impact assessment study of laser land leveling as …

IMPACT ASSESSMENT STUDY OF LASER LAND LEVELING AS COMPARED TO CONVENTIONAL LAND LEVELING ON WATER

SAVING AND YIELD OF MAIZE-WHEAT CROPPING SYSTEM

Monitoring & Evaluation Consultants Punjab Irrigated-Agriculture Productivity

Improvement Project (PIPIP)

Punjab Irrigated-Agriculture Productivity Improvement Project (PIPIP)

Impact Assessment of Laser Land Levelling

i

AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB

DIRECTORATE GENERAL AGRICULTURE (WATER MANAGEMENT)

MM Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd.

2nd Floor, CTI Building 27-Empress Road Lahore-54000 Pakistan Tel: +92 42-36300440, 36300460 Fax: +92 42-36292528, 36360267 [email protected]

Associated Consulting Engineers ACE – (Pvt.) Ltd.



ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 Project Background ................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1.1 Precision Land Levelling .............................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1.2 Technology (LASER Land Levelling) ........................................................................................... 1-1

1.1.3 Components of LASER Land Levelling System .......................................................................... 1-1

1.1.4 Benefits ......................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2.1 Water Use and LASER Land Levelling ........................................................................................ 1-3

1.3 Research Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 1-4

1.4 Results and Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 1-6

1.4.1 Impact of LASER Land Levelling on Water and Irrigation Time Saving ...................................... 1-6

1.4.2 Impact of LASER Land Levelling on Growth and Crop Productivity ........................................... 1-7

1.4.3 Impact of LASER Land Levelling on Cost of Production ............................................................. 1-8

1.4.4 Impact of LASER Land Levelling on Net Revenue in Maize-Wheat Cropping System .............. 1-9

1.4.5 Impact of LASER Land Levelling on Energy Saving ................................................................. 1-10

1.4.6 Impact of LASER Land Levelling on Climate Change ............................................................... 1-10

1.4.7 Impact of Laser Land Levelling on Net Income of the Farmers ................................................ 1-11

1.5 Conclusion and Key Findings ................................................................................................................. 1-12

1.6 Policy implications ................................................................................................................................... 1-12

References ......................................................................................................................................................... 1-13



iii

LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1: Impact of Laser Land Levelling on water saving, time of irrigation and cost of levelling for

Maize crop ......................................................................................................................................... 1-6

Table 1.2: Impact of Laser land levelling on water saving, time of irrigation and cost of levelling for

Wheat crop ........................................................................................................................................ 1-6

Table 1.3: Impact of Laser Land Levelling on water saving, time of irrigation and cost of levelling for

Wheat crop ........................................................................................................................................ 1-7

Table 1.4: Impact of Laser Land Levelling on growth an crop productivity of maize-wheat crops ...... 1-7

Table 1.5: Impact of Laser Land Levelling on cost of production of maize-wheat crops .................... 1-8

Table 1.6: Impact of Laser Land Levelling on Net revenue of maize-wheat cropping system ............ 1-9

Table 1.7: Impact of Laser Land Levelling on electricity and diesel saving in maize-wheat cropping

system ............................................................................................................................................. 1-10

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

DGAWM Director General Agriculture Water Management

DDA Deputy Director Agriculture (OFWM)

ADA Assistant Director Agriculture (OFWM)

HEISs High Efficiency Irrigation Systems

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

OFWM On Farm Water Management

PIPIP Punjab Irrigated-Agriculture Productivity Improvement Project

PISCs Project Implementation Supervision Consultants

SSCs Supply and Services Companies

WM Water Management



1-1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Background

1.1.1 Precision Land Levelling

Increasing water shortages have compelled the farmers for developing strategies for efficient

utilization of available water resources. Enhancement of water productivity at farm level is the most

appropriate solution to redress water scarcity. Precision land leveling (PLL) is a mechanical process

of grading and smoothing the land to a precise and uniform plane surface at grade or no grade (zero

slope) with variation of less than ±20 mm (2cm). Generally, traditional method is used for PLL that

involves earth movement with bucket type soil scrapers and tractor mounted rear blades.

1.1.2 Technology (LASER Land Levelling)

Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation (LASER) Land Leveling is the best option for

improving water productivity through minimizing water application losses. Use of LASER technology in

the precision land leveling was introduced in the Punjab during 1985 through On Farm Water

Management (OFWM) program. It has proved to be a highly efficient tool for achieving a high degree

of precision for carrying out PLL operations in much lesser time.

1.1.3 Components of LASER Land Levelling System

The LASER controlled land leveling system consists of a LASER transmitter, a signal receiver, an

electrical control panel, and a solenoid hydraulic control valve. The LASER transmitter transmits a

laser beam, which is intercepted by the signal receiver mounted on a leveling blade attached to the

tractor. The control panel mounted on the tractor interprets the signal from the receiver and opens or

closes the hydraulic control valve, which raises or lowers the leveling blade. Some LASER

transmitters have the ability to level the field on single or dual graded slopes ranging from 0.01 to 15

percent.

1.1.4 Benefits

Precision Land Leveling has been proved to be highly beneficial because it minimizes the cost of

operation, ensures better degree of accuracy in much lesser time, saves irrigation water, ascertains

uniform seed germination, increases fertilizer use efficiency, and resultantly enhances crop yields.

Saving in irrigation time

Increase in irrigated area

Improvement in crop yields

Reduction in farm culture able waste land

1.2 Introduction

The rapidly declining stock of groundwater for irrigation poses a significant threat to agriculture in

Pakistan. As a result, there has been great interest in policies that could be used to encourage

farmers to adopt various water-saving technologies. Water is one of the most important inputs for crop

production. Increasing water scarcity is also seen as major contributor to stagnating productivity of

cropping system (Byerlee et al. 2003; Kumar et al. 2002). Due to the absence of efficient water-pricing



1-2

mechanisms, the scarcity value of water is not reflected in water prices (Pingali and Shah 2001). In

the face of unreliable canal water supplies, many farmers have increased their reliance on private

tube wells placing tremendous pressure on groundwater supplies (Abrol 1999; Ahmed et al. 2007;

Qureshi et al. 2003). Negative environmental effects related to irrigation are increasing as

overexploitation of groundwater and poor water management lead to the dropping of water tables in

some areas and increased waterlogging and salinity in others (Harrington et al. 1993; Pingali and

Shah 2001; Qureshi et al. 2003). In addition, tube-well irrigation has raised production costs in view of

energy expenses incurred on electricity or diesel (Qureshi, et al. 2003). Also significant amount of

irrigation water is wasted due to undulated fields and due to field ditches. The crop productivity of the

country is very low as majority of the farmers are still practicing traditional farming techniques.

Moreover, cost of production has increased many times due to rising prices of fuel and other

agricultural inputs. The existing crop production technologies do not offer effective and efficient

utilization of natural resources, particularly that of water. Extremely low efficiency of input use has led

to wastage and depletion of natural resources besides environmental degradation (Hobbs, et al.

1997). The importance of efficient use of this precious crop input increases as the world population

increases. Qutab and Nasiruddin (1994) reported that the Pakistan Rabi Shortfall of 3.5 million acre

foot (MAF) could increase to 13 MAF by the year 2019, at this stage; country would need more food

and fibre to meet the needs of the growing population. This shortfall has to be met either by

constructing new reservoirs or by improving the water use efficiency at farm level. The construction of

new reservoirs has financial and environmental constraints. Whereas, the efficiency of the irrigation

system could be improve easily by adopting proper technologies (Ashraf et al. 1999). However, the

water use efficiency along with yield per acre could be increase by adopting resource conservation

technologies like laser land levelling.

Unevenness of the soil surface has a major impact on the germination, stand and yield of crops

through nutrient water interaction and salt and soil moisture distribution pattern. Land leveling is a

precursor to good agronomic, soil and crop management practices. Resource conserving

technologies perform better on well leveled and laid-out fields. Farmers recognize this and therefore

devote considerable attention and resources in leveling their fields properly. However, traditional

method of leveling land are not only more cumbersome and time consuming but more expensive as

well. Thus in the process of a having good leveling in fields, a considerable amount of water is

wasted. It is a common knowledge that most of the farmers apply irrigation water until all the parcels

are fully wetted and covered with a thin sheet of water. Studies have indicated that a significant (20-

25%) amount of irrigation water is lost during its application at the farm due to poor farm designing

and unevenness of the fields. This problem is more pronounced in the case of rice fields. Unevenness

of fields leads to inefficient use of irrigation water and also delays tillage and crop establishment

options. Fields that are not level have uneven crop stands, increased weed burdens and uneven

maturing of crops. All these factors tend to contribute to reduced yield and grain quality which reduce

the potential farm gate income.

Effective land leveling is meant to optimize water-use efficiency, improve crop establishment, reduce

the irrigation time and effort required to manage crop. The Manual for Laser Land Leveling seeks to

explain the benefits of land leveling in fields, particularly rice fields, and help develop skills of farmers



1-3

and operators in using laser technology to achieve a level field surface. It is also intended to enable

the users to identify and understand the working of the various components of a laser-controlled land

leveling system; undertake a topographic survey using a laser system; set up and use a laser-

controlled leveling system. It is hoped that the users (farmers and service providers) could be

beneficial by adopting this important resource conserving technology as a precursor to several other

improved agronomic, soil and crop management practices. Laser technology can ensure very

accurate and precision land leveling to extent of +2 cm (London, 1995; Waker, 1989). The resource

conservation technologies (RCTs) mainly include bed planting of wheat, sowing of wheat following

zero tillage technology, bed and furrow sowing of cotton and management of crop residues.

Laser land leveling adopted in Pakistan has shown encouraging results under zero tillage technique

wheat is sown using residual moisture with no or minimum tillage without irrigating the fields with the

aim to sow wheat in time after rice, conservation of water, and reduced cultivation cost (Akhtar, 2006).

In Sindh laser land leveling was adopted last decade ago by the growers. However, necessary data to

support its effectiveness on crop yield and water saving are scarce. It was therefore, felt imperative

need to evaluate the effect of laser and traditional land leveling technologies on maize and wheat

productivity, land and water use efficiency in maize-wheat system of Punjab. This study was

conducted to evaluate the impact of laser leveling technology on water saving and crop production to

compare these with conventional methods.

1.2.1 Water Use and LASER Land Levelling

While Pakistan is the largest user of groundwater in the world (with heavy demand from both

agriculture and households), current patterns of groundwater use are not sustainable in the long run.

Water tables are falling rapidly, in large part due to the fact that individuals do not bear the cost of the

water they use and continues pumping of groundwater leads to reduce the water table. If current

trends continue, some estimates suggest that national food production could fall by around 25 percent

by 2025 (Seckler et al, 1998). In principle, the best policy to curtail over-extraction would be to price

water at its social marginal cost, or barring this, water pumping policy that makes pumping water

effectively free. However neither of these is practical in the short run; the first would require metering

and monitoring millions of private wells nationwide, while the latter is politically problematic. Given

these limitations, there is a strong argument that policy intervention to encourage the use of water-

saving technologies is a logical second-best measure. Laser levelling is one such technology: in brief,

it is a method of smoothing agricultural fields to high precision by using laser guidance. Laser levelling

is an “add-on” technology, in the sense that it supplements rather than replaces the traditional method

of levelling a field. In traditional levelling, a grading implement with a blade is towed behind a tractor

over the surface of a field, the height of the blade is adjusted manually by the operator so as to

achieve a surface that appears smooth and level to the human eye. The innovation in laser levelling is

to use a laser guidance system to raise and lower the blade of the grading implement automatically.

The result is a significantly flatter field than an unaided human operator could achieve. Evidence

suggests that the benefits of levelling can be substantial. In controlled experiments on agricultural

plots, researchers at Punjab Agriculture University found that laser levelling increases crop yields and

water saving, holding constant other inputs like fertilizers and seed quality. These experiments have

also demonstrated that levelling reduces weeds and labour time spent weeding. However, because



1-4

these results were achieved by academic researchers implementing best practices, it remains to be

seen whether real farmers operating in uncontrolled conditions will achieve similar benefits. Assessing

this question was one purpose of our study.

1.3 Research Methodology

Two field experiments were carried out in maize-wheat rotation during the growing seasons 2016-17

and 2017-18, at Water Management Research Farm (WMRF) Renala Khurd to study the impact of

laser land levelling as compared to conventional land levelling on water saving and crop productivity

of maize & wheat under the agro-climatic conditions of district Okara.

In first experiment on maize crop, two variables conventional land levelling and laser land levelling

with two sowing method and irrigation method i.e. flat sowing and ridge sowing, flood irrigation and

furrow irrigation. Therefore, four treatments were observed i.e., conventional land levelling with flat

sowing, conventional land levelling with ridge sowing, laser land levelling with flat sowing and laser

land levelling with ridge sowing. Pioneer variety 31R88 was grown for the experiment. Both tube well

and canal water was used for irrigation. For the measurement of discharge, a cut throat flume was

installed at main nakka of the filed to measure the water discharge. Net plot size was 260 ft length

and 48 ft width of each plot. Two techniques were used to level the field. Conventional land was

levelled with the help scraper locally called kara and other field were levelled with help of laser land

leveller. Soil samples were taken to make the soil analysis. All other variables like DAP, Urea and

SOP fertilizer and no. of irrigation for all plots were kept constant. Randomized Complete Block

Design was used for the wheat experiments in which each treatment was replicate 3 times to

minimize the error. We compared total volume of water applied, total irrigation time per season and

crop yield between laser land levelling and conventional land levelling.

In the second experiment on wheat crop, three variables conventional land levelling, laser land

levelling as per farmer method and laser land levelled as per engineering method with drill sowing

method and flood irrigation method was used. Three treatment were observed i.e. conventional land

levelled, laser land levelled as per farmer method and laser land levelled as per engineering method.

In engineering method, first of all take topography survey of the field and make cut and fills ration



1-5

point. Both tube well and canal water was used for irrigation. For the measurement of discharge, a cut

throat flume was installed at main nakka of the filed to measure the water discharge. Net plot size was

63.41 m length and 11.89 m width of each plot. Three techniques were used to level the field.

Conventional land was levelled with the help scraper locally called kara, second field was levelled with

laser land leveller as per famer method and third field was levelled with laser land leveller as per

engineering method. Soil samples were taken to make the soil analysis. All other variables like DAP,

Urea and SOP fertilizer and no. of irrigation for all plots were kept constant. Randomized Complete

Block Design was used for the wheat experiments in which each treatment was replicate 3 times to

minimize the error. We compared total volume of water applied, total irrigation time per season and

crop yield between laser land levelling and conventional land levelling.



1-6

1.4 Results and Discussion

1.4.1 Impact of LASER Land Levelling on Water and Irrigation Time Saving

Laser land levelling is essentially a water-saving technology as it uses scarce groundwater optimally

by ensuring even coverage. Compared to conventional levelled land, a laser levelled field minimises

run-off and water-logging ensuring that farmers use just as much water they need in the best possible

way. The results given in the Table 1.1 shows that 27.2 % of irrigation water saved in laser levelled

field as compared to conventional levelled field in maize crop. Time of irrigation is also an important

indicator. The results shows that 31.3 % time saved in laser levelled field as compared to

conventional levelled field in maize crop.

Table 1.1: Impact of Laser Land Levelling on water saving, time of irrigation and cost of levelling for Maize crop

Parameters Conventional Land

Leveling Laser Land Leveling

Impact of Laser Levelled (Saving)

Cost of Leveling per Acre (Rs.) 2,921.4 1,824.5 +37.6%

Number of Irrigation 11 11 +0.0%

Total Volume of Water Applied (Cubic/Acre) 3,411.2 2,484.3 +27.2%

Time Consumed (Hrs./Irrigation/Acre) 3.5 2.4 +31.3%

Similarly, wheat experiment was conducted to assess the impact of laser land levelling on water

saving for wheat crop and results are described in the given Table 1.3.

Table 1.2: Impact of Laser land levelling on water saving, time of irrigation and cost of levelling for Wheat crop

Parameters Conventional Land Leveling

Laser Land Leveling as per

Farmer's Method

Laser Land Leveling as per Engineering's

Method

Cost of Leveling per Acre (Rs.) 3,411.1 2,714.4 3,045.7

Number of Irrigation 4 4 4

Total Volume of Water Applied (Cubic/Acre)

1,657.4 1,178.7 1,038.1

Time Consumed (Hrs/Irrigation/Acre) 3.7 2.8 2.5

Results shows that 28.9 % irrigation water saved in laser levelled field which was levelled as per

farmer’s method and 37.4 % irrigation water saved where the land was levelled as per engineering’s

method. Results also shows that 25.4 % of irrigation time saved where the land was levelled with

laser land leveller as per farmer’s method and 30.4 % time of irrigation saved in laser land levelling

which was levelled as per engineering’s method.

Study also reveals that 927 cubic meter of water saved in laser levelled field per acre per season

which is equal to 0.53 wheat acreage. In monitory term, it was Rs. 7,416 amount saved in laser

levelled field as compared to conventional land levelling.



1-7

Table 1.3: Impact of Laser Land Levelling on water saving, time of irrigation and cost of levelling for Wheat crop

Parameters Impact of Laser Levelled as

per Farmer's method Impact of Laser Levelled as per Engineering’s method

Saving in cost of Leveling per Acre (Rs.) +20.4% +10.7%

Saving in number of Irrigation +0.0% +0.0%

Saving in volume of Water Applied (Cubic/Acre)

+28.9% +37.4%

Saving in time Consumed (Hrs/Irrigation/Acre)

+25.4% +30.4%

1.4.2 Impact of LASER Land Levelling on Growth and Crop Productivity

LASER Land Levelling has a positive impact on yield of maize and wheat crop. The results given in

the Table 1.4 shows that 23.4 % yield of maize and 13.06 % yield of wheat crop increased due to

laser land levelling as compared to conventional land levelling.

Table 1.4: Impact of Laser Land Levelling on growth an crop productivity of maize-wheat crops

Parameters

Maize Wheat

Conventional Land Leveling

Laser Land

Leveling


Laser Land Leveling as per

Farmer's Method

Laser Land Leveling as per Engineering's

Method

Average Yield (Mds/Acre) 58.2 65.8 33.4 41.2 43.1

Average Price (Rs./Mds) 950 950 1,172 1,172 1,172

Total Revenue (Rs./Acre) 55,290 62,510 39,145 48,286 50,513

Average Yield (mds/Acre)

Average Yield (mds/Acre)



1-8

1.4.3 Impact of LASER Land Levelling on Cost of Production

Farm costs represented the value of goods and services utilized in agricultural production. The results

of the cost of production of maize and wheat are presented in Table 1.5. Costs have been broken

down in a cash costs and non-cash cost (depreciation and opportunity) costs for production factors

that are owned by the maize-wheat growers. The overall cost of maize sowing in laser levelled field is

less Rs. 37,812 as compared to conventional sowing of Rs. 41,425. Similarly, overall cash costs of

wheat sowing on laser leveling technology is less Rs. 28,786 per acre, as compared to on

conventional sowing of wheat Rs. 30,213 acre.

Table 1.5: Impact of Laser Land Levelling on cost of production of maize-wheat crops

Type of Cost Parameters

Maize Wheat


Laser Land Leveling


Laser Land Leveling

Cash Cost

Variable Cost

Labor Cost

Land Levelled 2,230 1,824 2,611 2,350

Ploughing 550 550 550 550

Sowing 1,200 1,200 800 800

Weeding 550 550 550 550

Harvesting 4,400 4,400 3,850 3,850

Threshing 2,700 2,700 2,200 2,200

Loading/Unloading 1,100 1,100 825 825

Sub Total‐A 12,730 12,324 11,386 11,125

Input Cost

Seed Cost 6,200 6,200 2,450 2,450

DAP Fertilizer 2,850 2,850 4,275 4,275

Urea 5,400 5,400 4,050 4,050

Nitrophous ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

N:P:K ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Pesticides 1,475 1,475 ‐ ‐

Weedicides 1,050 1,050 1,225 1,225

T/W Irrigation 3,740 2,530 1,540 1,100

Threshing cost 2,100 2,100 3,063 3,063

Transportation cost 1,150 1,150 1,050 1,050

Sub Total‐B 23,965 22,755 17,653 17,213

Total Variable Cost 36,695 35,079 29,039 28,338

Fixed Cost

Canal Water Charges 85 85 85 85

Land Taxes ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Total fixed Cost 85 85 85 85

Non Cash Cost

Rent of Land ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Irrigation Labor 2,995 998 1,089 363

Labor for Pesticide application

1,650 1,650 ‐ ‐

Total Non‐Cash Cost 4,645 2,648 1,089 363

Total cost of production (Cash cost + Non‐cash cost)

41,425 37,812 30,213 28,786



1-9

1.4.4 Impact of LASER Land Levelling on Net Revenue in Maize-Wheat Cropping

System

Yield increased in laser land levelled field as compared to conventional land levelling field. Results

shows that 65.8 mds/acre of maize and 41.2 mds/acre of wheat yield achieved in LASER land

levelled where land was levelled as per engineer’s method as compared to conventional land

levelling. In wheat crop, land was levelled with laser land leveller as per farmer’s method and

engineering’s method. Results shows that 7.8 mds/acre (23.4 %) yield of wheat increased in field

which was levelled with laser land levelling as per farmer’s method and 9.7 mds/acre yield of wheat

crop increased in field which was levelled as per engineering method compared to the yield of

conventional levelled field..

Table 1.6: Impact of Laser Land Levelling on Net revenue of maize-wheat cropping system

Parameters

Maize Wheat

Conventional Land

Leveling

Laser Land Leveling

Conventional Land

Leveling

Laser Land Leveling Farmer's Method

Laser Land leveling

Engineering's Method

Average Yield (Mds/Acre) 58.2 65.8 33.4 41.2 43.1

Average Price (Rs./Mds) 950 950 1,172 1,172 1,172

Total Revenue (Rs./Acre) 55,290 62,510 39,145 48,286 50,513

Total Cost of Production (Rs./Acre) 41,425 37,812 30,213 28,786 28,997

Net Revenue (Rs./Acre) 13,865 24,698 8,932 19,501 21,516

Maize Net Revenue (Rs./Acre)

Wheat Net Revenue (Rs /Acre)



1-10

1.4.5 Impact of LASER Land Levelling on Energy Saving

In maize-wheat cropping system, 57% source of water irrigation is tubewell which is operated by

diesel and electricity. Saving in irrigation water in both maize-wheat cropping system was 1,546 cubic

meter per acre (927 cubic meter in maize and 619 cubic meter in wheat crop). Saving in water mean,

saving in suction of water and saving in suction mean saving in diesel/electricity. Less time spent on

irrigation means less energy spent on irrigation. The study shows that laser land levelling saves

electricity amounting to about 115 kWh and 72 litre of diesel per acre per year for maize-wheat

cropping system which decrease the cost of production.

Table 1.7: Impact of Laser Land Levelling on electricity and diesel saving in maize-wheat cropping system

Particular Unit Impact due to Laser Leveling

Technology

Saving in Electricity kWh/Acre/Year 115

Saving in Diesel kWh/Acre/Year 72

1.4.6 Impact of LASER Land Levelling on Climate Change

In laser land levelling, 1,546 cubic meter of water is saved in maize-wheat cropping system. On Farm

Water Management distributed 5,000 laser units among the farmers of the Punjab province. An

impact assessment study of Monitoring & Evaluation consultants shows that a single laser land

levelling service provider levelled 280 acres in year. So, 5,000 service provider will levelled 566,802

hectares of land in year. The study reveals that 566,802 hectares of land have been made climate

friendly annually through the use of LASER to land levelled by reduction 23,264 tons of CO2 emission

to environment by reduction in pumping of water through tubewell operated by diesel. A related study

(Jat. et al 2015) reported that use of laser land leveller over conventional land levellers reduces

emission of greenhouse gases through decreased water pumping time, decreased cultivation time

and better use of fertilizers.



1-11

1.4.7 Impact of Laser Land Levelling on Net Income of the Farmers

The increased yields and the money saved on water and energy means farmers benefited by an

additional Rs. 15,292 per acre in a year from growing maize and wheat. Results revealed that

farmer’s use of laser leveller to land levelled and saved Rs. 5,816 in irrigation water, Rs. 8,266 in crop

yield and Rs. 1,210 in irrigation time. Laser leveller also decreased the cost of production and

increased the net income of the farmers.



1-12

1.5 Conclusion and Key Findings

Laser land levelling have positive impact on volume of water applied for irrigation to maize

and wheat crop. Study revealed that 3,411.2 cubic meter of water applied in conventional

land levelling and 2,484.3 cubic meter of water applied to laser levelled filed in maize crop.

Results shows that 927 cubic meter of water is saved in laser levelled field which is 27.2 %

to the conventional land levelling.

In wheat crop, 1,657.40 cubic meter of water applied in conventional levelled field and

1,178.70 cubic meter of water applied in laser levelled field which was levelled by farmer’s

method and 1038.1cubic meter of water applied in laser levelled field which was levelled

by engineering’s method. The results shows that 478.70 cubic meter of water saved in

laser levelled field which is 28.9 % to the conventional levelled field which was levelled by

farmer’s method and 619.30 cubic meter of water saved in laser levelled field which was

levelled by engineering method which 37.4 % to the conventional levelled field.

LASER land levelling considerably lowers irrigation time for maize by 12.1 hours per acre

per season and for wheat by 6.2 hours per acre per season.

LASER land levelling increases yields by an average 23.4 % for maize crop and 13.04 for

wheat crop as compared to conventional land levelling.

LASER land levelling saves electricity about 115 kWh and diesel about 72 litres per acre

per year for maize-wheat cropping systems.

Cost of production decreased by an average 8.72 % for maize crop and 4.72 % by wheat

crop in laser levelled field as compared to the conventional levelled field.

The study showed that it reduces greenhouse gas emissions about 23,264 tonnes of CO2

from saving on energy, reduction in pumping of tube well, reducing irrigation time and

increasing input efficiency.

Higher yield means higher incomes for farmers. Study revealed that land levelled by laser

leveller reduced the cost of production, irrigation volume applied, time of irrigation and

increased the fertilizer use efficiency and ultimately increased the net income of the

farmers. The results showed that Rs. 15,292 net income per acre in a year saved where

land was levelled by laser leveller in maize – wheat cropping system.

1.6 Policy implications

Laser land levelling is just one among numerous farming activities that contribute to sustainable

agriculture. When used in combination with other resource-saving practices and technologies like

High Efficiency Irrigation System (HEIS), sprinkler irrigation system, solar energy based irrigation,

precision nutrient application, bed & furrow irrigation and zero tillage the gains can be multiplied for

each farmer and the community as a whole.



1-13

References

Adeoye, I.B., O.M.O. Odeleye, S.O. Babalola and S.O., 2009, Economic Analysis of Tomato Losses

in Ibadan Metropolis, Oyo State, Nigeria. African Journal of Basic & Applied Sciences 1 (5-6): 87-92,

Karisomanagoudar, R. S., 1990. Economics of production and marketing of rain fed onion in Gadag

taluka of Dharwad district, Kematki. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, University of Agricultural Sciences,

Bangalore.

Khushk, A. M., M. I. Lashari, and A. Memon. 2004. Marketing System of Selected Vegetables in

Pakistan. Paper Submitted to Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Social Sciences. (Draft paper).

Naik, B. K., 1998. Farming system in Uttar Kannada district – An econometric analysis. Ph.D.Thesis,

University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad.

Naik, B., Ranganathsastry and Hosamani, S. B., .1996. Generating better income: Economics of

tomato seed production in Dharwad district. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 9(2): 369-

371.

Nanjareddy, C., Hiremath, K. C. and Hudson, E. H., 1990. Farm Planning Manual, Department of

Economics, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore

Narayanakutty, C., Indira Devi, P. and Jaikumaran, V., 1998. Economics of vegetable seed production

in Kerala state: A case study. Seed Research, 26(1):47-52

Parhasarathy, P. B., Rammohan, V. and Hemachandru, K., 1988, Price behavior of vegetables in

Hyderabad markets. Indian Journal of Agricultural Marketing, 2(1): 124-185.

Rameshkumar, S. C., Suryaprakash, S., Nanjareddy, C. and Venkatram, J.V., 1993, Economic

analysis of tomato production in Anekal taluka, Bangalore district. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, University of

Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore.

Sain, I., Toor, M. S. and Aggarwal, M., 1999, an economic analysis of winter tomato crop around

Ludhiana city. The Bihar Journal of Agricultural Marketing, 2(1): 83-88.

Sharma, K. C. and Sharma, A. K., 1996, Levels of variation in wholesale prices and exports of

selected vegetables of India. The Bihar Journal of Agricultural Marketing, 4(2): 132-143.

Sharma, R. C. and Pant, D. C., 1988, Impact of regulation on marketing of vegetables. Indian Journal

of Marketing, 2(1): 91-92.

Singh, A. and Singh, D., 1999, Production and marketing of vegetable crops in Varanasi district of

Uttar Pradesh. Indian Journal of Agricultural Marketing, 13(2): 34.

Singh, B., Singh, V. K. and Khatkar, R. K., 1999, marketing of tomatoes in Hoshipur districts of

Punjab. Indian Journal of Agricultural Marketing, 13(2): 40.

Singh, C. and Mathur, V. C., 1994, Growth and instability in production and prices of potato in India.

Agricultural Situation in India, 44(6): 429-436.



1-14

Singh, I. J., Rao, K. N. and Karwasra, J. C., 1997. Regional variations in agricultural performance in

India. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 52(3): 374-385.

T.M. Gajanana, P.N. Krishna Moorthy, H.L. Anupama, R. Raghunatha and G.T. Prasanna Kumar.

2006. Integrated Pest and Disease Management in Tomato: An Economic Analysis. Agricultural

Economics Research Review Vol. 19 July-December 2006 pp 269-280.

Thakur, D. S., Thakur, D. R., Sharma, K. D. and Sanjaya, 1994, Vegetable revolution and economics

in Himachal Pradesh. Bihar Journal of Agricultural Marketing, 2(2): 145-151.

Vasudeva, N. and Chowdry, K. R., 1999, marketing of tomato in And Pradesh.Indian Journal of

Agricultural Marketing, 13(2): 53.

impact assessment study of laser land leveling as …

Documents