That ppt is useful in low tunnel technology knowledge improvement.

2. Department of Horticulture,
Rajasthan COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE,
MpUATUDAIPUR
Presented By
Krishna Kumar Sharma
Ph.D. Scholar
Horticulture-Vegetable Science
Credit Seminar
VSC692
Seminar In-charge
Dr. H.L. Bairwa
Assoc. Prof. & Head,
Department of Horticulture

3. Introduction
History
Case Studies
Success Story
Conclusion
Outline of Credit Seminar
Future Thrusts

6. LOWTUNNEL TECHNOLOGY IN VEGETABLE PRODUCTION

7. History
• The first used of a plastic film in agriculture is said to date back
from 1948 by Prof. E.M. Emmert.
• The first plastic tunnels were used in Fresno County by Mr. Richard
Espinoza to grow Japanese eggplants and long Chinese beans in
1981.
• Mr. Richard also builds the first tunnel laying machine.
• Walk-in tunnels, low plastic tunnels etc were evaluated for cultivation
during their normal and off-season at the Indo-Israel Project in IARI,
New Delhi (India) during the year 1999-2000 to 2002-2003.
• It was launched in 1999 in Punjab as a pilot project by ATMA.

8. Introduction
• Human beings learnt that maximum crop yield is achieved when the crops are
grown during different seasons under favourable climatic conditions.
• There is a year round high demand for fresh vegetables in the country in domestic
and export market.
• But due to unfavourable climatic conditions, there is a flood of vegetables in the
season and high priced vegetables in offseason
• Vegetables can be cultivated in off-season, with the introduction of row tunnel
technology

9. Constraints of open field conditions
Temperature
Relative humidity Light intensity
Drought
Rain Snow
Pest
Disease Animals

10. Low- tunnel technology
• Low Tunnels are small greenhouse-like structures covering the plants along the row. These tunnels
are erected with wire hoops and covered with plastic which produce greenhouse like effect.
• These tunnels facilitate the entrapment of carbon dioxide, thereby enhancing the photosynthetic
activities of the plant that help to increase yield.

11. Benefits of Low tunnel
Nursery raising
Stress
Better gas
exchange
Suitable
Micro-climate
Off- season
production
Yield

12. Types
Pinned tunnel Free floating

13. Low tunnel within a high tunnel
It add an additional increase of air temperature.

14. • Low cost structure
• Light structure
• Easy to instrall
• It can be easily dissemble and relocate to other site
• Maintenance is very easy
• Year round employment generation
Advantages of Low tunnel

15. Establishment of Low tunnel
• Hoops are used to construct small tunnels.
• The height of the tunnel varies from 2-4 ft depending on the height and
size of the plant.
• The hoop is position as a semi-oval.
• It is place at intervals of 2-3 m along the length of the beds.
• Length varies, but less than 50 feet is recommended for windy areas.
FRP Low Tunnel Rod

16. • At both ends of the tunnel, two crossed hoops may provide more
stability against wind.
• The direction of the tunnel should be keep from north to south for
better temperature gains.
• Finally, the cover is place over the hoops and edge is fix.

17. Planting material
• Plants should be pest-free at the time of tunnel installation.
• Self-pollinated plants should be grown.
• If cross pollinated crop is grown, the covers must be removed when blossoming begins (?)

18. Cladding
Materials
Spun-bonded
fabrics
Perforated/
Slit plastic
film
Floating
cover
Pinned
tunnel
Pinned
tunnel
Light Weight
Light Weight and Heavy Weight

19. Irrigation
• Drip irrigation
• Furrow irrigation

20. Crops which can be cultivated under Low tunnel
Leek
Carrot
Lettuce
Radish
Cole crops
Cucurbits
Spinach
Solanaceae

22. Rajasthan

24. Case study-1
Effect of plastic low tunnel and mulch type on soil temperature, growth,
earliness and yield of brinjal under net-house and open field in plains of
North-Western India
Dhatt et al.,2017
To assess the effect of different mulch and plastic low tunnel on soil so as to enhance
brinjal production during spring and early summer season in north-western plains of
India
Treatments
T1 : Paddy straw mulch (PSM)
T2 : Clear plastic mulch (CPM)
T3 : Black plastic mulch (BPM)
T4 : Plastic low tunnel (PLT)
T5 : Control (Bare soil)
Ludhiana

25. Table 1. Effect of plastic low tunnel and mulch type on growth attributes of brinjal
in net-house(NH) and open field (OF) in north-western plains of India (pooled data of 2
seasons)
Treatment Plant height (cm) Plant height (cm) Plant spread (cm) Number of leaves plant-1
(120 DAT) (210 DAT) (210 DAT) (120 DAT)
NH OF Mean NH OF Mean NH OF Mean NH OF Mean
PSM 40.4 29.6 35.0 107.0 86.1 96.6 81.3 82.7 82.0 36.7 29.3 33.0
CPM 43.7 33.6 38.7 110.8 93.9 102.4 82.4 79.9 81.2 64.3 45.3 54.8
BPM 50.8 36.4 43.6 102.5 89.9 96.2 88.5 74.6 81.6 64.8 49.4 57.1
PLT 48.8 40.4 44.6 113.6 94.1 103.9 80.0 94.8 87.4 63.1 51.2 57.2
Bare soil 35.3 24.5 29.9 103.8 85.8 94.8 79.9 83.1 81.5 32.9 25.4 29.2
Mean 43.8 32.9 - 107.5 89.9 - 82.5 83.0 - 52.4 40.1 -
CD (P = 0.05)
NH vs OF (A) 2.2 - - 2.9 - - NS - - 2.8 - -
Mulch type
(B)
3.3 - - 4.4 - - 3.9 - - 4.0 - -
Interaction
(A x B)
4.7 - - 6.2 - - 5.6 - - 5.7 - -

26. Table 2. Effect of plastic low tunnel and mulch type on earliness and yield attributes of brinjal in net-house
(NH) and open field (OF) in north-western plains of India (pooled data of 2 seasons)
Treatm
ent
Days to first picking Early yield (t. ha-1) No. of fruits plant-1 Total yield (t. ha-1)
NH OF Mean NH OF Mean NH OF Mean NH OF Mean
PSM 133.7 149.7 141.7 3.1 0.7 1.9 11.4 4.1 7.8 43.6 11.7 27.7
CPM 124.7 139.7 132.2 6.6 1.1 3.9 14.4 7.0 10.7 55.7 21.2 38.5
BPM 129.0 136.0 132.5 7.1 1.4 4.3 16.1 6.1 11.1 57.4 20.4 38.9
PLT 128.3 128.5 128.4 5.0 5.9 5.5 14.6 14.6 14.6 52.0 58.5 55.3
Bare
soil
139.5 150.2 144.9 2.0 0.7 1.4 8.9 5.7 7.3 35.2 18.3 26.8
Mean 131.0 140.8 4.8 2.0 13.1 7.5 48.8 26.0
CD (P
= 0.05)
NH
vs OF (A)
1.5 0.2 1.1 2.6
Mulch type
(B)
2.2 0.4 0.8 3.8
Interaction
3.2 0.5 1.2 5.4

27. Fig. 1. Effect of plastic low tunnel and mulch type on
incidence of shoot and fruit borer (%) in brinjal under net-
house (NH) and open field (OF) in north-western plains of
India
Fig. 2. Effect of plastic low tunnel and mulch type on plant
mortality (%) due to Sclerotinia rot in brinjal under net-house
(NH) and open field (OF) in north-western plains of India
(pooled data of 2 seasons)

28. In open field, PLT is recommended as it was better than other
treatments in improving growth attributes, increasing early
and total yield, protecting plants from frost injury and
decreasing the incidence of shoot and fruit borer.
Inference

29. Case study-2
Comparative Study on Cultivation of Cabbage Under Low Tunnel
and Open Field Conditions in Cold Arid Ladakh Region
Saleem et al., 2014
Kargil
To compare the efficiency of low tunnel technology and traditional open field
growing of cabbage hybrid S 92.

30. Location 1 Location 2 Location 3 Average
Low
tunnel
Open
field
Low
tunnel
Open
field
Low
tunnel
Open
field
Low tunnel Open field
Germination 90 72 96 84 87 70 91 75.3
Days to maturity of head 46 52 48 54 46 51 46.6 53.0
Transplantation survival 98 81 98 75 94 73 96.6 76.3
Days to head maturity 72 88 50 86 75 82 72.3 85.3
No. of head formed plant 96 91 98 90 95 88 96.3 89.6
Average head weight (kg) 0.86 1.01 0.96 0.98 0.81 0.82 0.87 0.93
Yield (q/ha) 555.7 652.5 633.3 587.8 518.0 562.32 569.0 600.9
Yield of super heads (q/ha) 278.5 191.5 301.9 186.7 280.3 180.43 290.2 186.2
Table 1. Comparison Of growth and yield Of cabbage hybrid under
low tunnel and open field conditions.

31. Conditions Yield of
main crop
(q/ha)
Return
(Rs/ha)
Yield of
heads (q/ha)
Return
(Rs/ha)
Gross
Income
(Rs/ha)
Cost of input
(Rs/ha)
Net profit
(Rs/ha)
Low tunnel 569.05 6,82,860 290.26 2,32,208 9,15,068 95,200 8,20,008
Open field 600.92 4,80,736 186.24 1,48,992 6,29,728 - 6,29,728
% increase over open
field
42.2 55.82 30.21
Table 2. Economics of cabbage hybrid under low tunnel and open field
Cost of input includes only cost of polythene and willow sticks
keeping a life span of 1 to 3 years respectively.
Sale rate of main crop under low tunnel (off season) Rs. 12 /kg
and rest@ 8/kg

32. Low tunnel cultivation advanced the growing of
crop by around two months. Higher net returns
per unit area were realized under low tunnel
cultivation of cabbage than open cultivation due
to early maturity, early market entry of produce
and evading market glut.
Inference

33. Case study-3
Singh et al.,2020
Onion Cultivation under Low Cost Low Plastic Tunnels for
Restricting Over Winter in Eastern Himalayan Region
Gangtok
To study the effect of onion cultivation under low cost plastic tunnel
for restricting over winter in eastern Himalayan region.

34.  T1: 75cm Tunnel height
 T2: 90cm Tunnel height
 T3: 100cm Tunnel height
 T4: Onion variety F1 hybrid “Rani”
 T5: Onion variety “Nasik red”
 T6: Onion variety “Minar”
 T7: Onion variety “F1 hybrid “Rani” (control)
 T8: “Nasik red” (control)
 T9: “Minar” (control )
 T10: “Leader” (control)

35. Tunnel Height Variety Plant Height NL DTH BW Survival %
H1 -75cm V1-Rani 43.00 2.663 114.33 22.667 19.477
H1 V2- Nasik R. 32.70 5.333 116.33 17.807 33.297
H1 V3-Minar 24.30 2.663 106 24.667 12.113
H1 V4 -Leader 24.10 4.667 107 15.227 30.587
H2 -90cm V1 27.1 2.330 118.66 25.333 12.983
H2 V2 36.0 5.333 119 19.837 34.727
H2 V3 21.60 3.110 102.66 41.667 31.163
H2 V4 23.60 4.333 104.33 19.760 31.160
H3 -100cm V1 47.00 2.887 113.66 29.667 41.120
H3 V2 48.70 5.000 97.66 32.227 65.673
H3 V3 25.20 3.220 103.66 44.333 31.160
H3 V4 21.60 6.333 107.33 26.593 53.943
Control V1 32.5 3.107 117.33 34.667 35.373
Control V2 34.00 5.000 117.66 37.373 38.050
Control V3 28.5 2.887 109.33 35.667 27.143
Control V4 19.4 4.333 106.66 34.140 11.553
Tunnel Height F Value 11.545 4.432 657.74 64.68 45.491
P value 0.0071 0.0581 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
Variety F value 79.925 73.735 59.86 53.91 346.378
P value 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
Tunnel Height X Variety F value 7.394 3.146 93.350 2.860 24.114
P value 0.0001 0.0121 0.0001 0.0191 0.0011
Table.1 Analysis of variance
(ANOVA), F value, P values and
effect of low tunnel height, variety
and interaction effects (low tunnel
height x variety) on different plant
characters on growth and yield
characteristics of onion

36. Inference
The onion variety 'Nasik Red' be can raised
in low cost low plastic tunnel height of
100cm for restricting overwinter in hilly
region.

37. Case study-4
Effect of Low Poly Tunnel and Planting time on
Growth Parameters and Yield of Muskmelon
Ranjan et al., 2019
Sabour

38. I. 5th December
II. 15th December
III. 25th December
IV. 5th January
V. 15th January under open field as well as low plastic poly
tunnel respectively
The farmer practice is taken as a control in open field
Treatments consisted of five date of sowing
Seedling of muskmelon var. Madhuraja

39. Treatments No. of Leaf’s per plant Vine length (cm) Fruit diameter (mm) T.S.S
Low Poly tunnel S1 = 5th
December
88.00 98.00 88.67 8.20
Low Poly tunnel S2 = 15th
December
144.08 159.24 98.37 9.87
Low Poly tunnel S3= 25th
December
119.33 119.33 97.78 10.19
Low Poly tunnel S4= 5th January 152.00 152.33 99.96 10.62
Low Poly tunnel S5= 15th January 148.33 148.33 98.13 10.93
Open field condition S1 = 5th
December
84.00 111.66 80.26 9.92
Open field condition S2 = 15th
December
119.33 122.33 84.91 10.17
Open field condition S3= 25th
December
109.33 109.33 93.26 10.43
Open field condition S4= 5th
January
121.00 120.33 78.94 9.15
Open field condition S5= 15th
January
148.33 185.00 95.52 10.10
Farmers practice S6=
15th February
151.66 185.00 105.71 10.89
S.E. (+-) 8.18 9.70 3.55 0.17
CD at 5% 25.8 30.6 11.2 0.6
Table.1 Effect of planting time and growing conditions on growth and yield
attributing parameters of Muskmelon

40. Treatments No. of fruits per plant Average Fruit wt (g) Fruit yield per plant
(Kg)
Yield (q /ha)
Low Poly tunnel S1 = 5th
December
13.26 482.70 06.40 1066.62
Low Poly tunnel S2 = 15th
December
18.36 494.06 09.07 1511.60
Low Poly tunnel S3= 25th
December
13.20 504.40 06.65 1108.28
Low Poly tunnel S4= 5th
January
15.26 505.37 07.71 1284.94
Low Poly tunnel S5= 15th
January
16.00 523.66 08.37 1394.94
Open field condition S1 = 5th
December
06.00 226.33 01.35 0224.99
Open field condition S2 = 15th
December
09.33 448.00 04.17 0694.97
Open field condition S3= 25th
December
05.13 375.06 01.92 0319.98
Open field condition S4= 5th
January
09.43 256.20 02.41 0401.65
Open field condition S5= 15th
January
11.00 260.50 02.86 0476.64
Farmers practice S6= 15th
February
19.36 547.00 10.58 1763.26
SEm(+-) 1.38 39.02 0.73 48.0
CD at 5% 4.4 123.0 2.3 223
Table.2 Effect of planting time and growing conditions on growth and yield
attributing parameters of Muskmelon

41. Due to better growth and development of all
yield contributing parameters of muskmelon
under low tunnel which were due to increases
the net photosynthesis and production of more
assimilates available for individual to grow.
Inference

42. Case study-5
Ranjan et al., 2019
Sabour
Yield and Economics of Muskmelon as Influenced by
Low Poly Tunnel and Planting Time

43. Treatment Yield /ha (q) Marketable price
(Rs per quintal)
Income Rs/ha Cost of cultivation Net return Rs/ha Benefit Cost ratio
Low Poly tunnel
S1 = 5th
December
1066.62 1400.00 1493268 290353.00 1202915 4.14
Low Poly tunnel
S2 = 15th
December
1511.60 1330.00 2010428 290353.00 1720075 5.92
Low Poly tunnel S3=
25th
December
1108.28 1200.00 1329936 290353.00 1039583 3.58
Low Poly tunnel S4= 5th
January
1284.94 1026.00 1318348 290353.00 1027995 3.54
Low Poly tunnel S5=
15th January
1394.94 900.00 1255446 290353.00 965093 3.32
Open field condition
S1 = 5th December
0224.99 950.00 213740 163000.00 50740 0.33
Open field condition S2
=
15th December
0694.97 900.00 625473 163000.00 462473 2.83
Open field condition
S3= 25th
December
0319.98 880.00 281230 163000.00 118230 0.72
Open field condition
S4=
5th January
0401.65 850.00 341402 163000.00 178402 1.09
Open field condition
S5= 15th January
0476.64 800.00 381312 163000.00 218312 1.33
Farmers practice 15th
February
1763.26 700.00 1234282 163000.00 1074282 6.57
Table.2 Economics

44. Poly tunnels allow muskmelon growers to start
planting earlier, so they can harvest earlier, and
receive a higher price for their produce before
vegetable prices begin to decline in mid-season.
Inference

46. Success story-1
With the introduction of poly tunnel
technology for nursery raising in vegetables and
technological intervention made by KVK for
their scientific methods of cultivation enabled
the farmers to get up to Rs 2.50 to 3.00 lacs
from 1.0 ha of land from one year.
Low cost poly tunnel technology for nursery
raising in vegetables: KVK Dehradun

47. Success story-2
The KVK, Bundi conducted various
trainings and demonstrations for off-season
cultivation of vegetables by low-tunnel
method and nursery raising by Pro-tray
method.
Results- It enhanced the farmer's income from
the range of Rs. 2,35,000 in case of traditional
practice to per hectare.
In case of pro-tray, cost of cultivation decreases
by using pro-tray up to Rs. 10,000 per hectare.

48. Mr. Sunil Minj from Jharkhand has started low
tunnel cultivation using bamboo poles as a hoop.
The benefit which translate to a return of Rs. 2.5
for every rupee spent.
Success story-3

49. Walk-in tunnels to boost vegetable produce in Gujarat
 The Centre in Prantij is spread over 20 hectares and 11
of these are being used for vegetable cultivation.
 He said besides less inputs, these tunnels offer freedom
from insects, pests and weeds.
 Once we have the tunnels ready, we will be offering
farmers from across Gujarat seedlings, training and field
consultancy.
Success story-4

50. Success story-5
Gurgaon farmers try out low tunnel technique to
boost food supply
 The state government is implementing low tunnel and
mulching techniques to grow crops even in non-harvest
season, in order to insulate the city’s food supply against
adverse climactic conditions.
 Presently being used in Uncha Majra, Sherpur and Nurpur
villages of Gurgaon for winter crops.
 In one acre, a farmer can earn Rs. 2.5 to Rs 3 lakh per
harvest.
 “At present, 160 farmers are with us in this programme. Our
target is to increase this number by five times to serve the
entire population of Gurgaon,” said Khan.

52. FUTURE THRUSTS
 Testing of low tunnel technology for different vegetables.
 The optimum tunnel heights for various vegetable crops.
 The optimum polyethylene sheet thickness and effect of
perforation.
 Replacing the plastic with biodegradable films.
 Awareness among farmers through on farm training.

53. Conclusion