Enhancing Water Productivity by Using Feasible Efficient Irrigation Techniques by Dr. Allah Bakhsh, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad
Enhancing Water Productivity by UsingFeasible Efficient Irrigation Techniques Prof. Dr. Allah Bakhsh Department of Irrigation and Drainage University of Agriculture, Faisalabad
Outline of Presentation• Problem Statement• Objectives / Terms of Reference• Methodology• Field Surveys and Preliminary Findings• Field Experiments and Preliminary Findings• Future Plan
Problem Statement• Land Productivity• Water Productivity• Both are lower in comparison to international bench mark
Objectives/Terms of Reference• Identify the causes responsible for low water productivity.• Suggest various retrofit measures within the limits affordable and adaptable by the farmers to increase water productivity.• Conduct experiments at the farmers’ fields to demonstrate benefits of the proposed efficient irrigation system for increasing water productivity.• Install efficient / drip irrigation system and operate it for devising optimum input management scheme.• Monitor, evaluate and demonstrate efficient / drip irrigation technology.
Methodology To achieve these objectives, study was planned to be conducted in three Phases Phase-I Phase-II Phase-III Site Field FieldSelection Surveys Experiments
Phase-I: Site Selection• Site-I: Farm near Samundari, Chack 477/GB (locally known as Kotan)• Site-II: Farm near Chiniot, Rajoaa Sadaat• Site-III: Farm near Hafizabad• Site-IV: Postgraduate Agriculture Research Station (PARS), University of Agriculture, Faisalabad
Phase-II: Field SurveysA comprehensive questionnaire was designed and following datawere planned to be collected:•Age and education of the farmer•Assets (Land Holding Size and Farm Machinery)•Soil type and its fertility level•Area under different Crops•Water/Irrigation sources•Irrigation water quality and quantity•Irrigation methods in practice•Cropping pattern and crop yields•Number of irrigations applied to different crops•Seed and fertilizer application rates•Cost of production of different Crops•Major reasons for having low water productivity
Field Surveys Findings: Level of Education Education Site I Site II Site III • Respondents Level Responden Responden Responden ts ts ts – 80 for site I (%) (%) (%) – 66 for site IIIlliterate 17.5 6.06 2.4 – 84 for site IIIPrimary 8.75 21.2 21.5Middle 13.75 19.7 11.9Matric 41.25 42.4 35.7Inter 13.75 10.6 15.5Graduation 5 - 13 Total 100 100 100About 70 to 90% farmers had Matric or lowereducation
Age Level / Experience Age Site I Site II Site IIILevel Respondents Respondents Respondents (%) (%) (%)20-35 23.75 13.60 4.836-50 37.50 66.70 61.951-65 31.25 19.70 21.465 + 7.50 - 11.9Total 100 100 100 Majority of the farmers were of age group from 36 to 50 years
Land Holding Size Land Site I Site II Site IIIHolding Responde Responde Responde (ha) nts nts nts (%) (%) (%)0.1-2.0 22.50 42.4 32.12.1-4.0 36.25 30.3 23.84.1-6.0 17.50 15.2 10.76.1-10 13.75 12.1 13.1 10 + 10.00 - 20.3 Total 100 100 100 Overall 80 to 90% of the farmers had land holdings of < 10 ha in size
Soil Potential Soil Site I Site II Site IIIFertility Responde Respond Responde Level nts ents nts (%) (%) (%) High 45.00 21.2 6Medium 53.75 77.3 92.9 Low 1.25 1.5 1.1 Total 100 100 100 Majority of the farmers had soils of good potential for crop production
Surveyed Farm Location Farm Site I Site II Site IIILocation Responden Responde Responden ts nts ts (%) (%) (%) Head 17.5 3 1.2Middle 20.0 18.2 80.9 Tail 62.5 78.8 17.9 Total 100 100 100 Majority of the surveyed farmers had their farms at middle to tail location wrt W/C
Cropping IntensityCroppin Site I Site II Site III g Respond Respond RespondIntensit ents ents ents y (%) (%) (%) (%)150-175 18.75 27.27 10.7176-200 41.25 36.37 78.6201-250 35.00 27.27 10.7251-300 5.00 9.09 - Total 100 100 100Majority of the farmers weregrowing at least two crops per year
Cropping Pattern Cropping Pattern Site I Respondents (%) More than 50% farmersWheat-Maize – Fodder 47.50 have cotton-wheatWheat-Cotton - Fodder 52.50 Total 100 Cropping Pattern Site II Respondents (%) Mixed crops Wheat-Maize – Fodder 27 Wheat-Sugarcane – Fodder 40 Wheat-Rice - Fodder 33 Total 100 Cropping Pattern Site III Respondents (%) Wheat-Rice-Fodder 100 Total 100
Phase III: Field Experiments Experimental Layout for Samundri Farm SiteThree TreatmentsIn RCBDTD= Drip irrigationTP= Perforated pipeirrigationTC= controltreatment
Power Unit For Drip Irrigation Installation of Drip Irrigation at Samundri SiteSr. No. Components Specification Sr. No. Components Specification 1 Pump discharge 196.6 lpm 8 Sub main line dia 2 inch 2 Pump rpm 2300 9 Plot size 67x14 m 3 Pump size 2x 1.5 inch 10 Length of one lateral 64 m 4 Maximum suction head 2m 11 Number of laterals/plot 45 5 Engine HP 15 hp 12 Emitter discharge 1.5 lph 6 Maximum Head 41 m 13 Emitter spacing 40 cm 7 Main line dia 2 inch 14 Number of emitter per lateral 160
Drip Irrigation System on Flat Sowing of Wheat Drip Irrigation System on Raised Bed Sowing of Wheat Perforated Pipe Irrigation: Pipe is Placed at Perforated Pipe Irrigation: Pipe is Placed at along Width of Field along Length of Field
Irrigation Time saving through perforated pipe irrigation system vs conventional >2 times.Irrigation Water saving using perforated pipe irrigation system vs conventional = 26%.
Phase-III: Field Experiments Experimental Layout for Chiniot Farm SiteThreetreatmentsin RCBD
Soil moisture determination at Chiniot farm site Moisture Root Gross content zone Irrigation Plot No. on vol. depth depth basis (%) (cm) (cm) 1 13.93 30 8.34 4 12.4 30 8.4 7 13.3 30 8.01 Average 13.21 30 8.25
Irrigation Time saving using perforated pipe irrigation system vs conventional ≈ 2 timesIrrigation water saving using perforated pipe irrigation system = 14%
Phase-III: Field ExperimentsExperimental layout and treatments at the Hafizabad farm site Three treatments were designed at Hafizabad site T1: Open-End Pipe irrigation T2: Conventional irrigation method/ flooding T3: Perforated Pipe irrigation
Field Experiments Site-IVExperimental Layout for PARS Farm Site Perforated Pipe Deficit Irrigation Treatments Irrigation Treatments T1=20% of FL except 1st TL= Pipe is perforated on Irrigation both sides and placed along T2=35% of FL except 1st length in the middle of field. Irrigation TW =Pipe is perforated on single side and placed width wise on upper head of the T3=50% of FL except 1st field. Irrigation TW2=Pipe is perforated on single side and placed width T4=Full Level perforated pipe wise on upper head and Irrigation middle of field. Tc=Conventional surface irrigation method.
Comparison of different irrigation methods at PARS.Average irrigation time savings of TL vs TC = 44%, Average water savings from TL vs TC = 25%Average irrigation time savings of TW vs TC= 39%, Average water savings from Tw vs TC = 18%Average irrigation time savings of TW2 vs TC= 34%, Average water savings from TW2 vs TC= 12%
Future PlansFuture Plans based on Field Survey•Field survey is in progress and more data will be collected.•Statistical analysis will be carried out to identify thefactors affecting water productivity.Future Plans based on Field Experiments•The field experiments will be continued for finding out thefeasible irrigation method(s).•Research work is in progress to further refine and simplifythe use of perforated pipe irrigation.•Mobile sprinkler irrigation unit driven by Tractor PTO isalso in progress for its development so that few irrigationssuch as rowni (pre-sowing irrigation) and 1st irrigation canbe applied to save water and time.
Cont..• Dissemination of findings• Annual Report• Publications