ECONOMIC DIMENSIONS OF DRIP IRRIGATION IN CONTEXT OF FRUIT CROPS MALIK, D.P.AND LUHACH, M.S. Department of Agricultural Economics CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar-125004 (India) INTORDUCTION The availability of adequate, timely and assured supply of water is an important determinant of agricultural productivity. Irrigation raises cropping intensity (Dingar and Prasad, 1987) and crop yields besides facilitating shifts in cropping patterns. The increase in food grain output during last tow decades has come mainly from increase in land productivity. The gross cropped area under food grain has not changed significantly in this period .The trio of inputs, irrigation, high yielding varieties seeds and fertilizer nutrients have contributed to this increase in productivity. Irrigation alone contributed 60 percent to growth in agricultural productivity. The vagaries of the monsoon render agriculture an uncertainty .The development of high investment, major and minor irrigation projects has to quite an extent free agriculture from the dependence of monsoon rains. However, the available water for irrigation purpose has been continuously diminishing even India blessed with abundant water resources. About 69 million hectare metre of surface and 43.2 m.ha.m of ground water is available for use however, present utilization is approximately 60m.ha.m for various purposes in the country. The use of water for irrigation consttitues about 84 percent of total utilization potential of water i.e.75 billion cubic metre. With the increase in demand of water for other uses, the share of water use for irrigation is likely to go down to about 73 percent by 2025.A.D.In a vast country like India with a geographical area of 328 million hectares, less than 45 percent of the area cultivated. Out of cultivated area only 65 million hectares (35 %) gets irrigation. Even after harnessing the entire potential of water resources, not more than 50 percent of cultivated land is irrigated (Anonymous, 2001). _____________________________________________________________________________ Assistant Scientist ** Research Associate The paper is to be presented at International Workshop "Economics of Water and Agriculture" to be held at Institute of Food, Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Rehovot,Isreal from December 18-20,2002

The demand for irrigation water will outstrip the supply potential to match sustained food production. With introduction of World Trade Organization (WTO), cultivators are incorporating water intensive crops in existing cropping pattern to enhance income and to meet export demand. Furthermore, creation of intensive irrigation facilities and excessive use of canal water aggravated with the problems of water-logging, soil salinity, soil sodicity etc. while ground water is declining very fast due to over-exploitation of water resources through increased bore wells and inefficient use of water due to adoption of age old practices in irrigation system. The selection of irrigation appropriate technology is of utmost importance for efficient utilization of scarce natural water The drip technology spread from Israel to Australia and the USA by late sixties and eventually through out the world. The US.A. has the largest area under drip irrigation This technology was introduced in early seventies in India but large adoption of it was in eighties particularly in fruit, vegetable and cash crops. Drip irrigation system is considered as most suitable water saving technique, eliminating water channels, bring more area under irrigation and reducing the use of purchased inputs. Drip irrigation involves application of water only at the roots of the plant where it is required and thereby saving more water and brings more area under irrigation. The crop yields by this method of irrigation are higher with reduction in cost of fertilizers, pesticides and power for irrigation. The drip irrigation system requires heavy initial investment and used in wide spaced crops. As a result, the cultivators are becoming more conscious about cost of installation of this system and economic analysis of different fruit crops for their profitable production. With these and associated considerations, the following objectives were framed. i).to study utilization pattern of drip irrigation ii)to determine installation cost of drip irrigation iii)to examine economic feasibility of drip irrigation system iv)to analyse cost and returns on surface and drip irrigation systems METHODS AND MATERIALS Haryana is one of the states of Indian Union having 79 percent of total cropped area under irrigation. The state is second largest contributor to central pool in case of food grains and achieved significant increase in productivity of all crops. The major crops cultivated are wheat,

rice, sugarcane, sunflower in irrigated area and cotton, pearl millet, cluster bean, chickpea, black gram, green gram, redgram, rapeseed & mustard, in dry region. At present, the area under drip irrigation in the state is more than two thousand hectares. The investigation was carried out in southern part of the state having annual rainfall of less than 500 mm, undulating land and sandy soil. Furthermore, the ground water is brackish and unfit for irrigation in most parts of region. The practiced surface irrigation under prevailing conditions and a very small discharge of tubewells resulted into very low irrigation efficiency besides high labour requirement. The use of drip irrigation technology is limited to fruit crops like grapes, ber and citrus (kinnow). Sampling: The sample design consists of the multistage sampling technique. For the selection of districts, a list of all districts of Haryana state having drip sets was prepared. The districts Bhiwani, Hisar, Gurgaon and Mohindergarh, were selected purposively on the basis of scarce water availability. From each selected district, one block having maximum number of drip sets was purposively selected. Further, from each selected block, a selection of cluster of three villages was made subject to constraint of time and funds for data collection. Prior to the selection of ultimate unit, they were classified into small, medium, and large on the basis of operational holding using cumulative total method. Finally, five cultivators were randomly selected from each village to make a total sum of 60 cultivators. All the selected cultivators were personally interviewed to collect cross -sectional data pertaining to installation cost of pump and drip sets, labour & maintenance costs and electricity charges, area irrigated, cropping pattern, input-output of crops etc. for the year 1999-2000. Analytical Tools: Fixed cost reflects the amount of capital investment in well, pumping unit and drip set (Drip set consists of screen filter, control & flush valve as fixed items while complete ventury & bypass assemblies and sand filter varies from crop to crop). Prices of variable inputs such as labour, electricity and expenses required for pumping and distributing water reflects operating cost. Maintenance costs consist of expenses incurred on repair and lubricant etc. The annual fixed costs consisting of depreciation and interest on investment was calculated using mathematical tool given below. Original value – junk value Depreciation = Year of useful life

The useful life of tubewell/wells was taken as 30 years, motor (engine) and pipes 15 years and drip set considered as eight years for grapes, 10 years each for ber and citrus(kinnow). The criteria for investment decision used in this study i.e. Net Present Value (NPV), Internal Rate of Return (IRR), Benefit-Cost ratio (BCR) and Pay Back Period. Net Present Value: Future net returns were discounted to their net present value by using the following formula:

NPV =

R1 R2 Rn - 1 Rn + + + + (1 + r) 1 (1 + r) 2 (1 + r) n -1 (1 + r) n

Where, R1, R2 ----------------- Rn are the net returns in period 1, 2, -------n, respectively; n is the life in years, r is the discount rate and NPV is net present value of returns R1, R2 -------------Rn. Internal Rate of Return: For calculating the internal rate of return, Bierman and Smidt (1975) method was used. The internal rate of returns was calculated at the rate of discount until it satisfies the relationship B-C=O. Where B is the sum of discounted streams of positive values and C is taken as the sum of discounted streams of negative values. Benefit-Cost Ratio: The benefit-cost ratio is the ratio between the sum of discounted net benefits of returns (R) and the sum of discounted costs (K), i.e. B=R/K. Pay back period: It indicates the number of years by which the net return (R) equals to the establishment cost of drip sets, (K). n

∑ Ri = K i =1

For this condition, the following relationship must be satisfied. Where, Ri is net returns in ith year, K is cost of sprinkler sets. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Drip method of irrigation requires fixed capital for installing the drip system, the magnitude of which depends upon the kind of crop, spacing, quantity of water required, type and discharge capacity of the dripper and the distance from water source. Wide-spaced crops require relatively low capital cost. Besides this, the size of the capital requirement is also sensitive to the quality of the materials used for the system as well as distance between well and the field.

Drip irrigation is an efficient method of providing irrigation water, fertilizers and pesticides (Kumar,1999) directly into root zones of plants and it permits the irrigation to limit the watering closely to crop water requirement. The system applied water at low rate and under pressure to keep the soil moisture within desired range for plant growth. The ideal crop irrigation in one which all droppers deliver the same volume of water in a given irrigation time. Conservation of water and its use efficiency are considered advantages of the system. Drip method of Irrigation leads to substantial reduction in water losses occurring from evaporation, conveyance and distribution . 1. Utilization Pattern 1.1.Pattern of irrigation on sample farms: The efficiency of water use is extremely low in the flood method of irrigation (FMI) due to evaporation, conveyance and distribution losses. Out of total irrigated area, surface, sprinkler, drip and either of both methods constituted 31.62,42.57,12.28 and 13.59 percent, respectively (Table-1). The area irrigated by drip method was very less because its use is limited to fruit crops. On large farms, area irrigated by this method is maximum among different categories of farms due to more area under fruit crops and initial heavy investment of installation. 1.2. Water consumption and water use efficiency: Water requirement by DMI is only about 30-40 percent of the surface method of irrigation (Jain& Kumar, 1973,Kaushal, 1976,Aggarwal1980, Ganjendra, 1992). This method induced water loss reduction or water use efficiency improvement required an exact measurement of water delivery and actual water consumption by crops. In context of sampled based field study, it is inevitable to use the nearest practicable proxy like irrigation time in terms of Horse Power (HP). The HP hours of water are computed by multiplying the HP of pump set with number of hours of irrigation. The extent of water saving is substantial higher i.e. 39.80 percent for water intensive crops like ber and kinnow in comparison to grapes (Table-2). About an additional area upto 0.54 to 0.66 hectare irrigated by adopting DMI is also considered indicator for evaluating water use efficiency. The water use per quintal (computed by dividing the per hectare water consumption by yield) was observed less as compared to furrow method of irrigation. Under DMI, the fruit crops like grapes,ber and kinnow consumed 17.89,83.61 and 82.44 HP hours, respectively indicating use of water efficiently.Moreover,there is substantial

saving in energy.

calculated the contribution of irrigation water in yields of foodgrains.

Dawan (1987) also

2. Investment on Drip Irrigation System 2.1.Installation cost: The average total cost to install a tubewell (includes the cost of well, cost of motor, pumps &boring in well) was worked out to be Rs. 75450. The installation cost of drip irrigation per hectare was calculated Rs. 37964,Rs. 22424 and Rs. 32700 for grapes, ber and for citrus (kinnow), respectively (Table-3). The variable cost (includes PVC pipes, laterals, micro tubes, drippers and accessories) accounted for 70.67 per cent of the total cost for grapes, 50.36 per cent for ber and 65.94 per cent for citrus orchard. The fixed capital cost remained almost same for all crops. The variation in variable cost is mainly due to variation in number of plants and spacing of the respective crops. About 50 per cent of capital cost as subsidy is provided by Central and State Governments to encourage the adoption of this method among peasants due to heavy installation investment. The proportion of subsidy actually availed by the cultivators was 48.40 per cent for grapes, 41 per cent for ber and 43 per cent for citrus (kinnow) as reported by cultivators of the study area. But the subsidy was not taken into account in calculating the economic feasibility of drip method. 2.2.Working cost: The average annual working cost per hectare of drip set was worked out Rs. 27955, Rs. 27725 and 28070 of grapes, ber and kinnow, respectively (Table-4). It is evident from the table 2 that the cost of variable inputs was 22.11 per cent, while fixed cost accounted for 77.89 per cent of total working cost in case of grapes. The fixed cost of drip sets accounted about 61.56 and 66.93 per cent, while variable cost accounted 38.44 and 43.07 per cent for ber and citrus (kinnow), respectively. Among the variable cost, labour charges accounted for maximum i.e.14.01, 23.65 and 19.75 per cent of the total working cost in case of grapes, ber and citrus (kinnow), respectively. Labour and electricity charges are much lower in comparison to other methods of irrigation because of permanent placement of drip sets for crops. Consequently, the total annual operating cost of drip set was worked out to be Rs. 2245, Rs. 4100 and Rs. 3738 for grapes, ber and citrus (kinnow), respectively. The much variation in the total annual operating cost for each fruit crop mainly due to variation in water requirement, number of plants per hectares and spacing of rows of respective crops. 3.Economic feasibility of drip set Drip irrigation being capital intensive technology forced the cultivators having scarce funds to make choice between two or more of the alternative uses of capital. The opportunity cost principle is considered important by putting the money into alternative uses.

Drip irrigation system is an investment yielding returns over time and the cash flows can charge over the time. Since this system involves fixed capital, it is necessary to take into account the income streams for the whole life span of drip investment.

The economic feasibility of drip

irrigation method in fruit crops was examined using four indicators, viz., Net Present Value (NPV), Internal Rate of Return (IRR), Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) and Pay Back Period. 3.1.Net Present Value: Costs incurred and returns obtained from fruit orchard over time are not comparable with annual crops grown in the area. This shows the need to estimate the deflated returns of drip irrigation by discounting future returns. Hence, it is necessary to estimate the net present value of future returns, which can be determined by discounting both the costs as well as returns at the prevailing rate of interest. It is obvious from these tables that the NPVs of discounted returns per hectare computed to be Rs. 18108, Rs. 13912 and Rs. 31011 for grapes, ber and citrus (kinnow) orchards, respectively for the entire life of drip set (Tables5 -7). The average net annual returns per hectare were worked out to be Rs. 7217, Rs. 4434, and Rs. 9885 for drip sets on grapes, ber and citrus (kinnow) crop, respectively. The average annual net return is determined by dividing the net present value by the present worth of an annuity of Rs. 1.00 for 8 years (grapes) and 10 years (ber and kinnow) at 12 per cent discount rate is Rs. 2.5097 and Rs. 3.1372, respectively. 3.2.Benefit -Cost ratio: The benefit-cost ratios were found as 1.737, 1.949 and 2.570 for drip set on grapes, ber and citrus (kinnow) orchards, respectively (Table 5-7). It indicates that an investment of Rs. 1.00 on drip irrigated orchard would fetch a return of Rs. 1.737, Rs. 1.949 and Rs. 2.57 for grapes, ber and citrus (kinnow), respectively. The B-C ratio greater than unity in all three crops reveals that investment in drip system is economically viable and sound. Muralidhara et. al (1994) also reported BCR is found greater than one incase of mulberry. 3.3.Internal Rate of Return: The internal rate of return, the investment cost and gross returns from first to eight year for grapes and first to tenth year for ber and kinnow have been depicted in Tables 8 to 10, respectively. The net cash flows were obtained by using these single values, which may have negative or positive signs depending on the quantum of costs and returns in each year. To find out the present value, the discounted rate was computed by using method i.e. difference between the sum of discounted streams of positive and negative values is reduced either to zero or to a lowest minimum.

The computed values of internal rate of return or earning power of drip irrigation system were found at a very high rate i.e. 33, 35, and 47 per cent on grapes, ber and citrus (kinnow) orchards, respectively. 3.4.Pay Back Period: The cost incurred on drip system was Rs. 27495, Rs. 16418 and Rs. 22044 for grapes, ber and kinnow, respectively. Thus, the pay back period of drip system worked out to be five years for grapes (Narayanamoorthy, 1997) while it was four years in case of ber and kinnow, respectively. Therefore, the cultivators are advised to make use of drip sets. Govt. should continue providing subsidy due to heavy installation cost of drip sets. The financial agencies should involve actively in providing credit requirement for purchase of drip sets. 4.1. Cost and returns of surface and drip irrigation systems The crops grapes,ber and kinnow under drip irrigation accounted for 76 percent of total cultivated area on sample farms. The cost of cultivation incurred is low comparatively on drip farms. The reduction in annual cultivation cost per hectare worked out was 3.95 percent in grapes, 2.90 percent in ber and 5.37 percent in citrus(Table-11). Among the different components of operational cost significant reduction exhibited in labour, weeding fertilizer and ploughing. The annual gain per annum in yield of these crops calculated was 11.21,16.20 and26.14 percent, respectively. The increase in crop productivity is attributed mainly due to efficient use of water and irrigation intensity. Net returns in case of all the crops were also higher on drip farms in comparison to non-drip farms because of reduction in cost of cultivation and increase in yield. Thus, DMI accrues benefits both in terms of cultivation cost and net returns. 4.2.Comparative advantages of irrigation methods. The economic viability of fruit crops under surface and drip irrigation system calculated acts as a guide for the cultivators to adopt particular irrigation method on the farm. The discounted returns (at 12 percent from one hectare of grapes, ber and citrus (kinnow) worked out was higher in case of DMI as compared to FMI.The earning power of drip irrigated grapes,ber and citrus(kinnow) was also higher i.e.17,28.5 and 29 percent, respectively (Table-12). But IRR in case of mulberry is low for drip irrigation as compared to furrow irrigation (Muralidhara et.al, 1994). The BCR in case of surface and drip irrigated fruit crops was found grater than unity showing investment in orchard is economically viable. The costs were fully recovered for all crops in seventh year of orchard

under both irrigation methods. But net returns was higher incase of DMI due to higher value of BCR. Therefore, considering all indicators, it was concluded that cultivation of fruit crops by using DMI in the study area is more economical and cost effective. CONCLUSIONS Based on the results, it concludes that the average capital cost of drip sets calculated to be Rs. 37964, Rs.22424 and Rs. 32700 per hectare for grapes, ber and kinnow, respectively. Fixed capital cost of drip set remained almost same for all the crops. The findings confirmed the much variation in variable cost of drip sets for all crops, which was mainly due to the variation in number of plants and spacing for each crop. The total annual operational cost per hectare of drip sets was worked to be Rs.2245, Rs.4100 and Rs.3738 for all three fruit crops, respectively. Further it was obvious that labour and electricity charges were much lower in drip method of irrigation in comparison to other methods of irrigation. The net present values of drip sets of discounted returns for per hectare computed to Rs. 18108, Rs. 13912 and Rs. 31011 on grapes, ber and citrus (kinnow) orchards, respectively for the entire life of drip set. The earning power of drip set as indicated by IRR were found at very high rate i.e. 33, 37 and 47 per cent on grapes, ber and citrus (kinnow) orchards, respectively. The benefit cost ratio were worked out 1:1.737, 1:1.949 and 1:2.570 for grapes, ber and kinnow orchards, respectively. The pay back period of drip sets estimated to be five years on grapes and ber orchard, and four year on citrus orchard. Thus, investment on drip irrigation was found sound and economically viable. Therefore, the cultivators are advised to make use of drip sets. Govt. should continue providing subsidy due to heavy installation cost of drip sets. The financial agencies should involve actively in providing credit requirement for purchase of drip sets. The Govt. should initiate promotion of better water management practices, installation of drip in water scarce and drought prone areas, conjunctive use of surface and ground water and cultivators' participation in irrigation water management. Pipes and droppers used in DMI should be made popularized among cultivators thorough demonstration/adaptive trials.Today, diversification towards high value crops like fruit, vegetable and flower and long term strategy of agricultural development, necessities the use of improved technology i.e. drip irrigation system to reduce cost of production

REFERENCES Agarwal, M.C. 1980. Prospects of saline water use with sprinkler. All India Seminar on Water Resources, its development and Management, Chandigarh. Agarwal, M.C. and Gangwar, A.C. 1981. Sprinkler irrigation in Haryana, its economic feasibility. Agri. Engg. Today. 5 (6) : 25-27. Anonymous. 2001Economic Survey. Published by Ministry of Commerce,Govt.of India, New Delhi Buck, D.A.; Nakayama, F.S. and Warric, A.W. 1982. Principles, practices and potentials of Trickle (Drip Irrigation). In Hillel D. (ed), Advances in irrigation. 1 : 221-298. Dhawan, B.D. 1987. Agricultural productivity of water in India. Indian Journal of Quantitative Economics. 3 (2) ; 81-84. Dingar, S.M. and Prasad, V. 1987. Effect of irrigation on cropping pattern and agricultural production in Uttar Pradesh. Farm Science Journal. 2 (1) : 39-45. Gajender Singh. 1992. Techo-economic evaluation of drip irrigation for sugarcane crop. International agricultural conference. Proceedings of a conference held in Bangkok, Thailand on 7-10. Vol. III, 897-904. Jain, K.C. and Kumar, R. 1973. Sprinkler irrigation saves water as compared to surface irrigation. XI Annual Conference of Indian Society of Agricultural Economics, Coimbatore. Kaushal, M.P. 1976. Use sprinkler method of irrigation on sand dune areas. Agriculture AgroIndustries. 10 (5) : 13-14. Kumar Aswani. 1999. Pressurized irrigation system towards enhanced water use efficiency. Souvenir XXXIV Annual Convention. Indian Society of Agricultural Engineers . pp. 26-44. Muralidhara, H.R.; Gundurao, D.S.; Sarpeshker, A.M. and Ramaiah, R. 1994. Is drip irrigation viable for mulberry cultivation- an economic analysis. Mysore Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 28 (3) : 256-260. Narayanamoorthy, A. 1997. Economic viability of drip irrigation : An empirical analysis from Maharashtra. Indian Journal of Agriculture Economics. 52 (4) : 728-739.

Table 1 : Category wise irrigation pattern on sample farms (in hectares) Size group Small Medium Large Total

Total irrigated area

Canal

Surface Tubewell

74.50 (100)

6.86 (9.21)

16.64 (22.33)

190.40 (100)

18.20 (9.56)

338.66 (100) 603.56 (100)

Sprinkler

Drip

Mutually exclusive

23.50 (31.23)

32.35 (43.42)

16.65 (8.93)

12.00 (16.10)

46.30 (24.32)

64.50 (33.88)

69.70 (36.60)

19.20 (10.08)

27.00 (14.08)

34.90 (8.99)

68.00 (20.07)

102.90 (30.38)

154.50 (45.62)

48.25 (14.24)

43.00 (12.70)

59.96 (9.93)

130.94 (21.69)

190.90 (31.62)

256.55 (42.51)

74.10 (12.28)

82.00 (13.59)

Total

Figures in parentheses denotes the percentage to total area irrigation

Table 2: Water consumption and water use efficiency in drip and non-drip irrigated crop (Hours) Particulars

Water consumption / ha. * Grapes Ber Citrus (kinnow)

Water used per quintal yield Grapes Ber Citrus (kinnow)

Drip crops ( hours)

3026.42

5042.90

4264.72

17.89

83.66

82.44

Non- Drip crops ( hours) Water saved by DMI In percentage

4672.68

7943.64

7083.24

29.30

177.35

107.95

35.23

36.52

39.80

42.35

52.82

25.11

In hours

1646.28

2900.74

2818.82

12.41

93.69

93.69

Note: Sample contains only the cultivators using tube-well irrigation by electric pumpsets

Table 3: Estimated annual cost of drip set for different crops Sr. No.

Particulars Grapes (4 x 4 M)

A

(Rs./ ha.) Estimated Investment cost Ber Citrus (Kinnow) (8 x 8 M) (6 x 6 M)

Fixed cost 1

Screen filter

1820

1820

1820

2

Control valve

475

475

475

3

Flush valve

90

90

90

2385

2385

2385

(6.28)

(10.64)

(7.29)

1600

1600

1600

Total – A B.

Optional items 1

Complete Ventury Assembly

2

Bypass Assembly

950

950

950

3

Sand filter

6200

6200

6200

Total- B

8750

8750

8750

(23.09)

(39.00)

(26.77)

11135

11135

11135

(29.30)

(49.64)

(34.06)

Total A+B C.

Variable cost*

26829 (70.67)

Total- A + B + C

11299 (50.36)

21565 (65.94)

37964

22424

32700

(100.00)

(100.00)

(100.00)

Note: Cost covers pumpset cost. The cost to install a tubewell (includes the cost of well, cost of motor, pumps &boring in well) was worked out to be Rs. 75450Variable cost includes the cost of PVC pipes, Laterals, Micro tube, Drippers and AccessoriesFigures in parentheses indicate the percentage to total cost of drip set.

Table 4. : Working cost of drip set for different fruit crops (Per annum) Item

Sr. No. A.

B.

Drip set (Grapes)

Drip set (Ber)

Drip set (Kinnow)

Amount

Percentage

Amount

Percentage

Amount

Percentage

Overhead costs/ annual fixed costs (i)

Depreciation on investment

8165

29.20

5324

19.20

6290

22.41

(ii)

Interest

13610

48.69

11745

42.36

12498

44.52

Sub-total (total fixed costs)

21775

77.89

17069

61.56

18788

66.93

Running costs/ annual operating and maintenance costs (i)

Electricity charges

1440

5.15

3066

11.06

2698

9.62

(ii)

Repair and maintenance of irrigation system

645

2.31

825

2.98

825

2.93

(iii)

Other expenses/ miscellaneous 160

0.57

209

0.75

215

0.77

2245

8.03

4100

14.79

3738

13.32

Labour

3935

14.01

6556

23.65

5544

19.75

Total cost (A+B+C)

27955

100.00

27725

100.00

28070

100.00

Sub-total (Total operating cost)

C.

Table 5 : Net present worth of drip system for grapes orchard Years

Investment cost (Rs.)

Operation and maintenance cost (Rs.)

Total cost (Rs.)

Benefits (Rs.)

Net benefit

I

37964

2245

40209

12714

27495

-

II

-

2245

2245

12714

-

III

-

2245

2245

12714

IV

-

2245

2245

V

-

2245

VI

-

VII

-ve (Rs.)

+ve (Rs.)

Discount Coefficient (r = 12 %) 1 (1 + r) n

Net present worth -ve (Rs.)

+ve (Rs.)

0.8929

24550

-

10469

0.7972

-

8346

-

10469

0.7118

-

7452

12714

-

10469

0.6355

-

6653

2245

12714

-

10469

0.5674

-

5940

2245

2245

12714

-

10469

0.5066

-

5304

-

2245

2245

12714

-

10469

0.4523

-

4735

VIII

-

2245

2245

12714

-

10469

0.4039

-

4228

Total

37964

17960

55924

101712

24550

42658

73283

Note 1. The Net Present Worth @ 12 per cent discount rate came to be Rs. 18108 (Rs 42658 - Rs. 24550). 2. Benefit-cost ratio = 1: 1.7375

170

Table 6 : Net present worth of drip system for ber orchard Years

Investment cost (Rs.)

Operation and maintenance cost (Rs.)

Total cost (Rs.)

Benefits (Rs.)

Net benefit

I

22424

4100

24669

10106

16418

-

II

-

4100

4100

10106

-

III

-

4100

4100

10106

IV

-

4100

4100

V

-

4100

VI

-

-ve (Rs.)

+v(Rs.)

Discount coefficient ( r = 12 % ) 1 (1 + r) n

Net present worth -ve (Rs.)

+ve (Rs.)

0.8929

14659

-

6006

0.7972

-

4787

-

6006

0.7118

-

4275

10106

-

6006

0.6355

-

3817

4100

10106

-

6006

0.5674

-

3408

4100

4100

10106

-

6006

0.5066

-

3043

VII

4100

4100

10106

-

6006

0.4523

-

2717

VIII

4100

4100

10106

-

6006

0.4039

-

2426

IX

-

4100

4100

10106

-

6006

0.3606

-

2164

X

-

4100

4100

10106

-

6006

0.3220

-

1934

Total

22424

41000

63424

101600

16427

60060

14659

28571

Note 1. The Net Present Worth @ 12 per cent discount rate came to be Rs. 13912 (Rs28571 - Rs. 14659). 2. Benefit-cost ratio is 1: 1.949 171

Table 7 : Net present worth of drip system for citrus (kinnow) orchard Years

Investment cost (Rs.)

Operation and maintenance cost (Rs.)

Total cost (Rs.)

Benefits (Rs.)

Net benefit

Discount coefficient ( r = 12 % )

-ve (Rs.)

+ve (Rs.)

I

32700

3738

36438

14394

22044

-

0.8929

19683

-

II

-

3738

3738

14394

-

10656

0.7972

-

8495

III

-

3738

3738

14394

-

10656

0.7118

-

7585

IV

-

3738

3738

14394

-

10656

0.6355

-

6772

V

-

3738

3738

14394

-

10656

0.5674

-

6046

VI

-

3738

3738

14394

-

10656

0.5066

-

5398

VII

-

3738

3738

14394

-

10656

0.4523

-

4820

VIII

-

3738

3738

14394

-

10656

0.4039

-

4304

IX

-

3738

3738

14394

-

10656

0.3606

-

3843

X

-

3738

3738

14394

10656

0.3220

-

3431

Total

32700

37380

70080

143940

19683

50694

-ve (Rs.)

+v(Rs.)

Net present worth

1 (1 + r) n

22044

106560

Note 1. The Net Present Worth @ 12 per cent discount rate came to be Rs. 31011 (RS 50694 - Rs. 19683). 2. Benefit-cost ratio is 1: 2.575 172

Table 8 : Internal rate of return from drip set in grape orchard per hectare Years

Cost (Rs.)

Annual gross return (Rs.)

Net cash flow -ve

Discount coefficient ( r = 33 % )

+ve

1 (1 + r) n

Corresponding present value -ve (Rs.)

+ve (Rs.)

I

40209

12714

27495

-

0.7519

20673

-

II

2245

12714

-

10469

0.5653

-

5918

III

2245

12714

-

10469

0.4251

-

4450

IV

2245

12714

-

10469

0.3195

-

3345

V

2245

12714

-

10469

0.2403

-

2516

VI

2245

12714

-

10469

0.1806

-

1890

VII

2245

12714

-

10469

0.1359

-

1422

VIII

2245

12714

-

10469

0.1021

-

1069

Total

55924

101712

27495

73283

20673

20610

Note:-The internal rate of return or earning power of one hectare Grape orchard was found to be as high as 33 percent.

175

Table 9: Internal rate of return from drip set in ber orchard per hectare Years

Cost (Rs.)

Annual gross return

Net cash flow -ve

+ve

Discount coefficient 1 %) ( r = 34 n

Corresponding present value -ve (Rs.) +ve (Rs.)

(1 + r)

I

24669

10106

16418

6006

0.7462

12251

-

II

4100

10106

-

6006

0.5569

-

3345

III

4100

10106

-

6006

0.4156

-

2496

IV

4100

10106

-

6006

0.3101

-

1862

V

4100

10106

-

6006

0.2314

-

1390

VI

4100

10106

-

6006

0.1727

-

1072

VII

4100

10106

-

6006

0.1289

-

774

VIII

4100

10106

-

6006

0.0961

-

577

IX

4100

10106

-

6006

0.0717

-

431

X

4100

10106

-

6006

0.0535

-

321

Total

63424

101600

16427

60060

12251

12368

Note:-The internal rate of return or earning power of one hectare Ber orchard was found to be as high as 34 percent. 176

Table 10 : Internal rate of return from drip method of irrigation in citrus (kinnow) orchard per hectare Years

Cost (Rs.)

Annual gross return

Net cash flow -ve

+ve

Discount coefficient ( r = 47 % ) 1 (1 + r) n

(Rs.) Corresponding present value

-ve

+ve

I

36438

14394

22044

-

0.6802

14994

-

II

3738

14394

-

10656

0.4627

-

4931

III

3738

14394

-

10656

0.3148

-

3354

IV

3738

14394

-

10656

0.2141

-

2281

V

3738

14394

-

10656

0.1456

-

1552

VI

3738

14394

-

10656

0.0991

-

1056

VII

3738

14394

-

10656

0.0674

-

718

VIII

3738

14394

-

10656

0.0458

-

488

IX

3738

14394

-

10656

0.0311

-

331

X

3738

14394

10656

0.2120

-

226

Total

70080

143940

14994

14937

22044

106560

Note:-The internal rate of return or earning power of one hectare Citrus (Kinnow) orchard was found to be as high as 47 percent. 177

Table 11: Costs and returns of fruit crops grown under conventional and drip irrigation system Particular Furrow

Grape Drip

% change by drip over furrow

Furrow

Ber Drip

% change by drip over furrow

Furrow

Citrus (Kinnow) Drip % change by drip over furrow

Land size (ha.)

2.65

2.97

-

2.73

2.83

-

2.34

2.53

-

Net cultivated area (ha.)

2.42

2.83

-

2.49

2.61

-

2.26

2.39

-

Percent irrigated area

82.90

96.73

16.68

78.30

92.05

17.56

84.58

97.60

15.39

Land use intensity (percent)

91.32

95.29

-

91.20

92.23

-

94.47

96.58

-

Per cent area under DMI to cultivated Annual cost of cultivation (Rs./ha.) Yield (qtls./ha.)

-

26.24

-

-

19.72

-

-

29.85

-

30326

29127

-3.95

14860

14429

- 2.90

18686

17682

- 5.35

186.25

207.12

11.20

51.68

60.06

16.20

60.37

68.25

26.14

Annual gross return (Rs./ ha.)

44327

49295

-

18504

21502

-

25718

29074

-

Net return

14001

20168

44.04

36.44

7073

94.09

7032

11392

62.00

Table 12 : Comparative status of NPV, IRR, BCR and Pay Back Period of fruit crops grown under furrow and drip irrigation system

Particular

Net present

Furrow irrigation method Grapes Ber Citrus (kinnow)

Drip irrigation Ber Citrus (kinnow)

Grapes

31522

37048

86310

98044

69013

133839

1:1.21

1:2.20

1:259

1:1.763

1:3.77

1:3.70

14

22

24

17

28.5

259

7

7

7

7

7

7

value (Rs) Net benefit cost ratio Internal rate of return (%) Pay back period