cost benefits of irrigation

8/2/2019 Cost Benefits of Irrigation

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cost-benefits-of-irrigation 1/22

ECONOMIC DIMENSIONS OF DRIP IRRIGATION IN CONTEXT OF

FRUIT CROPSMALIK, 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 importantdeterminant 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).

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 irrigationii)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

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 whilecomplete 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

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:

Where, R 1, R 2 ----------------- R n 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 R 1, R 2 --------------

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).

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

R r)(1

R --------r)(1

R r)(1

R NPV ++++++++=

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

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,

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,

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 cropsunder 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

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 inwater 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,

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

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 QuantitativeEconomics. 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 Agro-

Industries. 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 fromMaharashtra. Indian Journal of Agriculture Economics. 52 (4) : 728-739.

Table 1 : Category wise irrigation pattern on sample farms

(in hectares)

SurfaceSizegroup

Totalirrigated

areaCanal Tubewell Total

Sprinkler Drip Mutuallyexclusive

Small74.50

(9.21)

(22.33)

(31.23)

(43.42)

(8.93)

(16.10)

Medium190.40

(9.56)

(24.32)

(33.88)

(36.60)

(10.08)

(14.08)

Large 338.66

(8.99)

(20.07)

102.90

(30.38)

154.50

(45.62)

(14.24)

(12.70)

Total603.56(100)

59.96(9.93)

130.94(21.69)

190.90(31.62)

256.55(42.51)

74.10(12.28)

82.00(13.59)

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. * Water used per quintal yield

Grapes Ber Citrus(kinnow)

Grapes Ber Citrus (kinnow)

Drip crops

( hours)3026.42 5042.90 4264.72 17.89 83.66 82.44

Non- Drip

crops( hours)

4672.68 7943.64 7083.24 29.30 177.35 107.95

Water saved by

In percentage

35.23 36.52 39.80 42.35 52.82 25.11

Inhours

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(Rs./ ha.)

Estimated Investment costSr. No. Particulars

Grapes

(4 x 4 M)

(8 x 8 M)

Citrus (Kinnow)

(6 x 6 M)

A Fixed cost

1 Screen filter 1820 1820 1820

2 Control valve 475 475 475

3 Flush valve 90 90 90

Total – A 2385(6.28)

2385(10.64)

2385(7.29)

B. Optional items

1 Complete Ventury

Assembly

1600 1600 1600

2 Bypass Assembly 950 950 950

3 Sand filter 6200 6200 6200

Total- B 8750

(23.09)

(39.00)

(26.77)

Total A+B 11135

(29.30)

(49.64)

(34.06)

C. Variable cost* 26829

(70.67)

(50.36)

(65.94)

Total- A + B + C 37964

(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 andAccessoriesFigures in parentheses indicate the percentage to total cost of drip set.

Table 4. : Working cost of drip set for different fruit crops

(Per annum)

Drip set (Grapes) Drip set (Ber) Drip set (Kinnow)Sr.

Amount Percentage Amount Percentage Amount Percentage

A. Overhead costs/ annual fixed costs

(i) Depreciation on investment

(ii) Interest

Sub-total (total fixed costs)

B. Running costs/ annual operating and maintenance

costs(i) Electricity charges

(ii) Repair and maintenance of irrigation system

(iii) Other expenses/ miscellaneous

Sub-total (Total operating cost)

C.Labour 3935 14.01 6556 23.65 5544 19.75

Total cost (A+B+C) 27955 100.00 27725 100.00 28070 100.00

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

Net benefit Net present worthYears Investment

cost (Rs.)

Operation and

maintenance cost(Rs.)

Total cost

Benefits

(Rs.) -ve (Rs.) +ve (Rs.)

Discount

Coefficient(r = 12 %) -ve (Rs.) +ve (Rs.)

I 37964 2245 40209 12714 27495 - 0.8929 24550 -

II - 2245 2245 12714 - 10469 0.7972 - 8346

III - 2245 2245 12714 - 10469 0.7118 - 7452

IV - 2245 2245 12714 - 10469 0.6355 - 6653

V - 2245 2245 12714 - 10469 0.5674 - 5940

VI - 2245 2245 12714 - 10469 0.5066 - 5304

VII - 2245 2245 12714 - 10469 0.4523 - 4735

VIII - 2245 2245 12714 - 10469 0.4039 - 4228

Total 37964 17960 55924 101712 73283 24550 42658

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

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

Net benefit Net present worthYears Investment

cost (Rs.)

Operation and

maintenance cost(Rs.)

Total cost

Benefits

(Rs.)-ve (Rs.) +v(Rs.)

Discount

coefficient( r = 12 % ) -ve (Rs.) +ve (Rs.)

I 22424 4100 24669 10106 16418 - 0.8929 14659 -

II - 4100 4100 10106 - 6006 0.7972 - 4787

III - 4100 4100 10106 - 6006 0.7118 - 4275

IV - 4100 4100 10106 - 6006 0.6355 - 3817

V - 4100 4100 10106 - 6006 0.5674 - 3408

VI - 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

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

Net benefit Net present worthYears Investmentcost

Operation andmaintenance

Total cost(Rs.)

Benefits(Rs.)

-ve (Rs.) +v(Rs.)

Discountcoefficient

( 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 22044 106560 19683 50694

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

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

Years Cost

Annual gross

return (Rs.)

Net cash flow

-ve +ve

Discount coefficient

( r = 33 % )

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.

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

Years Cost

Annual gross

return

Net cash flow

-ve +ve

Discount

coefficient

( r = 34 % )

Corresponding present value

-ve (Rs.) +ve (Rs.)

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.

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

Net cash flow Corresponding present valueYears Cost

Annual gross

return

-ve +ve

Discount coefficient

( r = 47 % )

-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 22044 106560 14994 14937

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

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

Grape Ber Citrus (Kinnow)Particular Furrow Drip % change

by drip

furrow

Furrow Drip % change by drip

furrow

Furrow Drip % change by drip

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

- 26.24 - - 19.72 - - 29.85 -

Annual cost of cultivation

(Rs./ha.)

30326 29127 -3.95 14860 14429 - 2.90 18686 17682 - 5.35

Yield (qtls./ha.) 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 62.0

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

furrow and drip irrigation system

Furrow irrigation method Drip irrigationParticular

Grapes Ber Citrus

(kinnow)

Grapes Ber Citrus (kinnow)

Net present

value (Rs)

31522 37048 86310 98044 69013 133839

Net benefit cost

1:1.21 1:2.20 1:259 1:1.763 1:3.77 1:3.70

Internal rate of

return (%)

14 22 24 17 28.5 259

Pay back

period

7 7 7 7 7 7

cost benefits of irrigation

Documents

cost, benefits and quality of software development...

analytics: cost & benefits

chapter v impact of irrigation on cropping pattern...

low cost micro irrigation low cost micro...

precision irrigation in the southeast: from beginning to...

irrigation energy options and considerations ·...

crop selection, cost analysis, and irrigation ... - core

cost analysis for irrigation projects using solar energy...

the benefits and risks of solar powered irrigation cost of...

low cost automatic gates for irrigation canals

drip irrigation a low-cost drip irrigation system for...

low cost irrigation system - usda - nrcs - home | nrcs ·...

low cost drip- cost effective and precision irrigation tool...

iwmi anik bhaduri, upali amarasinghe, tushaar shah, bk anand...

low cost automatic gates for irrigation canals · low cost...

central valley project cost allocation study -- irrigation...

hÏ semi-arid ai^^^ - irc · 2014-03-09 · benefits of...

low cost micro irrigation low cost micro-irrigation...

irrigation benefits for pasture production in the wairarapa...

irrigation engineering - priodeep.weebly.com€¦ necessity...