FINAL REPORT

6. Further limitations to cultivation agriculture were reported to be declining soil fertility
and insufficient access to fertilizer, machinery, seeds and long term and low interest
loans.
14. Evaluation of Field Research in the Irrigated Agriculture of Myangad
sum (J. Janzen, A. Ankhtuya, and J. Hartwig)
14.1 Introduction
Myangad sum is located north of theaimag center and it borders with Erdeneburen sum to the
west, Buyant and Khovd sum to the south, Durgun sum to the east and Uvs aimag to the
north. Its territory is composed of high mountains, mountain-steppe and desert steppe
covering 325,800 ha. The highest peak is Altan Khukhii Uul, which is 3,350 m above sea
level.
The sum’s name “Myangad” means “Group of Thousand”: The ancestors of the Myangads
submitted their request to the Bogd Khan to become as a separate khushuu (administrative
unit) and presented him a fine carpet. The Bogd Khan accepted the carpet and agreed to their
request –but only if the number of their men reached one thousand. Unfortunately it did not,
so they dressed up young ladies as men and hang a knife from their belts -as men do. Thus
they made up a thousand men and got their permission to form an own khushuu. Untilrecent
years, unmarried young ladies kept the tradition to hang a knife on their belts. According to
historical data, the Myangads settled at their present territory in 1766 (Myangad sum
introduction, 2005).
In 1931 the sum was established by a government resolution and became part of Khovd
aimag. The sum is divided into five bags: Bayanbulag is the sum center and Chatsargant,
Gakhait, Tsagaanbulan, Bayankhoshuu are rural herders’ bags.
Demography, Ethnic Composition and Poverty
In 2005, 3,623 inhabitants (805 households) lived in Myangad sum. 158 households (20% of
total) resided at the sum center and 647 (80% of total) in the rural bags. As can be seen from
Fig. 59 the sum population increased until 1996 and has since been declining due to a net
outmigration. This was caused in parts by drought and zud, during which herders lost many
livestock. In 2005, 290 households (36% of total) were classified as poor and out of these 147
(18% of total) as very poor households (KASY 2005). 70% of the population belongs to the
112