LOW COST DRIP

IRRIGATION
PRESENTED BY
BISHAL BHARI(02)
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

Project Information
Location
1. Jhiku khola watershed
2. Kubinde village, Kabhrepalanchok district
3. Done by:-PARDYP
. Technology area: 0.1km2
. Land use: Annual cropping
. Climate: Humid subtropical

Introduction
Water efficient irrigation system
Water dipped to individual plant root zones at

low rate(2.25 l/hr)

Introduced to overcome the problem of
irrigation during the end of monsoon(July to
September) and in pre-monsoon(may)
LCDI is an approach to use limited available
water in cost effective way

Installation of drip irrigation set

Firstly field are set by ploughing ,leveling and

ridging
Then drip irrigation set are installed
Lateral pipes 12 meter long are laid along the
ridges which lie 1.5 m apart
Wodden platform with water storage tank is
installed
Then its connected to the lateral pipes
Planting holes are then dug along the ridge
spaced to coincide the drip hole
Holes are usually set every 0.6 to 1.2 meter
depending on the crop

Farmyard manure and chemical fertilizer are

placed in each pit and mixed well

Vegetable seedling are planted in each hole
And daily drip watering begin
Water is applied generally in the morning or in
the evening
If necessary stakes are placed next to each
plant to climb

Source:http//www.wikepedia.com/dripirrigation/drip_irrigation.
html

Favorable crop
Bitter gourd most generally grown followed by

cauliflower

Harvesting
It starts in mid may and continues until

September

Maintainance
Farmer maintains the system by repairing

leaks in the pipe joints and by unblocking drip

holes.

Technical function/impact
Main
1. Slow and precise delivery of water to plant

root zones, enhanced photosynthesis

2. Increase or maintenances of soil moisture.
. Secondary
1. Reduction of evaporation losses
2. Reduction of water distribution losses

Establishment input and cost per

unit system(2004)
Inputs

Cost(US$)

%met by land users

Labour(1 person day)

2.8

100%

Equipment

25.8

0%

Total

28.6

100%

In the first year PARDYP provided 100% subsidy

In the second only 50%
And the subsidy was withdrawn the next year
The mentioned cost is for medium sized drip system with 8 lateral
lines having 160 drip holes
1US dollar=73 NRS

Maintenance/recurrent input and

cost per unit per year(2004)
Inputs

Cost(US$)

%met by land user

Labour and spare

parts

100%

Total

100%

Acceptance/adoption
Local farmer started to adopt technology

after 1999 to mid 2001

Technology was promoted by GO, NGO
Amoung 50 PARDYP organised farmer
adopted the technology. 58% adopted with
cost of kit subsidised and 42% without any
subsidy
55 other house hold adopted promoted by
other NGO

Drivers for adoption

Testing and demonstrating in participatory

way
Making the drip set and spare part locally
available
Providing technical support for establishing
and maintaining the set
Micro-credits for poor farmer to buy sets

Constrains to adoption
Farmers do not have easy access to drip set

and associated parts

Lack of micro-credit to poor families

Impact of technology

Production and socio-cultural

benefit
1. Advantages
.Increased farm incomes
.Up to 700 US$ per hectare due to early

harvest(22 days earlier in case of bitter gourd

.Reduced cost and time for irrigation and
applying fertilizer
1. Disadvantages
. none

Socio-cultural aspects
Benefits
They become

familiar with new

technology and share
experience during
gathering
Strengthened
community
institution due to
increase number of
drip users

Disadvantages

Cropping area increased due to this

technology

This increased women's workload

Ecological aspect
Benefits
Increased soil

moisture due to
applying water direct
in the root zone
Reduction
evaporation rate
Reduced soil lose due
to slow and precise
delivery of water

Disadvantages

Mono-cropping practiced

Majority of farmers grow bitter-gourd,

cauliflower

Offsite aspect
Benefits
Water saving

Disadvantage

Spread of the system could lead to increased

upstream water consumption that leaves less
water for down-stream users

Concluding statements

 Strengths
Saved 60% water

compared to bucket
irrigation and cropping
area increased with
limited access to
irrigation water
It needs 50% less
labour campared to
bucket irrigation
Additional household
income of about 700
per hectare in case of
bitter gourd

How to improve

Construction of water harvesting ponds and

use of collected water in drip system makes
for sustainable crop production

Experience sharing with users and non-users

Option for other high potential high value cash

crops should be explores

 Weakness
Not suitable for

sloping land and

covers a small
area(using medium
sized kit)
Spacing of drip holes
might not meet
farmers need
Spare parts are not
available locally and
farmers have to
travel far till KTM to
get spare parts

How to overcome

Modifying levelling slopes and increasing the

number of drip kit can overcome limitation

Pipes with at least 50cm gap of drip holes

should be made available

Parts should be made available locally

Database Refrence
WOCAT