ISSN: 2319-5967 ISO 9001:2008 Certified International Journal of Engineering Science and Innovative Technology (IJESIT) Volume 2, Issue 6, November 2013

An Experimental Investigation on Pitcher Irrigation Technique on Alkaline Soil with Saline Irrigation Water Neelkanth Bhatt1, Baldev Kanzariya2, Ashok Motiani3 & Bipin Pandit4 1. Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Lukhdhirji Engineering College, Morbi 2. Assistant Professor, Applied Mechanics Department, Lukhdhirji Engineering College, Morbi 3. Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, L.D. college of Engineering, Ahmedabad 4. Professor and Head, Department of Civil Engineering, Lukhdhirji Engineering College, Morbi Abstract: This study presents details about experimentation with Pitcher Irrigation (PI) performed at village Jiva of Surendranagar district of Gujarat state (India). Authors also fabricated a ‘Custom Made Porous Pipe/Capsule Assembly (CMPPA)’. For facilitating comparison of PI and CMPPA with the farmers’ regular method of hand watering, 9 Nos. of basin were formed. The pitchers, CMPPA, and basins were planted with the crops of Peas (Pisam Sativum) and Brinjal (Solanum melongena). It was possible to germinate the seeds and grow horticulture crops with PI and CMPPA even when the irrigation water was saline and the soil was alkaline. Karl Pearson correlation co-efficient (r) being 0.926 suggests high degree of co-relation between the rate of diffusion between small and large pitchers. Water saving using PI method with small pitchers was 42.12% and for large pitchers was 31.36 % and that by CMPPA method was 60%. Farmers should employ PI using small sized pitchers seeing that the B/C ratio is highest (2.75). The B/C for CMPPA was lowest (1.38). Yields using PI and CMPPA are better than basin method of irrigation. Efficient water management using PI offers a solution to looming water crisis and would help bring more and more of the un-irrigated area under the irrigation in the district, state and country. Key Words: Micro-Irrigation, Pitcher Irrigation, Saline Irrigation Water, Small-Land Holdings.

I. INTRODUCTION Water resources are decisive for human consumption, agriculture and industrial development; they have been and will stay as very important commodities for human survival and economic development [1]. Keeping in view that for many Indian states water is a key constraint, for expansion of agriculture it is indispensable to adopt viable, technically feasible and socially accepted efficient irrigation system such as Micro-Irrigation (MI) [2]. Despite of the fact that MI has many limitations researchers world over believe that MI shall be used. The Planning Commission of India too in the Eleventh Five Year Plan endorses the adoption of MI for water deficient zones. MI systems such as drip and sprinkler do save half of the water presently used for irrigation but technical, economic, and socio-economic factors prevent the adoption of these technologies [3]. Cultural practices, poor irrigation water quality and lack of market for farm products are discouraging features for the adoption of drip irrigation [4]. Moreover, for voluntary adoption of sustainable irrigation practice wide-ranging resources must have to be fittingly supported by the non-voluntary catalyst such as regulation and incentives [5]. Furthermore, the use of MI technologies also tend to increase the marginal productivity of water and with the effect of subsidy schemes which indirectly reduces the marginal cost, the demand for irrigation water increases and thus a rational farmer continues to use more water [6]. Further, the currently marketed technologies such as Drip Irrigation is more suited for large fields and in fact is extremely sophisticated and expensive and thus impractical for farmers trying to eke a living out of their very small land holdings; consequently, low cost systems those are technically less confusing and uncomplicated should be designed to suit the small and medium farmers who represents a very large number of farmers in India [7]. The details regarding the „Rural land distributions for India‟ are presented at table 1 [8] which clearly show that in India majority of farmers holds small pieces of land. Rain-fed areas without any source of irrigation in India still accounts for 60% of the cultivated area and these areas are home to majority of rural poor and marginal farmers whose food security is jeopardized by the lack of assured irrigation which insinuate an urgent need to explore the

206

ISSN: 2319-5967 ISO 9001:2008 Certified International Journal of Engineering Science and Innovative Technology (IJESIT) Volume 2, Issue 6, November 2013 possibilities of sustainable and innovative forms of irrigation [9]. Prinz & Malik (2004) [10] has concluded that a modernized „old‟ system can be taken up more unpretentiously by farmers given that it is much closer to traditional practices. Table 1 Rural land distribution in India (in millions)

Details

1960-61

1971-72

1981-82

1991-92

2002-03

Total Rural Households

72.5

78.4

93.9

116.4

147.8

Engaged in Agriculture

52.9

56.9

69.4

93.4

101.8

Less than 1 hectare

30.5

34.3

46.6

65.5

80.4

1-2 hectares 2-4 hectares

8.6 7.3

9.3 7.3

10.1 7.4

13.3 9.1

11.4 6.3

4-10 hectares

5.0

4.6

4.4

4.6

3.0

Above 10 hectares

1.6

1.3

1.0

1.0

0.5

of which land holdings

(Source: Cagliarini & Anthony, 2011) Even though pressurized MI are preferred, techniques such as pitcher irrigation is more viable for use in low cost vegetable farming and it is also much less vulnerable to design or managerial gaffe than other MI techniques [11]. There are numerous success chronicles of Pitcher Irrigation one such example as noted by Dr. Zuhair Masri (2006) [12] of International Centre for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas (ICARDA) is of Khanasser Valley in northern Syria which is now green due to pitcher irrigation practices. II. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE From the facts as documented in the Final District Agriculture Plan (DAP) [13], the Surendranagar District of Gujarat state is having soil that does not have good soil fertility indices from the point of view of agriculture. The average annual rainfall in the district is 450 mm. Furthermore, the district has 82.8% of its land as un-irrigated. Drawing inferences from the above facts the localized method of „Pitcher Irrigation‟ (PI) was experimented with on an agricultural farm at village Jiva of Surendranagar district of Gujarat state. No fertilizer was employed to raise any of the crops during experimentation. III. EXPERIMENTAL SECTION A. Field Set-up Large and small sized pitchers both 27 in Nos. were buried ¾ of its depth into the soil and was planted with the seeds of Peas (Pisam Sativum) on two sides and Brinjal (Solanum melongena) on the other two sides (Plate 1). The centre to centre distance between all the pitchers was 1.5 m. The pitchers were shut with an earthen lid at the top to prevent evaporation from the same. The details of the pitchers are given at table 2. Five Nos. of „Custom Made Porous Pipe/Capsule Assembly (CMPPA)‟ (Plate 2) was also fabricated by the authors to study its applicability as local method of irrigation. The details of porous clay capsule are presented at table 3. All the pitchers and CMPPAs were numbered for identification. For facilitating a comparison on usefulness of above methods of irrigation with farmers‟ regular practice of hand watering using basin method, 9Nos. of basin were dug and planted by the seeds of peas and Brinjal. As the plants of Brinjal were frozen following an intense prolonged cold wave the same were replaced by the plants of Tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum) that were planted on the side of the experimental plot at the same time when the seeds of Peas and Brinjal were planted.

207

ISSN: 2319-5967 ISO 9001:2008 Certified International Journal of Engineering Science and Innovative Technology (IJESIT) Volume 2, Issue 6, November 2013 Plate 1 Photographic view of experimental farm

Plate 2 Photographic view of CMPPA

Table 2 Pitcher dimensions

Table 3 Dimensions of porous clay capsules used for CMPPA

Size

Parameters

Parameters

Dimensions

15.0

Outside Diameter (cm)

5.0

31.50

Inside Diameter (cm)

3.0

Length of Capsule (cm)

17.50

Small

Large

Neck Level Capacity (liters)

11.0

Maximum outside diameter of pitcher (cm)

28.0

Thickness (cm)

0.7

0.7

Area of opening (cm2)

167.85

191.15

In order to determine water depletion from the pitchers, the water loss in terms of percentage depletion was studied with the pitchers filled with water up-to their neck level. After some time (t hours), the pitcher was again filled up-to neck level with water to compensate for the loss of water during the period between successive refilling. B. Laboratory Set-up The porosity of the pitchers and porous clay capsules used for CMPPA was found out by the laboratory experiment. The pitchers & porous clay capsules were oven dried at 1050C for 24 hours and weighed. The pitchers and porous clay capsules were then saturated by immersing them in a water tank for 72 hours and weighing the same. From the difference in weight the void volume and accordingly the porosity was found out. Representative soil sample taken from the farm was tested for soil classification in accordance with IS 2720 (Part-IV) – 1985 and IS 460- 1978. Also, a test on the soil sample was done in accordance with IS 2720 (Part-VIII) – 1986 by „Falling Head Method‟ to know the co-efficient of permeability of the soil of the experimental farm. Falling Head method and Constant head method were employed to find the hydraulic conductivity of pitchers and porous capsules respectively. Soil nutrient test was also performed on the soil sample. Water that was used for irrigation was also tested. These experiments were performed at Lukhdhirji Engineering College, Morbi. IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Porosity of the pitchers was found to be 29.60 % and that of hollow porous capsule was 59.80 %. The hydraulic conductivity of the pitchers was 6.0078 x 10-8 meter per second (m/s). The hydraulic conductivity of the porous capsule using constant head method was found to be 1.598x10-5 cm/sec. The rate of depletion of water through the CMPPA was higher than pitchers. The porosity of the pots/pitchers and CMPPA can have a significant effect on the rate of water depletion through these mediums. Higher is the porosity of these mediums higher will be the flow through them. If the rate of flow of

208

ISSN: 2319-5967 ISO 9001:2008 Certified International Journal of Engineering Science and Innovative Technology (IJESIT) Volume 2, Issue 6, November 2013 water through the pitchers is higher than the soil suction / hydrostatic pressure in the root zone there will be losses and as a result the water use efficiency will be lower. The soil of the experimental farm (as per IS 1498- 1970) was classified as Fine Sand (SP-Poorly Graded Sand) and the results of permeability test show that the average co-efficient of permeability (K) / hydraulic conductivity of the soil of the experimental farm was 4.266 x 10-5 cm/sec which is in accordance with the normal values specified for fine sand. The spreading of water beneath the ground level would be more vertical than horizontal in such type of soil. A fine texture soil exhibits more horizontal spreading of water as compared to coarse texture soil. Irrigation Water Quality Test showed that the electrical conductivity (EC) of water was very high. Such water is totally not suitable under normal circumstances. Crops with high salt resistance can only be grown with such a type of water. If such water is employed for irrigation the crops always requires more and more water. Further, the water had objectionable level of chloride. The water was rated as good to injurious depending upon the type of soil. Soil Nutrient Test showed that the soil was poor and was lacking the basic N, P & K elements. Moreover, the soil was alkaline. When pH of soil is >7.5 phosphorous starts forming insoluble compounds with calcium. High electrical conductivity of the soil too suggested that the availability of water to the plant can be slight to moderately problematic. The actual likelihood of a problem occurring could be different for different soil conditions depending on the tolerance of plants to salinity, and on the climate, and on the methods used to manage the soil and the irrigation water. Plate 3 Photographic view of salt deposition around pitcher

Table 4 Yield of crops for 1.0 m centre to centre distance between plantations Yield, in Kg. (per Acre) Method of Irrigation

Fig. 2 Comparison of average rate of diffusion for all pitchers per hour through small and large sized pitchers

Peas

Tomatoes

Small Pitchers

3945.6

7941.6

Large Pitchers

4111.2

7574.4

CMPPA

4032

7142.4

Basin Method

2966.4

6580.8

Fig. 3 Water saving and Benefit-cost (B/C) ratio

The water that was used for irrigation was having high salt content. Salts had accumulated on the surface of pitchers (Plate 3). It was also seen that the rate of diffusion of water through the pitchers was reduced. The water flow in the soil takes place due to hydraulic permeability of pot/pitchers. It has been established that PI possess an auto-regulating water flow according to changes in soil-water tension [14]; this explicates that despite the rate of water diffusion through the pitchers was reduced, the plants continued to draw water from the pitchers due to soil suction. The serrate shape of depletion line at Fig 2 also suggests that the rate of depletion of water through the

209

ISSN: 2319-5967 ISO 9001:2008 Certified International Journal of Engineering Science and Innovative Technology (IJESIT) Volume 2, Issue 6, November 2013 pitchers was as a result of water requirement of the crop (i.e. Soil-Water Tension). Also, when compared with basin irrigation method the plants around the pitchers were developing normally which suggests that the effect of salt deposition on the pitchers did not adversely affect the growth of the plants during the germination stage and during mid-growth stage. All the seeds of peas were able to germinate after 15-18 days. Though, some of the seeds of Brinjal were frozen due to the severe low temperature (10O C- 13O C) immediately after planting of seeds and extending several weeks, few seeds were able to germinate after 20-24 days. From the statistical analysis of the data of water applied to both sizes of pitchers it was observed that there was a high degree of correlation between the rate of water diffusion through small pitchers and rate of water diffusion through large pitchers as the Karl Pearson correlation co-efficient (r) was 0.926. Higher rate of depletion of water through large pitchers can be attributed to higher hydraulic gradient towards soil from large pitchers as compared to small pitchers. According to Israelsen & Hansen (1962) [15], other conditions being same, roots of plant in moist soil will extract more water than the roots of same plant growing in drier soil. For this reason, once the soil beneath the large pitcher becomes damper than the soil beneath the small pitchers, the large pitchers will continue to seep more water and hence less water saving. From the analysis of the data of water consumption by all methods employed for the experimentation when compared to basin method of irrigation by farmers‟ regular practice of hand watering (Fig 3), very high B/C (2.75) and a water saving of 42.12 % for small pitchers against the low B/C (2.01) and a water saving of 31.36 % for large pitchers was observed. The water saving for CMPPA method is highest (66.26 %) where as the B/C ratio (1.38) was lowest. The cost per acre of farm installations for employing PI using small pitchers is about 72,837 Indian National Rupees (INR) and that for large pitchers is about 99,822 Indian National Rupees (INR) and that of CMPPA is 1,44,797 INR. The cost largely depends on the local market and may vary from region to region. Also, the experimentation was done in accordance with the minimum distance between two crops as specified by standard agricultural practices. The cost may also vary with variations in planting distance. The cost of installation of drip irrigation for the same crops and with same distance as adopted for the present experimentation would be about 1,00,000 INR [16]. The results of yield for 1.0 m centre to centre distance between plantations are presented at table 4. Yield in range of values specified as standards by various agricultural agencies were obtained despite of the fact that the irrigation water and soil were unfavourable with all the methods employed for irrigation, though, it was also felt that the method of PI is labour intensive. Under PI the water was released to the soil slowly within certain duration of time. Therefore, the plants can utilize water most effectively, while water applied manually to the basin by the farmer is lost through percolation, seepage and evaporation. As a result, PI produced more yields when compared to farmers‟ regular practice of hand-watering using the basin irrigation method. Adoption of PI at large scale calls for a cistern and a pipe network for frequent filling-up of pitchers for which the farmer has to bear additional expenses. The cistern can be located on an elevated ground so that the pitchers can be filled by gravity and no electricity is required for filling-up of pitchers. In areas of acute shortages, the water for the entire season can be collected by rainwater harvesting. PI technique has no environmental impacts, is cost effective, and most importantly is also not using any electricity for its operation. V. CONCLUSION PI technique can be successfully employed at places where salinity and alkalinity is a problem. Salt deposition on the wall of pitchers did not adversely affect the plant growth as the plants continued to draw water from the pitchers. There was a high degree of correlation between the rate of water diffusion through small pitchers and large pitchers. Use of small sized pitchers was more beneficial both in terms of water saving and on economical terms when compared to large pitchers. Therefore, the farmers shall employ PI using small sized pitchers. The method of CMPPA being costly shall be employed only at areas facing acute shortages of water. Yields using PI and CMPPA method of irrigation are better than basin method of irrigation. Pitcher irrigation technique has no environmental impacts, is cost effective, and most importantly is either not using electricity for its operation nor is subjected to managerial gaffe by the farmers as in the case of other MI technologies. Pitcher irrigation as an alternative to drip or sprinkler irrigation can be a viable option for water scarce area particularly for farmers those are looking to eke a living out of their small holdings of land.

210

ISSN: 2319-5967 ISO 9001:2008 Certified International Journal of Engineering Science and Innovative Technology (IJESIT) Volume 2, Issue 6, November 2013 Such techniques as an on-farm water and land management strategy ought to be promoted by the state and central government sponsored subsidy schemes and should also receive funding from national and international NGOs. In urban area too, it can be taken up as backyard plantations and vegetable/flower needs of the occupants can be taken care of. If the pitchers can be locally made by farmers it would not only provide them self-employment but would also reduce the cost of system and in turn; it would be possible for them to adopt this method of irrigation even for medium to large scale with little extra cost for adequate mechanism for filling up the pitchers. Even if, the farmers do not produce the pitchers themselves, adoption of this technique by farmers could create a source of new income generation for the potters who are now facing strong challenges due to increased use of steel utensils. Efficient water management by using this technique can offer a solution to looming water crisis and would help bring more and more of the un-irrigated area under the irrigation in the district, state and the country. REFERENCES [1] Kongolo Mukole, (2011). “Water Resources Management for Agricultural Growth in Dry Lands in Developing Countries” African Journal of Business Management 5 (3): pp 3913-3922. [2] Sivanappan R.K., (1994). “Prospect of Micro-Irrigation in India” Irrigation and Drainage System 8: pp 49-58. [3] Siyal, A.A. Van Genuchten M., Skaggs T.H., (2009). “Performance of Pitcher Irrigation System” Soil Science 174 (6): pp 312-320. [4] Kulecho, I.K. & Weather head E.K., (2005). “Reasons for Small Holder Farmers Discontinuing with Low-Cost Micro-Irrigation: A Case Study from Kenya” Irrigation and Drainage Systems 19: pp 179-188. [5] Boland, A.M., Bewsell D., Kaine G., (2005). “Adoption of Sustainable Irrigation Management Practices by Stone and Pome Fruit Growers in the Goulburn/Murray Valleys, Australia” Irrigation Science 24(2): pp 137-145. [6] Namara, R.E. Upadhyay B., Nagar R.K., (2005). “Adoption and Impacts of Micro-irrigation Technologies Empirical Results from Selected Localities of Maharashtra and Gujarat States of India” International Water Management Institute, Sri Lanka, and Research Report 93: pp 1-43. [7] Singh A.K., Rahman A., Sharma S.P., Upadhyay A., Sikka A.K., (2009). “Small Holders‟ Irrigation- Problems and Options” Water Resources Management 23 (2): pp 289-302. [8] Cagliarini Adam & Anthony Rush, (2011). “Economic Development and Agriculture in India” Article from Reserve Bank of Australia Bulletin June Quarter 2011: pp 15-22. [9] Jena, Sebak Kumar, (2011). “Sustainable Small Scale Irrigation Experiment in the Dry Zones: A Case Study on Happa (Small Tank) Model in the State of West Bengal, India”. Presented in APN Conference on “Innovation and Sustainability Transitions in Asia”, at University of Malaya, Malaysia, during 9-11 January 2011. Available online at http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/29553/ [10] Prinz, D. and Malik, A.H., (2004). “More Yield with Less Water: How Efficient can be Water Conservation in Agriculture?” European Water 5/6: pp 47-58. [11] Batchelor C., Lovell C., Murata M., (1996). “Simple Micro-Irrigation Techniques for Improving Irrigation Efficiency on Vegetable Garden” Agricultural Water Management 32 (1): pp 37-48. [12] Masri zuhair, (2006). “Time Tested Pitcher Irrigation Helps Green the Slope Slopes of Khanasser Valley”. Publication of International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), Caravan 16: pp 39-40. [13] Final District Agriculture Plan (DAP): Surendranagar: http://agri.gujarat.gov.in/informations/daps/surendranagar.pdf

WAPCOS

Ltd.

available

at

[14] Gopinath, K. & Veeravalli, S.V., (2011). “Auto-regulative Capability of Pot/Pitcher Irrigation” Journal of Scientific & Industrial Research 70: pp 656-663 [15] Israelsen O.W. & Hansen V.E., (1962). “Irrigation Principles and Practices” Jhon Willy & Sons Inc., New York, 3rd Edition: pp 272. [16] Rank, H.D. (2010), “Drip Paddhathi Nu Mahatva, Gothavani Ane Jalavani” (Importance, Arrangement and Maintenance of Drip Method), Jal Jeevan, Gujarat Green Revolution Company ltd Magazine 15: pp 1

211

ISSN: 2319-5967 ISO 9001:2008 Certified International Journal of Engineering Science and Innovative Technology (IJESIT) Volume 2, Issue 6, November 2013 AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY He obtained his B.E. in Civil Engineering From L.E. College, Morbi, Saurashtra University, Rajkot, Gujarat, M.Sc. (Disaster Mitigation) from Sikkim Manipal University, New Delhi and M.E (Water Resources Engineering and Management) Civil (Gold Medalist) from Gujarat Technological University, Ahmedabad. He has Research and Academic experience of 11 years. His area of academic interest is water resources engineering and management. He has published 04 Research Papers, 3 in International Journals & 1 at national Conference. Several Projects have been guided by him for UG & PG Students. He is also providing his Technical Expertise to Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board.

He obtained his B.E. in Civil Engineering From L.E. College, Morbi, Saurashtra University, Rajkot, Gujarat, M.E (Water Resources Engineering and Management) Civil from Gujarat Technological University, Ahmedabad. He has academic experience of 02 years. He has published 01 Research Paper International Conference. Several Projects have been guided by him for UG Students.

He obtained his B.E. in Civil Engineering From B.V.M. College, Vallabh VidyaNagar, Gujarat, and M.E (Water Resources Management) (Civil) from L.E. College, Morbi, Saurashtra University, Rajkot. He has academic experience of 24years. . His area of interest is water resources engineering and management. Several Projects have been guided by him for UG & PG Students.

He obtained his B.E. (Civil) and M.E (Civil) from Gujarat University, Ahmedabad. He has Research and Academic experience of 36 years. He has published 06 Research Papers, 3 in International Journals & 1 at national Conference. Several Projects have been guided by him for UG & PG Students. He is working as Professor and Head of the Department since 1997. Over the years he has provided his expertise for various academic and research assignments. He is also providing his Technical Expertise to Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board.

212