in rural India. Science, 192: 969-975. Saxena, K.G. and Ramakrishnan, P.S., 1984. Herbaceous vegetation development and weed po-

tential in slash and burn agriculture (jhum) in N.E. India. Weed Res., 24: 135-142. Singh, J.S., Pandey, A.N. and Pathak, P.C., 1983. A hypothesis to account for the major pathway

of soil loss from Himalaya. Environ. Conserv., 10: 343-350. Spedding, C.R.W., 1979. An Introduction to Agricultural Systems. Applied Science Publishers,

London, 169 pp. Steinhart, J.S. and Steinhart, C.E., 1974. Energy use in the US food system. Science, 184: 307-

316. Sundarraj, T.S.P. and Mitchell, R., 1987. Analysis of ecosystem structure and energy flow in a

South Indian village. In: F.J. Hitzhusen and R.D. Macgregor (Editors), A Multi-disciplinary Approach to Renewable Energy in Developing Countries. Publishing Horizons, Columbus, OH, pp. 141-167.

Toky, 0.P. and Ramakrishnan, P.S., 1981. Cropping and yields in agricultural systems of the North-Eastern hill regions of India. Agro-Ecosystems, 7: 11-25.

Toky, O.P. and Ramakrishnan, P.S., 1982. A comparative study of the energy budget of hill agro- ecosystems with emphasis on the slash and burn system (jhum) at lower elevations of north- eastern India. Agric. Systems, 9: 143-154.

Zucchetto, J. and Jansson, A., 1979. Total energy analysis of Gotlands agriculture: a northern temperate zone case study. Agro-Ecosystems, 5: 329-344.

ecological analysis of a cluster of villages emphasising ... · ecological analysis of a cluster of...

Documents