Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation
National Water Research Center
Water Management Research Institute
Innovative Method for Rice Irrigation
With High Potential of Water Saving
Received Award International Commission on
Irrigation and Drainage
(ICID) 14 October 2008 in the field of water
an innovative way
Prof. Dr. / Yosri Ibrahim Atta
Research Professor at the Institute of Water
Management Research
Email: prof.yosri2008@yahoo.com
1
Introduction:
Rice is one of the most inefficient in water use because it grown generally
under submerged condition in Egypt. It is means stable food for majority of the
population and has become exportable crop in Egyptian agricultural system after the
free cropping pattern policy. For these reasons, the areas cultivated with rice have
been increased. The authorities in Egypt limit the area devoted to rice to be about
46000 hectares every year but the farmers cross this area to almost the double because
rice is more profitable crop than other summer crops namely maize and cotton.
Consequently the pressure increase on the limited area resources in the country and
sometimes causes irrigation water shortage during the peak summer season.
The water resources in Egypt are considered limited although the population
increasing continuously. In the sense that they will not have sufficient water resources
to meet their agricultural, domestic, industrial and environmental needs.
One of the main strategies to overcome this problem is to achieve better water
management policy. Irrigation management under old lands conditions which
irrigated by surface irrigation method is very important to improve production and
water saving. For increasing water use efficiency of rice can be improved without
additional costs to the farmers and consequently water save. So saving water is
necessary to face the water shortage in the future. Such saving for irrigation water of
rice is like to be achieved by using a new planting and irrigation method with high
potential for water saving.
The aim of this study was performed in order to seek a possibility of growing
rice cultivar Sakha 104 on strips in order to decrease the amount of irrigation water as
well as increasing water productivity.
Background:
The
traditional
method
for
rice
cultivation require that rice seeds be first
soaked in sufficient water for 48 hr and then
incubated
for
24
hr
to
enhance
the
germination. Then after that, it were handly
broadcasted.
Field
practices
preparation
performed
and
according
nursery
to
the
2
traditional local management. 30 days old
seedlings were transferred from the
nursery and transplanted in the permanent
field after puddling. The field is usually
divided into basins. Transplanting of
seedlings rice on flat at the hills (4-5
plants) distance of 20 x 20 cm to give the
rate of (25 hills/m2) as recommended. All
other cultural practices for rice were
followed, the irrigation of rice crop during growing season was applying with 10 cm.
The farmers got used to over irrigate their fields where losses of water are great.
Hence decreasing of water productivity, therefore it is necessary to find out a new
planting method and a new surface irrigation technique.
There are many trails to estimate
the amount of water used for land
preparation
for
both
nursery
and
permanent field, raising nursery for 30
days
and
the
amount
use
during
transplanting stage was measured 3983
m3/ha.
Some researchers such Nour and
Mahrous (1996) estimated this amount of
water and found it 4602 m3/ha, Nour et al (1996) found it 4790 m3/ha, Sorour et al
(1998) found it 4495 m3/ha and Atta (2005) found it 4476 m3/ha.
Many investigators studied the
water requirements of rice at continuous
flooding in this respect Abou-Soliman et
al (1990) gave a range of 16190-21428
m3/ha, Nour and Mahrous (1994) found
this amount of water was 19152 m3/ha
and Atta (2005) found it 14870 m3/ha.
3
The innovative method:
This method is depending on
reducing
irrigated
area
by
land
deviation into furrows. Top of furrow
was named (border) and bottom of
furrow was named (tape). Every
border and tape named (strip). The
seedlings were transplanted in bottom
of furrow (tape) with using the same
plant density as recommended into
two rows of plants according to strip
width. Planting irrigation was given with enough amount for reaching to puddiling
then the next irrigation were given for taps only with depth of 7 cm. Accordingly
flooding area was less and consequently increased water saving by about 30%-40%
using this new method increased irrigation application efficiency and water
productivity, however it decreased percolation losses and decreased evaporation.
Conservation of plant density:
Using this method, it achieved new plants distribution as recommended plant
density is (25 hills/m2) and in order to survive this density we can use the new method
whereas in this method the plant density can be calculated for example as follows:
Furrow with long 10m and wide at 0.8m.
Total area = 10 x 0.8 = 8 m2
No. of hills = 8 x 25 = 200 hills
No. of hills in each row = 200/2 = 100 hills
Distance between hills = 8/100 = 0.1 m
And consequently we can find that , No. of hills per unit area is equal for both new
and traditional methods.
Generally in this study the new planting method for rice (strip of furrow 80
cm) was always better than traditional method in reduction of irrigation water applied
and costs while it increase water productivity and grain yield because planting rice on
strips perhaps made a good advantages and important proprieties such as:
-
Good distribution of plants.
4
-
Less flooding area.
-
Water saving 30%-40%.
-
Raising water productivity.
-
Increasing fertilizers use efficiency.
This innovative method has been conducted in 2002 on small research area as
an experimental work. After that, through years of 2003 till 2005, whereas the
experiments showed good achievement, the Ministry of Water Resources and
Irrigation co-operated with Water Management Research Institute for extend this
innovative method on different governorates covering all climate and soil conditions
in Egypt. These governorates were located on different regions (North Delta, Middle
Delta, West Delta and East Delta). This extension works aimed to convince the
farmers by using this new method in order to save water. During theses extension
years we achieved a very good results on water saving by convincing many farmers
by this method. The cultivated areas were 50 hectares distributed on different sites.
After this extension work, The Minster of Water Resources and Irrigation
allowed to forbidden rice cultivation areas (such Fayoum Governorate) to cultivate
rice but under using this Innovative method which save the applied water by 40%.
The Minster announced this through the media. In addition to the Minster gave his
instructions to irrigation districts to use this new method and to be wide used all over
Egypt. Then this method through years 2006 and 2007 has been used on large scale on
five regions including Fayoum Governorate, Middle Egypt on cultivation area about
150 hectares.
Some piece information about this innovative method have been published in Grid
(FAO Journal) Volume 25, 2006, Arabic and English versions.
5
And Water Management
Project in Fayoum recommended
this method to be world wide
used. And currently Irrigation
Improvement Projects applying
this new method on the command
areas. WUAs now using this
method and they doing extension
for it.
Methodology:
The Innovative method of rice cultivation (on strips) was applied in farmers
fields on five governorates under different soil and climate conditions in Egypt in 150
hectares, This study aimed to seek the possibility of growing rice in the bottom of
furrows (strips) in order to increase water use efficiency of rice cultivar Sakha 104
with cropping period (135 days). Some soil physical and chemical properties of
cultivated areas are presented in Table (1). A Complete randomized blocks design
with four replicates was used.
Table (1) : some physical and chemical properties for the experimental sites
Sand
Silt
Clay
Soil
%
%
%
Texture
East Delta
26.7
28.5
44.8
Clay
West Delta
27.2
12.8
60.0
Middle Delta
17.4
19.1
North Delta
24.8
Middle Egypt
21.1
Sites
EC
F.C.
W.P
(dS/m)
%
%
8.1
1.19
38.34
19.90
Heavy Clay
8.5
1.5
42.30
20.80
63.5
Heavy Clay
8.3
2.1
41.60
19.60
32.6
42.6
Clay
7.9
1.2
34.80
20.80
40.6
38.3
Clay loam
8.0
2.8
36.41
21.30
6
pH
Factors of study:
Planting methods (M): two planting methods were followed in the permanent
field, they were:
M1: Traditional transplanting:
Transplanting of seedlings rice on flat at the hills (4-5 plants) distance of 20 ×
20 cm. to give the rate of (25 hills/m2) and,
M2: Transplanting in strips of furrows 80 cm wide:
(Top of furrow 45cm. and 35 cm. for bottom) Seedlings were transplanting in
hills (4-5 plants) 10 cm. apart in the two rows on the bottoms of furrows (strips)
keeping population the same as in the traditional method (25 hills/m2) as
recommended as shown in Fig. (1).
Top
45 cm
20 cm
35 cm
Bottom
80 cm
Fig (1) : Strips of Furrows Diagram (80 cm wide).
Rice variety Sakha 104 was planted in these regions. Field preparation and
nursery practices performed according to the traditional local management. Rice seeds
were soaked in sufficient water for 24 hours and then incubated for 48 hours to
enhance germination. Thereafter, it was broadcasted. Thirty days old seedlings were
manually transplanted.
Dates of some cultural practices as follows:
East
West
Middle
North
Middle
Delta
Delta
Delta
Delta
Egypt
Sowing
May, 20
May, 15
May, 21
May 18
May 16
Transplanting
June, 20
June, 15
June, 21
June 18
June 16
Harvesting
29 Sep.
30 Sep.
4 Oct.
3 Oct.
1 Oct.
Sites
7
The fertilizers requirements for the nursery were added according to the
recommended doses according to Crops Research Institute, Agricultural Research
Center (ARC). Nitrogen fertilizer in the form of ammonium sulphate (20.6 % N) was
used at a rate of 140 kg N/ha. Phosphate fertilizer in the form of Calcium superphosphate (15.5 P2O5) at the rate of 70 Kg P2O5 per hectare was added during
permanent field preparations. The complementary fertilizers such as potassium and
Zinc were applied as recommended in time. All other cultural practices for rice
production were followed.
Data Recorded:
(A) Water Management Data:
I. Irrigation Water Measurement:
Irrigation water was measured using water meter (in m3). The amount of
water used for land preparation for both nursery and permanent field, irrigation of the
nursery for 30 days and through the first seven days after transplanting were
measured to be 3983 m3/ha. The amount of irrigation water delivered to each
treatment was also, recorded and added to get the total water used. Irrigation of the
permanent field started after seven days from transplanting process and stopped
before 10 days from harvesting process in all seasons. The water depth at the
irrigation day was about 7 cm for all treatments with 3 days of irrigation interval.
(continuous flooding).
2. Water Use Efficiency (WUE) :
It was calculated according to Israelsen and Hansen (1962) as follows:
WUE = Rice grain yield (Kg/ha.) / Total water used (m3/ha.)
(B) Grain Yield (ton/ha.):
The central samples of each field were harvested to determine grain yield in
ton/ha as adjusted at 14% moisture content. All data were subjected to analysis of
variance according to Cochran and Cox (1957) then treatment means were compared
by LSD test.
8
( C ) Economic analysis
In order to identify the difference between the two methods, economic analysis will
be applied. This analysis will depend on the following two indicators:

Net return/m3 of water: This indicator will be callculated by dividing the net
return arising from each method by the total amount of water applied
Net Return

/Total water applied…………….(1)
Benefit cost ratio (B/C) : This ratio is calculated" by dividing the total net
return for each method by its total costs. The higher ratio refer is the better
economic efficiency.
B /C = total net returns
/ total costs.
Results and Discussion:
Data for grain yield collected and presented in Table (2). The obtained data
showed that, the planting methods had a significant effect on grain yield/ ha. The
highest grain yield/ha (9.275 t/ha.) was obtain from M2 treatment, While the lowest
value was recorded from M1 treatment (8.789 t/ha.). Similar results were obtained by
Atta (2005).
9
Table (2): average of total water used, water saving, grain yield, yield increment and
water use efficiency as affected by planting methods for five regions.
m3/ha
%
East
Delta
M1
14871.3
-
-
9.405b
-
0.632
M2
9190.4
5680.9
38.2
9.954a
5.84
1.083
West
Delta
M1
13952.4
-
-
7.939b
-
0.569
M2
8133.4
5819.0
41.7
8.402a
5.83
1.033
Middle
Delta
M1
15628.6
-
-
8.721b
-
0.558
M2
9028.6
6600.0
42.23
9.146a
4.87
1.013
North
Delta
M1
15047.4
-
-
9.090b
-
0.604
M2
9500.0
5547.4
36.87
9.700a
6.71
1.021
Middle
Egypt
M1
15300.0
-
-
8.830b
-
0.577
M2
9260.1
6039.9
39.48
9.365a
6.06
1.011
M1
14959.94
-
-
8.797b
-
0.588
M2
9022.5
5937.44
39.69
9.313b
5.86
1.032
Over All
Average
Total
water used
m3/ha.
Water saving (%)
Grain
yield
(t/ha)
Sites
Planting
Method
(M)
M1:Traditional method
M2: Strips of furrows 80 cm
10
Yield
increment
(%)
WUE
kg/ m3
Table (3): average of water used (m3/ha) before and through irrigation treatments for
five regions
Irrigation
Period
East Delta
West Delta
10742.8
M2
5061.9
M1
M2
North
Delta
A: Before Treatments*
3581.0
4252.4
3971.4
B: During Treatments
10371.4
11376.2 11076.0
4128.5
M1
Middle
Delta
Middle
Egypt
Over all
Averages
4160.0
4018.66
11140.0
10941.28
5100.1
5003.48
14871.3
4552.4
4776.2
5528.6
C: Total Water Used
13952.4
15628.6 15047.4
15300.0
14959.94
9190.4
8133.4
9260.1
9022.50
9028.6
9500.0
* Amount of water for land preparation for both nursery and permanent field, as will as rising
for 30 days and through 7 days after transplanting.
Grain Yield:
Data for grain yield collected and presented in Table (2). The obtained data showed
that, the planting methods had a significant effect on grain yield/ ha. The highest
grain yield/ha (9.275 t/ha.) was obtain from M2 treatment, While the lowest value
was recorded from M1 treatment (8.789 t/ha.). Similar results were obtained by Atta
(2005).
Though transplanting was done in
10
intense
way
by
doubling
the
population within the furrow of the strip,
yet the rice crop performed better when
transplanted in the bottoms of the furrows
(strips) M2 treatment than M1 treatment as
9.5
9
Grain Yield (ton/ha)
more
8.5
9.3
8.8
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
shown in Table (2).
5.5
Grain yield had higher value with
transplanting on strips of furrows (M2).
5
Traditional method
Strips of furrow s 80 cm
Cultivation Method
Increase grain yield/ha by 5.86 % using (M2) treatment compared with traditional
transplanting (M1) treatment.
This result can be explained that the plant of rice found better environment
where, planted with a distance of 45 cm. for M2 away from the other plant planted in
the neighboring furrow though, it may be competing with the other hill planted 10 cm
apart within the same row. On other words, the intra-row competition especially for
11
light was minimized against increase in the inter-row competition. The rate of effect
of these two competitions was in favour of the intra-row competition resulted in a
better environment for rice plants.
Water Relations:
Water used before and through treatments:
Table (3) showed the amount of
16000
water used for land preparation, for both
raising for 30 days and through 7 days after
transplanting
and
before
treatments
application were 4018.66 m3/ha. as average.
Similar results were found by Nour and
Total Water Used (m 3/ha)
nursery and permanent field, as well as
14000
14960
12000
10000
8000
9022
6000
4000
2000
Mahrous (1994), Nour et al., (1996)
0
Traditional method
Sorour et al., (1998) and Atta (2005). The
Strips of furrow s 80 cm
Cultivation Method
nursery area was about one tenth of
permanent field area. Water used through treatments application measured and was
found to be 10941.28 and 5003.48 m3/ ha. for M1 and M2 treatments as average
respectively.
100
Total water used: The results
90
showed that total water used by rice
where 14959.94 and 9022.5 m3/ha for M1
and M2 treatments respectively. From these
results, it can be reported that water saved
were about 5937.44 m3/ha (39.69 % ), and
yield increasing by 5.86 % for M2
Water Saving (%)
according to the different planting methods,
80
70
60
50
40
39.7%
30
20
10
0.0%
0
Traditional method
Strips of furrow s 80 cm
Cultivation Method
treatment.
Some research workers estimated the water requirement of rice crop and they
differed in their estimates. Abo-Soliman et al., (1990) gave 16190 –21429 m3/ha.
Nour and Mahrous (1994) gave 19152 m3/ha. for Giza 176 cultivar, Nour et al.,
12
(1996) gave 14976, 13333 and 14048 m3/ha. as the water needed for Giza 176, Giza
177 and Giza 178 cultivars, respectively.
Sorour et al., (1998) gave 14390 m3/ha. for Giza 176 cultivar, Ghanem and
Ebaid (2000) gave 13755 m3/ha. as water required to irrigate Sakha 101. cultivar and
Awad (2001) gave 12452 m3/ha. for Giza 178 cultivar from transplanting to harvest.
Atta (2005) reported that using strips of furrows 80 cm method as a new planting
method for transplanting rice Sakha 104 cultivar obtained water saving with 34.8 %,
increasing grain yield by 3.4 % and increased water use efficiency from 0.66 to 1.06
kg/m3.
Water Use Efficiency (WUE):
1.5
1.4
Table (2) showed that the highest
for M2 treatment (1.032 kg/m3).While the
lowest one was recorded for M1 treatment
WUE (kg/m 3)
water use efficiency (WUE) was recorded
3
(0.588 kg/m ). This due to the marked
reduction in the amount of water used with
a significant increase in grain yield.
Similar results were obtained by Atta
1.3
1.2
1.1
1
1.032
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.588
0.1
0
Traditional method
Strips of furrow s 80 cm
Cultivation Method
(2005).
Economic analysis
The analysis of the study results revealed that rice cultivation under strip
method is more effiecint than that under the traditional method.
The net return for rice cultivated under strip method (M2) were calculated at
0.182 $ /m3 of water compared to 0.089 $/m3 of water for rice cultivated under the
normal method (M1). On the other hand, Benifit cost ratio (B/C) for rice (M2) is
higher than that for rice (M1) as shown in table (4). This due to the less amount of
water used with rice planted under strip method.
13
Table (4) Net return per m3 of water and Benifit cost ratio (B/C) for rice
according to planting methods.
Planting
Method
Grain
Total
Yield
return
Costs $/ha
Fixed
Net
Water
return
applied
$/ha
m3/ha
Total
Kg/ha
$/ha
Variable
M1
8797
3838.7
1261.4
1246.0
2507.4
1331.3
M2
9313
4063.9
1172.0
1246.0
2418.0
1645.9
Net
return($)
/m3 of
(B/C)
14959.94
0.089
0.531
9022.5
0.182
0.681
Abo soliman, M.S.M., S. A. Ghanem, S. A. Abd El-Hafez and N. El- Mowelhi,
(1990). Effect of irrigation regimes and nitrogen levels on rice
production and nitrogen losses under tile drainage. Ministry of Agric.
And land Reclamation, Agric. Res. 1: 14-15.
Atta,Y.I.M. (2005). Strip transplanting of rice : a new method for increasing water
use efficiency under splitting of nitrogen fertilizer. Egypt.J. of Appl. Sci;
20 (10 B ) : 501- 511.
Awad, H. A. (2001). Rice production at the North of Delta region in Egypt as
affected by irrigation intervals and nitrogen fertilizer levels, J. Agric.
Sci., Mansoura Univ., 26 (2): 1151-1159.
Chochran, W.G. and G.M. Cox (1957). Experimental designs. 2nd Edit. Pp. 661.
John wiley and sons, Inc . New York.
Ghanem, S.A. and R.A Ebaid (2001). Effect of farm yard manure and water
regimes on productivity of rice and succeeding clover crop . Egypt. J.
Appl. Sci, 16 (6): 115 – 128.
Israelsen, B.O. and V.E. Hansen (1962). .Irrigation Principles and Practices 3rd
Edit. John Wiley and Sons Inc, New York.
Nour, M. A. and F.N. Mahrous (1994). Effect of varying irrigation intervals
during tillering, reproductive and ripening stages on rice yield and its
14
cost ratio
water
References
components Egypt. J. Appl. Sci, 9 (7):869-879.
Benifit
Nour, M.A., A.E S.A. Ghonem Abd El-Wahab, and A.O. Bastawisi (1996).
Behavior of some rice cultivars under different water regimes.
Menofiya ; Agric . Res; Vol 21 (4): 837 – 850.
Sorour F. A.; M.E. Mosalem; F.N. Mahrous and I.S. El-Refaee. (1998). Effect
of irrigation interval and splitting of nitrogen on growth, yield and
quality of rice J. Agric. Res. Tanta Univ.24(1) 64-70.
15
The Influence of Sugar Cane
Transplanting Methods on Water
Saving and Yield
16
Introduction
Sugarcane ( Saccharumofficinarum L. ) is consider to be one of the
most important sugar crops all over the world . But in Egypt sugar cane
production faces some problems which developed by time. The main problems
nowadays are the limited freshwater supply in Egypt and water requirements
increased accompanying the increase in temperature degrees and wind speed as
well as the reduction in the relative humidity. In addition, soils with low
productivity have high water needs. So, it was found that crops grown in the
same soil and the same season almost have equal water needs ( Moursi and
Nour El-din , 1977 , CCSC 2003 , Chapman et .al 1997 , EL- Shafai 1996
and ESST 2006 ).
Sugarcane is repeatedly accused with having the highest water
requirements among field crops. Therefore, some voices have lately risen up
demanding the replacement of sugarcane with sugar beet which has relatively
lower water need. It is true that sugarcane has a high water need for some
reasons. The first it occupies land for 12 months (Spring planting) or 14-16
months (Autumn planting) which is considered a long growing seasons. So
great of effort has been directed at improving farm land irrigation in Egypt. In
order to meet greater demand for agricultural products arising from population
pressures, the government of Egypt has looked to increasing production in both
the vertical and horizontal directions. In order to increase production in the
horizontal direction, desert lands must be cultivated; this means water
resources must be used more carefully to have water available for areas
currently not utilized. Likewise, improved on – farm water management plays a
role in the vertical direction. In this respect transplanting method is a good
techniques which has positive benefits such as saving water and the produce
highest yield with the least possible amount of water applied so the aim of this
work carried out to evaluate the economically effect transplanting method on
yield and quality of sugar cane.
17
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Two field experiment were carried out for two seasons of 2004/2005 and
2005/2006 ,
at Mallawy water RequiremtsReasearch Station – El- Minia
Governorate ; Water Management Research Institude -National water Research
Center .A randomized complete bolcks design of four replications was used
where two trials of cane planting . First trial was transplanting after 70, 90 and
110 days from growing. Transplanting was conducted on 12th March in both
seasons. Second trial was the traditional or normal growing method on 12th
March (the optimal growing), and 12 th June (the late growing) in both
seasons, While, harvest was conducted on 12 months from growing. The subplot consisted of 42 m2 (six , 100 cm wide rows , each of 7 meters long ) .
Some chemical and physical properties of the experimental soil before soil
preparation were estimated according to the procedures outlined by Jackson
(1968) and Olsen &Sommers (1982) are shown in Table (1)
Table (1): Some physical and chemical characteristics of the experimental soils*
Properties
Season 2002/3
Season2003/4
Texture analysis :
Clay%
36.92
36.15
Silt%
55.43
54.50
Sand%
7.65
9.35
Texture grade :
Silty clay loam
Silty clay loam
Organic metter %
1.22
1.18
pH (1:1 suspention)
8.10
8.00
Ecm.mohs (1:1)
1.8
1.6
Soluble cations :
Ca++ meq/L.
9.78
8.45
++
Mg
meq/L
2.72
2.75
++
K
meq/L
0.24
0.23
Na++ meq/L
4.95
4.45
Soluble anions :
CO3 -2 meq/L.
-2
HCO meq/L.
3.86
3.25
CI meq/L.
5.80
4.90
SO4 -2 meq/L.
8.36
7.78
Available N mg /kg soil
21.1
18
19.35
Available P ( ppm)
8.50
7.85
Exchangeablek mg / kg soil
175
180
Available S (ppm)
7.50
7.25
Data obtained in this work were as follow:
1- Millable cane yield (ton / fed): cane stalks of the four inner rows were
harvested topped,cleaned , weighed and cane yield was calculated as
ton/fed.
2- Recoverable sugar yield ( ton/fed ) : was estimated according to the
following equation according to Mathur ( 1981 ) :
Recoverable sugar yield ( ton/fed ) =
Millable cane yield ( ton/fed ) x Purity % x Pol % .
3- Purity %juice was calculated as in Satiate et al. ( 1996 ) using the follow
formula :
Purity % = Sucrose % x 100 ÷ TSS % , where TSS% ( Total soluble solids )
was determined using “ Brix hydrometer “ standardized at 20 C as in A.O.A.C.
( 1995 ) .
4-Pol %cane of cane stalks was calculated by the following equation after
determination of sucrose % in the cane juice using succharometer according to
AOAC (1995).
Pol % = { Brix % - ( Brix % - sucrose % ) 0.4 } 0.73 .
The proper statistical analysis of all data was carried out according to
Gomez and Gomez (1984). Homogeneity of variance was examined before
combined analysis the differences between means of the different treatments
were compared using the least dignificant difference (LSD) at 5% level.
Some soil water – relationships data were recorded :
Water Measurements
In the two growing seasons water was measured by using a rectangular sharp
crested weir. The discharge was calculated using the following formula :
Q = CLH3 / 2(Masoud, 1967)
Where:
Q : The discharge in cubic meters per second.
19
L : The length of the crest in meters.
H: The head in meters.
C : An empirical coefficient that must be determined from discharge
measurements .
On the other hand ,quantity of water applied was measured in studied
area ( the farmer practices) by cut throat Flum size ( 20 x 90 cm) where water
applied was added during every irrigation and at the end of each growth season
the total quantity of water applied was estimated (m3/ fed.).
Water consumptive use (CU)
The quantities of water consumptive use were calculated for the 60 cm
soil depth which was assumed to be the depth of the roots zone as reported by
many investigators.
Monthly and seasonal water consumptive use was calculated by the
summation of water consumed for the different successive irrigation through
the whole growth season (Serry et al. 1980).
Water consumptive use per feddan (4200 m2 ) can be obtained by the
following equation .
2 – 1
CU =
100
Depth
x Area (4200 m2)
x b.d x
100
Israelsen and Hansen,1962
Where:
CU = Amount of water consumptive use .
2 = Soil moisture content % after irrigation.
1 = Soil moisture content befor the next irrigation.
b.d = Bulk density (g / cm3).Calculation of CU was repeated for all
irrigations until the harvesting date.
Crop water use efficiency (C.W.U.E)
Crop water use efficiency is the weight of marketable crop produced per
the volume unit of water consumed by plants or the evapotranspiration
20
quantity. The crop water use efficiency was computed for the different
treatments by dividing the yield (kg) on units of evapotranspiration expressed
as cubic meters of water (Abd El- Rasool et al. 1971 ) . It was calculated by
the following formula:
Yield (kg/fed.)
C.W.U.E.=
Water consumptive use (m3/fed.)
Field water use efficiency ( F.W.U.E . )
Field water use efficiency is the weight of marketable crop produced per
the volume unit of applied irrigation were expressed as cubic meters of water
(Michael , 1978).
It was calculated by the following equation:
Yield (kg/fed.)
F.W.U.E. =
Water applied (m3/fed.)
Economic efficiency
Economic efficiency refers to the combinations of inputs that
maximize individual or social objectives. Economic efficiency is defined in
termsof two conditions: necessary and sufficient. Necessary condition is
met in production process when there is producing the same amount of
product with fewer inputs or producing more products with the same
amount of inputs. But the sufficient condition for efficiency encompasses
individual or social goals and values ( John and Frank 1987 ) .
It was calculated by the formula:
Net profit (L.E/fed)
Economic efficiency=
Total costs ( L.E/fed)
Results and Discussion
1- Productivity and quality traits:
Prductivity traits of sugar cane such as cane and sugar yields (ton/fed ) as well
as quality properties expressed as pol%cane and purity %juice as influenced
by the different planting methods were presented in Tables ( 2 and 3 ) . The
21
results in Table (2) showed that transplanting date had a significant effect on
millable cane and recoverable sugar yields of sugar cane. The highest values of
millable cane and recoverable sugar yields were obtained from transplanting at
age of 90 days (57.35 and 6.50 tons/fed. respectively). While, the least values
were gained from treatment A1 53.25 and 5.84 ton / fed, respectively (
transplanting at age 70 days ) . This might be mainly due to that transplanting
at age of 90 days encountered within the early growth stage of seedling that
could boost their growth.
Concerning the conventional treatment ( grower practice ),the collected
data in Table (3 ) showed that planting date of sugar cane had a significant
effect on millable cane and recoverable sugar yields of sugar cane . The highest
values of millable cane and recoverable sugar yields of sugar cane were
obtained from B1 (the early planting on 12th march), 53.25 and 5.84 tons/fed,
while, the least values were gained from treatment B2 ( the late planting on 12th
June), 39.80 and 4.87 ton / fed, respectively. This result might be mainly due
to that the late planting recorded the lesser tillering and stalk length compared
with the early planting (the optimal growing ) . These results are in agreement
with those obtained El.Koliey and Abd. El.Latif( 1998 ) .
Table (2) Effect of transplanting dates on productivety and quality of sugar cane
(combined of 2004/2005 and 2005/2006 seasons )
Transplanting
dates
A1
A2
A3
Mean
F value
L S D % 05
Millable cane
yield
( ton/fed. )
53.25
57.35
54.20
54.93
**
0.40
Recverable
sugar yield
( ton/fed.)
5.84
6.50
5.92
6.09
**
0.010
A1 = Transplanting at age 70days
A3 = Transplanting at age 110days
Pol %cane
13.30
13.50
13.20
13.33
NS
Purity %juice
82.50
84.00
82.82
83.19
**
0.45
A2 = Transplanting at age 90days
Table (3) Effect of normal planting on productively and quality of sugar cane
(combined of 2004/2005 and 2005/2006 seasons )
Planting dates
B1
B2
Mean
F value
Millable cane
yield
( ton/fed. )
49.50
39.80
44.65
**
Recverable
sugar yield
( ton/fed.)
5.64
4.10
4.87
**
22
Pol %cane
13.65
12.86
13.25
NS
Purity %juice
83.50
80.05
81.77
**
L S D % 50
0.49
0.12
-
0.55
B1 = Normal planting on12th march ( the optimal growing )
B2 = Normal planting on12 th June ( the late growing )
The collected results in Tables ( 2 and 3 ) pointed out that transplanting
achieved The higher values of millable cane and recoverable sugar yields of
sugar cane than the normal planting , especially the late normal planting on 12th
June . This increase might be principally due to increasing number of millable
cane stalks per feddan and photosynthesis products which emigrate to storage
sites in sugar cane. These results pointed out that the higher increase value in
millable cane and recoverable sugar yields were achieved the studied
transplanting method at age 90 days than other transplanting dates.
Concerning quality properties of sugar cane, data in Tables (2 and 3)
showed that transplanting date as well as normal planting date of sugar cane
had a significant effect on purity %juice, but were insignificant on pol % cane.
The highest values of purity %juice were obtained from A2 (transplanting at
age of 90 days) and B1 (the early normal planting on 12th march) , 84.00 and
83.50.% respectively. This might be mainly due to that transplanting at age of
90 days and the early normal planting on 12th march led to increasing
photosynthesis products which emigrate to storage sites in sugar cane,
consequentely increase purity % juice .
Generally, it concluded that transplanting planting method is preferable
under the Egyptian conditions for sugar cane because it is gave higher value of
millablecane , recoverable sugar yields, pol %cane and purity %juice of sugar
cane . In addition,there were a positive correlation with both millable cane and
recoverable sugar yields of sugar cane . Transplanting can be consideredasan
important criterion in improvement of sugar cane productivity.
Saving of water (m3/ area )
Data in Table (4) show that average quantity of water applied and saving
of water ( m3/ area ) for different planting methods for sugar cane crop in the
two studied seasons .
The obtained results in the present study show that when the best method is use
(transplanting method) we can save water irrigation than normal planting in
23
March and June about 28.28% and 32.87% respectively with an overall average
of 30.57%
Data also show that water irrigation can be saved, as average about
191.749950 and 232.06365 million m3 /area than normal planting in March and
June respectively
This quantity of saving water enough to cultivate area about 29960.929
and 36259.945 fed in old lands.
In general, It could be concluded that water fast becoming an
economically scarce resource in many area of the world. So, the use of
transplanting method is very important to save water. The best method to
planting sugar cane should give favorable crop yield and optimum use of water.
Therefore, estimating economic of irrigation water becomes very important for
planning irrigation management where the over irrigation by the farmers
usually leads to low irrigation efficiency and high loss of water and fertilizer.
These results reflex how much irrigation water can be save to produced the
highest yield with least possible amount of water applied where the farmer’s
practices in sugar can irrigation ( conventional irrigation treatment ) utilized
much water without giving higher productivity . Thus to achieve the benefit ,
irrigation must be planed tacking into account crop , soil and weather
conditions .
The Economic Evaluation :
Total costs , production and total income ( L.E / fed )
Data in Table (5 ) showed that value of total costs , production , total
income ( L.E/fed ) and net return from unit of irrigation water ( L.E/m3) as
influence by different planting methods for sugar came crop in the two studied
seasons . Results in Table (5 ) show that the maximum values of total income
(9176 L.E/ fed . ) and net return from unit of water irrigation ( 0.94 and 0.60
L.E/m3 ) were obtained from plants which grown with transplanting method .
while , the lowest values of total income ( 6368L.E / fed . ) and met return from
unit of water irrigation ( 0.06 and 0.04 L.E /m3 ) were obtained with the
normal planting in 12th June ( late growing ).
24
From these results it could be concluded that the first treatment (transplanting
method) led to increase in total income and net return water irrigation are
mainly due to high yield production and decrease total costs. Where, the
highest values of net profit / fed was obtained from transplanting method
(transplanting after 90 days) about 4528 L.E/fed. and this profit rise from 4528
to 5348 in case of cultivating clover crop during exist period the sugar cane in
nursery
Also , data in Table ( 4 ) show that the percentages of increases in yield
were more than conventional methods which planting in 12th March ( early
grown ) or planting in 12th June ( late grown) compared with transplanting
method 15.86% and 44.10% respectively in the two studies seasons . This
results reflex low much irrigation water can be save to produce the highest
yield with least possible amount of water applied .
Table ( 4 ) : Quantity of total water saving ( m3 / fed) when we use the best
treatments ( transplanting method) compared with other treatments for sugar
can crop during the two studied seasons .
Saved
Avera To total
The
Total
%
Wate
water
ge
of
area
Treatm yield
of
r
area
water
(fed.)
ents
(ton/f incre appli
cultiv saving of old
ed)
ase ed (
ated
m3
land
m3/f %
3
in
m /fe
plant million which
ed
yield d)
cane
/area
can be
crop
cultiv
in
ated
Egypt
as a
resulti
ng of
saving
water
Transpla 57.35
7517. 3043 28. 6300
191.074 29960.
nting
0
20
.65
28
9950
929
method
49.50
1056.
15.85
Normal
0
85
planting
in March
Transpla 57.35
7517. 3683 32. 63000 232.063 36259.
nting
0
20
.55
87
650
945
44.10
method
39.80
1120
Normal
0
0.75
25
planting
in June
Average
3363
.60
29.97
30.
57
63000
211.906
800
33110.
437
Water use efficiency ( WUE )
Water use efficiency was considered as an evaluation on parameter of total
yield per unit of water applied and water consumptive use. WUE is a tool for
maximizing crop production per each unit of water irrigation. The effect of the
different planting methods on WUE is presented in Table (6 ) . From the
presented data, it is clear that values of WUE of sugar cane differed from one
treatment to other.
It is obvious from data in Table (6) the highest value was of field water
use efficiency and crop water use efficiency ( 7.63kg/m3 and 11.90 kg/m3 ) was
obtained under treatment transplant method after 90 days respectively .This is
mainly due to the higher yield of sugar cane and decrease water applied and
water consumptive use in transplanting method compared with the other
treatments . While the lowest value of field water use efficiency and crop water
use efficiency ( 3.25 and 5.27 kg/m3) was obtained from normal planting in
June respectively . These results indicated that the transplanting method is the
best treatment from the view point of water management for sugar cane yield .
This may lead to the conclusion that , transplanting method is the best regime
for sugar cane irrigation under condition of the studied area .
110
Average
7517.20
57350
7.68
54200
7.21
54930
7.31
26
4820.34
90
7517.20
Transplanting
method
Table (6 ) : Values of total yield ( kg/ fed) of sugar cane crop , water applied (
m3 /fed) , water consumptive use ( m3 /fed) , water consumptive use ( m3 /fed) ,
field water use efficiency and crop water use efficiency in the two studies seasons
Water
Total
Field
Water
Crop
Treatments
applied
yield
water use consumptive water use
( m3/fed.)
( kg/fed.) efficiency use (m3/fed.) efficiency
( kg/m3)
( kg/m3)
70days
53250
7.08
11.04
11.90
11.24
4820.34
11.3
Normal
10560.85
planting in
March
Normal
11200.75
planting in June
49500
4.69
7092.12
6.98
39800
3.55
7549.92
5.27
The economic efficiency :
Increasing net return or profit for crops refers to the decreasing of production
costs or for increasing crop production . So economic efficiency index refers to
agricultural and irrigation activities , which can gives the highest return from
each L.E.unit , which can spend on crop production .
Concerning to economic efficiency, presented data in Table (7 ) , reveal that
economic efficiency was 0.97 , 0.44 and 0.08 L.E / fed . for the transplanting
method , normal planting in March and normal planting in June , respectively .
From these results it could be conclude that the economic efficiency was
increased with transplanting method in the two studied seasons . This increases
in economic efficiency due to enhance of net profit (0.97 L.E for each L.E
spend ) compare with other treatments
Table ( 7 ) : Average values of the economic efficiency under lifting
irrigation system for various treatments of sugar cane crop per feddan in
the two studied seasons .
Treatments
Total return Total costs
Net profit
Economic
efficiency
Transplanting
9176
4648
4528
0.97
method ( after
90days )
Normal
7920
5500
2420
0.44
planting in
March
Normal
6368
5890
478
0.08
planting in
June
27