View
1.166
Download
5
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Presented on February 10th, 2013 at the Second Research Competitive Grants Conference in Islamabad, Pakistan.
Citation preview
Enhancing Water Productivity by Using Feasible Efficient Irrigation Techniques
Prof. Dr. Allah BakhshDepartment 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
• Land Productivity• Water Productivity
• Both are lower in comparison to international bench mark
Problem Statement
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.
To achieve these objectives, study was planned to be conducted in three Phases
Phase-IIIField
Experiments
Phase-IIField
Surveys
Phase-ISite
Selection
Methodology
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 Surveys
A comprehensive questionnaire was designed and following data were 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
LevelSite I
Respondents (%)
Site IIResponden
ts (%)
Site III Responden
ts (%)
Illiterate 17.5 6.06 2.4
Primary 8.75 21.2 21.5
Middle 13.75 19.7 11.9
Matric 41.25 42.4 35.7
Inter 13.75 10.6 15.5
Graduation 5 - 13
Total 100 100 100
• Respondents– 80 for site I– 66 for site II– 84 for site III
About 70 to 90% farmers had Matric or lower education
Age Level / ExperienceAge
LevelSite I
Respondents (%)
Site IIRespondents
(%)
Site III Respondents
(%)
20-35 23.75 13.60 4.8
36-50 37.50 66.70 61.9
51-65 31.25 19.70 21.4
65 + 7.50 - 11.9
Total 100 100 100
Majority of the farmers were of age group from 36 to 50 years
Land Holding Size
LandHolding
(ha)
Site IResponde
nts (%)
Site IIResponde
nts (%)
Site III Responde
nts (%)
0.1-2.0 22.50 42.4 32.1
2.1-4.0 36.25 30.3 23.8
4.1-6.0 17.50 15.2 10.7
6.1-10 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 PotentialSoil
FertilityLevel
Site IResponde
nts (%)
Site IIRespond
ents (%)
Site III Responde
nts (%)
High 45.00 21.2 6
Medium 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
FarmLocation
Site IResponden
ts (%)
Site IIResponde
nts (%)
Site III Responden
ts (%)
Head 17.5 3 1.2
Middle 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
g Intensit
y (%)
Site IRespond
ents (%)
Site IIRespond
ents (%)
Site III Respond
ents (%)
150-175 18.75 27.27 10.7
176-200 41.25 36.37 78.6
201-250 35.00 27.27 10.7
251-300 5.00 9.09 -
Total 100 100 100
Majority of the farmers were growing at least two crops per year
Cropping Pattern Site IRespondents
(%)
Wheat-Maize – Fodder 47.50
Wheat-Cotton - Fodder 52.50
Total 100Cropping Pattern Site II
Respondents (%)
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
Cropping Pattern
More than 50% farmers have cotton-wheat
Mixed crops
Factors Affecting WP in Samundari Area
Factors Affecting WP in Chiniote Area
Factors Affecting WP in Hafizabad Area
Phase III: Field ExperimentsExperimental Layout for Samundri Farm Site
Three TreatmentsIn RCBDTD= Drip irrigationTP= Perforated pipe irrigationTC= control treatment
Sr. 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 2 m 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
Installation of Drip Irrigation at Samundri Site
Power Unit For Drip Irrigation
Drip Irrigation System on Flat Sowing of Wheat
Perforated Pipe Irrigation: Pipe is Placed at along Length of Field
Drip Irrigation System on Raised Bed Sowing of Wheat
Perforated Pipe Irrigation: Pipe is Placed at along Width 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 Site
Three treatments in RCBD
Soil moisture determination at Chiniot farm site
Plot No.
Moisture content on vol.
basis (%)
Root zone
depth (cm)
Gross Irrigation
depth (cm)
1 13.93 30 8.344 12.4 30 8.47 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 siteT1: Open-End Pipe irrigationT2: Conventional irrigation method/ floodingT3: Perforated Pipe irrigation
Field ExperimentsSite-IV
Experimental Layout for PARS Farm Site
Deficit Irrigation Treatments
T1=20% of FL except 1st Irrigation
T2=35% of FL except 1st Irrigation
T3=50% of FL except 1st Irrigation
T4=Full Level perforated pipe Irrigation
Perforated Pipe Irrigation Treatments
TL= Pipe is perforated on both sides and placed along length in the middle of field.
TW =Pipe is perforated on single side and placed width wise on upper head of the field.
TW2=Pipe is perforated on single side and placed width wise on upper head and middle of field.
Tc=Conventional surface irrigation method.
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%
Comparison of different irrigation methods at PARS.
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 the factors affecting water productivity. Future Plans based on Field Experiments•The field experiments will be continued for finding out the feasible irrigation method(s).•Research work is in progress to further refine and simplify the use of perforated pipe irrigation.•Mobile sprinkler irrigation unit driven by Tractor PTO is also in progress for its development so that few irrigations such as rowni (pre-sowing irrigation) and 1st irrigation can be applied to save water and time.
Cont..
• Dissemination of findings • Annual Report• Publications