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