Participatory Intervention Series
Paper 8

Mr.C.S.Satish Chandra of the Institute for Rural Studies, Bangalore, carried out the field research and wrote the original version of this paper at the request of the MYRADA Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Talamalai.

Extending the adage ‘Money Saved is Money Earned’ to the field of agriculture one can say that ‘Resources saved are Resources Earned’. On the other hand, it is true of agricultural research that far more emphasis is placed on improving productivity through the creation of new resources – whether they be seed varieties or irrigation facilities or input subsidies – than on improving the management of resources that already exist. The former cannot be neglected, but surely, the latter deserve emphasized attention as well.

As manager of an ‘NGO-KVK’ (which inherently assumes that it must develop a distinct identity of its own), MYRADA is constantly aware that it must strive to achieve and retain a definable relevance to farmers. Amongst other things, two features that can contribute well to this are :

· To be able to respond with sensitivity and professionalism to the field realities of farmers.
· To raise the critical consciousness of farmers with regard to issues that they can influence to their own advantage but that may hitherto not have received their full attention.

In 1999, a farmer attending a KVK Scientific Advisory Committee Meeting remarked that water was a scarce but ill-managed resource in the Talavadi area. He wondered aloud if the KVK could intervene and do something about it. The KVK responded by initiating this Study to ascertain the status of water use, on the basis of which a suitable action plan could be developed. It was conducted in September 2000.

The Study began with the following hypotheses :

This wastage occurs even when pumping is expensive, and even when water is scarce and, therefore, precious.

Sugarcane, Turmeric, and Marigold were the three crops selected for the Study since they constitute the major crops under irrigation in the area. The sugarcane farmers follow border strip irrigation while the turmeric and marigold farmers use the check basin system with ridges and furrows. 32 irrigating farmers from 8 different villages were interviewed intensively over a period of 6 days both individually and in groups. These farmers were found to be knowledgeable about other fellow-irrigators as well, and often spoke for more than just themselves. Almost all interviews were held on the farmers’ fields when they were actually engaged in irrigating their crops. Only farmers irrigating their lands from openwells and borewells were selected for interviews, since they had independent control over decisions related to irrigation water. Since the Study was on avoidable wastage of water under conditions of flow irrigation, a decision was made not to include farmers using sprinklers, drip, and other such systems. In any case, there are hardly any farmers in the area using such systems.

Several typical situations that were encountered during the course of the Study – at discussions and field visits – have been recounted very briefly as cases. Such encounters were very useful in giving a focus to the discussions.

· All farmers hold the opinion that of all forms of irrigation, flow irrigation is the most cost-effective and problem-free form of irrigation. Other systems are not only expensive to install but also difficult and expensive to maintain and manage.
· All farmers believe that over the years they have mastered the system of flow irrigation.
· Only three out of the 32 interviewed farmers have electric pumpsets. Most of the others have registered their names for power connection several years ago but are yet to receive the same. Meanwhile, they run their pumps on diesel. Those with electricity run 5.0 HP motors whereas the diesel pumpsets are run on 8.0 HP motors. Selection of horsepower is invariably based on suggestions by fellow farmers and not on any scientific estimation of discharge. Diesel powered generator sets are also used to operate submersible pumps in borewells, involving very high operating costs.
· All farmers reported experiencing constraints either in terms of water availability (inclusive of discharge and recuperation capacities) or in terms of the operating costs of lifting water, or both. However, almost no one allowed these constraints – especially costs – to interfere with their irrigation schedules.
· Calculations for the Talavadi area (red to light sandy loam soils with good permeability and low clay content), combined with the three crops under discussion (i.e. sugarcane, turmeric, and marigold) indicate that irrigating upto a maximum depth of 12" is more than adequate. This puts the water requirement at not more than 2.25 lakh litres per acre per irrigation. The required frequency of irrigation to maintain the requisite level of moisture and prevent stress to crops is estimated at once in 6 days (with rainfall to be appropriately factored in).
· In actual practice, only in the case of sugarcane does a vast majority (90%) of farmers irrigate once in 6 to 7 days. Both in the case of marigold and in the case of turmeric, the majority (70% and 90% respectively) irrigates once in 3 to 4 days. Only a small minority waits upto 5 or 6 days.
· In terms of water volumes, if the constraining factor of water recuperation in wells is not there, almost all farmers thinking nothing of irrigating at the rate of over 4 lakh litres per acre per irrigation, regardless of the crop grown.
· Farmers with plentiful water in their wells (including sugarcane growers) irrigate at will, often at a frequency of once in 3 days.
· Farmers with electric connections also irrigate at will, for prolonged periods and at greater frequencies, attributed by the farmers themselves to the fact that, in Tamilnadu, electricity for irrigation is supplied free of cost.
· In the case of diesel pumpsets, it takes 2 litres of diesel per hour to operate the pump, and the cost of diesel is Rs. 16.50 per litre. At this rate, the expense on diesel works out to an average of Rs. 176/- per acre per irrigation and, at times, accounts for over 20% of the cultivation costs. Nevertheless, this does not appear to be a significant deterrent for irrigation, though it is the most frequently voiced concern.
· Putting the above findings together, wastage in irrigation is estimated to be of the order shown in the table that follows :

Almost all farmers are aware that the time to irrigate can be determined on a combination of :

* Time when it rained last
* Drying of soil surface
* Indications of stress in the crown portion of crops
* High daytime temperatures and wind speeds
* Lengthening of days

However, it appears that this awareness is not the basis on which their actions are based. Except for factoring in rainfall (which they all do), the other indicators apparently do not significantly influence the irrigation schedules of farmers.

· The interviewed farmers themselves brought forth instances where controlled irrigation had resulted in better crop yields and indiscriminate irrigation had resulted in crop losses of upto 30% (estimated on actual calculations). They were also aware that a more discriminate use of water could result in stretching the saved water to bring more land under irrigation. Nevertheless, there remains a tendency to act independent of these observations.

The farmer at the Scientific Advisory Committee Meeting was apparently right, and the hypotheses stated at the beginning of this paper seem to be borne out by field level discussions and observations (except for sub-hypothesis 2). As a result, the MYRADA KVK has decided to take up a focussed programme on the management of flood irrigation by promoting a combination of the following measures :

· Spreading greater awareness on facts related to wastage in irrigation and better management of flow irrigation
· Promoting the adoption of practices that can enhance the water holding capacities of soils and permit a greater increase in the periods between irrigations (e.g. deep ploughing, mulching, humus application, etc.).
· Enabling farmers to determine the time to irrigate (e.g. by planting marker crops, planting in sand pits, creating high density plant spots, etc.).
· Though transmission and seepage losses have not been estimated in this Study, it is a known fact that they account for water loss and hence, the use of pipes to conduct water will be emphasized and promoted as far as possible.
· Promoting other appropriate and affordable measures to save water.

The KVK does not presume that all the findings reported in this paper are conclusive proof of wastage in irrigation resources. There may be other factors coming into play that influence farmers and that may have escaped the notice of this Study. However, explorations of this nature are important for KVKs if they are to remain at the cutting edge of field level extension. This may be regarded as only a beginning but it does provide staff with direction that is in keeping with the KVK’s Mission of supporting the livelihoods of farmers working under complex, diverse, and risk-prone conditions.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The MYRADA Krishi Vigyan Kendra at Talamalai started functioning from October 1, 1992 with the support of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR). The Kendra is committed to the concept of facilitating participatory processes and promoting innovations. Through the MKVK Participatory Intervention Series we attempt to share our experiences from time to time with other field functionaries. We welcome your views and suggestions on how we can add more value to our work. MYRADA’s address at Bangalore is: No.2, Service Road, Domlur Layout, BANGALORE 560 071.