Influence of Mulching and Pressurized Irrigation System on Cost Economics of Grafted Brinjal (Solanum. melongena L.)

Download Full-Text PDF Cite this Publication

Text Only Version

Influence of Mulching and Pressurized Irrigation System on Cost Economics of Grafted Brinjal (Solanum. melongena L.)

Vinuta M Betageri1, S. V. Kottiswaran2, K. Nagarajan3 And T. Saraswathi4

1 Ph D Scholar (SWCE), College of Agricultural Engineering, Raichur. UAS Raichur, Karnataka

2 Professor (SWCE) Agriculture Engineering College and Research Institute, TNAU Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu.

2 Professor (SWCE) Water Technology Center, TNAU Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu.

4 Professor & Head (Vegetable Science) Horticulture College & Research Institute, TNAU Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu.

Abstract:- Field studies were conducted at PFDC farm, of Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore to evaluate the influence of plastic mulching on cost economics (returns from the field interms of yield) of grafted brinjal under drip irrigation. The experiments were laid in Strip Plot Design with twenty seven treatments which included three mulching levels such as 25 µ thickness plastic mulch, 50 µ thickness plastic mulch and control; three Irrigation levels at 60 per cent ET0, 80 per cent ET0 and 100 per cent ET0 and three fertigation levels with 80 per cent, 100 per cent and 120 per cent RDF which were replicated thrice. Daily water requirement was calculated based monthly average evaporation the results showed that total water requirement for the growth period under drip irrigation has saved 16.17 per cent of water with mulch compared to without mulch condition. Its observed that the highest yield of 83.3 t.ha-1 under 25 µ thickness plastic mulch at 80 per cent ET0 level and 100 per cent RDF with benefit cost ratio of

    1. compared to all other treatments and lowest yield of 18.1 t.ha-1 in control plot with 60 per cent ET0 and 80 per cent RDF. It can be concluded that the advance irrigation technologies like drip irrigation combined with mulch can play a important role in increasing the productivity hence the net returns can be increased.

      Key words: Drip irrigation, Mulching, Fertigation, Benefit cost ratio.

      1. INTRODUCTION:

        Water is considered as liquid gold and land is one of the platforms for survival of many living things for performing several activities. Both are the important factors for the survival of life. Agriculture is the source for the Indian belly and its productivity and value is dependent on health of land/soil and timely availability of water source which are declining day by day in very rapid rate at the same time demand interms of crop yield is growing for every second. So it is necessary to go for the adaptation of technologies which puts hand in conserving and managing scarce resources in agriculture by giving more importance to production quality as well as quantity. To achieve this with available scarce quantity of water it is necessary to increase the water use efficiency which can be achieved through the adaptation of micro irrigation system.

        Micro irrigation technology is rapidly expanding all over the world, especially in the water scarce areas of developed countries. Due to the decreasing availability of water resources and increasing competition for water between different users, improving agricultural water use efficiency is vitally important in many parts of the world that have limited water resources. It has been estimated that the irrigated area in the world is 253 m ha. The gross irrigated area of India in 2005-2006 had increased to 82.6 m ha from 22.6 m ha in 1951-52 and increase being more than 250 per cent during the last five decades. Efficient use of water through scientific irrigation management is of utmost importance in providing the best insurance against weather induced fluctuations in food production (Agarwal and Khanna, 1983). Drip irrigation is an effective tool for conserving water resources and studies have revealed significant water saving ranging between 40 per cent and 70 per cent by drip irrigation compared with surface irrigation (Sidhu et al., 2007; Kubota, 2008; Rouphael et al., 2010 and Frank et al., 2010).).

        Productivity can be increased by adopting improved package of practices, particularly in situ moisture conservation applying plastic mulch by achieving earlier and larger yields of commercial vegetables (Ilyas, 2001). The notable advantage of the use of plastic mulch is its impermeability which prevents direct evaporation of moisture from the soil and thus cuts down the water losses so that soil moisture is preserved and consumed by the crop (Akbari et al., 2009, Ashworth and Harrison, 1983). Sweet corn, tomatoes, cucumber, straw berry, lettuce, watermelon, okra, and grapes are the primary crop target to plastic mulch. Fertigation offers the best solution for intensive and economical crop production where both water and fertilizers are delivered to crop through drip system and through fertigation 40 to 50 per cent of nutrient could be saved.

        Brinjal (Solanum melongena L.) is a staple vegetable also known as Eggplant (Kantharajah and Golegaonkar, 2004). India is the second largest producer of brinjal after China with the production of 11.89 million tons production from an area of

        0.68 m ha. So, the study was conducted on Grafted Brinjal was explained.

      2. MATERIAL AND METHODS:

        The experiment was conducted to study the influence of plastic mulching along with pressuiresed irrigation system (Drip irrigation) on yield thereby on cost economics of grafted brinjal (Solanum. melongena L.). The materials used, crop and experimental techniques and analytical methods adopted in the investigations are enumerated.

          1. Study area:

            The experiment was conducted at PFDC research farm in the Eastern block of Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore at 11.01830 N latitude and 76.97250 E longitude with mean altitude of 426 m above the mean sea level, topography of the experimental plot was uniform.

          2. Crop details:

            Crop : Grafted brinjal (Solanum. melongena L.)

            Species : S. torvum (Turkey berry)

            Rootstock : COBH2

            Scion : Ravaiya

            Spacing : 1.2 m x 1.2 m

            Treatments 27

            Replication 3

            Gross plot size : 583.2 m2

            Design : Strip Plot Design

            Factors 3

            Levels 3

          3. Statistical analysis

            The data were analyzed in AGRESS package for Strip Plot Design (SPD) for crop grown in various experimental plots. Wherever the treatment differences were found significant (F test) critical differences were worked out at 5 per cent probability level and the values are furnished.

            The factor and level details are as below.

            Factor I – Mulching with three levels M1 with 25 micron thickness LLDPE, M2 with 50 micron thickness LLDPE and M3 with no mulch.

            Factor II – Irrigation with three levels I1 at 60 per cent ET0, I2 at 80 per cent ET0 and I3 at100 per cent ET0.

            Factor III – Fertigation with three levels F1 at 80 per cent RDF, F2 at100 per cent RDF and F3 at 120 per cent RDF.

          4. Treatment Details:

            T1- 25 µ plastic mulch @ 60 % ET0 + 80 % RDF T2-25 µ plastic mulch @ 60 % ET0 + 100 % RDF T3-25 µ plastic mulch @ 60 % ET0 + 120 % RDF T4-25 µ plastic mulch @ 80 % ET0 + 80 % RDF. T5-25 µ plastic mulch @ 80 % ET0 + 100 % RDF. T6-25 µ plastic mulch @ 80 % ET0 + 120 % RDF. T7-25 µ plastic mulch @ 100 % ET0 + 80 % RDF. T8-25 µ plastic mulch @ 100 % ET0 + 100 % RDF. T9-25 µ plastic mulch @ 100 % ET0 + 120 % RDF. T10-50 µ plastic mulch @ 60 % ET0 + 80 % RDF T11-50 µ plastic mulch @ 60 % ET0 + 100 % RDF T12-50 µ plastic mulch @ 60 % ET0 + 120 % RDF T13-50 µ plastic mulch @ 80 % ET0 + 80 % RDF. T14-50 µ plastic mulch @ 80 % ET0 + 100 % RDF. T15-50 µ plasti mulch @ 80 % ET0 + 120 % RDF. T16-50 µ plastic mulch @ 100 % ET0 + 80 % RDF.

            T17-50 µ plastic mulch @ 100 % ET0 + 100 % RDF. T18-50 µ plastic mulch @ 100 % ET0 + 120 % RDF. T19- No mulch @ 60 % ET0 + 80 % RDF

            T20- No mulch @ 60 % ET0 + 100 % RDF T21- No mulch @ 60 % ET0 + 120 % RDF T22- No mulch @ 80 % ET0 + 80 % RDF T23- No mulch @ 80 % ET0 + 100 % RDF T24- No mulch @ 80 % ET0 + 120 % RDF

            T25- No mulch @ 100 % ET0 + 80 % RDF T26- No mulch @ 100 % ET0 + 100 % RDF T27- No mulch @ 100 % ET0 + 120 % RDF

          5. Cost economics

        Economics of grafted brinjal production under plastic mulching with drip irrigation system was worked out in terms of total expenditure. The total cost of cultivation was calculated which is the sum of mulching sheet cost, irrigation drip lines cost, land preparation and management and other input cost like fertilizer, harvesting, planting material cost etc. The net returns per hectare were worked out for all treatments by subtracting the cost of cultivation from the gross returns. The return per rupee invested (B: C) ratio was also calculated as follows.

        Gross income ha-1

        Benefit Cost Ratio = … (3.1)

        Total cost of cultivation ha-1

      3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

        In order to study the feasibility of cultivation of grafted brinjal under plastic mulching cost of cultivation, fixed cost, net income and Benefit Cost ratio for different treatments were worked out and the results of the stated objective are discussed here.

        The life of the pipe materials were taken as five years. Interest at twelve per cent of fixed cost was taken into consideration to work out the cost economics. The used 25 µ plastic sheet has degraded within one crop season and 50 µsheet was good even after the crop period so it can be used for the next crop, so it is taken for two crop use. The economics of the system of mulching and fertigation under study was worked out in Rs ha-1 and Benefit-cost ratio for treatments is calculated by using equation

        3.1. It can be seen from the results that among all the treatments the highest benefit was obtained from treatment T5 i.e., 25 µ mulch at 80 per cent ET0 with 100 RDF with highest water use efficiency and yield per hectare followed by the treatment T6 and the lowest net return was obtained in control treatment without mulch i.e., T19 at 60 per cent ET0 with 80 per cent RDF are shown in figure 1 and figure 2. In terms of benefit: cost ratio which fallowed the same trend was highest in treatment T5 (8.68) and lowest in Treatment T19 (1.41) as presented in the figure 3. All the drip irrigation treatments with mulch recorded higher cost benefit ratio (7.78 to 8.68) compared to without mulch treatments (1.41 to 2.41) are presented in Table 1.

        The performance of mulch and without mulch under drip irrigation system can be valued both in terms of biological and economical returns (Sakata et a.l, 2007; Lee et al., 2010; Dimitrios et al., 2010). However, it was important that a technically feasible proposal should be financially complete for its successful adoption (Bletsos et al., 2003; Khah et al., 2011). One of the main constraints under mulch and drip irrigation was its high initial investment. Mulch require plastic sheet and drip irrigation requires mains, sub mains, laterals, filter, and other accessories to design the unit. The economic analysis of grafted brinjal crop under mulch and without mulch with drip irrigation was made by considering fixed cost, cost of cultivation, water used and yields obtained.

        The initial cost of installing the plastic sheet and drip irrigation system for vegetable crops was high but over a period of time the cost could be recovered and the benefits derived would be higher interms of increased yield from the field with high quality products as shown in plate 1. Even during the first year itself the drip irrigation system showed maximum net returns. Similar results of increase in net returns with saved water for brinjal crop under drip irrigation with different ET levels were in line with Bhogi et al. (2011).

        Fig. 1 Water Use Efficiency under different treatments

        Fig. 2 Yield per hectare under different treatments

        Fig. 3 Benefit cost Ratio under different tretments

        Plate. 1 Yield of Grafted Brinjal under mulching and drip irrigation system

        Table 1 Cost benefit ratio for grafted brinjal cultivation under different treatments

        Treatment

        Total cost of cultivation

        Yield kgha-1

        Revenue from the field (consider cost of Grafted brinjal at rs. 20/ kg)

        Net income (@Rs.

        20/ kg)

        BC ratio (@ Rs.

        20/kg

        Revenue from the field (consider cost of Grafted brinjal at rs.25/ kg)

        Net income (@Rs.

        25/ kg)

        BC ratio (@ Rs.

        25/kg

        Revenue from

        the field

        (consider cost of Grafted Brinjal at rs.30/ kg)

        Net income (@Rs.30/ kg)

        BC ratio

        (@Rs.30/ kg)

        (b + d) =C

        (e)

        (e x 20) =R

        (R-C)

        =I

        I/C

        = BC

        (e x 25) =R

        (R-C)

        =I

        I/C

        = BC

        (e x 30)

        =R

        (R-C)

        =I

        I/C

        = BC

        T1

        252187

        42500

        850000

        597813

        2.37

        1062500

        810313

        3.21

        1275000

        1022813

        4.06

        T2

        258216

        53900

        1078000

        819784

        3.17

        1347500

        1089284

        4.22

        1617000

        1358784

        5.26

        T3

        264245

        50400

        1008000

        743755

        2.81

        1260000

        995755

        3.77

        1512000

        1247755

        4.72

        T4

        252187

        73800

        1476000

        1223813

        4.85

        1845000

        1592813

        6.32

        2214000

        1961813

        7.78

        T5

        258216

        83300

        1666000

        1407784

        5.45

        2082500

        1824284

        7.06

        2499000

        2240784

        8.68

        T6

        264245

        81100

        1622000

        1357755

        5.14

        2027500

        1763255

        6.67

        2433000

        2168755

        8.21

        T7

        252187

        65300

        1306000

        1053813

        4.18

        1632500

        1380313

        5.47

        1959000

        1706813

        6.77

        T8

        258216

        69400

        1388000

        1129784

        4.38

        1735000

        1476784

        5.72

        2082000

        1823784

        7.06

        T9

        264245

        64000

        1280000

        1015755

        3.84

        1600000

        1335755

        5.05

        1920000

        1655755

        6.27

        T10

        247187

        37400

        748000

        500813

        2.03

        935000

        687813

        2.78

        1122000

        874813

        3.54

        T11

        253216

        52000

        1040000

        786784

        3.11

        1300000

        1046784

        4.13

        1560000

        1306784

        5.16

        T12

        259245

        48500

        970000

        710755

        2.74

        1212500

        953255

        3.68

        1455000

        1195755

        4.61

        T13

        247187

        57300

        1146000

        898813

        3.64

        1432500

        1185313

        4.80

        1719000

        1471813

        5.95

        T14

        253216

        79200

        1584000

        1330784

        5.26

        1980000

        1726784

        6.82

        2376000

        2122784

        8.38

        T15

        259245

        71000

        1420000

        1160755

        4.48

        1775000

        1515755

        5.85

        2130000

        1870755

        7.22

        T16

        247187

        59600

        1192000

        944813

        3.82

        1490000

        1242813

        5.03

        1788000

        1540813

        6.23

        T17

        253216

        67500

        1350000

        1096784

        4.33

        1687500

        1434284

        5.66

        2025000

        1771784

        7.00

        T18

        259245

        61100

        1222000

        962755

        3.71

        1527500

        1268255

        4.89

        1833000

        1573755

        6.07

        T19

        225687

        18100

        362000

        136313

        0.60

        452500

        226813

        1.00

        543000

        317313

        1.41

        T20

        231716

        26300

        526000

        294284

        1.27

        657500

        425784

        1.84

        789000

        557284

        2.41

        T21

        237745

        21900

        438000

        200255

        0.84

        547500

        309755

        1.30

        657000

        419255

        1.76

        T22

        225687

        29800

        596000

        370313

        1.64

        745000

        519313

        2.30

        894000

        668313

        2.96

        T23

        231716

        33600

        672000

        440284

        1.90

        840000

        608284

        2.63

        1008000

        776284

        3.35

        T24

        237745

        32000

        640000

        402255

        1.69

        800000

        562255

        2.36

        960000

        722255

        3.04

        T25

        225687

        43100

        862000

        636313

        2.82

        1077500

        851813

        3.77

        1293000

        1067313

        4.73

        T26

        231716

        55800

        1116000

        884284

        3.82

        1395000

        1163284

        5.02

        1674000

        1442284

        6.22

        T27

        237745

        54500

        1090000

        852255

        3.58

        1362500

        1124755

        4.73

        1635000

        1397255

        5.88

      4. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION:

        The cultivation under drip irrigation system with mulching has increased the water use efficiency (reducing the volume of water utilized) by reducing the water evaporation losses hence, thereby increased the yield per unit area. The treatment T5 registered the highest gross income of Rs. 2240784.00 at the rate of Rs.30 kg-1 and cost- benefit ratio was also higher 8.68 compared to all other treatments. So T5 is recommended for the farmers. Among all the mulching, Irrigation and fertigation treatments, the best performance was observed in treatment T5 under 25 µ thickness mulching at 80 per cent ET0 with 100 per cent RDF in terms of growth, yield, water use efficiency, fertilizer use efficiency and higher benefit in terms of cost economics.

      5. REFERENCES:

  1. Agarwal, M.G. and S.S.,Khanna. 1983. Efficient soil and water management in Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar. Bull., pp. 118.

  2. Akbari, M., H. Dehghanisanij and S. M. Mirlatifi. 2009. Impact of irrigation scheduling on agriculture water productivity. Iranian J. Irrigation and Drainage, 1: pp. 69-79.

  3. Ashworth, S. and H. Harrison.1983. Evaluation of mulches for use in the home garden.

    J. of Hort. Sci., 18: pp. 180-182.

  4. Bhogi. B. H., B. S. Polisgowdar, and M. G. Patil. 2011. Effectiveness and cost economics of fertigation in brinjal (Solanum melongena L.) under drip and furrow irrigation. Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 24 (3): pp. 417 419.

  5. Bletsos, F., C. Thanassoulopoulos and D. Roupakias. 2003. Effect of grafting on growth, yield, and Verticillium wilt of eggplant. Hort. Sc., 38: pp. 183-186.

  6. Dimitrios, S., G. Colla., R. Youssef and S. Dietmar. 2010. Amelioration of heavy metal and nutrient stress in fruit vegetables by grafting. Sc. Hort., 127: pp. 156-161.

  7. Frank, J. L., C.L. Rivard and C. Kubota. 2010. Grafting fruiting vegetables to manage soil borne pathogens, foliar pathogens, arthropods and weeds. Sc. Hort., 127: pp. 127-146.

  8. Ilyas, S. M. 2001. Present status of plastics in agriculture lecture note delivered in summer school on application of plastics in agriculture. CIPHET, Ludhiana.

  9. Kantharajah A.S. and P.G. Golegaonkar. 2004. Somatic embryogenesis in eggplant. Rev. J. Sci. Hortic., 99: pp. 107-117.

  10. Khah, E.M., N. Katsoulas, M. Tchamichian and C. Kittas. 2011. Effect of grafting on eggplant leaf gas exchange under Mediterranean greenhouse conditions. Int. J. Pl. Prod., 5 (2): pp. 121-134.

  11. Kubota, C. 2008. Use of grafted seedlings for vegetable production in North America. Acta Hort., 770: pp. 21-26.

  12. Lee, J.M., C. Kubotab, S.J. Tsaoc, Z. Bied, P.H. Echevarriae, L. Morraf and M. Oda. 2010. Current status of vegetable grafting: Diffusion, grafting techniques, automation. Sc. Hort., 127: pp. 93105.

  13. Rouphael, Y., S. Dietman, K. Angelika and G. Colla. 2010. Impact of grafting on product quality of fruit vegetables. Sc. Hort., 127: pp. 172-179.

  14. Sakata, Y., T. Ohara and M. Sugiyama. 2007. The history and present state of the grafting of cucurbitaceous vegetables in Japan. Acta Hort., 73: pp. 159-169.

  15. Sidhu, A.S. and A.S. Dhatt. 2007. Current Status of Brinjal Research in India. Acta Hort., 752: pp. 243-247.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *