Fertigation in Suwansi Khera
Uttar Pradesh, India
UC Davis D-Lab
Professor Kurt Kornbluth
March 14, 2011
Curran Hughes
Priya Natarajan
Gerardo Spinelli
Rachel Willner
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Problem Definition
Stakeholder Analysis and Archetypal Customer
Potential Impact
Research Summaries
Available Drip Technology in India
Local Fertilizer Production
Fertigation
Improved Wheat Irrigation
Recommendations
Potential Future Research
Appendices
Works Cited and References
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
5
6
7
9
11
16
Executive Summary:
The purpose of this report is to provide recommendations regarding irrigation
technology and the development of local fertilizer production in the village of Suwansi
Khera in Uttar Pradesh, India. This report was prepared for the University of California,
Davis D-Lab course, Mera Gao Micro Grid Power and Value Development Initiatives.
This report focuses on agricultural production in Uttar Pradesh, drip and sprinkler
irrigation technologies, local fertilizer production and fertigation. This report was
prepared by Students from the University of California, Davis D-Lab course with
generous help from Kurt Kornbluth, Brian Shaad and Nikhil Jaisinghani.
Introduction:
India could soon face a potential shortfall in agricultural production due to
constantly increasing demand and a stagnant sector. The Indian National Government
and the Indian Council on Agricultural Research (ICAR) have reiterated that agricultural
production must grow in order to meet the country’s burgeoning population.1 It has been
stated that one of the most important strategies to achieve this is through the development
and implementation of improved irrigation and fertilizer technologies.2
In coordination with Mera Gao Micro Grid Power (MGP), based in Delhi,
students from the University of California, Davis D-Lab course sought to develop
recommendations in order to improve irrigation technology and develop local fertilizer
production in the village of Suwansi Khera in Uttar Pradesh State, India. Uttar Pradesh is
facing a rapidly depleting water table due to high demand from inefficient irrigation
technologies. Furthermore, local farmers are heavily dependent on costly manufactured
fertilizers that are inappropriately applied to their fields. Finally, agricultural production
in the state has been virtually stagnant for the last two decades and farmers are seeking to
increase their yields to match growing demand.
The purpose of this project is to provide recommendations to MGP with respect to
the installation of improved irrigation technologies and the development of local fertilizer
manufacture. These recommendations seek to reduce water consumption and reduce
dependence on costly manufactured fertilizers while simultaneously improving crop
production and farmer livelihoods. The recommendations found at the end of this report
are meant for the consideration of MGP in addition to prospects for future research that
could be conducted in the D-Lab II course at the University of California, Davis.
Problem Definition:
To provide technical recommendations that will increase agricultural production,
reduce water consumption and improve soil quality through improved irrigation
technology and local fertilizer production.
Stakeholder Analysis and Archetypal Customer:
Stakeholder Analysis:
There are numerous parties involved in the fertigation project and a visual map
can be found in Appendix 1. Nonetheless, D-Lab’s role in this project was to analyze
information from irrigation manufacturers, Indian Government data, and academic
studies in order to make recommendations to MGP. MGP assisted in the formulation of
these recommendations by specifying project goals and providing invaluable local data.
These recommendations were developed with the intent that MGP could act on
recommendations that they saw fit and work with local stakeholders in establishing a
project. Additionally, if necessary, groups in D-Lab II could be called upon in order to
1
2
ICAR, 2011
Kumar, 2008
Hughes, Natajaran, Spinelli, Willner 2
design and research technical solutions to potential projects. No matter the chosen
project, the outcome should benefit local agents, consumers and irrigation companies.
Archetypal Customer:
There are two target customers for the proposed recommendations with respect to
project cost and impact. The primary customer base is the local farmer. The typical
farmer in this area is a male landowner with a farm of one hectare or smaller, while labor
is done by men, women and children alike. The typical farmer has a monthly income of
about Rs 2000 per month ($45). The typical seasonal crops grown include rice, wheat,
mustard seed, oils, okra, potato, tomato and peppers. These primary crops are
intercropped with Eggplant, leafy vegetables, other seeds and vegetables.
The other potential customer base is the pump owner. These are relatively better
off landowners, often from outside of the village, which own fixed or mobile diesel
pumps (typically 2 HP). They rent time on these pumps to farmers for irrigation
purposes. They have a significant role in the local agricultural economy because they
control access to the primary water sources – bore wells, water holes and drainage
ditches.
Potential Impact:
With correct implementation, improvements in irrigation and the development of
local fertilizer manufacture could have profound economic, environmental, social and
technical benefits. The potential increase in vegetable and grain yields would mean an
increase in producer income while local fertilizer production would reduce the
dependence on expensive manufactured fertilizers.
The environmental benefits of irrigation could potentially include a reduction in
water use coupled with improved soil structure and nutrient content. Local fertilizer
production would further improve soil conditions by adding more organic material to the
soil and balancing nutrient application. The social benefits would be derived from
farmers’ increased incomes while simultaneously promoting local empowerment by selfsufficiency through local fertilizer production. Furthermore, the increased vegetable
yields could increase the nutritional quality of the local diet. Finally, the technical
benefits include improved irrigation technology and improved crop management
techniques that could have long lasting effects on the local economy.
Summary of Research:
The team behind this project conducted considerable research regarding local
agricultural practices and policies in addition to examining substantial information
regarding irrigation and fertilizer production. The purpose of the following section is to
present the team’s findings with respect to existing drip irrigation technologies, local
fertilizer manufacture, fertigation and improved irrigation systems for wheat production.
Available Drip Technology in India:
Conventional and low cost drip irrigation equipment is available from different
manufacturers (Driptech, Netafim, IDE, Jain irrigation), each with differing levels of
Hughes, Natajaran, Spinelli, Willner 3
complexity and durability applicable to areas ranging from 100 to 2000 sq. meters.3
Prices range from $7224 to around $2000 for gravity drip systems.5
Manufacturer
IDE
Driptech
Netafim
Family Drip
T-Tape
JAIN
System
Irrigation
Area
2
m
200
Any
1000
Any
1000
Price $
18.33
~200
373.85
Price/10,000
2
m
916.5 $
722 $
~2000$
~2000 $
3738 $
Expected
life
1-2 years
1-2 years
3 years
3 years
3 years
Source
IDE - http://www.cseindia.org/
Personal e-mail
Bern University of Applied Sciences
T-tape catalog
www.jainsusa.com
http://www.deere.com/
Table 1: Comparison of drip systems for 10,000 m2 of row vegetables.
Context specific water use considerations:
Water is currently sold by pump owners to water users at high flow rates. Drip
systems however require water distributed at low flow rates, so the farmer needs to store
water that is supplied at high flows for a short time, in order to utilize a drip system over
a longer time. Water can be stored in drums at 2 meters of altitude for gravity
distribution, or in ground reservoirs for pumping (0.5 HP pumps).6 It would probably be
uneconomical for the water sellers to sell water at low flow rates over long periods of
time, as their costs and number of clients are related to the pump operation time. This
issue should be investigated in a participatory field survey. Nonetheless, if low flow rate
water could be provided regularly, a shift to drip irrigation for buyers would simply
require a filter, pipes and drip-lines.
Irrigation considerations:
Diesel 2 HP pumps are currently the most common in the area. Calculations (See
Appendix 2) show a flow rate of 2 l/s of pressurized water delivered to the consumer.
Assuming this flow rate, normal water requirements could be distributed with a drip
system to a 1000-2000 m2 field in less than seven hours.
Cost and benefit analysis:
Agricultural policy makers, economists and researchers have given these micro
irrigation systems much consideration for their economic, environmental and water
conserving benefits.7 However, the incentive for a small farmer to switch to a drip
system is measured in terms of individual profits. Small farmers however are limited by
risk aversion and the high upfront investment. Therefore one cannot simply consider a
positive ratio of benefits over costs. Economic and social factors (credit, input and output
markets, risk of investment etc.) must also be considered: with respect to gains over the
investment, studies have shown that profits are sometimes just sufficient to cover
installation costs.8 Nonetheless, the positive impact of drip systems on resource savings,
cultivation costs, crop yields and farm profitability has been shown by studies conducted
3
Kumar et al. 2004
Note: All $ prices are in 2010 United States Dollars.
5
Bern University of Applied Sciences, 2009
6
Kumar et al., 2004
7
Mathur, 2006-2009
8
Kumar et al., 2004
4
Hughes, Natajaran, Spinelli, Willner 4
in a similar context. The results reported also underline the importance of drip systems in
shifting production to high value horticultural crops and fruit trees in order to justify the
increased investment and maintenance costs (See Tables in Appendix 2).9
Environmental benefits and social implications:
The environmental impact of drip systems on reducing groundwater depletion is
significant. However, the long-term effect of a low cost and low durability technology
should be examined. Similarly, social effects must be considered. Social impacts could
include the effect on the water market, interests of wealthier and influential water sellers,
and the reorganization of household duties in response to changes in labor requirements.
Local Fertilizer Production:
Large-scale fertilizer production requires significant amounts of the correct
organic matter. This could include fish or poultry processing waste or even certain types
of agricultural and food waste. However, access to large quantities of these resources is
difficult, especially for the small farmers who are our target customers. The agricultural
waste in the region is inappropriate for large scale composting and they do not have
access to material like fish emulsion. However, small scale composting and vermiculture
are feasible alternatives that could prove beneficial to local farmers.
Vermiculture is the carefully managed use of indigenous worms to break down
manure, agricultural waste and food scraps into nutrient rich worm castings or
vermicompost. Composting is the microbial breakdown of the same products. Both
vermicompost and compost can be diluted to create vermiwash and compost tea. These
liquid solutions can be applied to crops as a form of liquid fertilizer. Therefore, despite
the lack of resources for dry fertilizer production, liquid fertilizer derived from worm
castings and compost is a viable alternative.
The Indian Department of Agriculture and Cooperation disseminates information
on vermicompost production techniques that are culturally appropriate and viable for the
tropics. Indigenous worms are collected and placed into a four-chambered brick tank
system containing sand, loamy soil, manure and high-carbon agricultural waste. The pit is
turned and kept moist for 60 to 90 days while food waste is added to the top.10
Innovative methods of compost tea production have been designed using different
culture tanks and sieves made with sand and rock. The University of Agricultural
Sciences in Bangalore recommends making compost tea on a smaller scale by filling a
porous bag with 1 kilogram of finished vermicompost and soaking it in 3 liters of water
for 48 hours, effectively creating a large bucket of tea. The Eco Science Research
Foundation in Chennai designed a drum in which worms can both compost and nutrients
can be decanted out by slowly dripping water through the drum.11
The nutrient content of vermicompost varies with inputs, but typical content can
include: 2.5% nitrogen, 1.7% phosphorous, 2.4% potash, 1.0% calcium, 0.3% magnesium
and 0.5% sulfur.12 Furthermore it contains beneficial microbes, fungi and plant
hormones. Soils amended with vermiwash and/or vermicompost were shown to
9
Jalajakshi et al. 2009
DIT, 2011
11
ABW, 2008
12
Assam SFAC, 2005
10
Hughes, Natajaran, Spinelli, Willner 5
significantly improve crop quality and yield.13
Vermicompost inputs vary by location but can include manure from animals like
cow, sheep, buffalo, horse and goat;14 agricultural waste from rice, wheat straw, sugar
cane; kitchen scraps not fed to animals and even industrial wastes such as fly ash from
coal production.15
Overall, India has examined vermicompost and vermiwash independently of
fertigation technologies. Production of either is seen as a potential business opportunity
for marginalized groups, unemployed women and youth. There is no research on the
effects or viability of applying compost tea through drip or sprinkler irrigation. But this
is an opportunity for innovative research and technical design as described in the Future
Research section later in this report.
Fertigation:
Fertigation lets farmers effectively control fertilizer distribution to meet specific
crop nutrition requirements throughout the growing season. In order to correctly plan
crop nutrient supply according to its physiological stage, the optimal nutrient
consumption lending to yield maximization and production quality must be determined.
This differs for each crop and agro-ecological region in addition to understanding plant
growth behavior, rooting patterns, soil chemistry and water quality factors (e.g. pH, salt
and sodium hazards and present toxic ions). Farmers can access this information through
FAO, IFFCO and extension web sites. There are two possible approaches to fertigation:

Manufactured Liquid Fertilizers: There are several companies (private and
public) in India that sell liquid fertilizers; some of which are organic liquid
fertilizers made from seaweed, neem and fish emulsion. Liquid fertilizers can
cost up to 9 times more than conventional varieties and are likely too expensive
for small farmers (refer to Appendix 3 for price details). Despite their high cost,
liquid fertilizers are the simplest approach to fertigation.

Self-Prepared Liquid Fertilizer: Farmers can prepare a stock solution on site by
dissolving water-soluble granulated fertilizers in water to prepare a tailor made
stock solution. Clear NK, PK and NPK fertilizer solutions with at least 9-10% of
nutrients (N, P2O5 and K2O) can be based on cheap fertilizers and made on site
with minimal preparation.16 Stock solutions could be prepared for individual
applications or for applications over a period of time. It is imperative that there
are no solids left in the water that could potentially clog emitters. The fertilizer
compatibility and its interaction with the available water chemistry must be
considered (i.e. water quality, pH and salinity). The table in Appendix 4 gives
details with respect to commonly used water-soluble fertilizers.
Compound solid fertilizer mixtures like mono ammonium phosphate (Nitrogen and
Phosphorus), poly feed (Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium), Multi K (Nitrogen and
13
Ansari, 2008
Nath et al., 2009
15
Ravikumar et al., 2008
16
Lupin et al., 1996
14
Hughes, Natajaran, Spinelli, Willner 6
Potassium), potassium sulfate (Potassium and Sulfur) are more suitable for fertigation as
they are highly soluble in water. Micronutrients like chelated Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu, B, and Mo
can also be added to the fertilizers.
The Fertigation Process:
Water-soluble fertilizer is injected into the irrigation system through fertilizer tanks,
venturi injectors or injection pumps, which are connected parallel to the irrigation pipe by
creating differential pressure. There are two types of fertigation applications, which
depend upon the crops, soil type and farm management system:

Quantitative: Nutrients applied in pre-determined concentrations. The liquid
fertilizer is applied in pulses, through a fertilizer tank, after irrigation periods
without fertilizer. This is low cost and low maintenance but this does not adapt
well to automated systems.

Proportional: The nutrients are applied in a constant and proportional ratio to the
water sheet using fertilizer pumps. This leads to precise application control and
can be easily automated. Fertigation equipment can regulate quantity/proportion
of the nutrients applied as well as the time duration. The stock solution for
example can be injected into the irrigation system at rates of 2-10 l/m3 depending
on the desired concentrations of N, P and K.
Improved Wheat Irrigation:
According to the FAO, irrigated wheat production should range between 6 and 9
tons/ha.17 However the average yield in Uttar Pradesh is 2.6 tons/ha.18 In 2008, the
Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) suggested that improvements in
irrigation technology would be one of the most important strategies to increase Indian
grain yields.19 The following section will analyze two potential alternatives to flood
irrigation that could increase wheat yields in Suwansi Khera. We will specifically look at
a sprinkler system developed by IDE and low cost drip systems available in India as
opposed to flood irrigation.
The benefits of drip irrigation in any agricultural setting are primarily found in its
high water use efficiency (WUE). If managed correctly, 85-95% of the source water will
be made available to the plants. This is much higher than the 50-70% and 70-85% WUE
for flood and sprinkler systems respectively.20 This efficiency is enabled by the direct
delivery of water to plant root systems. This targeted application is also beneficial in that
it reduces weed growth by limiting soil moisture and can directly deliver water-soluble
fertilizer to the plant’s root zone. Likewise, the small applications of water are low
impact and mitigate nutrient leaching and topsoil degradation.
17
FAO, 2010
Kumar, 2008
19
Kumar, 2008
20
Tollefson, 2010
18
Hughes, Natajaran, Spinelli, Willner 7
However, with respect to wheat production, drip has some disadvantages. First
and foremost it is costly, ranging from 700$ to 2000$ dollars per hectare.21 This is
compounded by high maintenance costs, which require some degree of technical training.
Also, drip systems do not effectively deliver moisture to the topsoil, making germination
an issue. Finally, drip systems are often fixed to a particular field and cannot be moved
to other production areas during the growing season.
Although drip may have some unique benefits, sprinkler irrigation offers distinct
advantages over drip systems for wheat production. Despite a lower WUE than drip, it is
able to achieve 70-85% WUE with lower investment costs and maintenance. These
systems typically cost $25-$30 for just the sprinkler heads.22 Sprinkler systems may
propagate more weeds than drip systems by providing adequate moisture to the soil
surface, but it is less of an issue than with flood irrigation. Likewise, one must consider
the low cost of weeding labor in comparison to the investment and maintenance costs for
drip. Similarly, the increased soil moisture lends to higher germination rates. The most
distinct advantage that sprinklers hold over drip is the considerably lower maintenance
costs and increased life span. One last consideration is that the sprinkler units are highly
mobile and could be shared by farmers or used by pump owners as a value added service.
Both sprinkler and drip systems offer distinct advantages over the flood irrigation
currently practiced in Suwansi Khera. Even though each system has its disadvantages
when compared to each other, their only common disadvantage over flood irrigation is
cost. However, the potential of doubling or tripling yields, could rapidly offset the initial
investment.23 Which system is more appropriate for Suwansi Khera is entirely dependent
on total costs, management and environmental conditions. A table that summarizes the
pros and cons of each system supplemented by more descriptive comparisons of each
category can be found in Appendix 5.
Recommendations:
Based on the research summarized above, we propose the following
recommendations with respect to the development of improved irrigation and local
fertilizer production in Suwansi Khera. The recommendations have been divided
between projects that could be made in the short-term and those that could be made over
a longer period of time and need more research before implementation:
Short-Term:
1) Installation of Existing Drip Irrigation and Fertigation Technology: Existing
low cost irrigation kits from companies like Driptech and Jain Irrigation could be
installed and made compatible for fertigation. These systems could be purchased and
installed relatively quickly and with little training. These systems are designed for highvalue horticultural crops. The kits are easy to assemble and come with small storage
containers and instructions. The increased production of high value horticultural crops
would theoretically allow farmers to pay off the investment within a growing season.
Incorporation of a fertigation system is possible either by using existing liquid
fertilizers or mixing water-soluble granulated fertilizers. Installation costs range from $18
for 200 m2 to $374 for 1000 m2. The incorporation of liquid fertilizers would increase the
21
Driptech, JAIN Irrigation, Netafim
Polak, 2003
23
Mamdouh et al., 2010
22
Hughes, Natajaran, Spinelli, Willner 8
cost considerably while the use of water-soluble granulated fertilizers would cost about
1200-2000 Rs ($26-$45) per acre per season, excluding labor and maintenance costs.
Long-Term:
1) Development of Local Fertilizer Manufacture through Vermiculture and
Compost Tea: Certain locally available materials are ideal for the development of local
fertilizer manufacture through vermiculture. Although the region lacks suitable resources
for large-scale dry compost or vermiculture production, it does have the capacity for
small-scale production. The smaller quantities of worm castings or compost could be
diluted into vermiwash or compost tea. These liquid solutions are high in vital nutrients
for plants and could be distributed through drip and sprinkler fertigation systems.
The development of local fertilizer production could become a potential small
business enterprise or practiced by individual farmers. Nonetheless, more research is
necessary in order to understand what specific resources are available in the area and
what are the most effective methods for small-scale production and distribution. The
exact costs for the establishment of such a system are difficult to determine without more
research, but the cost would require little initial investment and holds the potential for
high returns.
2) Installation of Drip and Sprinkler Systems for Wheat Production: The
adoption of improved irrigation technologies could increase yields, improve crop
management and reduce water use. Wheat is an important staple in the region, however
its production is generally limited to the monsoon season and average yields in the area
are quite low (2.6 tons/ha).24 Adoption of these technologies could increase yields and
potentially allow for production outside of the monsoon season when grain prices are
higher. The estimated cost for this varies greatly with respect to the available systems.
Two low-pressure sprinkler heads could cost between $25-$30 while a low-cost drip
system would cost $700-$1000 per hectare. One must also consider additional hardware
such as pumps (a 3 HP pump can cost up to Rs 5,000 ($111) and storage systems that
range from $5 (200liters) to $50 (10,000 liters).25
We have considered three potential strategies of adoption for these technologies:
1) Farmers could invest in these irrigation systems on an individual level and receive
training on their use through a pilot program. 2) Groups of farmers could invest in a
single system and share its use and maintenance responsibilities. This is more difficult
for drip irrigation, but quite practical for sprinklers. A strategy for drip systems is that a
group of farmers invest in bulk materials and then develop individual systems. Training
on their use would be given through a pilot program. 3) These systems could be sold to
the water pump owners who would lease time on the systems like they already do for
flooding. However, the time necessary would be reduced and farmers would gain the
benefits of the systems.
3) Investment in an irrigation Micro-Utility: This is the most expensive
recommendation, however it must be considered as an option that could have a
substantial impact over a longer period of time. The main advantages of a common
24
25
Kumar, 2008
IDE-International
Hughes, Natajaran, Spinelli, Willner 9
system compared to individual pumping units include a lower investment per unit of
surface area served; lower energy costs for pumps; improved control for extension
agents; centralized management and potentially easier maintenance; profit opportunity
for management entity; fixed schedule that reduces the risk of over irrigation; increased
control of groundwater depletion and water quality.
Disadvantages include: high initial investment; difficulty in agreements between
farmers for irrigation schedules; necessity of a potentially expensive billing mechanism;
risk of social conflicts between farmers; necessity of extension agents or technicians with
appropriate training for system operation and maintenance.
The system should be planned and implemented with farmers’ full participation
and involvement in decision-making. The planning phase should be context specific and
adapted to local conditions. Social conflicts should be clear and handled accordingly in
the planning phase. Social considerations relate to the capacity of the system to sustain
itself with or without the presence of a utility company. Adoption and trust in the
system’s functionality and its advantages are its basis of sustainability.
Future Research and D-Lab II:
The findings described in this report indicate that further research and analysis are
required in order to effectively certain aspects of agricultural development in the region.
Future research opportunities can be divided between analytical and technical research:
Analytical Research:
1) Survey and Site Visit: A more in depth understanding of local agricultural is
necessary in order to effectively implement this project. A standardized survey could be
developed in order to organize our understanding of local practices in addition to field
observations. Additionally, understanding the area’s intricate social structure is integral
to the project’s success and its significance could be better evaluated with a site visit.
This site visit could enable a more complete understanding of project objectives, potential
obstacles and impacts.
2) Examine Improved Agronomic Management: Based on the survey’s findings,
recommendations could be made with respect to improved methods of crop and water
management. This is most pertinent to rice production because we found no cost
effective technical solutions to increasing rice productivity. However, depending on the
methods currently practiced in the region, management improvements could prove
fruitful.
3) Examine the Potential for a Micro-Irrigation Utility: More research is required
in order to understand the implementation of a micro-irrigation utility. This research
would focus on scale, feasibility, cost analysis and tangible impacts.
Technical Research:
1) Trial Drip and Sprinkler Irrigation Systems: A better understanding of lowcost irrigation systems is required. Little objective research has explored their true
potential and shortfalls. Additionally, many of the advertised specifications for the lowcost sprinkler systems seem unrealistic (such as pressure requirements). Therefore, a
technical investigation of these technologies could give invaluable insight on appropriate
systems for this project.
Hughes, Natajaran, Spinelli, Willner 10
2) Examine Effective Local Fertilizer Manufacture: A more thorough
examination of vermicultre and compost tea production is necessary. Examining
different production strategies would shed light on which systems would be most
appropriate for the region. Furthermore, investigating the use of vermiwash and compost
tea in drip irrigation and sprinklers would strengthen the implementation of fertigation.
Appendices:
Appendix 1: Stakeholder Analysis
Hughes, Natajaran, Spinelli, Willner 11
Appendix 2: Irrigation Calculations and Data on Existing Drip Irrigation
Technology
Our client informed us that most of the pumps in the area are 2 HP internal combustion
types.
From this information, assuming an average area water table depth: D= 25 ft26 =
25*0.3= 7.5 m, estimating a residual pressure of h=5 m and friction and localized losses
of hl=5 m, we can calculate a total head of H=7.5+5+5=17.5 m
Applying the formula P=Q*H, Power=Flow*Head (N*m/s=(m3/s)*Pa), hence Q=P/H,
we can calculate the available flow, considering a pump efficiency of ηp=0.6 and an
engine ηe=0.5, hence final η=0.3
2HP=1491W; 17.5mwater=169 kPa; Q=(η*P)/H= 0.3*1,491/169000= 0.0026 m3/s=
2.6 l/s
Assuming that the efficiency of the pump is constant (efficiency should increase for
centrifugal pumps at higher head and lower flow requirement) for a residual head of 1
bar, needed to connect the buyer’s drip system directly to the seller’s hose, the same
formula gives a flow of 2 l/s. With this flow, a water requirement of 30 mm can be
supplied distributing 48 m3 on a 1600 m2 field in less than seven hours.
26
Mathur, 2006-2009
Hughes, Natajaran, Spinelli, Willner 12
We considered a square field of 40x40m, 92 drip lines 40m long each, for a total of
3600m of line with a flow rate of 2l/h per linear meter corresponding to 7200
l/h=2l/s=0.002 m3/s. To distribute 48 m3 it takes t=48/0.002=24000s = 6.6 hours.
Halving the surface and doubling the drip line capacity to 4l/h per linear meter will
result in set times of 3.3 hours. We consider this option very interesting and adaptable to
different conditions of time availability and water costs (drip lines are available up to
8l/h per linear meter), since the investment cost for the farmer is limited to the purchase
of filters and drip lines and the operational cost to the purchase of hours of water.
The following table reports profits and B/C ratio for different crops in similar Indian
contexts comparing dry land and drip irrigated cropping systems. Although the cited high
value crops (e.g. chili, banana) are not widespread in the area, potential economic and
agricultural development might allow farmers to make these high investments and high
profit crops that fully justify adoption of drip irrigation.
Table 1: Benefit cost analysis27 of drip systems and of crop production for banana in
sample farms in Tamil Nadu
Region
Crops
Erode
(Tamil
Nadu)
Sugarc
ane
Indore
(Madhya
Pradesh)
Jalgaon
(Maharasht
ra)
Chilli
Banan
a
Cotton
Banan
a
Irrigatio
n
method
Drip
Flood
Drip
Flood
Drip
Flood
Drip
Flood
Drip
Flood
Yield
(t/acr
e)
57.2
48.6
13.2
9.5
1.9
1.1
1.4
0.9
25.8
24.5
Retur
ns (Rs
/acre)
61,032
51,419
113,52
0
77,900
72,200
41,040
29,120
18,000
82,560
74,725
Net
profits
(Rs
21,582
/acre)
5,519
88,508
46,575
59,277
27,137
18,541
5,544
67,435
54,495
Benefit
-cost
(ratio)
1.55
1.12
4.54
1.85
5.68
2.95
2.75
1.44
5.46
3.69
As an example we report in the following table an analysis of banana production in a
similar Indian context.
Table 2: Economics of crop production for banana in sample farms in Tamil Nadu28
Particulars
Drip
Control
villages
villages
3
8979*
12669
Quantity of water applied (m )
2219*
8294
Quantity of energy consumed (kWh)
9761*
31487
Cost of labour (Rs)
80369*
104351
Capital (Rs)
60.34*
57.79
Yield (tonnes)
280602*
267400
Gross income (Rs)
200232*
163048
Gross margin (Rs)
3
7.4*
4.9
Yield per unit of water (kg/ m )
27
28
Jalajakshi et al., 2009
Kumar et al., 2010
Hughes, Natajaran, Spinelli, Willner 13
28.6*
7.2
Yield per unit of energy (kg/kWh)
3
23.8*
13.3
Returns per unit of water (Rs/ m )
92.3*
19.8
Returns per unit of energy (Rs/kWh)
Source: Field survey during 2007-08
Notes: *indicates that values are significantly different at 1 per cent level from the
corresponding values of control village
Appendix 3: Prices of Commonly Available Water Soluble and Conventional
Fertilizers in India (Prices in 2010 Rupees):
Fertilizer (N:P:K
percentages)
Water Soluble Type (Rs/Kg)
Conventional fertilizer
(Rs/Kg)
19:19:19
71
7.35
13:40:13
98
10.52
13:00:45
73
4.85
MAP- 12:61:00
75
13.68
MKP – 00:52:34
112
13.13
SOP (00:00:50)
51
3.83
Appendix 4: Commonly Used Water-Soluble granulated Fertilizers:
N fertigation
P fertigation
K fertigation
Urea, ammonium
nitrate, ammonium
sulfate, calcium
ammonium sulfate,
calcium ammonium
nitrate are used as
nitrogenous
fertilizers.
Phosphoric acid and mono ammonium Potassium nitrate,
phosphate appears to be more suitable potassium chloride,
for fertigation. (Application of super
potassium sulfate and
phosphorus through fertigation must be mono potassium
avoided as it makes precipitation of
phosphate are used in drip
phosphate salts.)
fertigation. (Application of
K fertilizer does not cause
any precipitation of salts.)
Appendix 5: Comparison of drip, sprinkler and flood irrigation systems:
Seed Germination
Water Conservation
Maneuverability
between farms
Cost
Management
Sprinkler
Good
Average
Good
Drip
Poor
Good
Poor
Flood
Average
Poor
Good
Cheap
Moderate
More Expensive
Considerable
Very Cheap
Low
Hughes, Natajaran, Spinelli, Willner 14
Intensity
Productivity
Nutrient Leaching
Fertilizer Application
Distribution
Uniformity
Weed Control
Medium/High
Average/Good
Diffuse: Applied
dry
Good
High
Good
Precise: Fertigation
Excellent
Average
Poor
Diffuse: Applied
dry, high loss
Poor
Moderate
Excellent
Poor
Comparing the advantages and disadvantages of sprinkler irrigation systems to
drip and flood systems vary between specific functions:
1. Seed Germination: Directly seeded grains need sufficient moisture to
trigger germination. If the soil that the seeds are planted in does not have
ample soil moisture, then the seeds will fail to germinate leading to yield
loss. Drip systems tend to be inefficient for seed germination because
much of the dispersed water flows downward and fails to reach the seeds
planted close to the soil surface. Surface drip systems help mitigate this
problem, though some seeds may still fail to germinate. Flooding
adequately delivers a lot of water to the soil and thoroughly increases soil
moisture. However, one risks either displacing seeds or drowning the
germinating seedlings. Sprinkler systems, however, are able to
effectively distribute ample water to the soil surface. This allows for
adequate seed germination without risking seed displacement.
2. Water Conservation: Flood irrigation is poor at water conservation.
Well-managed furrows achieve between 50 and 70% water use efficiency.
However, one can assume that the flood irrigation practiced in Suwansi
Khera may well be lower. Drip irrigation however can have a very high
efficiency rating, typically above 90% if managed correctly. MicroSprinkler systems on the other hand fall in between with an efficiency of
70-85%.29
3. Maneuverability between farms: This is important when considering who
is purchasing the hardware. If a group of farmers were to share the
investment, it would be important that they could move the system
between farms. Likewise, if the pump owners in Suwansi Khera were to
invest in the sprinklers, then they would want to be able to lease them to
different farmers. The IDE sprinklers are very maneuverable. Drip
systems a more permanent installation, at least for the growing season.
Flood systems are very moveable in that only the hose needs to be moved.
4. Cost: The costs vary widely between all three systems. Drip can be
extremely expensive, ranging from $720 to $2000 per hectare. Also, the
maintenance costs can be extremely high. Two sprinkler tripods only cost
$25-$30 but require a pump or an elevated tank in order to achieve the
correct water pressure. Flood irrigation is very cheap – the rental time
from the pump operator.
29
Tollefson, 2010
Hughes, Natajaran, Spinelli, Willner 15
5. Management Intensity: Sprinkler systems require moderate management.
One must think about how long to run the system in order to apply the
correct amount of water. Additionally, if one is using a limited number of
sprinklers, then they must be moved. However there are fewer pieces to
break than in a drip system. Additionally, the nozzles are made from
durable metal. Drip systems require a lot of maintenance and attention.
One must be taught how to correctly manage the system and repair it. A
high water pressure can potentially damage the system. Also, there are
hundreds of pieces that can potentially break. Those pieces are made of
plastic and less durable than metal. Flood, little management is required
in comparison to sprinkler and drip systems.
6. Productivity: Sprinkler systems, if managed correctly, can be extremely
productive. Drip systems using fertigation can be highly productive as
well (up to 6.5 tons/hectare for wheat).30 The productivity of flood
irrigation is what the current rate of production is in Suwansi Khera,
approximately 2.6 tons/hectare.
7. Nutrient Leaching: Drip irrigation has little nutrient leaching. The low
amount of water being distributed is readily used by the plants and not
draining to the sub soil, taking vital nutrients with it. Sprinkler systems
have slightly higher rates of nutrient leaching, but are relatively low due
to the moderate rate of water application. Flood irrigation however can
have high rates of nutrient leaching and water run off. This is because a
lot of nutrients near the surface will be carried away on the surface or
dragged to the sub soil.
8. Fertilizer Application: Drip systems can effectively distribute fertilizer
directly to the plant root zone. This means a reduction of fertilizer use by
up to 30% and increased plant efficiency. For sprinkler systems, the
fertilizer must still be spread on the surface in a dry or liquid form prior to
irrigation. In flood systems, the fertilizer must be spread on the surface,
but leaves the potential for the fertilizer to be displaced by the flooding.
Incorporating the fertilizer into the soil is a way to reduce the amount of
fertilizer run off.
9. Distribution Uniformity: Sprinkler and drip systems can achieve high
levels of uniform water distribution in comparison to flood irrigation.
However, the uniformity achieved is entirely dependent on field
conditions and management practices.
10. Weed Control: Sprinkler systems provide adequate soil moisture for seed
germination in the topsoil while drip irrigation systems restrict topsoil
moisture. Flood irrigation however saturates the topsoil creating ideal
conditions for weeds and can even help in dispersing their seeds.
Appendix 6: Further Information Regarding Government Sponsored Irrigation
Programs:
30
Mamdouh, 2010
Hughes, Natajaran, Spinelli, Willner 16
In an effort to improve agricultural irrigation techniques, The Central Government
of India developed the Micro Irrigation (MI) Scheme, now The National Mission on
Micro Irrigation (NMMI). This created an incentive for the incorporation of
microirrigation technology into farming systems. Microirrigation, in the form of drip and
sprinkler systems decreases water use, labor costs and soil erosion while increasing crop
yield.
NMMI encompasses both horticultural and agronomic crops. 33% of funds must
be made available to small, marginal, and women farmers. Both drip and sprinkler
irrigation fall under its domain and are eligible for 50% subsidies, but there is an
additional 10% subsidy for small and marginal farmers. The Central Government
contributes 50%, the State Government contributes 10% and the farmer funds the
remaining 40%. The manufacturer of the product that is required to design and install the
system. Planning, implementation and regulation are done on national, state and district
levels.
The National Committee on Plasticulture Applications in Horticulture (NCPAH)
promotes the use of plasticulture in horticulture as drip irrigation, plastic mulch, pond
lining, sprinkler irrigation systems, soil solarization, green houses, shade-net houses,
plastic tunnels, hail and bird nets and packaging solutions. The focus is on water
conservation, increasing crop yield and fertilizer management through the incorporation
of plasticulture in small-scale agriculture. However, the program lacks clarification on
recycling programs for the large quantities of plastic.
Seventeen Precision Farming Development Centers (PFDCs) were established at
agricultural universities in each state to examine the use of plasticulture in agriculture. As
extension entities, they should publish manuals on fertigation schemes, conduct research
and host demonstration plots for stakeholder viewing.
The nearest center or our project site is outside of Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, at the
Central Institute for Subtropical Horticulture. Its purpose is to tailor systems to the local
agro-ecological conditions, perform research, and provide demonstration plots and
extension services. Research conducted by the Institute in the area around Lucknow has
shown that drip irrigation can save reduce water consumption by 30% to 70%. It has been
reported that yield increases are crop specific but range from 30% to 100%. Lastly, dirp
irrigation provides uniform application and reduces power consumption by 44% to 47%
on water pumps (CISH, 2011).
Given the large subsidies offered by the National Government, it seems plausible
that small and marginal farmers could afford and benefit from the adoption of
microirrigation systems. This being said, the farmers of Uttar Pradesh seem to know
little about microirrigation options, despite the mandate to promote the technology.
Further, site-specific research needs to be done to see why the information transfer and
technology adoption has failed in this area but it may be more cost effective for the
farmer to take advantage of the subsidy.
References and Works Cited:
Agriculture Business Week (ABW) (2008). Vermicomposting in India. Accessed 13
Hughes, Natajaran, Spinelli, Willner 17
March 2011. http://www.agribusinessweek.com/vermicomposting-in-india/.
Allen, Richard G., Luis S. Pereira, Dirk Raes, Martin Smith (1998). Crop
evapotranspiration - Guidelines for computing crop water requirements - FAO
Irrigation and drainage paper 56 -FAO - Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations Rome, 1998.
Ansari, A. (2008). Effect of vermicompost and vermiwash on the productivity of spinach
(Spinacia oleracea), onion (Allium cepa) and potato (Solanum tuberosum). World
Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 4(5):554-557.
Assam SFAC (2005). Handbook on Medicinal and Aromatic Plants. Accessed 13 March
2011. http://assamagribusiness.nic.in/hbook.htm.
Bern University of Applied Sciences (2009). Micro Irrigation for Small Scale Farming –
An overview about technologies and methods. Swiss College of Agriculture SLH.
http://www.shl.bfh.ch/fileadmin/docs/Forschung/KompetenzenTeams/International
eLandwirtschaft/MI/Overview_small_scale_irrigation_final_doc-9.pdf
CSE India (2003). IDE Drip Irrigation, the long and short of it. Center for Science and
Environment. Web Document Accessed through: www.cseindia.org/dtesupplement/water20031115/drip_irrigation.pdf.
Department of Information Technology (DIT), Government of India (20062011). Vermicompost. Accessed 13 March 2011.
http://indg.gov.in/agriculture/on-and-off-farm-enterprises/vermicompositing.
Devi, Lalita (1992). Climatic characteristics and Water Balance – A study of Uttar
Pradesh, New Delhi 1992
Driptech (2011). Informational Communication with Driptech through
info@driptech.com, February, 2011. www.driptech.com.
FAO (2010). Crop Water Information: Wheat. Food and Agriculture Organization,
Natural Resources and Environment Department. Accessed on March 11, 2011
through: http://www.fao.org/nr/water/cropinfo_wheat.html.
Ibragimov, Nazirbay. Steve Evett, Yusupbek Esanbekov, Bakhtiyor Kamilov, and Lee
Heng. Cotton and Winter Wheat Irrigation Scheduling Improvements in
Uzbekistan. Uzbekistan Cotton Growing Research Institute. Tashkent Province,
Uzbekistan.
ICAR (2011). Vision 2030. Indian Council on Agricultural Research. New Delhi, India.
Web document accessible through: www.icar.org.in.
Hughes, Natajaran, Spinelli, Willner 18
IDE-International. Affordable Small-Scale Irrigation Technologies & Technical Manual
Ideal For Micro Irrigation Systems. International Development Enterprises (IDE).
Lakewood, CO, USA. www.ide-international.org.
JAIN Irrigation. www.jains.com. Last Accessed March 12, 2011.
Jalajakshi, C.K. Jagadish (2009). Economics of Krishik Bandhu Drip Irrigation: An
Empirical Analysis. Agricultural Economics Research Review Volume 22,
Number 1, January-June 2009.
James, Larry G. (1988). Principles of Farm Irrigation System Design, Wiley and Sons
1988.
Koegel, R.G. (2000). Self-help wells, FAO irrigation and drainage paper – 30, FAO Food And Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 1985.
Kumar, D. Suresh and K. Palanisami (2010). Impact of Drip Irrigation on Farming
System: Evidence from Southern India. Agricultural Economics Research Review
Vol. 23 July-December 2010 pp 265-272.
Kumar, M. Dinesh, Tushaar Shah, Maulik Bhatt and Madhu Kapadia (2004). Dripping
water to a water guzzler: techno-economic evaluation of drip irrigation of Alfalfa
in north Gujarat, India. International Water Management Institute. Gujarat, India.
Kumar, Sant (2008). Raising Wheat Production by Addressing Supply-Side Constraints
in India. Indian Council on Agricultural Research – National Centre for
Agricultural Economics and Policy Research. New Delhi, India.
Lupin, M. , Magen, H., and Z. Gambash. 1996. Preparation of solid fertilizer based
solution fertilizers under “grass roots” field conditions. Fertilizer News, V 41:12,
pp 69-72.
M. Kay, N. Hatcho, Small scale pumped irrigation, Food And Agriculture Organization
Of The United Nations, Rome, 1992
Mamdouh, A. Eissa, Mohamed Nafady, Hussein Ragheb and Kamal Attia (2010).
Management of Phosphorus Fertigation for Drip Irrigated Wheat under Sandy
Calcareous Soils. Department of Soils and Water, Faculty of Agriculture, Assiut
University, Egypt. World Journal of Agricultural Sciences 6(5): 510-516, 2010.
IDOSI Publications, 2010.
Mathur, R.N. (2006-2009). Water Table Fluctuations in the Meerut District, Uttar
Pradesh, India. Geografiska Annaler. Series A, Physical Geography, Swedish
Society for Anthropology and Geography.
Ministry of Agriculture (2006). Micro Irrigation Guidelines (Drip and Sprinkler). Ministry
Hughes, Natajaran, Spinelli, Willner 19
of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture & Cooperation, (January 2006), pp. 173. Krishi Bhavan, New Dehli, India.
Ministry of Agriculture (2010). National Mission on Micro Irrigation Operational
Guidelines. Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture & Cooperation,
(November 2010), pp. 1-86. Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi, India.
Nath, G., Singh, K., Singh, D.K. (2009). Chemical analysis of vermicomposts/vermiwash
of different combinations of animal, agro and kitchen wastes. Australian Journal of
Basic and Applied Sciences, 3(4): 3672-3676.
Netafim. Company Website: http://www.netafim.com/. Last Accessed March 11, 2011.
Pathak, M D. Rice Production in Uttar Pradesh – Progress and suggestions for
improvement.
Phocaides, A. (2000). Technical Handbook on Pressurized Irrigation Techniques, FAO,
Food And Agriculture Organization Of The United Nations, Rome, 2000.
Polak, Paul (2003). Increasing the Productivity of the World’s Micro-farmers.
Smallholder Irrigation Market Initiative. Web document accessed through:
http://www.siminet.org/images/pdfs/increasing-productivity-pp.pdf.
Ravikumar, TN, Yeledhalli, NA, Ravi, MV, Karayana Rao, K. (2008). Physical, physicochemical and enzymes activities of vermiwash compost. Karnataka Journal of
Agricultural Sciences, 21(2): 222-226.
Singh, G., Mishra, R., Pandey S (2007). Microirrigation Manual. Precision Farming
Development Centre, Central Institute for Subtropical Horticulture. (June 2007),
pp. 1-96. Rehmankhera, Lucknow, India.
Srivastavaa, S.K. and R. Kumarb. Irrigation Development and Groundwater Extraction
in Uttar Pradesh state: Emerging Issues of Distribution and Sustainability.
Research Scholar, Division of Agricultural Economics, Indian Agricultural
Research Institute (IARI), and Senior Scientist (Agricultural Economics), Indian
Institute of Soil Science (IISS).
Tollefson, Laurie (2010). Water Use Efficiency in Irrigated Crop Production.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada/International Commission on Irrigation and
Drainage (ICID). Accessed March 12, 2011 through: http://www.wgcrop.icidonline.org/wg_crop_tollefson_2010.pdf.
T-Tape. DripWorks T-Tape Drip Irrigation Tape. http://www.dripworksusa.com/. Last
Accessed March 11, 2011.