On-Farm Research on Weed, Water and Nutrient Management in SRI 2011-2013 Final Report on key findings of on-farm Research conducted by Ambuja Cement Foundation and PRASARI in collaboration with Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalay (At Gosaba and Uluberia) Submitted to Sir Dorabji Tata Trust Mumbai India
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
On-Farm Research on Weed, Water and Nutrient
Management in SRI
2011-2013
Final Report on key findings of on-farm Research conducted by Ambuja
Cement Foundation and PRASARI in collaboration with Bidhan Chandra
Krishi Viswavidyalay
(At Gosaba and Uluberia)
Submitted to
Sir Dorabji Tata Trust
Mumbai
India
Executive Summary
There have been three the farmers have taken up the research in their fields. Fields remained unchanged
irrespective of the seasons. There are total 28 farmers who have been putting in the research in their fields in two
locations under the supervision of Ambuja Cement Foundation and PRASARI under the guidance of SRI-Secretariat
and Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalay (BCKV). There are three different aspects for research: Weed, nutrition
and Water Management.The Research lay-outs and designs are prepared at the BCKV and thereafter the field
orientation programme is taken-up to detail the design to the Farmers. The implementing Organization
categorically follow-up the activities with every farmers standing on their fields. Any innovation planned to be
introduced is followed by a farmers’ meeting and close handholding with the farmers.The aspect wise data is
collected by using a jointly developed format by BCKV and Livolink Foundation (SRI-Secretariat). Apart from the
observations the samples are also collected for analysis in the BCKV laboratories.The collected data put in the
specific formats and the observations are shared back to the Research Farmers and cross-checked with their gut-
feeling of best Treatment in all three aspects of weed, Water and Nutrient Management. Cross visits from on-farm
to on-station and on-farm enriches the learning of the Research Farmers and mutual experiences.
Weed Management yield data of grain and straw has exhibited very little variances but other analysis of soil,micr-
flora would establish the co-relations. General feeling by the Farmers from both the locations said-a couple of
mechanical weeding along with a hand weeding gives best results at Howrah. The on-field data from the plots
(remained unchanged for entire three years) have shown inconsistencies. In year-1 there is no specific trend of
impact of weed treatment over the yield. Year-2 data have exhibited that the best yield is acquired by T4
(Mechanical weeding with cono- weeder after 15 days and 40 days of transplantation. One hand weeding after 25
days of transplantation), where as the year-3 data has exhibited the best results in T5 (Chemical weedicide
application 1 day after transplantation, two mechanical weeding after 15 days and 40 days) followed by T4.
Three year’s data from Uluberia have been analyzed across a couple of parameters namely the impacts of
treatments on yield and the grain-straw ratios. The maximum yield potential here lies between T3 and T4 whereas
the grain: straw ratio significantly does not lead to any conclusion. At Gosaba, The data on nutrient management
based on two year’s observation has shown the dominations of treatments T2 (100 % Chemical) and T3 (25%
Ogranic & 75% Chemical )where as the year-3 data has exhibited gradual increasing trend from Treatment 1 to 5.
On farm research on water management has been the most challenging aspect to cover with. PRASARI took it as a
challenge to experiment on that and has come up with an interesting data set with a couple of replication where
inter-treatment seepage has been restricted using impermeable membranes. At Gosaba out of four replications
two replications were planned to be conducted using impermeable lining materials. Four treatments were
separated through excavated trenches of 2.5 ft. depth (hard pan could be found at that depth) and 3 ft wide. 600 µ
plastic sheets have been used vertical in the trenches. Mostly the FYM and pebble free clay has been used at the
plastic wall to avoid any perforation risks. The portion of the plastic rose to a height of 1 ft. above the ground level
and covered with soils to create lined bunds, to avoid spilling of water from one treatment to other.
The water application data has established that the hair crack stage water application in rice no-way reduces
the yield and takes just 50% of water compare to the traditional watering practices. This has led to further
calculations of reduction of Carbon Foot Print of almost 1 ton. hectare/season and deserves an amount of
Carbon Credit of almost Rs. 1000/ha/season.
A report on key findings: on- farm research at Gosaba and Uluberia
There has been four seasons the farmers have taken up the research in their fields. Fields remained
unchanged irrespective of the seasons. There are total 28 farmers who have been putting in the
research in their fields in two locations under the supervision of Ambuja Cement Foundation and
PRASARI.
There are three different aspects for research: Weed, nutrition and Water Management. To combat
with the on-field situation in the monsoon, only the weed management aspect is undertaken. All three
aspects have been covered in the summer-season as there is less-threat of water and nutrition
migration.
Research design process
Central Orientation:
Research design generally follows two tier
orientation systems. In the central orientation
workshop led by BCKV (The SAU) where all the
Research Farmers, on station Scientists, On-farm
implementing agencies, representatives from
SDTT and SRI-Secretariat sit together and
interact. The on-farm farmers share their
previous season experience and deliberate on the
on-farm research practicalities, the Scientists
provide their inputs towards finalization of the
design in all three aspects. Calculation of ‘inputs’
is also a responsibility of the
respective Scientists with
specializations in weed, water and nutrients. Once the research design gets finalized action plans with
dead-lines are being made.
Local Orientation:
This orientation programme is done at the respective
on-farm locations. Farmers are again shared with the
designs finalized in the Central orientation
programme and are asked to narrate they lay-outs
they
have understood. Here also research farmers reflect
to their earlier season’s experiences and plan the
activities with the dead-lines. Local level schedules for
Fig . PI of the Project &Pro-Vice Chancellor (BCKV) receiving the SDTT representative in the BCKV orientation programme
Fig. On farm orientation of the farmers
inputs distributions and monitoring and handholding supports are also made in this orientation. Direct
visit to the fields and practice measurements of the treatment plots are also being done by the Research
Farmers.
Putting-in the research:
First thing is done in every season is a leaf-let in Bengali with complete field lay-out for every aspect and
the list of ‘inputs’ with the application schedule. The implementing Organization categorically follow-up
the activities with every farmers standing on their fields. Any innovation planned to be introduced is
followed by a farmers’ meeting and close handholding with the farmers.
Monitoring and Data collection:
Monitoring system involves day to day visit to the
research plots by the Executives. The Executives have
daily contacts with the Research Farmers. There is a
regular meeting schedule for every fortnight with the
research farmers. The women members of the research
families also have good understanding on ‘what they
are doing in the research’ and being discussed in the
SHG meetings.
The data collection formats are being developed by
BCKV and SRI-Secretariat and the Implementing
agencies undergo the orientation programme for data collection. What are the ‘data’ to be collected
and ‘relevance’ of that data is also clearly explained
to the research farmers.
There are some purely technical data like-
‘chlorophyll analyses’ or ‘micro flora’ primarily
done by the Scientists through on-farm station
visits whereas primary samples of soil, weed ,
water application etc. is collected by the Executive
with support from Farmers.
Cross field visits of the farmers –on-farm (both the
locations) to on-station and the cross learning visit
of on-station farmers to another location. Visits
from SDTT representatives and the SRI-Secretariat
takes place in every research season where primary farmers are being interacted and the on-farm fields
are visited.
Along with the intermediary data collection special care has been taken towards the yield data
collection. Initially the crop cutting samples used to be taken from 5 mX5 m and the grain and straw
Fig. RS-BCKV collecting on-farm data
Fig. SDTT representative-interacting with the research farmers in the village
Fig. Weed count by research farmers. Fig. Scholars from BCKV assessing crop cutting
yield calculated thereafter projected for the yield per ha. This also left the scopes for the critics that only
the best yielding portion has been considered for crop cutting! To minimize the scope-the yield data for
every treatment is now collected from three 5mX5m area and then averaged to assess the yield from
100 sq.m.
Fig. : Process flow-chart
plots and
farmers
•Identified by on farm PIA
•Validated by BCKV
Research
design and
orientation
•By Scientists, orienting coordinators
•Orientation for the farmers in the field
Putting in trials
•Inputs distribution and putting in trials
•Validation by Scientists-BCKV
Crop Manage
ment
•Orientation of the coordinators at BCKV
•On farm farmers training at villages
Data collectio
n
•Orientation of the coordinators on soil,weed and water data
•Samples submitted to BCKV, Crop cutting data collected by BCKV ,Ag-Dept-GoWB
Dissemination
•Mid term workshops at BCKV
•Cross visits: On-farm-on farm &on-farm-on station
Apart from the Representatives from BCKV,
conscious look has been provided to involve
the Dept. of Agriculture of the Govt. of
West Bengal. The On-farm implementing
agencies intimate the Dept. offices before
the cropping cutting dates in the research
plots and accordingly the Asst. Directors
send their representatives to be physically
present in the crop cutting stages and
measurements of grain and straw yields.
Based on these data-the Dept. issues yield-
certificate to the Research Farmer and the
implementing agency’s name is also
mentioned there.
Weed Management:
Weed management has been experimented on farm across 2 locations namely Gosaba and Uluberia.
There were six different treatments designed by the Scientists of BCKV and the SRI-Secretariat and put
on-farm along three years. The treatments were as following:
T1 Farmers choice (conventional)
T2 Mechanical weeding with cono- weeder after 15 days, 25 days and 40 days of transplantation.
T3 Mechanical weeding with cono- weeder after 20 days and 40 days of transplantation.
T4 Mechanical weeding with cono- weeder after 15 days and 40 days of transplantation. One hand weeding after 25 days of transplantation
T5 Chemical weedicide application 1 day after transplantation, two mechanical weeding after 15 days and 40 days.
T6 Organic weedicide spray 1 day after transplantation, two mechanical weeding after 15 days and 40 days of transplantation.
The three year’s data has been analyzed as displayed below:
Fig. Asst. Director Agriculture-being explained the on-farm Research
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
Farmer-1 12.678 13.186 16.501 15.66 14.877 18.201
Farmer-2 14.478 14.119 16.78 16.435 15.585 17.36
Farmer-3 17.426 18.143 16.593 16.427 15.652 18.009
Farmer-4 16.285 16.593 15.652 16.36 15.652 17.418
02468
101214161820
Gra
in y
ield
in k
g/2
5 s
q-m
Treatment wise impact on yield-2011 (WEED-
ULUBERIA)
The data gathered from the field and further analyzed in the year 2011 did not exhibit any clear trend of best result of any one treatment over
the others. In the second year the trend was almost clear that in Uluberia on-farm, T4 (Mechanical weeding with cono- weeder after 15 days and
40 days of transplantation. One hand weeding after 25 days of transplantation) has the best impact on the yield. In year-1 (2011) there were
only 4 farmers who underwent the treatments and there were 10 more who were kept as the base line, to start with. In year-2 three of the
farmers could not take up the experiment properly and there were crop losses but a clear evidence of T4’s yield dominance revealed out of 11
farmer’s field. The yield of grain and straw has been taken from the field from 5mX5m crop-cutting area from each of the treatments of each
farmer. Apart from yield data, all other relevant data as per the prescribed format by BCKV and the SRI-Secretariat has been taken. The learning
from year-2 got strengthen from the data revealed in year-3. As shown in the graph below-T4 clearly has the impact to result in the best yield.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
Yie
ld in
Kg/
25
sq
-m
Treatment wise impact on yield-2012 (WEED-ULUBERIA)
FARMER-1
FARMER-2
FARMER-3
FARMER-4
FARMER-5
FARMER-6
FARMER-7
FARMER-8
FARMER-9
FARMER-10
FARMER-11
The same weed management practices were put in the fields of Gosaba-belongs to coastal saline zones of West Bengal. The on-field data from
the plots (remained unchanged for entire three years) have shown inconsistencies. In year-1 there is no specific trend of impact of weed
treatment over the yield. Year-2 data have exhibited that the best yield is acquired by T4 (Mechanical weeding with cono- weeder after 15 days
and 40 days of transplantation. One hand weeding after 25 days of transplantation), where as the year-3 data has exhibited the best results in T5
(Chemical weedicide application 1 day after transplantation, two mechanical weeding after 15 days and 40 days) followed by T4.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
T/h
a b
ase
d o
n 2
5 s
q-m
cro
p c
utt
ing
Treatments
Treatment wise impact on yield-2013 (WEED-ULUBERIA)
FARMER-1
FARMER-2
FARMER-3
FARMER-4
FARMER-5
FARMER-6
FARMER-7
FARMER-8
FARMER-9
FARMER-10
FARMER-11
Farmer-12
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
Farmer-1 11.1 9 10.2 8.54 8.33 10
Farmer-2 9.1 9.5 10.2 11.9 9.2 11.5
Farmer-3 7.2 7.5 6.4 6.9 6.2 5.9
02468
101214
yie
ld in
kg/
25
sq
-m
Treatment wise impact on yield-2011 (WEED-GOSABA)
0
5
10
15
20
25
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
yie
ld in
kg/
25
sq
-m
Treatments
Treatment wise impact on yield-2012 (WEED-GOSABA)
Farmer-1
Farmer-2
Farmer-3
Farmer-4
Farmer-5
Farmer-6
Farmer-7
Farmer-8
Farmer-9
Farmer-10
Farmer-11
Farmer-12
Farmer-13
Farmer-14
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
t/h
a b
ase
d o
n c
rop
cu
ttin
g fr
om
25
sq
-m
Treatments
Weed treatment impact on yield at Gosaba-2013
Farmer-1
Farmer-2
Farmer-3
Farmer-4
Farmer-5
Farmer-6
Farmer-7
Farmer-8
Farmer-9
Farmer-10
Farmer-11
Farmer-12
Farmer-13
Farmer-14
Nutrient Management:
Nutrient management has been experimented on farm across 2 locations namely Gosaba and Uluberia. There were six different treatments
designed by the Scientists of BCKV and the SRI-Secretariat and put on-farm along three years. The treatments were as following:
T1 T1 Farmer won practice
T2 100 % Chemical T3 25% Ogranic & 75% Chemical T4 50 % Organic & Chemical T5 50% in Chemical & 50 % in organic with Matka khad
The observations from Uluberia fields across 3 years were as following:
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
t/h
a ac
ross
tre
atm
en
ts
Treatments
Yield with respect to nutrient variations-2011 Uluberia
Farmer-1
Farmer-2
Farmer-3
Farmer-4
Farmer-5
5.25.45.65.8
66.26.46.66.8
77.2
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
t/h
a b
ase
d o
n c
rop
cu
ttin
g at
25
sq
-m
Treatments
Yield with respect to nutrient variations-2012 Uluberia
Farmer-1
Farmer-2
Farmer-3
Farmer-4
Farmer-5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
t/h
a w
.r.t
.cro
p c
utt
ing
25
sq
-m
Treatments
Yield with respect to nutrient variations-2013 Uluberia
Farmer-1
Farmer-2
Farmer-3
Farmer-4
Farmer-5
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
grai
n:s
traw
rat
ios
Treatments
Grain : straw in Nutrient variations-2012 Uluberia
Farmer-1
Farmer-2
Farmer-3
Farmer-4
Farmer-5
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
Gra
in:
Stra
w r
atio
s
Treatments
Grain : straw in Nutrient variations-2013 Uluberia
Farmer-1
Farmer-2
Farmer-3
Farmer-4
Farmer-5
0
5
10
15
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
kg/2
5 s
q-m
Treatments
Yield with respect to nutrient variations-2011 Gosaba
Farmer-1
Farmer-2
Farmer-3
Farmer-4
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5t/h
a b
ase
d o
n 2
5 s
q-m
cro
p c
utt
ing
Treatments
Yield with respect to nutrient variations-2012 Gosaba
Farmer-1
Farmer-2
Farmer-3
Farmer-40.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
1 2 3 4 5
Gra
in:
Stra
w-
acro
ss t
reat
me
nts
Treatments
Grain : straw in Nutrient variations-2012 Gosaba
Farmer-1
Farmer-2
Farmer-3
Farmer-4
5800
6000
6200
6400
6600
6800
7000
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
t/h
a
treatments
Treatment wise yields-2013 at Gosaba on Nutrient
Farmer-1
Farmer-2
Farmer-3
Farmer-4
Three year’s data from Uluberia have been analyzed across a couple of parameters namely the impacts of treatments on yield and the grain-
straw ratios. The maximum yield potential here lies between T3 and T4 whereas the grain: straw ratio significantly does not lead to any
conclusion.
The same experimentation was repeated in Gosaba and the results are as shown in the chart below:
The data on nutrient management based on two year’s observation has shown the dominations of
treatments T2 and T3 where as the year-3 data has exhibited gradual increasing trend from Treatment 1
to 5.
Water Management:
On farm research on water management has been the most challenging aspect to cover with. It has
again been a challenge for the BCKV Scientists who kept on deliberating at length for respective two
seasons. Initially, the plot water used to be measured using graduated sticks on the plots but the data
were not convincing to the Scientists who talked about the inter-treatment seepages in the field.
Though the pattern of water use for different treatments in both the locations (Uluberia and Gosaba)
was same, but the problem is much more in case of Uluberia fields as the supply water source is River
Lift Irrigation. PRASARI took it as a challenge to experiment on that and has come up with an interesting
data set with a couple of replication where inter-treatment seepage has been restricted using
impermeable membranes.
Journey in assessing ‘water efficiency’ issues of SRI scientifically:
SRI has been globally on the agenda for research for quite a few years, but there is limited research on
water management aspects compared to other principles of SRI on-farm. PRASARI, an agency with 7
years of SRI experience in extension working with SRI farmers on 6200 ha also struggled a lot to capture
accurately this aspect of SRI on-farm.
Year 2010
This first year, PRASARI put in trials in the Sundarbans with the support from SRI Secretariat, promoted
by SDTT and based at Bhubaneswar. The data tracking parameters on-farm were irrigation
applicationsin terms of ‘days after inundation’ for different treatments. This was to assess SRI water
efficiency in terms of yield per unit volume of water application. It was accepted that there would
probably be some gain in efficiency, but capturing the exact water applicationswas very difficult and
proving their authenticity was a challenge.
Year 2011
By this time, PRASARI has been facilitated by SDTT to work jointly with BCKV on the stated problem.
There was enough ‘hue and cry’ over the results for this component to be evaluated also with on-station
research at the state agricultural university (BCKV) and on the farms of rice research institutes.It has
been a challenge for the BCKV scientists who kept on deliberating at length for the respective two
seasons.Half-willingly, the scientists proposed to carry out the experiment themselves and
recommended that the plot water can be measured by using graduated sticks on the plots. Following is
the water management aspect design for research:
Table1: Research design for on-farm water management aspects of SRI
Aspects No. of Treatments
No. of Replicates&
Location
Design Detail (minimum plotsize For each
treatment is 100 m2)
Proposed Observations
Water Management
4 6 RBD T1– Farmers’ common practice (5-6 cm of standing water throughout the crop cycle)
I) Available moisture status @initialtillering, active tillering, PI stage, and at harvest
T2 – 2 cm of standing water throughout the season
2) Status of methane emissions @ initialtillering, PI, and at harvest
3) Number of tillers and panicles at harvest
T3 – Irrigation at soil hair- crack stage.
4) Grain and straw yield of paddy at harvest
T4 - Irrigation at soil hair-crack stage during vegetative phase + 3 cm of standing water at PI and flowering stages
With this design and obtaining the consent from
the scientists, the experiments were put in the
fields of Gosaba and Uluberia of S-24 Parganas
and Howrah districts of West Bengal, respectively.
During this experiment, the replications/plots of
individual research farmers were subdivided into
four 100 m2 treatments and marked as T1,T2,T3
and T4. The plots were separated by channels
with elevated boundaries, and graduated pegs
were put in the treatments. The irrigation
provided was flood irrigation followed by
diversion from the main channel cut at the
corners of the respective treatments. While
collecting the data, the treatment area (100 m2) Fig. On farm water management plot in summer 2011
was multiplied by the average irrigation depth gauged by pegs. It became very hard to maintain
different levels of water as designed, and sitting with the research farmers it was finalized to insert pegs
of uniform heights across the treatments and a height of 3 cm was maintained above the ground level
(GL. There were lots of approximations while calculating the applied water, as the stagnation of water
within the treatment and beyond was not uniform, although hard efforts had been made to level the
land. Mutually with the farmers, numbers of irrigations for each treatment were recorded. There were
not many variations across the replications, and a sample record from Gosaba is presented in the
following table.
Table2: Findings in water management aspect of SRI on-farm sample
TREATMENTS Initial
date
No. of
irriga-
tions
Volume of
water per
irrigation
(litres)
Water
saved
(liters)
Grain
yield
(kg/25
m2)
Remarks
T1 : Always 3 -5 cm
water
3RD Feb 18 3,000 10.8 Costly water could
be saved to ensure
target yield T2:Always 2 - 3 cm
water
3RD Feb 17 3,000 3,000 11.5
T-3: When hair cracks
appear, 2-3 cm water
3RD Feb 13 3,000 15,000 11.4
T-4 : When hair cracks
appear, 2-3cm water
but always 2-3cm water
@ tillering& milking
stages
3RD Feb 15 3,000 9,000 11.3
But the data were not convincing to scientists, who talked about inter-treatment seepages in the field,
which was possible. Although the pattern of water use for different treatments in both the locations
(Uluberia and Gosaba) was the same, the problem was much more in the case of Uluberia fields as the
supply water source there wasriver lift irrigation. PRASARI also agreed to the approximation of the data,
but got reproved with the SRI water efficiency principles looking into the trend. This has also provided us
with a notion on the quantum of the ‘water losses’ during irrigation.
Year2012
There had been a lot of deliberation with the research farmers in the field and the executives of
PRASARI on this issue. In Gosaba, people reached out to a joint mission on tracking actual water data. At
Gosaba, out of the four replications, two replications were planned to be conducted using impermeable
lining materials. Two of our tribal research farmers,Bijay and DhananjoyMajhi, agreed in the village
meetings to spare their plots for lining material use. Before the watering for rabiseason started, the field
lay-outs as per the research design has been given. Four treatments were separated through excavated
trenches of 2.5 ft depth (hard pan could be found at that depth) and 3 ft wide. 600µ plastic sheets have
been used vertically in the trenches. Mostly FYM and pebble-free clay were used at the plastic wall to
avoid any perforation risks. A portion of the plastic was raised to a height of 1 ft. above the ground level
and covered with soil to create lined bunds, to avoid spilling of water from one treatment to another.
For both the plots, the same pump has been used and the discharge of the pump has been calculated at
intervals in the cropping period. The discharge was calculated at the delivery points (delivery pipes used
right at the treatments) so as to avoid calculation mistakes due to any sort of conveyance losses. As the
source of irrigation water is perennial and plentiful, there was not much variation in the total operating
head nor in the discharge in the cropping period.
Fig. Separation of treatments using impermeable membranes in water management
Fig: Water delivered right into the treatment Fig.: Lined water managemen t
field in 2012
The time for individual irrigation for individual treatments has categorically been noted. The volume of
water applied has been calculated from the estimated discharge and total time for irrigation.
A little more simplification had been done by the SAU scientists in this season (summer 2012) to put in
the water management experiment on-farm. Along with the lining, digital stop-watches and discharge-
measuring graduated containers were used to track the exact time of irrigation and to measure the
discharge from the pump. Instead of measuring the irrigation at the field, this time the water at the
treatment inlet (pump’s discharge outlet) has been measured.
The following table denotes some interesting data for the lined fields:
Table 3: Water management observations from the lined fields, 2012
Farmer Description T1 T2 T3 T4
Dhananjoy Grain (kg) 48.8 50 49.7 49.2
Water applied (litre) 106,080 70,200 50,232 59,280
Litre per kg grain 2,174 1,404 1,010 1,205
Litreper kg biomass 1,028 670 484 573
Vijay Grain (kg) 49.6 49.2 50.5 50.1
Water applied (litre) 117,000 79,248 57,096 65,832
Litre per kg grain 2,359 1,611 1,130 1,313
Litreper kg biomass 1,112 766 546 628
T1=farmer’s own methods,T2=2 cm of standing water throughout the season,T3=irrigation at soil hair-crack stage,T4=irrigation at soil hair-crack stage during vegetative phase + 3 cm of standing water at PI and flowering stages.
Generally it is considered that a kg of grain requires 4000-5000 litres of water in the traditional systems.
Although T1 was farmer’s own practice, but they managed to do all the other practices like SRI except
the water application. As shown in the table, the production variation is not very much but the
consumption of water has plenty of differences. If the water requirement in terms of litres per kg of
grain produced is considered, T3 and T4 consumed less than 50% less water to produce the same grain
yield. If the grain and straw yield are counted together, the water requirement is again half of the
farmer’s usual water practice. The data categorically prove that rice is not an ‘aquatic’ plant as half as
much water can produce the same yield.
Table 4: Water management observations from the unlined fields, 2012
Farmer Description T1 T2 T3 T4
Santosh Grain (kg) 47.6 48.4 48.3 48.5
Water applied (ltr.) 121,056 100,464 86,424 96,096
Litres per kg 2,543 2,076 1,791 1,980
grain
Litres per kg biomass 1,196 988 855 945
Nilkamal Grain (kg) 48.4 49.2 49.1 48.8
Water applied (litres) 117,312 100,152 84,864 95,160
Litresper kg grain 2,424 2036 1730 1950
Litres per kg biomass 1,136 973 822 929
The data from the unlined plots have also been collected with the same conscientiousness as from the
lined plots. The trend here also says that T3 and T4 consumed less irrigation, but the 50% reduction in
usual water requirement’ could not be proved, maybe due to seepage in between the treatments.
Efforts have been made to determine the ‘carbon footprints’for T1,T2,T3 and T4. It is then further
projected to an area of 1 ha. Determining the carbon footprint is shown in the table below:
Table5: Carbon footprint analysis in water management, 2012
Farmer Description T1 T2 T3 T4 Traditional
method
Dhananjoy Minutes pump operated 340 225 161 190 680
Diesel consumed (600 ml/hr run) 3.4 2.3 1.6 1.9 6.8
Carbon [email protected] kg/litre of diesel 9.2 6.1 4.3 5.1 18.36
Per ha carbon footprint contribution 918 608 435 513 1836
Bijay Minutes pump operated 375 254 183 211 750
Diesel consumed (600 ml/hr run) 3.8 2.5 1.8 2.1 7.5
Carbon [email protected] kg/litre of diesel 10.2 6.9 4.9 5.7 20.25
Per ha carbon footprint contribution 1,012.5 689 494 570 2025
Analysis has taken up the traditional rice cultivation also. The fuel (diesel) consumption of the pump has
also been assessed and found that 1 hr. machine run requires 600 ml. of diesel. The estimation shows
that the carbon footprint is almost 50% less in the case of T3 and T4 with respect to the continuous
inundation in SRI. Its CFP is almost 20% less with respect to the traditional practices.
Year 2013
In this
In this year, special emphasis was given to collecting data from the two lined plots of Dhananjoy and
Bijoy. Treatments were segregated with new lining materials to avoid any loss due to their deformation
in the previous year. The discharge of the pump was recorded before initiation of every irrigation. To
avoid the losses in unlined channels, delivery pipes were used to deliver the water exactly to the
treatments.
Measurements from four different parts of the treatment were taken to get an average of the water
height (so as to reach the designed height for the treatment) in a particular treatment before stopping
the water supply. The stopwatch recorded the time for water supply for each respective treatment, and
the supply of irrigation volume has been calculated, multiplying the pump discharge at the field with the
irrigation duration. While analyzing the data for the replications, itwas assumed that the losses due to
evaporation and deep percolation were uniform throughout the treatments of a particular plot.
Following efforts have been made to calculate the water efficiency in the on-farm condition.
Table6: Water management observations from the lined fields, 2013
Farmer Description T1 T2 T3 T4
Dh
anan
joy
Grain (kg) 53 55 56 57
Water applied (litre)
89,010 89,573 60,638 67,183
Litres per kg grain
1,679 1,629 1,083 1,179
Litres per kg biomass
994 978 654 716
Vija
y
Grain (kg) 54 55 57 58
Water applied (litres)
89,006 88,803 60,1834 62,164
Litres per kg 1648 1615 1056 107222
Fig. Water management lined field-2013 Fig. Prof.R.K.Ghosh (PI)BCKV, in the on-farm field
grain
Litresper kg biomass
982 968 642 656
T1=farmer’s own,T2=2 cm of standing water throughout the season,T3= irrigation at soil hair-crack stage,T4=irrigation at soil hair-crack stage during vegetative phase + 3 cm of standing water at PI and flowering stages.
The table above showd that the water requirement per kg of grain produced was almost 36% less than
the farmer’s own practice in this year. Though farmers’ own irrigation practices have been changed a lot
over the period due to their learning from their SRI experiences, less water was required for the SRI
treatment even though it gave more yield. Almost the same trend I seen in the case of water
requirement per unit of biomass produced from the field.
This year also the carbon footprint contribution analysis has been done, and this confirmed the same
trend as in the previous year as depicted in the table below.
Table7: Carbon footprint analysis in water management, 2013
Farmer Description T1 T2 T3 T4 Traditional-considering double watering from experience
Dh
anan
joy
Minutes pump operated 193 196 140 148 386
Diesel consumed (600 ml/hr run) 1.93 1.96 1.4 1.48 3.86
Carbon di [email protected] kg/ltr. Of diesel
5.211 5.292 3.78 3.996 10.422
Per ha carbon footprint 521.1 529.2 378 399.6 1042.2
Bija
y
Minutes pump operated 195 198 135 138 390
Diesel consumed (600 ml/hr run) 1.95 1.98 1.35 1.38 3.9
Carbon di [email protected] kg/ltr. Of diesel
5.265 5.346 3.645 3.726 10.53
Per ha carbon footprint 526.5 534.6 364.5 372.6 1053
The table categorically has indicated that the carbon footprint contribution can be reduced to an extent
of 64% if T3 is followed for SRI with respect to the traditional inundated rice. Even T4 exhibits over 60%
of the CFP reduction opportunity without hampering the yield, rather increasing.
T1=Farmer’s own
T2=2 cm ofstanding
waterthrough outthe season
T3=Irrigation at
Soil haircrack stage
2012 2173.8 1404 1010.03 1204.88
2013 1679.441509 1628.6 1082.838214 1178.657895
0500
1000150020002500
ltr.
Of
wat
er/
kg g
rain
yie
ld
Graph-1: Dhananjoy's lined water management field observation two seasons
T1=Farmer’s own
T2=2 cm ofstanding
waterthrough outthe season
T3=Irrigation at
Soil haircrack stage
2012 2358.9 1610.732 1129.87 1313.14
2013 1648.268519 1614.6 1055.857018 1071.784483
0500
1000150020002500
ltr.
Of
wat
er/
kg g
rain
yie
ld
Graph-2:Bijoy's lined water management field observation two seasons
yearT1=Farmer’s own
T2=2cm of
standing waterthroughout theseason
T3=Irrigation at Soil
haircrackstage
Traditional-
considering
doublewaterin
g…
2012 2012 918 607.5 434.7 513 1836
2013 2013 521.1 529.2 378 399.6 1042.2
0500
1000150020002500
CFP
co
ntr
ibu
tio
n in
kg/
ha
Graph-3: CFP-contribution-Dhananjoy
Conclusions and way forward:
T1=Farmer’s own
T2=2 cmof
standingwater
throughout theseason
T3=Irrigation
at Soilhair
crackstage
Traditional-
considering
doublewatering
fromexperie…
2012 918 607.5 434.7 513 1836
2013 526.5 534.6 364.5 372.6 1053
0200400600800
100012001400160018002000
CFP
co
ntr
ibu
tio
n in
kg/
ha
Graph-4: CFP-contribution-Bijay
The above two graphs (1&2) based on two years of on-farm data have shown that grain/biomass yield
per litre of water is least for the T3 treatment, i.e., irrigation at soil hair-crack stage. This gives yield at
par with other water management practices. Thus the practice reduces the costs for irrigation, the
‘wastage’ of water, negative contributions to the environment in terms of CFP (considering only the fuel
emission component in graphs 3&4), and increased return on investment. This also proves that the
water management experiments in SRI can be conducted on-farm and proves the water efficiency of SRI.
Further this research points to further subjects for study:
Repetition of the trials in the same plots for additional seasons to strengthen the robustness of
the findings
The GHG emissions on-farm in T1 to T4 which monitored, to assess contribution in CFP of
different rice production practices
As some areas in the Sundarbanshave arsenic levels in the ground water that are beyond the
allowable limits, it should be studiedwhether thereare significant residues in the rice, and
whether changes in water management practices from T1 to T4 can have a beneficial impact
There is also need for determining the residues of metals and arsenics in rice in the prevalent
zones across the treatments
Related Documents
