1 Water Productivity at Farm Level in Bhavani Basin, Tamilnadu Estimation, challenges and approaches K.Palanisami and T.

Ramesh Water Productivity Growing demand for water for industry and municipalities, combined with environmental problems results in less water for agriculture in the future. One of the approaches to meet the future water shortages will be increasing water productivity which means raising crop yields per unit of water consumed. Over the past three decades, this has been achieved largely through higher crop yields per hectare. In its broadest sense, it means getting more value or benefit from each drop of water used for crops, fish, forests and livestock while maintaining or improving ecosystems and the services they provide. Within agriculture, this means obtaining more production or value from every drop. Water productivity or yield per unit of water, like yield per unit of land, is partial productivity of just one factor. Further, the definition of water productivity is scaledependent. For a farmer, it means getting more crop per drop of irrigation water. But, for society as a whole, concerned with a basin or countrys water resource, this means getting more value per unit of water resource used. Increasing water productivity is then the function of several components at different levels viz., plant, field, irrigation system and river-basin. An increase in production per unit of water diverted at one scale does not necessarily lead to an increase in productivity of water diverted at a larger scale. The classical irrigation efficiency decreases as the scale of the system increases (Seckler et al., 2003). Basin water productivity takes into consideration beneficial depletion for multiple uses of water, including not only crop production but also uses by the nonagricultural sector, including the environment. Here, the problem lies in allocating the water among its multiple uses and users. Water Productivity and related issues Pure physical productivity is defined as the quantity of the product divided by the quantity of the input- for example, yield per hectare or yield per cubic meter of water either diverted or depleted. combined physical and economic productivity is defined in terms of either the gross or the net present value of the crop divided by the amount of water diverted or depleted. Economic productivity is the gross or net present value of the product divided by the value of the water diverted or depleted, which can be defined in terms of its opportunity cost in the highest alternative use (Jacob et al., 2003). It needs to be determined whether proposed water-management practices or technologies designed to increase water productivity and economic efficiency at the farm level translate into water-productivity and economic efficiency gains at the system or basin level.

2 But, with the declining crop yield growth, attention has turned to the potential offered by improved management of water resources. The amount of reuse (or recycling) of water is often underestimated. When reuse is taken into account, the options for further increases in water productivity are much smaller than were expected at first. Further, classical irrigation efficiency is defined as the crop water requirement (actual evapotranspiration minus effective precipitation) divided by the water withdrawn or diverted from a specific surface-water or groundwater source. Losses in this approach include transpiration and evaporation (evapotranspiration), but also seepage, percolation and runoff, processes in which the water is not consumed. These latter so-called losses may be captured or recycled for use elsewhere in the basin. Thus, classical measures of efficiency tend to underestimate the true efficiency and ignore the important role of surface irrigation systems in recharging groundwater and providing downstream sources of water for agriculture and other ecosystem services. Crop water productivity is defined in either physical or monetary terms as the ratio of the product (usually measured in kg) over the amount of water depleted (usually limited to crop evapotranspiration, measured in m3). Occasionally for example, in the context of supplemental irrigation there is a felt need to express the productivity of the applied irrigation water. In that case, the denominator refers to irrigation water only, not to rainfall. Obviously, vales of irrigation-water productivity cannot be compared with water productivity with depleted water in the denominator. This study taking into account the multiple uses of water, quantifies the productivity of water in irrigated agriculture, along with livestock and fishery components. 2. Methodology to workout water productivity Crop water requirements Water requirement of a crop is the quantity of water needed for normal growth and yield and that may be supplied by rainfall or irrigation or both. Water needed mainly to meet the demands of Evaporation (E) and Transpiration (T) and metabolic needs of the plants altogether known as Consumptive Use (CU) CU = E+T+ water needed for metabolic purposes Water used in the metabolic activities of plant is very negligible and is often than one per cent. In such cases, ET is considered as consumptive use. Thee may be different losses occur during transport and application of irrigation water. Water is also needed for some special needs like land preparation, transplanting, leaching etc. therefore WR includes CU or ET, application losses and water needed for special purposes. WR = CU+ Application losses + water for special needs

3 Water requirement is therefore, a demand and the supply would consist of contributions from any of the sources of water, the major source being the irrigation water (IR), effective rainfall (ER) and soil profile contribution (S) including that from shallow water tables. Numerically therefore water requirement is given as WR = IR+ ER+ S Irrigation water is calculated at farm level using pump discharge rate, hours of irrigation in single time and number of irrigation to a particular crop. IR = Pump discharge rate X hours of irrigation (one time) X No. of irrigation Effective rainfall is generally taken as 75 % probability level. It is minimum assured rainfall that will be available in 3 years out of 4 years. It is calculated by using a minimum period of 25 years past rainfall. The rainfall data will be arranged in descending order and the rainfall quantity that falls at 75% probability level considered as effective rainfall of particular month or year. Crop output (economic yield) Grain yield of particular crop (kg) is considered for working water productivity in physical term. If we want express in economic term, the income from grain yield and the additional income from byproducts also taken in to account. Crop water productivity The crop water productivity can be worked out by dividing the grain yield by total water used. The grain yield is converted to economic value based on the market rate and used for calculation. Crop water productivity = Grain yield (Kg)/ total water used (m3) = Gross income (Rs.)/ total water used (m3) Livestock water requirement (LWR) The total water used for rearing of animal includes drinking water (DW), water used for washing animals and cattle shed and water consumed for fodder/ forage production. LWR (m3) = DW + WP +FP DW Drinking Water WP Washing Purpose FP- Fodder Production

4 Livestock output Total milk yield (Lts) per animal per lactation period can be calculated. Livestock water productivity (LWR) Livestock water productivity = Milk yield (lts)/ total water used (m3) = Gross return (Rs.)/ total water used (m3) Fishery water requirement (FWR) Quantity of water maintained in the fish pond as dead storage is calculated using the size of the fish pond and height of water column. The quantity of water added to the fish pond at particular interval to maintain the dead storage can be accounted as evaporation loss from the fish pond. Water used for fish feeds is considerable as negligible amount. FWR (M3) = Dead storage + Evaporation loss Fishery output Total fish yield in a unit time and unit area is calculated. The sediments obtained from fish pond may be accounted as nutrient value basis in economical terms. Fishery water productivity = Total fish yield (kg)/ total water used (m3) Total farm level water productivity =Total income from whole system (Rs.)/ total water used (m3) 3. Preliminary Results Farm level water productivity across different irrigation systems Canal system Comparing the different locations in Lower Bhavani project, Arachalur (Head region) recorded maximum yield and profit per unit quantity of water. However, the second season (Sept - Dec), recorded less grain yield compared to previous season, due to rat problem and occurrence of heavy rain during the anthesis. Muthur (Tail end area) recorded low yield and low productivity per unit quantity of water due to late release and early closing of water (Table 1). The early closing of water coincided with peak water requirement of the crop (Palanisami, et.al 1997).

Table 1. Productivity per unit quantity of water under canal system Lower Bhavani Project Particulars Head region Tail region 1. Crop Paddy Paddy 2. Soil type Red nonRed noncalcareous calcareous 3. Season Sep-Dec Sep-Dec 4. Varieties IR 20 IR 20 5. Cost of cultivation (Rs/ha) 13641 13116 6. Grain yield (kg/ha) 4630 4265 7. Straw yield (t/ha) 6.0 5.3 8. Gross return (Rs/ha) 19000 17406 9. Net return (Rs/ha) 5359 4290 10.Effective rainfall (m3) 2690 3390 3 11.Irrigation water applied (m ) 13720 12100 3 12.Total water consumed(m ) 16410 15490 13.Productivity/ m3 1.Product (kg/ m3) 0.282 0.275 2.Gross return (Rs/ m3) 1.16 1.12 3 3. Net return (Rs/ m ) 0.33 0.28 14. Water requirement (lit/kg) 3544 3632 Tank system In tank irrigation systems, system tanks recorded maximum yield and productivity per unit of water than non- system tanks (Table 2). Non- system tanks which depend upon fully rainfall run-off have comparatively lesser storage resulting in low productivity per unit of water. In general, productivity under the tank systems is relatively lower than under the canal system. Table 2. Productivity per unit quantity of water under tank system Particulars System Non system 1. Crop 2. Soil type 3. Season 4. Varieties 5. Cost of cultivation (Rs/ha) 6. Grain yield (kg/ha) 7. Straw yield (t/ha) 8. Gross return (Rs/ha) 9. Net return (Rs/ha) 10.Effective rainfall (m3) 11.Irrigation water applied (m3) Paddy Red soil Sep-Jan IR 20 10542 3245 4.1 13227 2685 2840 10890 Paddy Red soil Oct-Feb IR 20 10213 2984 3.7 12074 1861 2840 880

6 12.Well water applied (m3) 13.Total water consumed(m3) 14.Productivity/ m3 1.Product (kg/ m3) 2.Gross return (Rs/ m3) 3. Net return (Rs/ m3) 15. Water requirement (lit/kg) Well Irrigation Well irrigation has recorded the maximum output per unit quantity of water due to effective utilization of water. However, compared to other systems total quantity of water consumed by crop is low due to limited but controlled water supply by the farmers. Compared to rice, sugarcane crop has recorded maximum productivity and profit per unit of water. It could be concluded that rice yielded comparatively low returns per unit quantity of water both in terms of product and profit. Compared to rice, sugarcane crop followed by groundnut recorded maximum productivity and profit per unit of water (Table 3). Table 3. Productivity per unit quantity of water under well irrigation Particulars Soil type Season Varieties Cost of cultivation (Rs/ha) Yield (kg/ha) Gross return (Rs/ha) Net return (Rs/ha) Effective rainfall (m3) Irrigation water applied (m3) Total water consumed (m3) Product (kg/ m3) Gross return(Rs/ m3) Net return (Rs/ m3)) Water requirement (lit/kg) Paddy Red soil Aug-Dec IR 20 11260 4240 16670 5410 2710 9990 12700 0.33 1.31 0.43 2995 Sugar cane Red soil Jun-May COC671 40240 146450 76650 36410 6020 22100 28120 5.21 2.73 1.29 192.0 Cotton Red soil Aug-Jan MCU5 8560 1015 15225 6665 3270 5430 8700 0.12 1.75 0.77 8571 Ground nut Red soil Jul-Oct TMV1 7200 3566 15375 8175 2720 4010 6730 0.53 2.28 1.21 1887 1120 14850 0.22 0.89 0.18 4576 1410 13050 0.23 0.92 0.14 4373

Among the systems, well irrigation has performed better than other systems in terms of productivity and profit followed by canal and tank systems (Table 4).

7 Table 4 . Quantity of water used, Productivity and Profit per unit quantity of water in different systems for Paddy Particulars Water used Productivity Gross return Net return (kg/ m3) (Rs/ m3) (Rs/ m3) (l/kg) I) Canal system: Head 3544 0.282 1.16 0.33 Tail 3632 0.275 1.12 0.28 II) Tank system: 1) System tank 2) Non system tank III) Well system: 4576 4373 2995 0.22 0.23 0.33 0.89 0.92 1.31 0.18 0.14 0.43

Input Use at farm level The input use details are important to compare the productivity of water, as the influence of inputs such as fertilizer, labour and seed should be avoided while calculating the productivity of water. Average quantities of inputs used by farmers in different systems are given in Table 5. It is observed that the variability in input use is very less in all the locations and hence it is assumed that influence of these inputs on crop production is considered uniform across each system. Table 5. Average Input use in different irrigation systems Particulars Canal system(Paddy) Head Tail Tank system (Paddy) System Non system Well system: Paddy Sugarcane Cotton N (kg/ha) 106 104 102 75 110 201 90 P (kg/ha) 48 34 33 30 40 72 65 K (kg/ha) 45 43 37 32 42 85 35 Seeds (kg/ha) 76 80 79 75 79 11020 (setts) 7 Labour (days/ha) 208 201 192 160 205 497 252

Multi-uses of water in agriculture Comparing the different combination of farm enterprises, crop + fishery system gives more profit per unit of water followed by crop + dairy combination. The water productivity has increased considerably where allied enterprises involved along with crops. Among the allied enterprises, dairy component requires minimum water which in

8 turn produced maximum water productivity per unit of water (Table 6.). Among the irrigation methods, drip irrigation has recorded the maximum water productivity compared to surface irrigation. Water productivity is expressed both in terms of product or profit per unit of evapotranspiration, or irrigation water or total water used (IW+P). Maximum water productivity was observed under flower crop such as rose followed by grapes and banana. In general, fruit crops produced higher water productivity that grain crops (Table 7). In wetland ecosystem, the water productivity can be improved by introducing fishery. With the same quantity of water used in rice cultivation, it is possible to increase the water productivity by several times if it is used for fish production (Table 8). Table 8. Comparison of water productivity of rice and fish at farm level Particulars Rice Fish Water productivity (kg / m ) (Rs. / m3 ) 0.46 2.75 3.08 77.13
3

Factors influencing the productivity of crops Production function analysis Crop yields are not only depending upon the irrigation water applied but also on the level of other factors such as labour, fertilizers, capital(money) available with the farmers to spend on other inputs, and soil types. Production function analysis was carried out to exactly study the factors influencing the yield of paddy in canal, tank and well irrigation systems taking into account the farmer sample in and around the study locations. CobbDouglas type production function was fitted as many farm level studies had successfully applied this functional form. Paddy yield in quintal/ha was hypothesized to be influenced by the following variables: labour used in mandays/ha.; irrigation water applied in ha.cm; fertilizer used in kgs of N/ha.; total cost of cultivation Rs/ha. which is used as a proxy for capital available with the farmers; and soil type of the sample farm, where different scores were given for different soil types-Alluvial = 5; Red soil = 4; Black cotton soil= 2. Results of the functional analyses had indicated that in all the irrigation systems, mostly irrigation water was the influencing variable followed by labour and fertilizer (Table 9). Marginal productivity of the inputs had indicated that additional water input in canal system could yield 12 kg of paddy per unit of water applied (Table 10). In the case of tank irrigation systems marginal productivity of water was comparatively high under non-system tanks indicating the need to augment additional irrigation supplies as tanks are prone for water scarcities. Since use of fertilizers depends upon the water supplies, marginal productivity of fertilizer use is also high in the non- system tanks.

9 Table 9. Results of the regression analysis of factors influencing paddy yield in different systems Inputs Canal S.Tanks N.Tanks Wells Output elasticity Labour 0.23* 0.48* 0.31 0.14 Water 0.45* 0.24* 0.42* 0.37* Fertilizer 0.11* 0.27 0.38 0.15 Cost 0.36 0.16 0.32 0.35* Soil 0.56 0.08 0.21 0.33 Constant 33.54 27.15 28.91 34.21 R2 0.34 0.37 0.35 0.51 N 24 45 63 29 Note: S.Tanks=system tanks; N.Tanks=non-system tanks.; N=Number of observations * Significant at 5 per cent level Table 10. Marginal productivity of inputs in paddy cultivation in different systems, (kg/unit of input) Inputs Canal S.Tanks N.Tanks Wells Labour 5.46 9.0 Water 13.29 6.04 10.04 10.83 Fertilizer 4.98 3.82 Cost 0.21 Soil Note: marginal productivities were worked out for those variables whose coefficients were significant in the regression. 4. The challenges The scale and boundary of the area over which water productivity is calculated greatly affect its value. This is because of outflow losses by S, P and runoff at a specific location (or field) can be reused at another location within the area under consideration. Data on water productivity across scales are useful parameters to assess whether water outflows upstream are effectively reused downstream. The limited data suggest that water productivities at scale levels vary widely. The paucity of data on water productivity at scale levels higher than the field level is the major constraint (Jacob et. al., 2003). In this context, increasing crop water productivity is a challenge at various levels which is briefly outlined below: The first challenge is to continue to enhance the marketable yield of crops without increasing transpiration. The second challenge is at field, farm and system levels to reduce as much as possible all outflows that do not contribute to crop production. The third challenge is to increase the economic productivity of all sources of water, especially rainwater but also waste-water of various qualities and saline (ground) water. Interdisciplinary team work is warranted.

10 5. Future approaches At plant level identification of traits and genes for drought and salt tolerance be further intensified using conventional and molecular breeding techniques. This will result in increase in production without concomitant increase in ET through changes in harvest index. At field level, introduction of supplemental irrigation and drip and sprinkler will enhance the crop productivity. Institutional and Governmental policies will also promote the spread of these technologies which could result in higher productivity. Reducing unproductive water outflows through the following ways will also be helpful viz., minimising idle periods during land preparation, soil management to increase resistance to water flow and water management to reduce hydrostatic pressure. At basin level, integrated water and land management will be much helpful in enhancing land and water productivity. References Jacob,W.K, R.Barker and D.Molden. 2003. Improving Water Productivity in Agriculture: Editors Overview in Water Productivity in Agriculture: Limits and Opportunities for Improvement. (Eds) Kijne.J.W., R.Barker and D.Molden. CABI Publishing. UK. Palanisami, K. A.Rajagopal and A. Mohamed Ali. 1997. Productivity per unit of water under various land uses mixes in Tamilnadu. Water Technology Centre, Tamilnadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore. Seckler, David. D.Molden and R.Sakthivadivel. 2003. The Concept of Efficiency in Water Resources Management and Policy in Water Productivity in Agriculture: Limits and Opportunities for Improvement. (Eds) Kijne.J.W., R.Barker and D.Molden. CABI Publishing. UK.

11

Table 6 . Water productivity of different agriculture enterprises at field level Farm type Enterprises Banana-surface irrigated Banana-drip irrigated Leaf vegetable Total farm Unit 1.5 acres 0.5 acre 0.25 acre 2.25 Water (m3) 8121.6 2524.5 1080 12590.1 Yield (kg) 10500 Income (Rs.) 126000 WP(IP) (kg/ m3) 1.29 1.98 0.46 1.02 132.96 lits 2.71 2.27 77.13 WP(IP) (Rs./ m3) 15.51 23.76 3.70 16.54 12.30 37.50 6.17 1063.65 20.74 27.13 27.27 77.13 53.0

5000 60000 500 4000 194000 306000 Rose- surface irrigated 1 acre 6220.0 76500 Nos. 340000 Rose- drip irrigated 1 acre 2264.4 85000 Nos. Crops + Dairy Maize 0.5 acre 777.6 800 4800 3300 Dairy 1 No. 24.82 26400 lit/lactation Total farm 2.5 acres 9287.62 192700 Grape-drip 1 acre 921.6 2500 25000 Crops + Banana -drip 1 acre 6336 14400 172800 Fishery Fishery 1 acre 8644.8 26670 666750 Total farm 3 acres 15902.4 842050 WP(IP) Water Productivity for total water used (Irrigation water + Precipitation) Crops alone

12

Table 7 . Water Productivity (Rs. per m3 of water) in respect to Evapo-transpiration (WPET), irrigation (WPI) and total water productivity (WPIP) for different crops at farmers' situation Total Total water Income Unit Total WP (ET) WP (I) WP(IP) S.No Crop (Rs.) (acres) ET (m3) IW (m3) (IW+P) (m3) 1. Banana -Surface 1.5 9960 7299.6 8121.6 126000 12.65 17.26 15.51 Banana -Drip 0.5 3320 1962.5 2524.5 60000 18.07 30.57 23.76 2. Rose -Surface 1.0 3805.9 5096.8 6220.0 76500 20.10 15.01 12.30 Rose -Drip 1.0 3805.9 1140.4 2264.4 85000 22.33 74.53 37.5 3. Maize- Surface 0.5 500 499.6 777.6 4800 9.60 9.60 6.17 Leaf vegetable 4. 0.25 106.8 941 1080 4000 36.83 4.25 3.70 Surface 5. Grape-Drip 1.0 1421.4 357.6 921.6 25000 17.59 69.9 27.13