Post on 13-Mar-2020
5. RESULTS
5.1 BANANA
5.1.1 Impact of Irrigation methods on Yield
Perusal of the data in Table 5.1 revealed that surface drip
irrigation significantly improved the fruit yield of banana over furrow
method of irrigation. The increase in yield by surface drip over furrow
irrigation amounted to 38.6%.
Table 5.1 : Banana yield – surface drip Vs furrow irrigation
IrrigationMethod
Yield ( t/ha) SD SE Z VALUE
Furrow Method 42.97 9.86 0.90
Surface Drip Method 59.56 14.34 1.30
10.44**
SD- Standard Deviation, SE – Standard Error
5.1.2 Impact of Irrigation methods on Water Use
Surface drip irrigation markedly reduced the amount of water
applied to banana during the crop season. Seasonal applied water to
banana was less by 50.50% under surface drip in comparison to
furrow method of irrigation (Fig.5.1.). This indicates that with the
same amount of water used for irrigating one ha of banana under
conventional furrow method of irrigation (2196mm), about 2.02 ha of
banana can be irrigated using surface drip irrigation. In other words,
an additional area of 1.02ha of banana can be brought under surface
drip method of irrigation from the saving of water (1109mm) realized
through adoption of drip.
82
Fig. 5.1 : Applied water under surface drip and furrow irrigation methods in banana
5.1.3 Impact of Irrigation methods on Water Productivity
Adoption of surface drip irrigation appreciably improved the
water productivity (Kg fruit yield / m3 of water) in banana as
compared to furrow method of irrigation (Fig.5.2.). The increase in
water productivity was 180% by surface drip over furrow irrigation.
Fig.5.2 : Water productivity under surface drip and furrow irrigation methods in banana
83
5.1.4 Impact of Irrigation methods on Power Consumption
Drip irrigated banana consumed less power (1501
kWh/ha/year) as compared to the crop irrigated by furrow method of
irrigation (3033 kWh/ha/year). The net saving in power worked out to
1532 kWh/ha/year.(Fig.5.3.)
Fig.5.3 : Power consumption under surface drip and furrow irrigation methods in banana
5.1.5 Impact of Irrigation methods on Nutrient dose and
Fertilizer Use Efficiency
The nutrient dose varied with method of irrigation. The fertilizer
dose applied to banana was 1008 Kg N, 426 Kg P2O5 and 324 Kg of
K2O/ha and 450Kg N,300 Kg P2O5 and 915 Kg of K2O under furrow
method of irrigation and surface drip fertigation, respectively.
Although the farmers growing banana with surface drip irrigation
applied lower doses N and P2O5 in comparison to furrow method of
84
irrigation, a noticeable exception was that of higher dose of K2O under
surface drip in comparison to soil application under furrow method of
irrigation. The total cost worked out to Rs. 23,401 and Rs.29,727
under furrow and surface drip fertigation respectively.
Further the data in Fig.5.4. revealed that fertilizer use efficiency
(Kg yield / kg of fertilizer used) was significantly higher under surface
drip irrigation as compared to furrow method of irrigation. The
improvement in fertilizer use efficiency by surface drip fertigation over
furrow irrigation was 48.34%.
Fig.5.4 : Fertilizer use efficiency under surface drip fertigation and furrow irrigation methods in banana
5.1.6 Impact of Irrigation methods on Economic analysis of
Banana: Furrow Vs Drip Irrigation
Data presented in the Table 5.2 indicated that total investments
on irrigation infrastructure spread over 10-year life period were higher
with farmers adopting drip irrigation as compared to farmers adopting
85
furrow irrigation. However, the production expenses were less in case
of drip-irrigated banana by 7.15 % in comparison to banana crop
irrigated by furrow method. Further the farm income registered by
banana farmers adopting drip irrigation was markedly higher (2.36
lakh/ha) than furrow method of irrigation (1.47 lakh /ha).
Table 5.2 : Detailed cash flow for furrow and surface drip irrigated Banana
S.No. Particulars Basin Surface Drip
I Investments Pumping unit (Rs./ha) 5286 5286Surface Drip Equipment (Rs./ha) -- 11555
Total investments 5286 16841II Production Expenses
Land Preparation (Rs./ha) 2500 2500Pitting (Rs./ha) 6500 6500Planting material (Rs./ha) 30000 30000Planting (Rs./ha) 3000 3000Irrigation scheduling (Rs./ha) 10000 4650Manures & Fertilizers (Rs./ha) 40750 38000Weed control (Rs./ha) 3750 1500Plant protection (Rs./ha) 6000 4000Harvesting (Rs./ha) 4000 6000Transportation (Rs./ha) 5000 8000Total Expenses 111500 104150
III Farm IncomeYield (t/ha) 42 59Price Rs./ton 3500 4000Farm income (Rs/ha) 147000 236000
The economic indices (Table 5.3) suggested that the NPV
registered under both the methods of irrigation was positive. However,
farmers adopting drip irrigation obtained higher NPV of Rs. 77,087/ha
86
87
88
Plate 1
over farmers adopting furrow method of irrigation owing to enhanced
fruit yields. The trends of net cash flow and accumulated discount
cash flow for both the methods of irrigation are presented in Fig.5.5.
The BEP for price shows that the profitability under drip
irrigated banana was achieved at a lower price of Rs.2050.69/ton as
compared to Rs.2780.62/ton under furrow method of irrigation.
Similarly BEP for yield indicated the profitability was achieved at only
51.27% of fruit yield under drip irrigated banana as compared to a
yield level of 79.45% in case of furrow method of irrigation. Further it
was noticed that the investments & expenses incurred by farmers
under both the methods of irrigation were fully recovered in one-year
period.
Table 5.3 : Economic indices for banana - furrow Vs surface drip irrigation methods
S.No Particulars Furrow method Surface Drip
1 Duration (years) 1 1
2 Net Present Value (Rs/ha) 27,467 1,04,554
3 Internal Rate of Return (%)
4 Break even point - price (Rs/ton) 2780.6 2050.69
5 Break even point - Yield (%) -21 -49
6 Discounted payback period (years) 1 1
5.2 POMEGRANATE
5.2.1 Impact of Irrigation methods on Yield
Perusal of the data in Table 5.4 revealed that adoption of
surface drip irrigation has significantly improved the fruit yield of
89
pomegranate over ring basin irrigation. The increase in yield by
surface drip over ring basin irrigation amounted to 20.80%.
Table 5.4 : Pomegranate yield – surface drip Vs basin irrigation
Irrigation Method Yield ( t/ha) SD SE Z VALUE
Ring basin Method 23.92 5.73 0.52
Surface Drip Method 28.91 6.99 0.64
6.05**
5.2.2 Impact of Irrigation methods on water Use
Surface drip irrigation resulted in significant reduction in
seasonal irrigation water depth to pomegranate during the crop
season. Pomegranate raised under surface drip irrigation consumed
51.40% less seasonal applied water in comparison to ring basin
irrigation (Fig.5.6.). This indicates that with the same amount of water
used for irrigating one ha of pomegranate under conventional furrow
method of irrigation (1363mm), about 2.05 ha of pomegranate can be
irrigated using surface drip irrigation. In other words, an additional
area of 1.05 ha of pomegranate can be brought under surface drip
method of irrigation from the saving of water (700mm) realized
through adoption of drip.
90
Fig.5.6 : Applied water under surface drip and ring basin irrigation methods in pomegranate
5.2.3 Impact of Irrigation methods on Water Productivity
Adoption of surface drip irrigation in pomegranate markedly
improved the water productivity (Kg fruit yield / m3 of water) as
compared to ring basin irrigation (Fig.5.7). The increase in water
productivity was 148% by surface drip over ring basin irrigation.
Fig.5.7 : - Water productivity under surface drip and ring basin irrigation methods in Pomegranate
91
5.2.4 Impact of Irrigation methods on Power Consumption
Pomegranate irrigated with surface drip consumed less power
(763 kWh/ha/year) as compared to the crop irrigated by ring basin
method of irrigation (1569 kWh/ha/year). The net saving in power
worked out to 806 kWh/ha/year. (Fig. 5.8).
Fig.5.8 : - Power consumption under surface drip and ring basin methods in Pomegranate.
5.2.5 Impact of Irrigation methods on Nutrient dose and
Fertilizer Use Efficiency
Irrigation method influenced the nutrient dose. The nutrient
dose applied to six year old mature pomegranate was 92 Kg N,72 Kg
92
P2O5 and 61 Kg of K2O/ha under ring basin method of irrigation and
61 Kg N,15 Kg P2O5 and 137 Kg of K2O/ha under surface drip
fertigation. This indicated that farmers adopting ring basin method of
irrigation applied higher doses of N and P2O5 in comparison to surface
drip fertigation method. However K2O dose was doubled under surface
drip fertigation in comparison to soil application under ring basin
irrigation method. The total cost worked out to Rs 3,118/- and
Rs.2,634/- under ring basin and surface drip fertigation, respectively.
Fertilizer use efficiency (Kg yield / kg of fertilizer used) was
markedly higher under surface drip fertigation as compared to ring
basin method of irrigation (Fig. 5.9). On the physical terms the
improvement in fertilizer use efficiency by surface drip fertigation was
27.67% over soil application by ring basin method of irrigation
Fig.5.9 : – Fertilizer use efficiency under surface drip fertigation and ring basin irrigation methods in Pomegranate
5.2.6 Impact of Irrigation methods on Economic Analysis of Pomegranate: Basin Vs Surface Drip Irrigation
93
Data on detailed cash flow for both surface drip and basin
irrigated pomegranate is presented in the Table 5.5. Total investments
on irrigation infrastructure spread over 10-year life span were higher
with farmers adopting drip irrigation as compared to farmers adopting
basin method of irrigation in pomegranate. However, production
94
95
expenses incurred by farmers raising pomegranates using surface drip
system were less (8.23%) in comparison to basin-irrigated
pomegranate. Likewise the surface drip irrigated pomegranate gave
higher farm income (3.76 lakh/ha) than basin-irrigated pomegranate
(2.87 lakh /ha).
The economic indices in the table 5.6 revealed that the NPV was
positive and IRR was higher than customer cost of capital (investment)
under both the methods of irrigation. However, the NPV (NPV-
Rs.328053/ha) and IRR (IRR-105.47%) registered by farmers raising
pomegranate adopting surface drip method of irrigation was
significantly higher than the crop raised by farmers adopting basin
method of irrigation (NPV = Rs.167019/ha & IRR = 63.16%) owing to
increased fruit yields. The trends concerning net cash flow,
accumulated discount cash flow, and the relationship between NPV
and IRR for both the methods of irrigation are presented in Fig.5.10 &
5.10 a.
The break even point for price suggested that the profitability
could be achieved at a lower price of Rs.5914.08/ton when the crop is
raised with surface drip method of irrigation in comparison to
Rs.7435.02/ton registered under basin method of irrigation. Likewise
the profitability was achieved above 45.49% of fruit yield registered
each year under surface drip in comparison to 61.96% of fruit yield in
case of basin method of irrigation. Further the investments &
expenses made by farmers adopting surface drip irrigation in
96
97
.
98
99
100
Plate 3
pomegranate cultivation were fully recovered one year earlier (3 years)
than farmers adopting basin method of irrigation (4 years).
Table 5.6 : Economic indices for pomegranate - basin Vs surface drip irrigation methods
S.No Particulars Basin method Surface Drip1 Duration (years) 5 5
2 Net Present Value (Rs/ha) 167019 328053
3 Internal Rate of Return (%) 63.16 105.47
4 Break even point - price (Rs/ton) 7435.02 5914.08
5 Break even point - Yield (%) -38 -55
6 Discounted payback period (years) 4 3
101
5.3 MANGO
5.3.1 Impact of Irrigation methods on Yield
The data in Table 5.7 revealed that the adoption of surface drip
irrigation significantly improved the fruit yield of mango over ring
basin method of irrigation. The increase in yield by surface drip over
ring basin method of irrigation amounted to 59.70%.
Table 5.7 : Mango yield – surface drip Vs ring basin irrigation
Irrigation Method
Yield ( t/ha) SD SE Z VALUE
Ring basin Method 14.90 3.68 0.34
Surface Drip Method 23.81 6.21 0.57
13.51**
5.3.2 Impact of Irrigation methods on Water Use
Irrigation method showed marked impact on seasonal applied
water to mango (Fig. 5.11). Surface drip irrigation reduced seasonal
applied water by 53.30% over ring basin method of irrigation. This
indicates that with the same amount of water used for irrigating one
ha of mango under conventional furrow method of irrigation (1114
mm), about 2.14 ha of mango can be irrigated using surface drip
irrigation. In other words, an additional area of 1.14 ha of mango can
be brought under surface drip method of irrigation from the saving of
water (594mm) realized through adoption of drip.
102
Fig. 5.11 : Applied water under surface drip and ring basin irrigation methods in Mango
5.3.3 Impact of Irrigation methods on Water Productivity
Surface drip irrigated mango crop significantly improved the
water productivity (Kg fruit yield / m3 of water) in comparison to ring
basin irrigation (Fig. 5.12). The increase in water productivity
registered was 242.33% by surface drip over ring basin irrigation.
Fig.5.12 Water productivity under surface drip and ring basin irrigation methods in mango
103
5.3.4 Impact of Irrigation methods on Power Consumption:
Mango under surface drip irrigation has consumed less power
(599 kWh/ha/year) as compared to the crop irrigated by ring basin
method of irrigation (1283 kWh/ha/year). The net saving in power
worked out to 684 kWh/ha/year. (Fig. 5.13)
Fig.5.13 : Power consumption under surface drip and ring basin irrigation methods in Mango
5.3.5 Impact of Irrigation methods on Nutrient dose and Fertilizer Use Efficiency
Irrigation method influenced the nutrient dose of mango. For a
six year old mature mango crop the nutrient dose applied by farmers
was 368 Kg N, 216 Kg P2O5 and 244 Kg of K2O/ha under ring basin
method of irrigation and 306 Kg N, 176 Kg P2O5 and 198 Kg of K2O/ha
under surface drip fertigation. Thus it can be noticed that the surface
drip method mango received lower doses of NPK in comparison to ring
basin method of irrigation. The total cost of fertilizer worked out to
104
Rs.10,870/- and Rs.8,920/- under ring basin and drip fertigation,
respectively.
The data in Fig.5.14 revealed that fertilizer use efficiency (Kg
yield / kg of fertilizer used) was significantly higher under surface drip
irrigation as compared to ring basin irrigation. The improvement in
fertilizer use efficiency was 94.6% by surface drip over ring basin
irrigation method.
Fig.5.14 : Fertilizer use efficiency under surface drip fertigation and ring basin irrigation methods in Mango
105
5.3.6 Impact of Irrigation methods on Economic Analysis of Mango: Basin Vs Surface drip Irrigation
The data pertaining to detailed cash flow is presented in Table
5.8. Expectedly the investments by farmers adopting surface drip
method of irrigation in mango were relatively higher than farmers
raising the crop by basin method of irrigation owing to drip system
cost. Whereas, the production expenses varied from Rs. 11,100/ha to
Rs. 39,535/ha and from Rs. 11,929/ha to Rs. 39,265/ha under
surface drip irrigated and basin irrigated mango, respectively over the
years. Further it was noticed that adoption of drip irrigation by
farmers resulted in advancement of fruiting by one year over basin-
irrigated crop. The farm income of mango was higher and varied from
Rs.21, 000/ha in 4th year to a maximum of Rs. 2,49,900/ha in 10th
year under surface drip irrigated farmers fields in comparison to
Rs.30, 000/-/ha in 5th year to a maximum of Rs. 1,49,000/ha in 10th
year under basin irrigated crop.
The evaluation of economic indices (Table 5.9) indicated that the
NPV was positive and IRR was higher than customer cost of capital
(investment) under both the methods of irrigation. However, the NPV
and IRR was markedly higher under surface drip method of irrigation
(NPV-Rs.227445/ha, & IRR-42.41%), in comparison to basin irrigation
(NPV-Rs.65378/ha, & IRR-23.36%) in view of higher yield realization
under drip irrigated mango crop. The trends concerning net cash flow,
accumulated discount cash flow, and the relationship between NPV as
106
107
108
109
110
a function of IRR for both the methods of irrigation for the period
concerned are presented in Fig.5.15 & 5.15a.
The break-even point for price indicated that the profitability
was achieved above Rs.7247.3/ton and Rs.4672.9/ton under basin
and surface drip method of irrigation respectively. Similarly the
profitability was achieved above 44.5% of yield crop data plugged each
year under surface drip in comparison to 72.47% of yield crop data
plugged each year in case of basin method of irrigation. The
investments under surface drip irrigated mango were fully recovered
two years earlier (7 years) than basin method of irrigation (9 years).
Table 5.9 : Economic indices for mango - basin Vs surface drip
irrigation methods
S.No Particulars Basin method Surface Drip
1 Duration (years) 10 10
2 Net Present Value (Rs/ha) 65378 227445
3 Internal Rate of Return (%) 23.36 42.41
4 Break even point - price (Rs/ton) 7247.28 4672.86
5 Break even point - Yield (%) -28 -56
6 Discounted payback period (years) 9 7
5.4 SWEET ORANGE
5.4.1 Impact of Irrigation methods on Yield
The data in Table 5.10 revealed that adoption of surface drip
irrigation by farmers significantly improved the fruit yield of sweet
111
orange over ring basin method of irrigation. The increase in fruit yield
by surface drip over ring basin irrigation amounted to 39.87%.
Table 5.10 : Sweet orange yield – surface drip Vs basin irrigation
IrrigationMethod
Yield ( t/ha) SD SE Z VALUE
Ring basin Method 23.85 5.75 0.52
Surface Drip Method 33.36 8.23 0.75
10.41**
5.4.2 Impact of Irrigation methods on Water Use
Surface drip irrigation markedly reduced the amount of water
applied to sweet orange during the crop season. Adoption of drip by
farmers reduced seasonal applied water by 53.30 % under surface
drip in comparison to ring basin irrigation method (Fig. 5.16). This
indicates that with the same amount of water used for irrigating one
ha of sweet orange under conventional furrow method of irrigation
(1136 mm), about 1.83 ha of sweet orange can be irrigated using
surface drip irrigation. In other words, an additional area of 1.14 ha of
sweet orange can be brought under surface drip method of irrigation
from the saving of water (606 mm) realized through adoption of drip.
112
Fig.5.16 : Applied water under surface drip and basin irrigation methods in sweet orange
5.4.3 Impact of Irrigation methods on Water Productivity
Adoption of surface drip irrigation by farmers appreciably
improved the water productivity (Kg fruit yield / m3 of water) in sweet
orange as compared to ring basin irrigation method (Fig. 5.17). The
increase in water productivity was to the tune of 204.59% by surface
drip over ring basin method of irrigation.
Fig.5.17 : - Water productivity under surface drip and ring basin irrigation methods in Sweet orange.
113
5.4.4 Impact of Irrigation methods on Power Consumption
Drip irrigated sweet orange consumed less power (610 kWh/ha/
year) as compared to the crop irrigated by ring basin method of
irrigation (1307 kWh/ha/year). The net saving in power by adoption of
surface drip worked out to 697 kWh/ha/year over ring basin method
of irrigation.(Fig. 5.18)
Fig.5.18: - Power consumption under surface drip and ring basin irrigation method in Sweet orange
5.4.5 Impact of Irrigation methods on Nutrient dose and
Fertilizer Use Efficiency
Irrigation methods showed marked effect on nutrient applied
and fertilizer use efficiency (Kg yield / Kg of fertilizer). The average
nutrients dose adopted by farmers to a six year old sweet orange crop
was 375 Kg N, 88 Kg P2O5 and 100 Kg of K2O/ha under ring basin
method of irrigation and 249 Kg N, 76 Kg P2O5 and 228 Kg of K2O/ha
under drip fertigation. Thus it can be noticed that farmers growing
sweet orange with surface drip irrigation applied lower doses of
114
N+P2O5 in comparison to ring basin method of irrigation; where as K2O
dose was higher than ring basin method of irrigation. The total cost of
fertilizer worked out to Rs. 6,966/- and Rs.6,279/- under ring basin
and surface drip fertigation respectively. Further the data in Fig. 5.19
revealed that fertilizer use efficiency (Kg yield / kg of fertilizer used)
was significantly higher with surface drip irrigated sweet orange in
comparison to ring basin method of irrigation. The improvement in
fertilizer use efficiency by surface drip was 42.40% over ring basin
method of irrigation.
Fig.5.19– Fertilizer use efficiency under surface drip fertigation and ring basin irrigation methods in Sweet orange
5.4.6 Impact of Irrigation methods on Economic Analysis of Sweet Orange: Basin Vs Surface Drip Irrigation
The data pertaining to detailed cash flow is presented in the
Table 5.11. Total investments on irrigation infrastructure spread over
8 year life span were higher with farmers adopting drip irrigation as
compared to farmers adopting basin method of irrigation in sweet
115
orange owing to drip system cost. Further it is revealed that the
production costs for sweet orange under basin irrigation was higher
by 22.3% when compared to drip irrigated crop over the years. The
production costs varied from Rs.12,288/ha to Rs.35,877/ha under
ring basin method and comparatively less and varied from
Rs.8,010/ha to Rs.30,725/ha under surface drip. It is noticed that
the adoption of drip irrigation by the farmers resulted in early fruiting
by one year over basin method of irrigation. The farm income of sweet
orange was higher in surface drip and varied from Rs.60000/-/ha in
4th year to a maximum of Rs.1.76 lakh/ha by 8th year and
Rs.73800/-/ha in 4th year to a maximum of Rs.2.74 lakh/ha by 8th
year under basin and surface drip irrigation respectively.
The evaluation of economic indices (Table 5.12) indicated that
the NPV was positive and IRR was higher than customer cost of
capital (investment) under both the methods of irrigation. Whereas,
the NPV and IRR was significantly higher under surface drip method
of irrigation (NPV-Rs.337879/ha, & IRR-75.37%), in comparison to
basin irrigation (NPV-Rs.155696/ha, & IRR-49.57%) because of
increased yields under drip irrigated sweet orange crop. The pattern of
net cash flow, accumulated discount cash flow and the relationship
between NPV as a function of IRR for both the methods of irrigation
for the period of study are presented in Fig.5.20 & 5.20a.
The break even point for price shows that the profitability was
achieved above Rs.3698.93/ton under basin irrigation method and
Rs.2505.26/ton under surface drip method of irrigation. Similarly the
116
117
118
119
120
Plate 2
profitability was achieved above 30.55% of yield crop data plugged
each year under surface drip in comparison to 49.32% of yield crop
data plugged each year in case of basin method of irrigation. The
investments were fully recovered earlier by one year (5 years) under
surface drip irrigated sweet orange than in basin method of irrigation
(6 years).
Table 5.12 : Economic indices for sweet orange - basin Vs surface
drip irrigation methods
S.No Particulars Basin method Surface drip
1 Duration (years) 8 8
2 Net Present Value (Rs/ha) 155696 337879
3 Internal Rate of Return (%) 49.57 75.37
4 Break even point - price (Rs/ton) 3698.93 2505.26
5 Break even point - Yield (%) -51 -69
6 Discounted payback period (years) 6 5
5.5 PAPAYA
5.5.1 Impact of Irrigation methods on Yield
Perusal of the data in Table 5.13 indicated that surface drip
irrigation of papaya significantly improved the fruit yield over furrow
method of irrigation. The increase in a fruit yield by surface drip over
furrow irrigation amounted to 40.20%.
121
Table 5.13 : Papaya yield – surface drip Vs furrow irrigation
IrrigationMethod
Yield ( t/ha) SD SE Z VALUE
Furrow Method 127.31 30.82 2.81
Surface Drip Method 177.98 44.26 4.04
10.29**
5.5.2 Impact of Irrigation methods on Water Use
Adoption of surface drip irrigation to papaya resulted in
significant reduction in the amount of water applied to papaya during
the crop season as compared to furrow method of irrigation. Seasonal
applied water was less by 51.70 % under surface drip in comparison
to furrow method of irrigation (Fig. 5.21). This indicates that with the
same amount of water used for irrigating one ha of papaya under
conventional furrow method of irrigation (2196mm), about 2.07 ha of
papaya can be irrigated using surface drip irrigation. In other words,
an additional area of 1.07 ha of papaya can be brought under surface
drip method of irrigation from the saving of water (1136 mm) realized
through adoption of drip.
Fig. 5.21 : Applied water under surface drip and furrow irrigation methods in papaya
122
5.5.3 Impact of Irrigation methods on Water Productivity
Adoption of surface drip irrigation markedly improved the water
productivity (Kg fruit yield / m3 of water) in Papaya as compared to
furrow method of irrigation (Fig. 5.22). The increase in water
productivity was 190.32% by surface drip over furrow method
irrigation.
Fig.5.22 : - Water productivity under surface drip and furrow irrigation methods in Papaya
5.5.4 Impact of Irrigation methods on Power Consumption
Papaya irrigated with furrow method of irrigation consumed
more power (2528 kWh/ha/year) as compared to the crop irrigated by
surface drip method of irrigation (1220 kWh/ha/year). The net saving
in power worked out to 1307 kWh/ha/year (Fig. 5.23).
123
Fig. 5.23 : - Power consumption under surface drip and furrow irrigation methods in Papaya
5.5.5 Impact of Irrigation methods on Nutrient dose and Fertilizer Use Efficiency
The nutrient applied to papaya crop was 450 Kg N, 450 Kg P2O5
and 450 Kg of K2O/ha under furrow method of irrigation and 450 Kg
N, 420 Kg P2O5 and 415 Kg of K2O/ha under surface drip fertigation. It
can be observed that farmers growing papaya with surface drip
irrigation applied lower doses of P2O5 & K2O in comparison to furrow
method of irrigation. The total cost of fertilizer was worked out to
Rs.18,611/- and Rs.17,670/- under furrow and drip fertigation
respectively.
Further the data in Fig. 5.24 revealed that fertilizer use
efficiency (Kg yield / kg of fertilizer used) was significantly higher
under surface drip irrigation as compared to furrow method of
irrigation. The improvement in fertilizer use efficiency by surface drip
fertigation was 46.87 % over furrow method of irrigation.
124
Fig.5.24 :– Fertilizer use efficiency under surface drip fertigation and furrow irrigation methods in Papaya
5.5.6 Impact of Irrigation methods on Economic Analysis of Papaya: Furrow Vs Surface Drip Irrigation
The interpretation of the results in the Table 5.14 indicated that
the investments on infrastructure spread over 10 year life period were
higher for the farmers with drip method of irrigation as compared to
furrow method. However the production expenses were lesser in
furrow irrigation method compared to drip irrigated papaya. However,
the farm income of papaya was significantly higher under surface drip
irrigation method (Rs.8.01 lakhs/ha) than furrow method of irrigation
(Rs.5.08lakh/ha).
125
Table 5.14 : Detailed Cash flow for ring basin and surface drip irrigated Papaya
S.No Particulars Basin Surface Drip
I Investments Pumping unit (Rs./ha) 5286 5286
Surface Drip Equipment (Rs./ha) 11555
Total investments 5286 16841
II Production Expenses (Rs/ha)
Land Preparation 2575 2575
Digging pits 6000 6000
Planting material 30000 30000
Planting 1200 1200
Manures 4375 4375
Fertilizer 46700 37362
Weed control 4000 2660
Plant protection 7000 7000
Harvesting 8500 9700
Transportation 127000 178000
Irrigation system maintenance 500 500
Irrigation scheduling 8750 4600
Total Expenses 246600 283972
III Farm Income
Yield (t/ha) 127 178
Price Rs./ton 4000 4500
Total Income (Rs/ha) 508000 801000
The evaluation of economic indices (Table 5.15) revealed that
the NPV was positive in both the methods of irrigation and markedly
higher under surface drip method of irrigation (NPV-Rs.454715/ha,),
126
in comparison to furrow irrigation (NPV-Rs.232831/ha) owing to
increased yields of papaya crop with drip irrigation. The trends of net
cash flow, accumulated discount cash flow, for both the methods of
irrigation are presented in Fig. 5.25.
The break even point for price shows that the profitability was
achieved at lower price of Rs.1689.96/ton under surface drip method
of irrigation compared to Rs.1983.35/ton under furrow irrigation
method. Similarly the profitability was achieved above 37.55% of yield
crop data plugged each year under surface drip in comparison to
49.56% of yield crop data plugged each year in case of furrow method
of irrigation. It was noticed that the investments and expenses
incurred by farmers were fully recovered in one year under both the
methods of irrigation.
Table 5.15 : Economic indices for Papaya - basin Vs surface drip
irrigation methods
S.No Particulars Furrow method Surface drip
1 Duration (years) 1 1
2 Net Present Value (Rs/ha) 232831 454715
3 Internal Rate of Return (%)
4 Break even point – price (Rs/ton) 1983.35 1689.96
5 Break even point – Yield (%) -50 -62
6 Discounted payback period (years) 1 1
127
128
129
Plate 4
5.6 BRINJAL5.6.1 Impact of Irrigation methods on Yield
The data in Table 5.16 revealed that surface drip irrigation
significantly improved the fruit yield of brinjal over furrow method of
irrigation. The increase in yield by surface drip irrigation amounted to
25.60 % over furrow method of irrigation.
Table 5.16 : Brinjal yield – surface drip Vs furrow irrigation
Irrigation Method
Yield ( t/ha) SD SE Z VALUE
Furrow Method 5.35 1.06 0.15
Surface Drip Method 6.72 1.33 0.19
5.63**
5.6.2 Impact of Irrigation methods on Water Use
Adoption of surface drip irrigation by farmers significantly
reduced the amount of water applied to brinjal during the total crop
season. Seasonal applied water was less by 54.20 % under Surface
drip in comparison to furrow irrigation (Fig. 5.26). This indicates that
with the same amount of water used for irrigating one ha of brinjal
under conventional furrow method of irrigation (891mm), about 2.18
ha of brinjal can be irrigated using surface drip irrigation. In other
words, an additional area of 1.18 ha of brinjal can be brought under
surface drip method of irrigation from the saving of water (483 mm)
realized through adoption of drip.
130
Fig. 5.26 : Applied water under surface drip and furrow irrigation methods in brinjal
5.6.3 Impact of Irrigation methods on Water Productivity
Adoption of surface drip irrigation significantly improved the
water productivity (Kg fruit yield / m3 of water) in brinjal as compared
to furrow method of irrigation (Fig. 5.27). The increase in water
productivity was 173.66% by surface drip over furrow method of
irrigation.
Fig. 5.27 Water productivity under surface drip and furrow irrigation methods in brinjal
131
5.6.4 Impact of Irrigation methods on Power Consumption
Surface drip brinjal consumed less power (470 kWh/ha/season)
as compared to the crop irrigated by furrow method of irrigation (1026
kWh/ha/season). The net saving in power worked by adoption of
surface drip worked out to 557 kWh/ha/season (Fig. 5.28) in
comparison to furrow method of irrigation.
Fig. 5.28 : - Power consumption under surface drip and furrow irrigation methods in brinjal
5.6.5 Impact of Irrigation methods on Nutrient dose and
Fertilizer Use Efficiency of Brinjal
The nutrients applied to brinjal crop was 163 Kg N, 95 Kg P2O5
and 60 Kg of K2O/ha under furrow method of irrigation and 150 Kg N,
60 Kg P2O5 and 44 Kg of K2O/ha under surface drip fertigation. Thus,
it can be noticed that farmers growing brinjal with surface drip
fertigation applied lower doses of N or P2O5 & K2O in comparison to
132
furrow method of irrigation. Under furrow irrigation the total cost
worked out to Rs. 4,424/- which was more than surface drip
fertigation cost of Rs.3,370/-. Further the data in Fig. 5.29 revealed
that fertilizer use efficiency (Kg yield / kg of fertilizer used) was
markedly higher under surface drip fertigation as compared to soil
application under furrow method of irrigation. The improvement in
fertilizer use efficiency by surface drip fertigation was 57.13% in
compliance to soil application under furrow method of irrigation.
Fig. 5.29 :– Fertilizer use efficiency under surface drip fertigation and furrow irrigation method in brinjal
5.6.6 Impact of Irrigation methods on Economic Analysis of Brinjal : Surface Furrow Vs Inline Drip irrigation
The data presented in the Table 5.17 indicated that the
investments on infrastructure spread over 10 year life period were
higher for the farmers with drip method of irrigation as compared to
furrow method owing to the cost of drip system. However the
production expenses were lesser in drip-irrigated brinjal by 2.86% as
133
compared to furrow irrigation method. Further the farm income of
brinjal was significantly higher under surface drip irrigation method
(Rs.1.16 lakhs/ha) than furrow method of irrigation (Rs.0.78lakh/ha).
Table 5.17 : Detailed Cash flow for furrow and surface drip irrigated brinjal
S.No Particulars Furrow Surface Drip
I Investments Pumping unit (Rs./ha) 5286 5286
Surface Drip Equipment (Rs./ha) 11962
Total investments 5286 17248
II Production Expenses (Rs/ha)
Land Preparation 3500 3500
Seed 4800 4800
Nursery raising 2500 2500
Transplanting 1200 1200
Manures 3000 3000
Fertilizers 19200 16800
Irrigation scheduling 4000 2500
Weed control 2500 1800
Plant protection 9000 7500
Harvesting 6500 8200
Transporation 9750 12300
Irrigation system maintenance 500 500
Total Expenses 66450 64600III Farm Income
Yield (t/ha) 6.5 8.2
Price - Rs./ton 12000 14200
Total Income (Rs/ha) 78000 116440
134
135
The evaluation of economic indices (Table 5.18) indicated that
the NPV was positive under both the methods of irrigation and
markedly higher under inline drip method of irrigation (NPV-
Rs.31448/ha,), in comparison to furrow irrigation (NPV-Rs.5695/ha)
owing to increased yields of brinjal crop with drip irrigation. The
trends of net cash flow, accumulated discount cash flow, for both the
methods of irrigation are presented in Fig. 5.30.
The break even point for price shows that the profitability was
achieved above Rs.11036.32/ton under furrow irrigation method
compared to a lower price of Rs.9981.34/ton under inline drip method
of irrigation. Similarly the profitability was achieved above 70.29% of
crop yield plugged each year under inline drip in comparison to
91.97% of crop yield plugged each year in case of furrow method of
irrigation. The investments of brinjal were fully recovered in one year
in both the methods of irrigation.
Table 5.18 : Economic indices for brinjal - furrow Vs surface drip
irrigation methods
S.No Particulars Furrow method Surface Drip1 Duration (years) 1 1
2 Net Present Value (Rs/ha) 5695 31448
3 Internal Rate of Return (%)
4 Break even point – price (Rs/ton) 11036.32 9981.34
5 Break even point – Yield (%) -8 -30
6 Discounted payback period (years) 1 1
136
5.7 TOMATO
5.7.1 Impact of Irrigation methods on Yield
Perusal of the data in Table 5.19 revealed that surface drip
irrigation significantly improved the fruit yield of tomato over furrow
method of irrigation. The increase in fruit yield by surface drip over
furrow method of irrigation amounted to 28.95%.
Table 5.19 : Tomato yield – surface drip Vs furrow irrigation
IrrigationMethod
Yield ( t/ha) SD SE Z VALUE
Furrow Method 9.98 2.08 0.29
Surface Drip Method 12.87 2.67 0.39
6.03**
5.7.2 Impact of Irrigation methods on Water Use
Seasonal irrigation water depth was markedly lower by adoption
of surface drip irrigation in tomato crop. Water saving amounted to
49.30%, with adoption of surface drip compared to furrow method of
irrigation (Fig. 5.31). This indicates that with the same amount of
water used for irrigating one ha of tomato under conventional furrow
method of irrigation (994 mm), about 1.97 ha of tomato can be
irrigated using surface drip irrigation. In other words, an additional
area of 0.97 ha of tomato can be brought under surface drip method
of irrigation from the saving of water (490 mm) realized through
adoption of drip.
137
Fig.5.31 : Applied water under surface drip and furrow irrigation methods in tomato
5.7.3 Impact of Irrigation methods on Water Productivity
Adoption of surface drip irrigation significantly improved the
water productivity (Kg fruit yield / m3 of water) in tomato as compared
to furrow method of irrigation (Fig. 5.32). The increase in water
productivity was 154.98% by surface drip over furrow method of
irrigation.
Fig. 5.32 : Water productivity under Surface drip and furrow irrigation methods in tomato
138
5.7.4 Impact of Irrigation methods on Power Consumption
Surface drip irrigation of tomato consumed less power (580
kWh/ha/season) as compared to the crop irrigated by furrow method
of irrigation (1145 kWh/ha/season). The net saving in power worked
out to 564 kWh/ha/season. (Fig. 5.33)
Fig.5.33 : Power consumption under surface drip and furrow irrigation methods in tomato
5.7.5 Impact of Irrigation methods on Nutrient dose and Fertilizer Use Efficiency
The irrigation method showed a marked effect on the amount of
nutrients applied. The nutrient dose to tomato crop was 150 Kg N, 80
Kg P2O5 and 80 Kg of K2O/ha under furrow method of irrigation as
compared to 100 Kg N, 60 Kg P2O5 and 70 Kg of K2O/ha under drip
fertigation indicating that farmers growing tomato crop with surface
drip irrigation applied lower doses of N, P2O5 & K2O in comparison to
furrow method of irrigation. Like wise the total cost of fertilizer worked
out to Rs.4,100/- and Rs.3,012/- under furrow method and surface
139
drip fertigation respectively. Further the data in Fig. 5.34 revealed
that fertilizer use efficiency (Kg yield / kg of fertilizer used) was
significantly higher under surface drip irrigation as compared to
furrow method of irrigation. The improvement in fertilizer use
efficiency was 74.25% more under surface drip fertigation in
comparison to soil application under furrow method of irrigation.
Fig. 5.34 :- Fertilizer use efficiency surface drip fertigation and furrow irrigation method in tomato
5.7.6 Impact of Irrigation methods on Economic Analysis of Tomato: Furrow Vs Inline Drip irrigation
The interpretation of the results in the Table 5.20 indicated that
the investments on infrastructure spread over 10 year life period were
higher for the farmers with drip method of irrigation as compared to
furrow method. However the production expenses were lesser in drip-
irrigated tomato compared to furrow irrigation method. Further the
farm income of tomato was significantly higher under surface drip
irrigation method (Rs.2.39 lakhs/ha) than furrow method of irrigation
(Rs.1.08 lakh/ha).
140
Table 5.20 : Detailed cash flow for furrow and surface drip irrigated tomato
S.No Particulars Furrow Surface DripI Investments
Pumping unit (Rs./ha) 5286 5286
Surface Drip Equipment (Rs./ha) 12857
Total investments 5286 18143II Production Expenses (Rs/ha)
Land Preparation 3500 3500
Seed 6700 6700
Nursery raising 3750 3750
Transplanting 1500 1500
Weed control 3500 2500
Manures 4375 4375
Fertilizers 18000 14500
Irrigation scheduling 4000 2500
Plant protection 12500 8000
Harvesting 3000 3900
Transporation 2000 2600
Irrigation system maintenance 500 500
Total Expenses 63325 54325III Farm Income
Yield (t/ha) 10 12.9
Price Rs./ton 18000 18500
Total Income (Rs/ha) 179640 238650
The analysis of economic indices (Table 5.21) indicated that the
NPV was positive in both the methods of irrigation and markedly
higher under inline drip method of irrigation (NPV-Rs.151075/ha,), in
comparison to furrow irrigation (NPV-Rs.100935/ha) owing to
increased yields of tomato crop with drip irrigation. The trends of net
141
cash flow, accumulated discount cash flow, for both the methods of
irrigation are presented in Fig. 5.35.
The break even point for price shows that the profitability was
achieved above Rs.6874.83/ton under furrow irrigation method
compared to a lesser price of Rs.5617.66/ton under inline drip
method of irrigation. Like wise the profitability was achieved above
30.37% of crop yield plugged each year under inline drip in
comparison to 38.19% of crop yield plugged each year in case of
furrow method of irrigation. The investments and expenses incurred
by the farmers of tomato were fully recovered in one year in both the
methods of irrigation.
Table 5.21 : Economic indices for tomato - furrow Vs surface drip
irrigation methods
S.No Particulars Basin/Furrow method
Surface Drip
1 Duration (years) 1 1
2 Net Present Value (Rs/ha) 100935 151075
3 Internal Rate of Return (%)
4 Break even point – price (Rs/ton) 6874.83 5617.66
5 Break even point – Yield (%) -62 -70
6 Discounted payback period (years) 1 1
142
143
144
Plate 5
5.8 CHILLIES
5.8.1 Impact of Irrigation methods on Yield
The data in Table 5.22 indicated that adoption of surface drip
irrigation in Chillies significantly improved the fruit yield over furrow
method of irrigation. The increase in fruit yield of chillies by surface
drip over furrow method of irrigation amounted to 33.30%.
Table 5.22 : Chillies yield – surface drip Vs furrow irrigation
Irrigation Method
Yield ( t/ha) SD SE Z VALUE
Furrow Method 4.50 0.02 0.003
Surface Drip Method 6.00 0.03 0.005
5.34**
5.8.2 Impact of Irrigation methods on Water Use
Adoption of surface drip irrigation in chillies appreciably
reduced the amount of water applied during the total crop season.
Seasonal applied water was less by 51.70% under surface drip in
comparison to furrow method of irrigation (Fig. 5.36). This indicates
that with the same amount of water used for irrigating one ha of
chillies under conventional furrow method of irrigation (994 mm),
about 2.07 ha of chillies can be irrigated using surface drip irrigation.
In other words, an additional area of 1.07 ha of chillies can be
brought under surface drip method of irrigation from the saving of
water (514 mm) realized through adoption of drip.
145
Fig.5.36 : Applied water under surface drip and furrow irrigation methods in Chillies
5.8.3 Impact of Irrigation methods on Water Productivity
Adoption of surface drip irrigation significantly improved the
water productivity (Kg fruit yield / m3 of water) in chillies as compared
to furrow method of irrigation (Fig. 5.37). The increase in water
productivity was 175.90% by surface drip over furrow irrigation.
Fig.5.37 : - Water productivity under surface drip and furrow irrigation methods in Chillies
146
5.8.4 Impact of Irrigation methods on Power Consumption
Drip irrigated chillies consumed less power (553
kWh/ha/season) for pumping of water as compared to the crop
irrigated by furrow method of irrigation (1145 kWh/ha/season). The
net saving in power worked out to 592 kWh/ha/season (Fig. 5.38)
Fig.5.38 :- Power consumption under surface drip and furrow irrigation methods in Chillies
5.8.5 Impact of Irrigation methods on Nutrient dose and
Fertilizer Use Efficiency
The irrigation method had a marked influence on the nutrients
applied. The amount of nutrients applied to chilli crop was 120 Kg N,
75 Kg P2O5 and 60 Kg of K2O/ha under furrow method of irrigation in
comparison to 110 Kg N, 60 Kg P2O5 and 60 Kg of K2O/ha under drip
fertigation, suggesting that farmers growing chillies with surface drip
irrigation applied lower doses of N and P2O5 in comparison to furrow
method of irrigation. Thus under furrow method irrigation the total
147
cost of fertilizers worked out to Rs.3,493/ha and was higher than drip
fertigation (Rs.3,047/ha).
Further the data in Fig. 5.39 revealed that fertilizer use
efficiency (Kg yield / kg of fertilizer used) was significantly higher
under surface drip irrigation as compared to furrow irrigation. The
improvement in fertilizer use efficiency by surface drip was 47.81%
over furrow method of irrigation.
Fig.5.39 :– Fertilizer use efficiency under surface drip fertigation and Furrow irrigation methods in Chillies
5.8.6 Impact of Irrigation methods on Economic Analysis of
Chillies: Furrow Vs Inline Drip irrigation
The data presented in Table 5.23 indicated that the investments
on infrastructure spread over 10 year life period were higher for the
farmers with drip method of irrigation as compared to furrow method.
However the production expenses were lesser in drip-irrigated chillies
compared to furrow irrigation method. Further the farm income of
chillies was relatively higher under surface drip irrigation method
148
(Rs.1.56 lakhs/ha) than furrow method of irrigation (Rs.1.12
lakh/ha).
Table 5.23 : Detailed cash flow for furrow and surface drip irrigated Chillies
S.No Particulars Furrow Surface Drip
I Investments Pumping unit (Rs./ha) 5286 5286
Surface Drip Equipment (Rs./ha) 12206
Total investments 5286 17492
II Production Expenses (Rs/ha)
Land Preparation 4500 4500
Seed 7500 7500
Nursery raising 3750 3750
Transplanting 1500 1500
Weed control 3400 3400
Manures 4375 4375
Fertilizers 18000 14400
Irrigation scheduling 4000 2500
Plant protection 10000 8000
Harvesting & Paxking 4500 6000
Transporation 9000 12000
Irrigation system maintenance 500 500
Total Expenses 71025 68425III Farm Income
Yield (t/ha) 4.5 6
Price - Rs./ton 25000 26000
Total Income (Rs/ha) 112500 156000
The economic indices (Table 5.24) indicated that the NPV was
positive in both the methods of irrigation and significantly higher
149
150
under inline drip method of irrigation (NPV-Rs.63712/ha,), in
comparison to furrow irrigation (NPV-Rs.32899/ha) because of
increased yields of chillies crop with drip irrigation. The trends of net
cash flow, accumulated discount cash flow, for both the methods of
irrigation are presented in Fig. 5.40.
The break even point for price shows that the profitability was
achieved at a lower price of Rs.14320/ton under inline drip method of
irrigation compared to Rs.16958/ton under furrow irrigation method.
Similarly the profitability was achieved above 55.08% of crop yield
plugged each year under inline drip in comparison to 67.83% of crop
yield plugged each year in case of furrow method of irrigation. The
investments of Chillies were fully recovered in one year in both the
methods of irrigation.
Table 5.24 : Economic indices for chillies - furrow Vs surface drip
irrigation methods
S.No Particulars Furrow method Surface Drip
1 Duration (years) 1 1
2 Net Present Value (Rs/ha) 32899 63712
3 Internal Rate of Return (%)
4 Break even point – price (Rs/ton) 16958.05 14319.52
5 Break even point – Yield (%) -32 -45
6 Discounted payback period (years) 1 1
151
152
Plate 6
5.9 SUGARCANE
5.9.1 Impact of Irrigation methods on Yield
The data in Table 5.25 indicated that farmers adopting surface
drip irrigation in sugarcane had significantly higher cane yield of
sugarcane over furrow method of irrigation. The increase in yield by
surface drip over furrow method of irrigation amounted to 58.10%.
Table 5.25 : Sugarcane yield – surface drip Vs furrow irrigation
Irrigation Method
Yield ( t/ha) SD SE Z VALUE
Furrow Method 62.00 12.90 10.47
Surface Drip Method 98.00 22.12 13.87
2.69**
5.9.2 Impact of Irrigation methods on Water Use
Adoption of surface drip irrigation by sugarcane farmers
resulted in significant reduction of amount of water applied during the
total crop season. Thus, the seasonal applied water was less by
54.20% under surface drip in comparison to furrow method of
irrigation (Fig. 5.41). This indicates that with the same amount of
water used for irrigating one ha of sugarcane under conventional
furrow method of irrigation (1634 mm), about 2.18 ha of sugarcane
can be irrigated using surface drip irrigation. In other words, an
additional area of 1.18 ha of sugarcane can be brought under surface
drip method of irrigation from the saving of water (886 mm) realized
through adoption of drip.
153
Fig. 5.41 : Applied water under surface drip and furrow irrigation methods in sugarcane
5.9.3 Impact of Irrigation methods on Water Productivity
Adoption of surface drip irrigation in sugarcane markedly
improved the water productivity (Kg fruit yield / m3 of water) in
comparison to furrow irrigated crop (Fig. 5.42). The increase in water
productivity of sugarcane was 245.3% by surface drip over furrow
method irrigation.
Fig.5.42. : Water productivity under surface drip and furrow irrigation methods in sugarcane
154
5.9.4 Impact of Irrigation methods on Power Consumption
Surface Drip irrigation of sugarcane consumed less power (861
kWh/ha/year) as compared to the crop irrigated by furrow method of
irrigation (1881 kWh/ha/year) during the total crop season. The net
saving in power worked out to 1020 kWh/ha/year.(Fig.5.43)
Fig.5.43: Power consumption under surface drip and furrow irrigation methods in sugarcane
5.9.5 Impact of Irrigation methods on Nutrient dose and
Fertilizer Use Efficiency
The nutrients applied to sugarcane crop was 174Kg N, 124Kg
P2O5 and 153 Kg of K2O/ha under furrow method of irrigation as
compared to 137Kg N, 95Kg P2O5 and 106Kg of K2O/ha under drip
fertigation indicating that farmers growing sugar cane with surface
drip irrigation applied lower N, P2O5 & K2O doses in comparison to soil
application under furrow method of irrigation. The total cost of
155
fertilizer worked out to Rs.5,916/- and Rs.7,918/- under furrow and
drip fertigation, respectively.
Further the data in Fig. 5.44 revealed that fertilizer use
efficiency (Kg yield / kg of fertilizer used) was significantly higher
under surface drip irrigation as compared to furrow method of
irrigation. The improvement in fertilizer use efficiency was 110.6 % by
surface drip fertigation as compared to furrow method of irrigation.
Fig.5.44 : Fertilizer use efficiency under surface drip fertigation and furrow irrigation methods in sugarcane
5.9.6 Impact of Irrigation methods on Economic Analysis of Sugarcane: Furrow Vs Inline Drip irrigation
The data presented in the Table 5.26 revealed that the
investments on infrastructure spread over 10 year life period were
higher for the farmers with drip method of irrigation as compared to
furrow method. However the production expenses were lesser in drip-
irrigated sugarcane compared to furrow irrigation method. Further the
farm income of sugarcane was significantly higher under surface drip
156
irrigation method (Rs.1.08 lakhs/ha) than furrow method of irrigation
(Rs.0.68 lakh/ha).
The evaluation of economic indices (Table 5.27) indicated that
the NPV was positive in both the methods of irrigation and markedly
higher with inline drip method of irrigation (NPV-Rs.48942/ha,), in
comparison to furrow irrigation (NPV-Rs.10416/ha) owing to
increased yields of sugarcane crop with drip irrigation. The trends of
net cash flow, accumulated discount cash flow, for both the methods
of irrigation are presented in Fig. 5.45.
The break even point for price shows that the profitability was
achieved at a lower price of Rs.883/ton under inline drip method of
irrigation compared to Rs.1024/ton under furrow irrigation method.
Similarly the profitability was achieved above 80.23% of cane yield
plugged each year under inline drip in comparison to 93.09% of cane
yield plugged each year in case of furrow method of irrigation. The
investments of sugarcane were fully recovered in one year in both the
methods of irrigation.
157
158
159
Table 5.27 : Economic indices for sugarcane - furrow Vs surface drip irrigation system
S.No Particulars Furrow method Surface drip
1 Duration (years) 3 3
2 Net Present Value (Rs/ha) 10416 48942
3 Internal Rate of Return (%)
4 Break even point - price (Rs/ton) 1024.04 882.55
5 Break even point - Yield (%) -7 -20
6 Discounted payback period (years) 1 1
5.10 IMPACT OF IRRIGATION METHOD ON SOIL NITRATE NITROGEN LEVELS
Data regarding nitrate nitrogen concentration in soil profile of
0 – 90cm depth as influenced by conventional surface irrigation (basin
and furrow methods) and surface drip irrigation is given in table 5.28.
Irrespective of the crop, lower nitrate concentration was found under
surface drip irrigation method in comparison to conventional surface
irrigation methods. On an average the nitrate nitrogen concentration
was 11.03ppm at 30cm, 11.33ppm at 60cm, 11.60ppm at 90cm,
11.93 ppm at 120cm and 10.81 ppm at 150cm under conventional
surface irrigation as compared to 4.82ppm at 30cm, 4.38 ppm at
60cm, 3.18ppm at 90cm, 2.28 ppm at 120cm and 2.08 ppm at 150cm
under surface drip irrigation. This suggests that larger volume of
water in case of conventional surface irrigation methods, disburse
extra nitrate nitrogen leaching and enhance nitrate leaching. Further
160
it was observed that the NO3 – N was more between 30 – 120cm soil
profile depths under conventional surface irrigation, while it decreased
with depth under surface drip method of irrigation. Thus it can be
inferred that NO3 – N leaching was less by using frequent light
irrigations with drip method of irrigation.
5.11 IMPACT OF IRRIGATION METHOD SOIL SALINITY ECe (dsm-1)
Data in table 5.29 revealed that the soil EC in soil profile of 0 –
90cm depth as influenced by conventional surface irrigation (basin
and furrow methods) and surface drip irrigation. The soil EC was
found lower under surface drip irrigation method in comparison to
conventional surface irrigation methods. On an average depth wise the
soil ECe was 6.19 at 30cm, 8.06 at 60cm, 6.25 at 90cm, 5.19 at
120cm and 4.64 at 150cm under conventional surface irrigation as
compared to 3.88 at 30cm, 1.77 at 60cm, 1.62 at 90cm, 1.50 at
120cm and 1.44 at 150cm under surface drip irrigation. This suggests
that water applied in case of conventional surface irrigation methods,
results in more soil EC and enhance soil salinity. Further it was
observed that the soil EC was more between 0 – 60cm soil profile
depths under conventional surface irrigation, while it decreased with
depth under surface drip method of irrigation. Thus it can be inferred
that the soil salinity was less by using drip method of irrigation.
161
Table 5.28 : Mean NO3 - N concentration (ppm) under conventional and surface drip irrigation systems for various crops
CropApplied water (mm)
Soil depth (cm)
30 60 90 120 150Conventional surface irrigationMango 520 10.96 11.23 11.57 11.87 10.43
Sweet orange 530 10.77 11.20 11.48 11.83 10.37
Pomegrante 663 10.85 11.18 11.44 11.76 10.47
Banana 1087 11.15 11.33 11.67 11.98 10.85
Papaya 1060 11.63 11.81 12.15 12.34 11.56
Sugarcane 748 11.41 11.72 11.95 12.12 11.11
Tomato 504 10.85 11.13 11.37 11.81 10.95
Brinjal 408 10.88 11.17 11.42 11.87 10.76
Chilli 480 10.77 11.21 11.39 11.75 10.82
Average 11.03 11.33 11.60 11.93 10.81
Surface drip irrigation
Mango 1114 4.85 4.43 3.25 2.85 2.65
Sweet orange 1136 4.80 4.37 3.22 2.78 2.40
Pomegrante 1363 4.91 4.62 3.45 2.51 2.33
Banana 2196 4.92 4.47 3.25 2.18 2.05
Papaya 2196 5.11 4.77 3.43 2.38 2.15
Sugarcane 1634 4.97 4.50 3.38 2.25 2.09
Tomato 994 4.65 4.05 2.85 1.98 1.78
Brinjal 891 4.55 4.10 2.88 1.85 1.69
Chilli 994 4.65 4.08 2.90 1.77 1.58
Average 4.82 4.38 3.18 2.28 2.08
162
Table 5.29 : Mean ECe (dsm-1) under conventional surface and drip irrigation systems for various crops
CropApplied water (mm)
Soil depth (cm)
0 30 60 90 120Conventional surface irrigationMango 520 5.65 7.25 5.85 4.47 3.86
Sweet orange 530 6.18 8.66 6.33 4.89 4.25
Pomegrante 663 5.77 7.87 6.23 5.17 4.73
Banana 1087 5.36 7.11 5.86 4.66 4.31
Papaya 1060 7.14 8.83 6.72 5.63 5.12
Sugarcane 748 7.75 9.12 7.49 6.33 5.25
Tomato 504 5.76 7.87 5.83 5.32 4.89
Brinjal 408 6.24 8.21 6.33 5.43 4.92
Chilli 480 5.82 7.64 5.61 4.83 4.44
Average 6.19 8.06 6.25 5.19 4.64
Surface drip irrigation
Mango 1114 3.14 1.45 1.37 1.35 1.30
Sweet orange 1136 4.11 1.61 1.53 1.49 1.41
Pomegrante 1363 3.75 1.64 1.55 1.51 1.50
Banana 2196 3.66 1.47 1.45 1.41 1.33
Papaya 2196 4.55 1.85 1.51 1.46 1.44
Sugarcane 1634 4.25 1.76 1.65 1.53 1.45
Tomato 994 3.67 1.86 1.76 1.61 1.55
Brinjal 891 4.10 2.11 1.87 1.51 1.45
Chilli 994 3.66 2.21 1.93 1.67 1.57
Average 3.88 1.77 1.62 1.50 1.44
5.12 IMPACT OF IRRIGATION METHOD ON GROUND WATER NO3
LEVELS UNDER DRIP AND FLOOD IRRIGATION METHOD
163
The analyzed data of water samples under both the methods of
irrigation has revealed that the NO3 levels in both the methods are
less than the standard fixed by the EPA (10mg/l). However the NO3
levels under drip method were significantly lower (2.08 ppm to 4.82
ppm) as compared to flood irrigated samples (10.81 ppm to 11.03
ppm) (Fig. 5.46).
,
Fig. 5.46: Comparative NO3 levels in water source samples of Drip and Flood methods
164