Describe the advancement in drip irrigation system.

1. Welcome

3. Facts
• Heda irrigation has been used since ancient times
• 1866 : Modern drip irrigation began its development in
Afghanistan using clay pipe to create combination
irrigation and drainage systems
• 1913 : E.B. House at Colorado State University succeeded in
applying water to the root zone of plants without raising
the water table
• 1920 : Perforated pipe was introduced in Germany
•
• 1934 : O.E. Nobey experimented with irrigating through
porous canvas hose at Michigan State University

4. Contd…
• 1940 : Use of plastic emitter in drip irrigation developed
• 1959 : First modern technology of drip irrigation was invented
in Israel by Simcha Blass
• 1960 : Drip irrigation spreading to Australia, North America, and
South America
• 1964 : First drip tape, called Dew Hose, was developed by Richard
Chapin
• 1965 : Simcha Blass and Kibbutz Hatzerim founded Netafim with
the concept of drip irrigation
• 1989 : Jain irrigation helped pioneer effective water-management
through drip irrigation in India

5. Introduction
• Application of water through emitters on or below the soil
surface at a small operating pressure of 0.2 to 2.0
kg/cm2) and at a low discharge rate of 1 to 30 L/h per
emitter (Dasburg,1999)
• Drip irrigation is also known as trickle or dribble irrigation
• India is the 2nd largest country adopting this technology
• India stands 27th in terms of degree of adoption of water
saving and yield enhancing micro-irrigation devices

6. Contd…
• At present, around 27 million ha irrigated area is under
drip irrigation while it was only 40 ha in 1960
(NCPAH,2005)
• Maximum coverage has been in States of Andhra
Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu,
accounting for nearly 80% of the coverage under drip
irrigation in the country
• Government of Maharashtra was the pioneers in
introducing the drip irrigation technology in the country

7. Types of drip irrigation
Water is applied directly to the soil
surface
Water is applied below the soil
surface
Surface drip irrigation Sub-Surface drip irrigation

8. Coverage of drip irrigation among various crops in India
Orchards
46%
Vegetables
2%
Fibers
5%
PlantationCrops
17%
Others
30%

9. State-wise Potentiality and Actual Spread of MI (%)
(Raman, 2010)

10. Drip
Micro Tube
Pepsee
Rs.20,000/acre
Rs.7,000/acre
Rs.4,000/acre

11. Irrigation efficiencies under different methods of
irrigation
(Sivanappan, 1998)
Irrigation efficiencies Method of irrigation
Surface Sprinkler Drip
Conveyance efficiency 40-50 (canal)
60-70 (well)
100
Application efficiency 60-70 70-80 90
Surface water moisture
evaporation
30-40 30-40 20-25
Overall efficiency 30-35 50-60 85-95
90
20-25
80-90
100

12. Components and layout

13. Advantages
Higher
crop
yields
Water
saving
Minimize
fertilizer
Less
labour
requirem
ent
Reduces
salt
concentrat
ion zone
Controls
diseases
Reduces
weed
growth

14. Disadvantages
Clogging
Cost
Damage
by
rodents
Salinity
Root
develop
ment

15. Conservation of resources by DI
(Narayanamoorthy, 2005)
parameters crops Drip Irrigation Flood
irrigation
Gains over Flood
irrigation (%)
Water consumption
(HP hours/ha)
Sugarcane
Grapes
Banana
Cotton
1767
3310
7885
563
3179
5278
11130
1025
44.40
37.30
29.15
45.00
Electricity
consumption
(kwh/ha)
Sugarcane
Grapes
Banana
Cotton
1325
2483
5914
423
2385
3959
8348
769
44.40
37.30
29.15
45.00
Cost of cultivation
(Rs/ha)
Sugarcane
Grapes
Banana
Cotton
41993
134506
51437
42989
48539
147915
52739
42467
13.50
9.00
2.50
-1.00
Productivity
(quintal/ha)
Sugarcane
Grapes
Banana
Cotton
1384
243
679
45
1124
204
526
21
23.00
19.00
29.00
114.70

16. Sl.No Crop Yield t/ha Yield increase % WUE t/ha-cm Watersaving %
1 Acid lime 78.00 56.00 1.30 50.00
2 Baby corn 9.88 72.40 0.48 43.80
3 Banana 71.52 29.27 2.95 42.50
4 Beans 10.25 81.80 0.37 36.90
5 Beet root 48.87 7.00 79.00
6 Ber 71.03 27.67 0.66 34.33
7 Bitter gourd 2.68 44.38 1.43 69.50
8 Bottle gourd 55.80 46.80 1.03 35.70
9 Brinjal 16.01 44.63 1.47 42.55
10 Cabbage 50.49 37.48 3.17 37.35
11 Capsicum 22.50 66.60 0.78 43.10

17. Sl.No Crop Yield t/ha Yield increase % WUEt/ha-cm Watersaving %
12 Carrot 26.26 92.30 0.81 33.60
13 Castor 7.27 30.24 1.73 32.99
14 Cauliflower 19.50 39.73 0.68 37.10
15 Chickpea 3.80 66.60 1.60 42.60
16 Chilli 67.98 28.74 7.47 47.28
17 Coconut 181.00 7.10 6.89 50.50
18 Cotton 36.00 40.00 0.86 51.10
19 Cucumber 22.50 45.10 0.94 37.80
20 Gherkins 4.88 100.60 2.30 36.10
21 Grain corn 6.50 52.90 2.20 45.00
22 Grape 29.93 20.94 0.95 43.00

18. Sl.No Crop Yield t/ha Yield increase % WUEt/ha-cm Watersaving %
23 Groundnut 3.50 62.50 1.00 32.40
24 Guava 25.50 63.00 3.53 9.00
25 Mango 19.50 80.67 2.40 28.93
26 Mosambi 15.00 98.00 0.23 61.00
27 Oil Palm 21.00
28 Okra 20.05 20.69 1.94 44.72
29 Onion 17.01 42.60 1.20 36.70
30 Papaya 56.64 71.97 0.91 67.97
31 Pomegranate 44.67 55.67 0.53 57.33
32 Popcorn 5.50 75.40 2.10 42.00
33 Potato 28.66 50.02 2.80 24.62

19. Sl.No Crop Yield t/ha Yield increase % WUEt/ha-cm Watersaving %
34 Radish 17.00 27.50 5.04 64.00
35 Ridge gourd 17.39 14.50 4.36 43.39
36 Round gourd 36.60 24.00 0.46 0.00
37 Sapota 17.20 21.40
38 Sweet potato 50.00 39.00 1.98 68.00
39 Sugarcane 145.87 43.59 1.19 46.67
40 Sweetlime 15.00 50.00 2.30 61.40
41 Tapioca 54.60 12.60 0.55 23.40
42 Toamto 36.57 46.00 3.82 37.35
43 Turmeric 18.44 76.30 0.56 53.10
44 Watermelon 46.80 64.83 2.13 46.10

20. Emitter/Dripper discharge
• Koenig, (1997): emitter
discharges of < 0.5 L/h
resulted in reduced water
consumption of tomato
by 38%, increased yield
by 14 to 26%, and
reduced leaching fraction
by 10 to 40%.
Drip Emitter
Discharge 4 L/h
Drip Emitter
Discharge 2 L/h
Drip Emitter
Discharge 1 L/h
Drip Emitter
Discharge 0.6 L/h
Drip Emitter
Discharge 0.4 L/h

21. Assouline et al., (2002) worked on micro-drip irrigation of
field crops: Effect on yield, water uptake and drainage in
sweet corn
• Emitter discharge (0.25 L/h)
had the highest yield, the
relative water content was
highest in the upper 0.30 m of
the soil profile and lowest in
the 0.60- to 0.90-m layer.
• Phene and Sanders, (1976)
the increase of drip irrigation
frequency, which acts reduce
the gap between water
application and plant needs as
micro-drip irrigation, improves
yields.

22. Netafim
Low Pressure System (LPS)
2005- LPS
Low Pressure
System

23. IntroductionCONCEPT
 Low Pressure Drip Irrigation
 Performs as conventional
pressurized irrigation – with low
pressure
 Pressure throughout system
required and maintained
<0.5Kg/cm2
 Low discharge emitters used
 More uniform and precise irrigation
 Higher agronomic benefits
 Huge savings in energy cost
(~ 80-90%)
Low Pressure System

24. GRAVITY
 Use the natural head in
topography in canal command
areas
 Possible wherever elevation
difference is >6 m
LOW PRESSURE –
PRESSURIZED IRRIGATION
NETWORK SYSTEM
 Used when natural head is not
available
 Low head pumps used
 5 HP pumps irrigate 50 Acres
area
Low Pressure System

25. Micro-tube Irrigation System
• Micro-tube also called spaghetti tubes are small bore
polyethylene tubes, in the range of 1 to 4 mm in internal
diameters, are used as emitters in drip irrigation system
• Small bore tubes can be used as pressure compensating
emitters in drip irrigation system
• Alternative to modern dripping emitters will reduce the
risk of clogging significantly as they have simpler
passages than those emitters (Vermeiren and Jobling,
1980)

26. Bhatnagar et al., (2007) studied on Micro-tube Irrigation For Banana
Cultivation in South Bihar: Participatory Assessment and
Refinement
Findings:
• Better performance with less
discharge variations and cheap
as compared to conventional
system.
• B-C ratio was 1.01 to 1.87 for
var. Alpan and 1.61 to 1.75 for
var. dwarf Cavendish.

27. Pepsee System of Irrigation
• Pepsee system is a low cost alternative of drip irrigation
system (DIS)
• It does not require micro tube or emitter to place water
directly to the root zone instead the lateral, which is
called pepsee
• A light-weight plastic pipes used for making “Pepsee”, is
placed directly to the root zone of the plants

28. Emission uniformity distribution

29. Verma et al., (2004) make a comparative technical/financial
evaluation of Pepsee with conventional drip/micro-tube
Findings:
6.67
36.50
13.33
98.33
76.67
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
Energy
saving
High Yield Labour
Saving
Water
saving
Cheaper
than drip

30. Future prospects
• Application efficiency of subsurface drip irrigation (SDI)
can be as high as 100% (Longo et al., 2003)
• Application efficiency of Low Energy Precision
Application (LEPA) applications in Mechanical Move
Irrigation is up to 98% (Longo et al., 2003)
• Automation in micro irrigation
• Integration of canal network with micro irrigation
• Prospects of balancing reservoir

31. Contd…
• Use microirrigation technologies (e.g. drip irrigation,
sprinklers) for water intensive crops such as rice
• Use of solar energy for drip irrigation
• Irrigation Scheduling and fertigation in micro irrigation
• Increase the area under drip irrigation

32. Conclusion
• Initial investment for Pepsee systems is 41% less than the
micro-tubes and 76.67% less than the drip systems, so
therefore, Pepsee systems is most feasible irrigation
technology for farmers at low cost
• Energy, labour, water saving and yields of pepsee irrigation is
comparatively more than micro-tube and drip irrigation
systems
• Lower emitter discharge (micro-drip irrigation) gives better
output than higher emitter discharge
• Subsurface drip and LEPA irrigation has higher irrigation
efficiency than surface drip irrigation, so this is better option to
manage water for future

33. Scheme
• National Mission on Micro Irrigation (NMMI)
• National Horticulture Mission (NHM)
• Horticulture Mission for North East and Himalayan
States (HMNH)
• Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana (RKVY)
• Integrated Scheme of Oilseeds, Pulses, Oil palm and
Maize (ISOPOM)
• National Food Security Mission (NFSM)

34. Thank You!