Chapter - IVshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/2209/15/15_chapter 5.pdf · 5.1.6 Impact of...

5. RESULTS

5.1 BANANA

5.1.1 Impact of Irrigation methods on Yield

Perusal of the data in Table 5.1 revealed that surface drip

irrigation significantly improved the fruit yield of banana over furrow

method of irrigation. The increase in yield by surface drip over furrow

irrigation amounted to 38.6%.

Table 5.1 : Banana yield – surface drip Vs furrow irrigation

IrrigationMethod

Yield ( t/ha) SD SE Z VALUE

Furrow Method 42.97 9.86 0.90

Surface Drip Method 59.56 14.34 1.30

10.44**

SD- Standard Deviation, SE – Standard Error

5.1.2 Impact of Irrigation methods on Water Use

Surface drip irrigation markedly reduced the amount of water

applied to banana during the crop season. Seasonal applied water to

banana was less by 50.50% under surface drip in comparison to

furrow method of irrigation (Fig.5.1.). This indicates that with the

same amount of water used for irrigating one ha of banana under

conventional furrow method of irrigation (2196mm), about 2.02 ha of

banana can be irrigated using surface drip irrigation. In other words,

an additional area of 1.02ha of banana can be brought under surface

drip method of irrigation from the saving of water (1109mm) realized

through adoption of drip.

82

Fig. 5.1 : Applied water under surface drip and furrow irrigation methods in banana

5.1.3 Impact of Irrigation methods on Water Productivity

Adoption of surface drip irrigation appreciably improved the

water productivity (Kg fruit yield / m3 of water) in banana as

compared to furrow method of irrigation (Fig.5.2.). The increase in

water productivity was 180% by surface drip over furrow irrigation.

Fig.5.2 : Water productivity under surface drip and furrow irrigation methods in banana

83

5.1.4 Impact of Irrigation methods on Power Consumption

Drip irrigated banana consumed less power (1501

kWh/ha/year) as compared to the crop irrigated by furrow method of

irrigation (3033 kWh/ha/year). The net saving in power worked out to

1532 kWh/ha/year.(Fig.5.3.)

Fig.5.3 : Power consumption under surface drip and furrow irrigation methods in banana

5.1.5 Impact of Irrigation methods on Nutrient dose and

Fertilizer Use Efficiency

The nutrient dose varied with method of irrigation. The fertilizer

dose applied to banana was 1008 Kg N, 426 Kg P2O5 and 324 Kg of

K2O/ha and 450Kg N,300 Kg P2O5 and 915 Kg of K2O under furrow

method of irrigation and surface drip fertigation, respectively.

Although the farmers growing banana with surface drip irrigation

applied lower doses N and P2O5 in comparison to furrow method of

84

irrigation, a noticeable exception was that of higher dose of K2O under

surface drip in comparison to soil application under furrow method of

irrigation. The total cost worked out to Rs. 23,401 and Rs.29,727

under furrow and surface drip fertigation respectively.

Further the data in Fig.5.4. revealed that fertilizer use efficiency

(Kg yield / kg of fertilizer used) was significantly higher under surface

drip irrigation as compared to furrow method of irrigation. The

improvement in fertilizer use efficiency by surface drip fertigation over

furrow irrigation was 48.34%.

Fig.5.4 : Fertilizer use efficiency under surface drip fertigation and furrow irrigation methods in banana

5.1.6 Impact of Irrigation methods on Economic analysis of

Banana: Furrow Vs Drip Irrigation

Data presented in the Table 5.2 indicated that total investments

on irrigation infrastructure spread over 10-year life period were higher

with farmers adopting drip irrigation as compared to farmers adopting

85

furrow irrigation. However, the production expenses were less in case

of drip-irrigated banana by 7.15 % in comparison to banana crop

irrigated by furrow method. Further the farm income registered by

banana farmers adopting drip irrigation was markedly higher (2.36

lakh/ha) than furrow method of irrigation (1.47 lakh /ha).

Table 5.2 : Detailed cash flow for furrow and surface drip irrigated Banana

S.No. Particulars Basin Surface Drip

I Investments Pumping unit (Rs./ha) 5286 5286Surface Drip Equipment (Rs./ha) -- 11555

Total investments 5286 16841II Production Expenses

Land Preparation (Rs./ha) 2500 2500Pitting (Rs./ha) 6500 6500Planting material (Rs./ha) 30000 30000Planting (Rs./ha) 3000 3000Irrigation scheduling (Rs./ha) 10000 4650Manures & Fertilizers (Rs./ha) 40750 38000Weed control (Rs./ha) 3750 1500Plant protection (Rs./ha) 6000 4000Harvesting (Rs./ha) 4000 6000Transportation (Rs./ha) 5000 8000Total Expenses 111500 104150

III Farm IncomeYield (t/ha) 42 59Price Rs./ton 3500 4000Farm income (Rs/ha) 147000 236000

The economic indices (Table 5.3) suggested that the NPV

registered under both the methods of irrigation was positive. However,

farmers adopting drip irrigation obtained higher NPV of Rs. 77,087/ha

86

88

Plate 1

over farmers adopting furrow method of irrigation owing to enhanced

fruit yields. The trends of net cash flow and accumulated discount

cash flow for both the methods of irrigation are presented in Fig.5.5.

The BEP for price shows that the profitability under drip

irrigated banana was achieved at a lower price of Rs.2050.69/ton as

compared to Rs.2780.62/ton under furrow method of irrigation.

Similarly BEP for yield indicated the profitability was achieved at only

51.27% of fruit yield under drip irrigated banana as compared to a

yield level of 79.45% in case of furrow method of irrigation. Further it

was noticed that the investments & expenses incurred by farmers

under both the methods of irrigation were fully recovered in one-year

period.

Table 5.3 : Economic indices for banana - furrow Vs surface drip irrigation methods

S.No Particulars Furrow method Surface Drip

1 Duration (years) 1 1

2 Net Present Value (Rs/ha) 27,467 1,04,554

3 Internal Rate of Return (%)

4 Break even point - price (Rs/ton) 2780.6 2050.69

5 Break even point - Yield (%) -21 -49

6 Discounted payback period (years) 1 1

5.2 POMEGRANATE


Perusal of the data in Table 5.4 revealed that adoption of

surface drip irrigation has significantly improved the fruit yield of

89

pomegranate over ring basin irrigation. The increase in yield by

surface drip over ring basin irrigation amounted to 20.80%.

Table 5.4 : Pomegranate yield – surface drip Vs basin irrigation

Irrigation Method Yield ( t/ha) SD SE Z VALUE

Ring basin Method 23.92 5.73 0.52


6.05**

5.2.2 Impact of Irrigation methods on water Use

Surface drip irrigation resulted in significant reduction in

seasonal irrigation water depth to pomegranate during the crop

season. Pomegranate raised under surface drip irrigation consumed

51.40% less seasonal applied water in comparison to ring basin

irrigation (Fig.5.6.). This indicates that with the same amount of water

used for irrigating one ha of pomegranate under conventional furrow

method of irrigation (1363mm), about 2.05 ha of pomegranate can be

irrigated using surface drip irrigation. In other words, an additional

area of 1.05 ha of pomegranate can be brought under surface drip

method of irrigation from the saving of water (700mm) realized


90

Fig.5.6 : Applied water under surface drip and ring basin irrigation methods in pomegranate


Adoption of surface drip irrigation in pomegranate markedly

improved the water productivity (Kg fruit yield / m3 of water) as

compared to ring basin irrigation (Fig.5.7). The increase in water

productivity was 148% by surface drip over ring basin irrigation.

Fig.5.7 : - Water productivity under surface drip and ring basin irrigation methods in Pomegranate

91


Pomegranate irrigated with surface drip consumed less power

(763 kWh/ha/year) as compared to the crop irrigated by ring basin

method of irrigation (1569 kWh/ha/year). The net saving in power

worked out to 806 kWh/ha/year. (Fig. 5.8).

Fig.5.8 : - Power consumption under surface drip and ring basin methods in Pomegranate.



Irrigation method influenced the nutrient dose. The nutrient

dose applied to six year old mature pomegranate was 92 Kg N,72 Kg

92

P2O5 and 61 Kg of K2O/ha under ring basin method of irrigation and

61 Kg N,15 Kg P2O5 and 137 Kg of K2O/ha under surface drip

fertigation. This indicated that farmers adopting ring basin method of

irrigation applied higher doses of N and P2O5 in comparison to surface

drip fertigation method. However K2O dose was doubled under surface

drip fertigation in comparison to soil application under ring basin

irrigation method. The total cost worked out to Rs 3,118/- and

Rs.2,634/- under ring basin and surface drip fertigation, respectively.

Fertilizer use efficiency (Kg yield / kg of fertilizer used) was

markedly higher under surface drip fertigation as compared to ring

basin method of irrigation (Fig. 5.9). On the physical terms the

improvement in fertilizer use efficiency by surface drip fertigation was

27.67% over soil application by ring basin method of irrigation

Fig.5.9 : – Fertilizer use efficiency under surface drip fertigation and ring basin irrigation methods in Pomegranate

5.2.6 Impact of Irrigation methods on Economic Analysis of Pomegranate: Basin Vs Surface Drip Irrigation

93

Data on detailed cash flow for both surface drip and basin

irrigated pomegranate is presented in the Table 5.5. Total investments

on irrigation infrastructure spread over 10-year life span were higher

with farmers adopting drip irrigation as compared to farmers adopting

basin method of irrigation in pomegranate. However, production

94

expenses incurred by farmers raising pomegranates using surface drip

system were less (8.23%) in comparison to basin-irrigated

pomegranate. Likewise the surface drip irrigated pomegranate gave

higher farm income (3.76 lakh/ha) than basin-irrigated pomegranate

(2.87 lakh /ha).

The economic indices in the table 5.6 revealed that the NPV was

positive and IRR was higher than customer cost of capital (investment)

under both the methods of irrigation. However, the NPV (NPV-

Rs.328053/ha) and IRR (IRR-105.47%) registered by farmers raising

pomegranate adopting surface drip method of irrigation was

significantly higher than the crop raised by farmers adopting basin

method of irrigation (NPV = Rs.167019/ha & IRR = 63.16%) owing to

increased fruit yields. The trends concerning net cash flow,

accumulated discount cash flow, and the relationship between NPV

and IRR for both the methods of irrigation are presented in Fig.5.10 &

5.10 a.

The break even point for price suggested that the profitability

could be achieved at a lower price of Rs.5914.08/ton when the crop is

raised with surface drip method of irrigation in comparison to

Rs.7435.02/ton registered under basin method of irrigation. Likewise

the profitability was achieved above 45.49% of fruit yield registered

each year under surface drip in comparison to 61.96% of fruit yield in

case of basin method of irrigation. Further the investments &

expenses made by farmers adopting surface drip irrigation in

96

100

Plate 3

pomegranate cultivation were fully recovered one year earlier (3 years)

than farmers adopting basin method of irrigation (4 years).

Table 5.6 : Economic indices for pomegranate - basin Vs surface drip irrigation methods

S.No Particulars Basin method Surface Drip1 Duration (years) 5 5

2 Net Present Value (Rs/ha) 167019 328053

3 Internal Rate of Return (%) 63.16 105.47




101

5.3 MANGO


The data in Table 5.7 revealed that the adoption of surface drip

irrigation significantly improved the fruit yield of mango over ring

basin method of irrigation. The increase in yield by surface drip over

ring basin method of irrigation amounted to 59.70%.

Table 5.7 : Mango yield – surface drip Vs ring basin irrigation

Irrigation Method




13.51**


Irrigation method showed marked impact on seasonal applied

water to mango (Fig. 5.11). Surface drip irrigation reduced seasonal

applied water by 53.30% over ring basin method of irrigation. This

indicates that with the same amount of water used for irrigating one

ha of mango under conventional furrow method of irrigation (1114

mm), about 2.14 ha of mango can be irrigated using surface drip

irrigation. In other words, an additional area of 1.14 ha of mango can

be brought under surface drip method of irrigation from the saving of

water (594mm) realized through adoption of drip.

102

Fig. 5.11 : Applied water under surface drip and ring basin irrigation methods in Mango


Surface drip irrigated mango crop significantly improved the

water productivity (Kg fruit yield / m3 of water) in comparison to ring

basin irrigation (Fig. 5.12). The increase in water productivity

registered was 242.33% by surface drip over ring basin irrigation.

Fig.5.12 Water productivity under surface drip and ring basin irrigation methods in mango

103

5.3.4 Impact of Irrigation methods on Power Consumption:

Mango under surface drip irrigation has consumed less power

(599 kWh/ha/year) as compared to the crop irrigated by ring basin

method of irrigation (1283 kWh/ha/year). The net saving in power

worked out to 684 kWh/ha/year. (Fig. 5.13)

Fig.5.13 : Power consumption under surface drip and ring basin irrigation methods in Mango

5.3.5 Impact of Irrigation methods on Nutrient dose and Fertilizer Use Efficiency

Irrigation method influenced the nutrient dose of mango. For a

six year old mature mango crop the nutrient dose applied by farmers

was 368 Kg N, 216 Kg P2O5 and 244 Kg of K2O/ha under ring basin

method of irrigation and 306 Kg N, 176 Kg P2O5 and 198 Kg of K2O/ha

under surface drip fertigation. Thus it can be noticed that the surface

drip method mango received lower doses of NPK in comparison to ring

basin method of irrigation. The total cost of fertilizer worked out to

104

Rs.10,870/- and Rs.8,920/- under ring basin and drip fertigation,

respectively.

The data in Fig.5.14 revealed that fertilizer use efficiency (Kg

yield / kg of fertilizer used) was significantly higher under surface drip

irrigation as compared to ring basin irrigation. The improvement in

fertilizer use efficiency was 94.6% by surface drip over ring basin

irrigation method.

Fig.5.14 : Fertilizer use efficiency under surface drip fertigation and ring basin irrigation methods in Mango

105

5.3.6 Impact of Irrigation methods on Economic Analysis of Mango: Basin Vs Surface drip Irrigation

The data pertaining to detailed cash flow is presented in Table

5.8. Expectedly the investments by farmers adopting surface drip

method of irrigation in mango were relatively higher than farmers

raising the crop by basin method of irrigation owing to drip system

cost. Whereas, the production expenses varied from Rs. 11,100/ha to

Rs. 39,535/ha and from Rs. 11,929/ha to Rs. 39,265/ha under

surface drip irrigated and basin irrigated mango, respectively over the

years. Further it was noticed that adoption of drip irrigation by

farmers resulted in advancement of fruiting by one year over basin-

irrigated crop. The farm income of mango was higher and varied from

Rs.21, 000/ha in 4th year to a maximum of Rs. 2,49,900/ha in 10th

year under surface drip irrigated farmers fields in comparison to

Rs.30, 000/-/ha in 5th year to a maximum of Rs. 1,49,000/ha in 10th

year under basin irrigated crop.

The evaluation of economic indices (Table 5.9) indicated that the

NPV was positive and IRR was higher than customer cost of capital

(investment) under both the methods of irrigation. However, the NPV

and IRR was markedly higher under surface drip method of irrigation

(NPV-Rs.227445/ha, & IRR-42.41%), in comparison to basin irrigation

(NPV-Rs.65378/ha, & IRR-23.36%) in view of higher yield realization

under drip irrigated mango crop. The trends concerning net cash flow,

accumulated discount cash flow, and the relationship between NPV as

106

a function of IRR for both the methods of irrigation for the period

concerned are presented in Fig.5.15 & 5.15a.

The break-even point for price indicated that the profitability

was achieved above Rs.7247.3/ton and Rs.4672.9/ton under basin

and surface drip method of irrigation respectively. Similarly the

profitability was achieved above 44.5% of yield crop data plugged each

year under surface drip in comparison to 72.47% of yield crop data

plugged each year in case of basin method of irrigation. The

investments under surface drip irrigated mango were fully recovered

two years earlier (7 years) than basin method of irrigation (9 years).

Table 5.9 : Economic indices for mango - basin Vs surface drip

irrigation methods

S.No Particulars Basin method Surface Drip







5.4 SWEET ORANGE


The data in Table 5.10 revealed that adoption of surface drip

irrigation by farmers significantly improved the fruit yield of sweet

111

orange over ring basin method of irrigation. The increase in fruit yield

by surface drip over ring basin irrigation amounted to 39.87%.

Table 5.10 : Sweet orange yield – surface drip Vs basin irrigation

IrrigationMethod




10.41**


Surface drip irrigation markedly reduced the amount of water

applied to sweet orange during the crop season. Adoption of drip by

farmers reduced seasonal applied water by 53.30 % under surface

drip in comparison to ring basin irrigation method (Fig. 5.16). This

indicates that with the same amount of water used for irrigating one

ha of sweet orange under conventional furrow method of irrigation

(1136 mm), about 1.83 ha of sweet orange can be irrigated using

surface drip irrigation. In other words, an additional area of 1.14 ha of

sweet orange can be brought under surface drip method of irrigation

from the saving of water (606 mm) realized through adoption of drip.

112

Fig.5.16 : Applied water under surface drip and basin irrigation methods in sweet orange


Adoption of surface drip irrigation by farmers appreciably

improved the water productivity (Kg fruit yield / m3 of water) in sweet

orange as compared to ring basin irrigation method (Fig. 5.17). The

increase in water productivity was to the tune of 204.59% by surface

drip over ring basin method of irrigation.

Fig.5.17 : - Water productivity under surface drip and ring basin irrigation methods in Sweet orange.

113


Drip irrigated sweet orange consumed less power (610 kWh/ha/

year) as compared to the crop irrigated by ring basin method of

irrigation (1307 kWh/ha/year). The net saving in power by adoption of

surface drip worked out to 697 kWh/ha/year over ring basin method

of irrigation.(Fig. 5.18)

Fig.5.18: - Power consumption under surface drip and ring basin irrigation method in Sweet orange



Irrigation methods showed marked effect on nutrient applied

and fertilizer use efficiency (Kg yield / Kg of fertilizer). The average

nutrients dose adopted by farmers to a six year old sweet orange crop

was 375 Kg N, 88 Kg P2O5 and 100 Kg of K2O/ha under ring basin

method of irrigation and 249 Kg N, 76 Kg P2O5 and 228 Kg of K2O/ha

under drip fertigation. Thus it can be noticed that farmers growing

sweet orange with surface drip irrigation applied lower doses of

114

N+P2O5 in comparison to ring basin method of irrigation; where as K2O

dose was higher than ring basin method of irrigation. The total cost of

fertilizer worked out to Rs. 6,966/- and Rs.6,279/- under ring basin

and surface drip fertigation respectively. Further the data in Fig. 5.19

revealed that fertilizer use efficiency (Kg yield / kg of fertilizer used)

was significantly higher with surface drip irrigated sweet orange in

comparison to ring basin method of irrigation. The improvement in

fertilizer use efficiency by surface drip was 42.40% over ring basin

method of irrigation.

Fig.5.19– Fertilizer use efficiency under surface drip fertigation and ring basin irrigation methods in Sweet orange

5.4.6 Impact of Irrigation methods on Economic Analysis of Sweet Orange: Basin Vs Surface Drip Irrigation

The data pertaining to detailed cash flow is presented in the

Table 5.11. Total investments on irrigation infrastructure spread over

8 year life span were higher with farmers adopting drip irrigation as

compared to farmers adopting basin method of irrigation in sweet

115

orange owing to drip system cost. Further it is revealed that the

production costs for sweet orange under basin irrigation was higher

by 22.3% when compared to drip irrigated crop over the years. The

production costs varied from Rs.12,288/ha to Rs.35,877/ha under

ring basin method and comparatively less and varied from

Rs.8,010/ha to Rs.30,725/ha under surface drip. It is noticed that

the adoption of drip irrigation by the farmers resulted in early fruiting

by one year over basin method of irrigation. The farm income of sweet

orange was higher in surface drip and varied from Rs.60000/-/ha in

4th year to a maximum of Rs.1.76 lakh/ha by 8th year and

Rs.73800/-/ha in 4th year to a maximum of Rs.2.74 lakh/ha by 8th

year under basin and surface drip irrigation respectively.

The evaluation of economic indices (Table 5.12) indicated that

the NPV was positive and IRR was higher than customer cost of

capital (investment) under both the methods of irrigation. Whereas,

the NPV and IRR was significantly higher under surface drip method

of irrigation (NPV-Rs.337879/ha, & IRR-75.37%), in comparison to

basin irrigation (NPV-Rs.155696/ha, & IRR-49.57%) because of

increased yields under drip irrigated sweet orange crop. The pattern of

net cash flow, accumulated discount cash flow and the relationship

between NPV as a function of IRR for both the methods of irrigation

for the period of study are presented in Fig.5.20 & 5.20a.

The break even point for price shows that the profitability was

achieved above Rs.3698.93/ton under basin irrigation method and

Rs.2505.26/ton under surface drip method of irrigation. Similarly the

116

120

Plate 2

profitability was achieved above 30.55% of yield crop data plugged

each year under surface drip in comparison to 49.32% of yield crop

data plugged each year in case of basin method of irrigation. The

investments were fully recovered earlier by one year (5 years) under

surface drip irrigated sweet orange than in basin method of irrigation

(6 years).

Table 5.12 : Economic indices for sweet orange - basin Vs surface

drip irrigation methods

S.No Particulars Basin method Surface drip







5.5 PAPAYA


Perusal of the data in Table 5.13 indicated that surface drip

irrigation of papaya significantly improved the fruit yield over furrow

method of irrigation. The increase in a fruit yield by surface drip over

furrow irrigation amounted to 40.20%.

121

Table 5.13 : Papaya yield – surface drip Vs furrow irrigation

IrrigationMethod


Furrow Method 127.31 30.82 2.81


10.29**


Adoption of surface drip irrigation to papaya resulted in

significant reduction in the amount of water applied to papaya during

the crop season as compared to furrow method of irrigation. Seasonal

applied water was less by 51.70 % under surface drip in comparison

to furrow method of irrigation (Fig. 5.21). This indicates that with the

same amount of water used for irrigating one ha of papaya under

conventional furrow method of irrigation (2196mm), about 2.07 ha of

papaya can be irrigated using surface drip irrigation. In other words,

an additional area of 1.07 ha of papaya can be brought under surface

drip method of irrigation from the saving of water (1136 mm) realized


Fig. 5.21 : Applied water under surface drip and furrow irrigation methods in papaya

122


Adoption of surface drip irrigation markedly improved the water

productivity (Kg fruit yield / m3 of water) in Papaya as compared to

furrow method of irrigation (Fig. 5.22). The increase in water

productivity was 190.32% by surface drip over furrow method

irrigation.

Fig.5.22 : - Water productivity under surface drip and furrow irrigation methods in Papaya


Papaya irrigated with furrow method of irrigation consumed

more power (2528 kWh/ha/year) as compared to the crop irrigated by

surface drip method of irrigation (1220 kWh/ha/year). The net saving

in power worked out to 1307 kWh/ha/year (Fig. 5.23).

123

Fig. 5.23 : - Power consumption under surface drip and furrow irrigation methods in Papaya


The nutrient applied to papaya crop was 450 Kg N, 450 Kg P2O5

and 450 Kg of K2O/ha under furrow method of irrigation and 450 Kg

N, 420 Kg P2O5 and 415 Kg of K2O/ha under surface drip fertigation. It

can be observed that farmers growing papaya with surface drip

irrigation applied lower doses of P2O5 & K2O in comparison to furrow

method of irrigation. The total cost of fertilizer was worked out to

Rs.18,611/- and Rs.17,670/- under furrow and drip fertigation

respectively.

Further the data in Fig. 5.24 revealed that fertilizer use

efficiency (Kg yield / kg of fertilizer used) was significantly higher

under surface drip irrigation as compared to furrow method of

irrigation. The improvement in fertilizer use efficiency by surface drip

fertigation was 46.87 % over furrow method of irrigation.

124

Fig.5.24 :– Fertilizer use efficiency under surface drip fertigation and furrow irrigation methods in Papaya

5.5.6 Impact of Irrigation methods on Economic Analysis of Papaya: Furrow Vs Surface Drip Irrigation

The interpretation of the results in the Table 5.14 indicated that

the investments on infrastructure spread over 10 year life period were

higher for the farmers with drip method of irrigation as compared to

furrow method. However the production expenses were lesser in

furrow irrigation method compared to drip irrigated papaya. However,

the farm income of papaya was significantly higher under surface drip

irrigation method (Rs.8.01 lakhs/ha) than furrow method of irrigation

(Rs.5.08lakh/ha).

125

Table 5.14 : Detailed Cash flow for ring basin and surface drip irrigated Papaya

S.No Particulars Basin Surface Drip

I Investments Pumping unit (Rs./ha) 5286 5286

Surface Drip Equipment (Rs./ha) 11555

Total investments 5286 16841

II Production Expenses (Rs/ha)

Land Preparation 2575 2575

Digging pits 6000 6000

Planting material 30000 30000

Planting 1200 1200

Manures 4375 4375

Fertilizer 46700 37362

Weed control 4000 2660

Plant protection 7000 7000

Harvesting 8500 9700

Transportation 127000 178000

Irrigation system maintenance 500 500

Irrigation scheduling 8750 4600

Total Expenses 246600 283972

III Farm Income

Yield (t/ha) 127 178

Price Rs./ton 4000 4500

Total Income (Rs/ha) 508000 801000

The evaluation of economic indices (Table 5.15) revealed that

the NPV was positive in both the methods of irrigation and markedly

higher under surface drip method of irrigation (NPV-Rs.454715/ha,),

126

in comparison to furrow irrigation (NPV-Rs.232831/ha) owing to

increased yields of papaya crop with drip irrigation. The trends of net

cash flow, accumulated discount cash flow, for both the methods of

irrigation are presented in Fig. 5.25.


achieved at lower price of Rs.1689.96/ton under surface drip method

of irrigation compared to Rs.1983.35/ton under furrow irrigation

method. Similarly the profitability was achieved above 37.55% of yield

crop data plugged each year under surface drip in comparison to

49.56% of yield crop data plugged each year in case of furrow method

of irrigation. It was noticed that the investments and expenses

incurred by farmers were fully recovered in one year under both the

methods of irrigation.

Table 5.15 : Economic indices for Papaya - basin Vs surface drip

irrigation methods

S.No Particulars Furrow method Surface drip




4 Break even point – price (Rs/ton) 1983.35 1689.96

5 Break even point – Yield (%) -50 -62


127

129

Plate 4

5.6 BRINJAL5.6.1 Impact of Irrigation methods on Yield

The data in Table 5.16 revealed that surface drip irrigation

significantly improved the fruit yield of brinjal over furrow method of

irrigation. The increase in yield by surface drip irrigation amounted to

25.60 % over furrow method of irrigation.

Table 5.16 : Brinjal yield – surface drip Vs furrow irrigation

Irrigation Method




5.63**


Adoption of surface drip irrigation by farmers significantly

reduced the amount of water applied to brinjal during the total crop

season. Seasonal applied water was less by 54.20 % under Surface

drip in comparison to furrow irrigation (Fig. 5.26). This indicates that

with the same amount of water used for irrigating one ha of brinjal

under conventional furrow method of irrigation (891mm), about 2.18

ha of brinjal can be irrigated using surface drip irrigation. In other

words, an additional area of 1.18 ha of brinjal can be brought under

surface drip method of irrigation from the saving of water (483 mm)

realized through adoption of drip.

130

Fig. 5.26 : Applied water under surface drip and furrow irrigation methods in brinjal


Adoption of surface drip irrigation significantly improved the

water productivity (Kg fruit yield / m3 of water) in brinjal as compared

to furrow method of irrigation (Fig. 5.27). The increase in water

productivity was 173.66% by surface drip over furrow method of

irrigation.

Fig. 5.27 Water productivity under surface drip and furrow irrigation methods in brinjal

131


Surface drip brinjal consumed less power (470 kWh/ha/season)

as compared to the crop irrigated by furrow method of irrigation (1026

kWh/ha/season). The net saving in power worked by adoption of

surface drip worked out to 557 kWh/ha/season (Fig. 5.28) in

comparison to furrow method of irrigation.

Fig. 5.28 : - Power consumption under surface drip and furrow irrigation methods in brinjal


Fertilizer Use Efficiency of Brinjal

The nutrients applied to brinjal crop was 163 Kg N, 95 Kg P2O5

and 60 Kg of K2O/ha under furrow method of irrigation and 150 Kg N,

60 Kg P2O5 and 44 Kg of K2O/ha under surface drip fertigation. Thus,

it can be noticed that farmers growing brinjal with surface drip

fertigation applied lower doses of N or P2O5 & K2O in comparison to

132

furrow method of irrigation. Under furrow irrigation the total cost

worked out to Rs. 4,424/- which was more than surface drip

fertigation cost of Rs.3,370/-. Further the data in Fig. 5.29 revealed

that fertilizer use efficiency (Kg yield / kg of fertilizer used) was

markedly higher under surface drip fertigation as compared to soil

application under furrow method of irrigation. The improvement in

fertilizer use efficiency by surface drip fertigation was 57.13% in

compliance to soil application under furrow method of irrigation.

Fig. 5.29 :– Fertilizer use efficiency under surface drip fertigation and furrow irrigation method in brinjal

5.6.6 Impact of Irrigation methods on Economic Analysis of Brinjal : Surface Furrow Vs Inline Drip irrigation

The data presented in the Table 5.17 indicated that the

investments on infrastructure spread over 10 year life period were


furrow method owing to the cost of drip system. However the

production expenses were lesser in drip-irrigated brinjal by 2.86% as

133

compared to furrow irrigation method. Further the farm income of

brinjal was significantly higher under surface drip irrigation method

(Rs.1.16 lakhs/ha) than furrow method of irrigation (Rs.0.78lakh/ha).

Table 5.17 : Detailed Cash flow for furrow and surface drip irrigated brinjal

S.No Particulars Furrow Surface Drip






Seed 4800 4800

Nursery raising 2500 2500

Transplanting 1200 1200

Manures 3000 3000

Fertilizers 19200 16800





Transporation 9750 12300


Total Expenses 66450 64600III Farm Income

Yield (t/ha) 6.5 8.2

Price - Rs./ton 12000 14200


134


the NPV was positive under both the methods of irrigation and

markedly higher under inline drip method of irrigation (NPV-

Rs.31448/ha,), in comparison to furrow irrigation (NPV-Rs.5695/ha)

owing to increased yields of brinjal crop with drip irrigation. The

trends of net cash flow, accumulated discount cash flow, for both the

methods of irrigation are presented in Fig. 5.30.


achieved above Rs.11036.32/ton under furrow irrigation method

compared to a lower price of Rs.9981.34/ton under inline drip method

of irrigation. Similarly the profitability was achieved above 70.29% of

crop yield plugged each year under inline drip in comparison to

91.97% of crop yield plugged each year in case of furrow method of

irrigation. The investments of brinjal were fully recovered in one year

in both the methods of irrigation.

Table 5.18 : Economic indices for brinjal - furrow Vs surface drip

irrigation methods

S.No Particulars Furrow method Surface Drip1 Duration (years) 1 1






136

5.7 TOMATO


Perusal of the data in Table 5.19 revealed that surface drip

irrigation significantly improved the fruit yield of tomato over furrow

method of irrigation. The increase in fruit yield by surface drip over

furrow method of irrigation amounted to 28.95%.

Table 5.19 : Tomato yield – surface drip Vs furrow irrigation

IrrigationMethod




6.03**


Seasonal irrigation water depth was markedly lower by adoption

of surface drip irrigation in tomato crop. Water saving amounted to

49.30%, with adoption of surface drip compared to furrow method of

irrigation (Fig. 5.31). This indicates that with the same amount of

water used for irrigating one ha of tomato under conventional furrow

method of irrigation (994 mm), about 1.97 ha of tomato can be

irrigated using surface drip irrigation. In other words, an additional

area of 0.97 ha of tomato can be brought under surface drip method

of irrigation from the saving of water (490 mm) realized through

adoption of drip.

137

Fig.5.31 : Applied water under surface drip and furrow irrigation methods in tomato



water productivity (Kg fruit yield / m3 of water) in tomato as compared


productivity was 154.98% by surface drip over furrow method of

irrigation.

Fig. 5.32 : Water productivity under Surface drip and furrow irrigation methods in tomato

138


Surface drip irrigation of tomato consumed less power (580

kWh/ha/season) as compared to the crop irrigated by furrow method

of irrigation (1145 kWh/ha/season). The net saving in power worked

out to 564 kWh/ha/season. (Fig. 5.33)

Fig.5.33 : Power consumption under surface drip and furrow irrigation methods in tomato


The irrigation method showed a marked effect on the amount of

nutrients applied. The nutrient dose to tomato crop was 150 Kg N, 80

Kg P2O5 and 80 Kg of K2O/ha under furrow method of irrigation as

compared to 100 Kg N, 60 Kg P2O5 and 70 Kg of K2O/ha under drip

fertigation indicating that farmers growing tomato crop with surface

drip irrigation applied lower doses of N, P2O5 & K2O in comparison to

furrow method of irrigation. Like wise the total cost of fertilizer worked

out to Rs.4,100/- and Rs.3,012/- under furrow method and surface

139

drip fertigation respectively. Further the data in Fig. 5.34 revealed

that fertilizer use efficiency (Kg yield / kg of fertilizer used) was

significantly higher under surface drip irrigation as compared to

furrow method of irrigation. The improvement in fertilizer use

efficiency was 74.25% more under surface drip fertigation in

comparison to soil application under furrow method of irrigation.

Fig. 5.34 :- Fertilizer use efficiency surface drip fertigation and furrow irrigation method in tomato

5.7.6 Impact of Irrigation methods on Economic Analysis of Tomato: Furrow Vs Inline Drip irrigation

The interpretation of the results in the Table 5.20 indicated that

the investments on infrastructure spread over 10 year life period were


furrow method. However the production expenses were lesser in drip-

irrigated tomato compared to furrow irrigation method. Further the

farm income of tomato was significantly higher under surface drip


(Rs.1.08 lakh/ha).

140

Table 5.20 : Detailed cash flow for furrow and surface drip irrigated tomato

S.No Particulars Furrow Surface DripI Investments

Pumping unit (Rs./ha) 5286 5286


Total investments 5286 18143II Production Expenses (Rs/ha)


Seed 6700 6700




Manures 4375 4375








Yield (t/ha) 10 12.9

Price Rs./ton 18000 18500


The analysis of economic indices (Table 5.21) indicated that the

NPV was positive in both the methods of irrigation and markedly

higher under inline drip method of irrigation (NPV-Rs.151075/ha,), in

comparison to furrow irrigation (NPV-Rs.100935/ha) owing to

increased yields of tomato crop with drip irrigation. The trends of net

141




achieved above Rs.6874.83/ton under furrow irrigation method

compared to a lesser price of Rs.5617.66/ton under inline drip

method of irrigation. Like wise the profitability was achieved above

30.37% of crop yield plugged each year under inline drip in

comparison to 38.19% of crop yield plugged each year in case of

furrow method of irrigation. The investments and expenses incurred

by the farmers of tomato were fully recovered in one year in both the


Table 5.21 : Economic indices for tomato - furrow Vs surface drip

irrigation methods

S.No Particulars Basin/Furrow method

Surface Drip







142

144

Plate 5

5.8 CHILLIES


The data in Table 5.22 indicated that adoption of surface drip

irrigation in Chillies significantly improved the fruit yield over furrow

method of irrigation. The increase in fruit yield of chillies by surface

drip over furrow method of irrigation amounted to 33.30%.

Table 5.22 : Chillies yield – surface drip Vs furrow irrigation

Irrigation Method




5.34**


Adoption of surface drip irrigation in chillies appreciably

reduced the amount of water applied during the total crop season.

Seasonal applied water was less by 51.70% under surface drip in

comparison to furrow method of irrigation (Fig. 5.36). This indicates

that with the same amount of water used for irrigating one ha of

chillies under conventional furrow method of irrigation (994 mm),

about 2.07 ha of chillies can be irrigated using surface drip irrigation.

In other words, an additional area of 1.07 ha of chillies can be

brought under surface drip method of irrigation from the saving of

water (514 mm) realized through adoption of drip.

145

Fig.5.36 : Applied water under surface drip and furrow irrigation methods in Chillies



water productivity (Kg fruit yield / m3 of water) in chillies as compared


productivity was 175.90% by surface drip over furrow irrigation.

Fig.5.37 : - Water productivity under surface drip and furrow irrigation methods in Chillies

146


Drip irrigated chillies consumed less power (553

kWh/ha/season) for pumping of water as compared to the crop

irrigated by furrow method of irrigation (1145 kWh/ha/season). The

net saving in power worked out to 592 kWh/ha/season (Fig. 5.38)

Fig.5.38 :- Power consumption under surface drip and furrow irrigation methods in Chillies



The irrigation method had a marked influence on the nutrients

applied. The amount of nutrients applied to chilli crop was 120 Kg N,

75 Kg P2O5 and 60 Kg of K2O/ha under furrow method of irrigation in

comparison to 110 Kg N, 60 Kg P2O5 and 60 Kg of K2O/ha under drip

fertigation, suggesting that farmers growing chillies with surface drip

irrigation applied lower doses of N and P2O5 in comparison to furrow

method of irrigation. Thus under furrow method irrigation the total

147

cost of fertilizers worked out to Rs.3,493/ha and was higher than drip

fertigation (Rs.3,047/ha).



under surface drip irrigation as compared to furrow irrigation. The

improvement in fertilizer use efficiency by surface drip was 47.81%

over furrow method of irrigation.

Fig.5.39 :– Fertilizer use efficiency under surface drip fertigation and Furrow irrigation methods in Chillies

5.8.6 Impact of Irrigation methods on Economic Analysis of

Chillies: Furrow Vs Inline Drip irrigation

The data presented in Table 5.23 indicated that the investments

on infrastructure spread over 10 year life period were higher for the

farmers with drip method of irrigation as compared to furrow method.

However the production expenses were lesser in drip-irrigated chillies

compared to furrow irrigation method. Further the farm income of

chillies was relatively higher under surface drip irrigation method

148

(Rs.1.56 lakhs/ha) than furrow method of irrigation (Rs.1.12

lakh/ha).

Table 5.23 : Detailed cash flow for furrow and surface drip irrigated Chillies

S.No Particulars Furrow Surface Drip






Seed 7500 7500




Manures 4375 4375




Harvesting & Paxking 4500 6000




Yield (t/ha) 4.5 6

Price - Rs./ton 25000 26000


The economic indices (Table 5.24) indicated that the NPV was

positive in both the methods of irrigation and significantly higher

149

under inline drip method of irrigation (NPV-Rs.63712/ha,), in

comparison to furrow irrigation (NPV-Rs.32899/ha) because of

increased yields of chillies crop with drip irrigation. The trends of net




achieved at a lower price of Rs.14320/ton under inline drip method of

irrigation compared to Rs.16958/ton under furrow irrigation method.

Similarly the profitability was achieved above 55.08% of crop yield

plugged each year under inline drip in comparison to 67.83% of crop

yield plugged each year in case of furrow method of irrigation. The

investments of Chillies were fully recovered in one year in both the


Table 5.24 : Economic indices for chillies - furrow Vs surface drip

irrigation methods

S.No Particulars Furrow method Surface Drip







151

152

Plate 6

5.9 SUGARCANE


The data in Table 5.25 indicated that farmers adopting surface

drip irrigation in sugarcane had significantly higher cane yield of

sugarcane over furrow method of irrigation. The increase in yield by

surface drip over furrow method of irrigation amounted to 58.10%.

Table 5.25 : Sugarcane yield – surface drip Vs furrow irrigation

Irrigation Method


Furrow Method 62.00 12.90 10.47


2.69**


Adoption of surface drip irrigation by sugarcane farmers

resulted in significant reduction of amount of water applied during the

total crop season. Thus, the seasonal applied water was less by

54.20% under surface drip in comparison to furrow method of

irrigation (Fig. 5.41). This indicates that with the same amount of

water used for irrigating one ha of sugarcane under conventional

furrow method of irrigation (1634 mm), about 2.18 ha of sugarcane

can be irrigated using surface drip irrigation. In other words, an

additional area of 1.18 ha of sugarcane can be brought under surface

drip method of irrigation from the saving of water (886 mm) realized


153

Fig. 5.41 : Applied water under surface drip and furrow irrigation methods in sugarcane


Adoption of surface drip irrigation in sugarcane markedly

improved the water productivity (Kg fruit yield / m3 of water) in

comparison to furrow irrigated crop (Fig. 5.42). The increase in water

productivity of sugarcane was 245.3% by surface drip over furrow

method irrigation.

Fig.5.42. : Water productivity under surface drip and furrow irrigation methods in sugarcane

154


Surface Drip irrigation of sugarcane consumed less power (861

kWh/ha/year) as compared to the crop irrigated by furrow method of

irrigation (1881 kWh/ha/year) during the total crop season. The net

saving in power worked out to 1020 kWh/ha/year.(Fig.5.43)

Fig.5.43: Power consumption under surface drip and furrow irrigation methods in sugarcane



The nutrients applied to sugarcane crop was 174Kg N, 124Kg

P2O5 and 153 Kg of K2O/ha under furrow method of irrigation as

compared to 137Kg N, 95Kg P2O5 and 106Kg of K2O/ha under drip

fertigation indicating that farmers growing sugar cane with surface

drip irrigation applied lower N, P2O5 & K2O doses in comparison to soil

application under furrow method of irrigation. The total cost of

155

fertilizer worked out to Rs.5,916/- and Rs.7,918/- under furrow and

drip fertigation, respectively.



under surface drip irrigation as compared to furrow method of

irrigation. The improvement in fertilizer use efficiency was 110.6 % by

surface drip fertigation as compared to furrow method of irrigation.

Fig.5.44 : Fertilizer use efficiency under surface drip fertigation and furrow irrigation methods in sugarcane

5.9.6 Impact of Irrigation methods on Economic Analysis of Sugarcane: Furrow Vs Inline Drip irrigation

The data presented in the Table 5.26 revealed that the

investments on infrastructure spread over 10 year life period were


furrow method. However the production expenses were lesser in drip-

irrigated sugarcane compared to furrow irrigation method. Further the

farm income of sugarcane was significantly higher under surface drip

156


(Rs.0.68 lakh/ha).


the NPV was positive in both the methods of irrigation and markedly

higher with inline drip method of irrigation (NPV-Rs.48942/ha,), in

comparison to furrow irrigation (NPV-Rs.10416/ha) owing to

increased yields of sugarcane crop with drip irrigation. The trends of

net cash flow, accumulated discount cash flow, for both the methods

of irrigation are presented in Fig. 5.45.


achieved at a lower price of Rs.883/ton under inline drip method of

irrigation compared to Rs.1024/ton under furrow irrigation method.

Similarly the profitability was achieved above 80.23% of cane yield

plugged each year under inline drip in comparison to 93.09% of cane

yield plugged each year in case of furrow method of irrigation. The

investments of sugarcane were fully recovered in one year in both the


157

Table 5.27 : Economic indices for sugarcane - furrow Vs surface drip irrigation system

S.No Particulars Furrow method Surface drip







5.10 IMPACT OF IRRIGATION METHOD ON SOIL NITRATE NITROGEN LEVELS

Data regarding nitrate nitrogen concentration in soil profile of

0 – 90cm depth as influenced by conventional surface irrigation (basin

and furrow methods) and surface drip irrigation is given in table 5.28.

Irrespective of the crop, lower nitrate concentration was found under

surface drip irrigation method in comparison to conventional surface

irrigation methods. On an average the nitrate nitrogen concentration

was 11.03ppm at 30cm, 11.33ppm at 60cm, 11.60ppm at 90cm,

11.93 ppm at 120cm and 10.81 ppm at 150cm under conventional

surface irrigation as compared to 4.82ppm at 30cm, 4.38 ppm at

60cm, 3.18ppm at 90cm, 2.28 ppm at 120cm and 2.08 ppm at 150cm

under surface drip irrigation. This suggests that larger volume of

water in case of conventional surface irrigation methods, disburse

extra nitrate nitrogen leaching and enhance nitrate leaching. Further

160

it was observed that the NO3 – N was more between 30 – 120cm soil

profile depths under conventional surface irrigation, while it decreased

with depth under surface drip method of irrigation. Thus it can be

inferred that NO3 – N leaching was less by using frequent light

irrigations with drip method of irrigation.

5.11 IMPACT OF IRRIGATION METHOD SOIL SALINITY ECe (dsm-1)

Data in table 5.29 revealed that the soil EC in soil profile of 0 –

90cm depth as influenced by conventional surface irrigation (basin

and furrow methods) and surface drip irrigation. The soil EC was

found lower under surface drip irrigation method in comparison to

conventional surface irrigation methods. On an average depth wise the

soil ECe was 6.19 at 30cm, 8.06 at 60cm, 6.25 at 90cm, 5.19 at

120cm and 4.64 at 150cm under conventional surface irrigation as

compared to 3.88 at 30cm, 1.77 at 60cm, 1.62 at 90cm, 1.50 at

120cm and 1.44 at 150cm under surface drip irrigation. This suggests

that water applied in case of conventional surface irrigation methods,

results in more soil EC and enhance soil salinity. Further it was

observed that the soil EC was more between 0 – 60cm soil profile

depths under conventional surface irrigation, while it decreased with

depth under surface drip method of irrigation. Thus it can be inferred

that the soil salinity was less by using drip method of irrigation.

161

Table 5.28 : Mean NO3 - N concentration (ppm) under conventional and surface drip irrigation systems for various crops

CropApplied water (mm)

Soil depth (cm)

30 60 90 120 150Conventional surface irrigationMango 520 10.96 11.23 11.57 11.87 10.43

Sweet orange 530 10.77 11.20 11.48 11.83 10.37

Pomegrante 663 10.85 11.18 11.44 11.76 10.47

Banana 1087 11.15 11.33 11.67 11.98 10.85

Papaya 1060 11.63 11.81 12.15 12.34 11.56

Sugarcane 748 11.41 11.72 11.95 12.12 11.11

Tomato 504 10.85 11.13 11.37 11.81 10.95

Brinjal 408 10.88 11.17 11.42 11.87 10.76

Chilli 480 10.77 11.21 11.39 11.75 10.82

Average 11.03 11.33 11.60 11.93 10.81

Surface drip irrigation

Mango 1114 4.85 4.43 3.25 2.85 2.65

Sweet orange 1136 4.80 4.37 3.22 2.78 2.40

Pomegrante 1363 4.91 4.62 3.45 2.51 2.33

Banana 2196 4.92 4.47 3.25 2.18 2.05

Papaya 2196 5.11 4.77 3.43 2.38 2.15

Sugarcane 1634 4.97 4.50 3.38 2.25 2.09

Tomato 994 4.65 4.05 2.85 1.98 1.78

Brinjal 891 4.55 4.10 2.88 1.85 1.69

Chilli 994 4.65 4.08 2.90 1.77 1.58

Average 4.82 4.38 3.18 2.28 2.08

162

Table 5.29 : Mean ECe (dsm-1) under conventional surface and drip irrigation systems for various crops

CropApplied water (mm)

Soil depth (cm)

0 30 60 90 120Conventional surface irrigationMango 520 5.65 7.25 5.85 4.47 3.86

Sweet orange 530 6.18 8.66 6.33 4.89 4.25

Pomegrante 663 5.77 7.87 6.23 5.17 4.73

Banana 1087 5.36 7.11 5.86 4.66 4.31

Papaya 1060 7.14 8.83 6.72 5.63 5.12

Sugarcane 748 7.75 9.12 7.49 6.33 5.25

Tomato 504 5.76 7.87 5.83 5.32 4.89

Brinjal 408 6.24 8.21 6.33 5.43 4.92

Chilli 480 5.82 7.64 5.61 4.83 4.44

Average 6.19 8.06 6.25 5.19 4.64

Surface drip irrigation

Mango 1114 3.14 1.45 1.37 1.35 1.30

Sweet orange 1136 4.11 1.61 1.53 1.49 1.41

Pomegrante 1363 3.75 1.64 1.55 1.51 1.50

Banana 2196 3.66 1.47 1.45 1.41 1.33

Papaya 2196 4.55 1.85 1.51 1.46 1.44

Sugarcane 1634 4.25 1.76 1.65 1.53 1.45

Tomato 994 3.67 1.86 1.76 1.61 1.55

Brinjal 891 4.10 2.11 1.87 1.51 1.45

Chilli 994 3.66 2.21 1.93 1.67 1.57

Average 3.88 1.77 1.62 1.50 1.44

5.12 IMPACT OF IRRIGATION METHOD ON GROUND WATER NO3

LEVELS UNDER DRIP AND FLOOD IRRIGATION METHOD

163

The analyzed data of water samples under both the methods of

irrigation has revealed that the NO3 levels in both the methods are

less than the standard fixed by the EPA (10mg/l). However the NO3

levels under drip method were significantly lower (2.08 ppm to 4.82

ppm) as compared to flood irrigated samples (10.81 ppm to 11.03

ppm) (Fig. 5.46).

,

Fig. 5.46: Comparative NO3 levels in water source samples of Drip and Flood methods

164

Chapter - IVshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/2209/15/15_chapter 5.pdf · 5.1.6 Impact of...

Documents

Transcript of Chapter - IVshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/2209/15/15_chapter 5.pdf · 5.1.6 Impact of...