impact assessment study on tunnel technology …

IMPACT ASSESSMENT STUDY ON TUNNEL TECHNOLOGY UNDER THE PROJECT

“Promotion of High Value Agriculture through Provision of Climate Smart Technology Package”

Monitoring & Evaluation Consultants of Punjab Irrigated Agriculture Productivity

Improvement Project (PIPIP)

Punjab Irrigated-Agriculture Productivity Improvement Project (PIPIP)

Impact Assessment of Tunnel Technology

1-1

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 i i @ ki

Associated Consulting Engineers ACE – (Pvt.) Ltd.



1-2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. TUNNEL FARMING AND THE PROJECT ............................................................................. 1‐6

1.1 Prelude ...................................................................................................................................................... 1-6

1.2 Project Brief ............................................................................................................................................... 1-6

1.3 Critical Factors for the Success of Tunnel Farming ................................................................................. 1-7

1.3.1 Need for Raising Awareness ....................................................................................................... 1-7

1.4 Project Objectives ..................................................................................................................................... 1-8

1.5 Tunnel Technology ................................................................................................................................... 1-8

1.5.1 General Characteristics of Tunnel Installed under the Project .................................................... 1-9

1.5.2 General Specifications of Walking Tunnel Installed under the Project ..................................... 1-10

1.6 Benefits of Tunnel Technology ............................................................................................................... 1-10

2. METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH ..................................................................................2‐12

2.1 Purpose of the Impact Evaluation ........................................................................................................... 2-12

2.2 Indicators of the Impact Assessment Study ........................................................................................... 2-12

2.3 Approach & Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 2-12

2.3.1 Team Composition ..................................................................................................................... 2-13

2.4 Selection Criterion/Characteristics of the Tunnel Farmers..................................................................... 2-13

2.4.1 Samples Covered ....................................................................................................................... 2-13

2.4.2 Data Analysis / Evaluation ......................................................................................................... 2-13

3. Results and Discussion of Tunnel Farming Versus Conventional Method of Vegetables

Cultivation ............................................................................................................................... 3‐1

3.1 Tunnel Farming ......................................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Land Holding Status .................................................................................................................................. 3-1

3.3 Transferred from Surface irrigation to Drip Irrigation System .................................................................. 3-1

3.4 Transformation from Conventional Cropping System to Tunnel Farming................................................ 3-2

3.5 Cost of Production and Net Income .......................................................................................................... 3-2

3.6 Net Income ................................................................................................................................................ 3-4

3.7 Employment Generation ........................................................................................................................... 3-5

3.8 Farmer’s Livelihood ................................................................................................................................... 3-5

3.9 Comparison and Economic Evaluation of Tunnel Technologies .............................................................. 3-5

4. Economical Option of Investment in Selecting Motive Power for Pumping Water to HEIS 4‐7

4.1 What is Motive Power ............................................................................................................................... 4-7

4.2 Approach and Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 4-7

4.2.1 Basic Parameters for the Optimization Analysis .......................................................................... 4-7

4.2.2 Lifecycle Cost Calculations .......................................................................................................... 4-8

4.2.3 Capital Investment Costs ............................................................................................................. 4-8

4.2.4 Operation and Maintenance Costs .............................................................................................. 4-8

4.3 Annuitized Costs ....................................................................................................................................... 4-8



1-3

4.4 Comparison of operational cost of HEIS operated by different source of Energy in Cucumber crop ..... 4-9

4.5 Summary and Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 4-10

ANNEXURES ............................................................................................................................4‐11

ANNEXURE‐A ..........................................................................................................................4‐12

ANNEXURE‐B ..........................................................................................................................4‐13

ANNEXURE‐C ..........................................................................................................................4‐14

ANNEXURE‐D ..........................................................................................................................4‐15

ANNEXURE‐E ...........................................................................................................................4‐16

ANNEXURE‐F .................................................................................................................................

Data Collection Instrument for Tunnel Farming .............................................................................

Glimpses .......................................................................................................................................



1-4

LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1: General Specifications of Walking Tunnel ......................................................................... 1‐10

Table 3.1: Distribution of Sample according to Farm Ownership ........................................................ 3‐1

Table 3.2: Distribution of Sample according to Area converted from Conventional Irrigation to HEIS

due to Project Intervention ................................................................................................................. 3‐1

Table 3.3: Comparison of cost of production and net income of cucumber crop for the year 2016‐17

on one acre under walk in tunnel on drip and surface irrigation at sample farms ............................. 3‐3

Table 3.4: Net Income of vegetables with and without Drip irrigation ............................................... 3‐4

Table 3.5: Person‐Days used in tunnel farming and conventional farming in different Agriculture

practices ............................................................................................................................................... 3‐5

Table 3.6: Financial inputs and outputs at One Acre under Tunnel Farming (Rs 000) ........................ 3‐6

Table 4.1: Summary of Capital and Operational Costs of all the Three Motive Power Systems ........ 4‐9

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure ‐ 1.1: Project Area Map ........................................................................................................... 1‐11

Figure ‐ 3.1: Percent of sample area shifted from conventional farming to tunnel farming .............. 3‐2

Figure ‐ 3.2: Comparison of Average Yield, Average cost of production and Average net income of

cucumber under tunnel and without tunnel ....................................................................................... 3‐3

Figure ‐ 3.3: Comparison of net Income under tunnel and without tunnel ........................................ 3‐4



1-5

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



1-6

1. TUNNEL FARMING AND THE PROJECT

1.1 Prelude

Growing out-of-season crops in controlled atmosphere inside polythene tunnel is called

Tunnel Farming. It was first introduced by William Fredrick 2600 years before. High tunnels,

also known as hoop houses, are relatively simple polyethylene-covered unheated structures.

It covered with one or two sheets of plastic and two layer offering better insulation and

consequently more cold protection. It gives maximum yield of crops and makes easy soil

preparation, picking and spraying due to its width and height. It’s much suitable for tomatoes,

cucumber and sweet pepper.

The vegetable demand is increasing day by day but the production of the same is stagnant

rather decreasing resulting in continuous increase in vegetable prices. There is, therefore, a

dire need to adopt specialized technologies to ensure vertical growth in vegetable production

i.e. tunnel technology coupled with high efficiency irrigation systems for off-season vegetable

production, which has the capacity produced about 8-10 times more production than open

fields from the same unit area.

Besides the tunnel farming (low, middle and high tunnels), the report also brief covers about

the hydroponic culture for developing the vegetable farming. The analysis also evaluates

and makes comparison determining most economical option for the motive power for running

high efficiency irrigation system amongst the energy sources as solar, diesel and electric.

However, the farmers in Pakistan have yet not been able to harvest reasonable benefits

from this technology and still using traditional methods. Moreover In the absence of storage

infrastructure and vegetable processing industry in the country, off-season vegetables

farming is the only viable option that can add value to the farmers produce.

1.2 Project Brief

The Directorate of On Farm Water Management (OFWM) has provided tunnel structure to

50 farmers covering an area of 327 acres all over the Punjab in 2016-17. All the 50 farmers

have received 50 percent of the cost of tunnel structure as subsidy from the OFWM under

the programme of Promotion of High Value Agriculture through Provision of Climate Smart

Technology Package. All tunnel farmers under the project have also been provided drip

irrigation system at their tunnel/fields under the PIPIP. The Component of tunnel farming is a

part of “KISSAN Package” program of Chief Minister of Punjab. HEIS is being provided to

the farmers as a part of the component of PIPIP.

Promotion of high value agriculture through provision of climate smart technology package is

being implemented in the entire irrigated and barani areas of the Punjab province with the



1-7

financial assistance of ADB. The proposed project, in combination with the World Bank

funded project namely Punjab Irrigated Agriculture Productivity (PIPIP) aims to maximize

productivity of precious crop production inputs (water, fertilizer, energy etc.), besides

enhancement in crop yields such as ; (a) raising awareness and mobilization of farmers to

adopt Hi-Tech agriculture technologies for crop and water productivity enhancement; (b)

Provision of Solar Systems to the farmers for operating High Efficiency Irrigation Systems on

20,000 acres; (c) Support farmers for installation of tunnels on 3,000 acres at HEIS installed

farms for growing high value crops/ off season vegetables.

There is huge gap between the potential yield of the progressive growers and yield of

conventional growers. For example, in case of open field of tomato, potential is about 16.19

tons per acre whereas average yield of progressive growers is even less than the half of

potential i.e. 7.21 tons per acre and yield of conventional growers is averaging around 3.85

tons per acre. In addition, there is spatial variability in yields as the same is high in major

crop growing areas and comparatively low in other areas.

In recent past, Government of the Punjab has re-visited its priorities to enhance the

vegetable production in the province and launched different projects i.e. “Fruit & Vegetable

Development Project Punjab” and “Enhancing Vegetable Production in Punjab”.

1.3 Critical Factors for the Success of Tunnel Farming

Following are the critical factors need to be address for the success of the project.

1.3.1 Need for Raising Awareness

The growers using or have intention to adopt technology of tunnel farming/ off-season

vegetables need to be aware about critical factors described below.

Low share of area under vegetables

Seasonality of vegetable production

Conventional production technologies

Ensure that the plant they are planning to grow must have the ability to self-pollinate under the plastic sheet.

Selection of the seed is most important factor because this determines the productivity of the crop.

Only the vegetables in demand should be cultivated this will help in earning adequate profit margins.

Timing of cultivation of different types of vegetables has to be followed strictly.



1-8

1.4 Project Objectives

The key objective of the project has been designed to maximize productivity of precious crop

production inputs (water, fertilizer, energy etc.), besides enhancement in crop yields. The

undertaking will have following key objectives.

Enhance crop and water productivity through optimal use of water and non-water

inputs by application of modern irrigated agriculture development technologies.

Support production of off-season vegetable through tunnel technology to meet the

domestic demands and for export.

Promote use of renewable energy in agriculture for promoting irrigated agriculture in

remote areas.

Build farmers' capability at grass roots level for growing high value crops to get

higher farm returns for alleviating poverty.

Create job opportunities in rural areas through introduction of climate smart

technologies for high value irrigated agriculture.

The proposed project objectives are consistent with overall objectives of the agriculture

sector for increasing farm productivity, ensuring food security, reducing cultivation costs,

enhancing farm returns, economic uplift of small farmers, and improving agricultural

economy of the country as a whole.

1.5 Tunnel Technology

Growing out-of- season crops in controlled environment inside polythene tunnels is called

Tunnel Farming. In Pakistan, this kind of farming is normally adopted for off-season

cultivation of summer vegetables. As it is not possible to grow summer vegetable in open

fields from December to February due to low temperature and high frost levels, so these are

grown inside polythene tunnels so that proper environment may be given to plants for their

maximum growth and yield. Because of controlled atmosphere, Tunnel farming is the source

of higher yields and earlier production, and this earlier and quality produce gives good profits

to farmers. For this reason, modern and progressive farmers of Pakistan are adopting this

advance mode of farming at a faster pace.

Weather remains moderate in the province of Sindh, so we get early summer crops in this

province. But in Punjab and other areas of Pakistan, Tunnel farming is the only way to get

off-season production of summer vegetables. Tunnel farming involves constructing tunnels

like Greenhouses i.e. hut-like structures swathed in plastic that serve as cocoons for growing

cucumber, tomato, pepper, carrot and lettuce etc. In addition to summer vegetables,

production of strawberry inside tunnels has also become very popular now a days.



1-9

The idea of tunnel farming is to shield the crops from the elements and trap the heat of the

sun, extending the growing season and increasing production. Tunnel farming is gaining

acceptance among educated farmers as it provides them with an opportunity to save the

input resources by using less than 40 per cent water, fertilizer and other resources under

controlled conditions. Through tunnel farming, it is possible to overcome the three main

impediments that impact agricultural growth: those include chronic water shortages, low yield

per acre and low value of crop production.

Tunnel farming operates on the principle of creating conditions during winter that are

equivalent to those of summers. The vegetables of summer season are then cultivated in

these tunnels during winter. The entire farming area is covered by transparent polythene

sheath fixed over D-shaped Bamboo/steel/aluminum pipes. The soil/growing media is also

covered with black colored polythene sheath with small holes in which the seeds are sown

called the mulching. The sunlight during the day passes through transparent polythene

sheath and is absorbed by the black sheath spread over the soil/growing media. This raises

the temperature to the desired level inside the tunnel. The plastic sheet on the soil serves

three purposes: i) First it traps heat, ii) it reduces water loss and iii) it eliminates growth of

weeds enormously.

It is well established fact that irrigation water is the most critical factor in crop production and

its efficient use enhances productivity of other non-water inputs as well. The Punjab is facing

severe shortage of irrigation water for many years now and on the other hand, there is

inefficient use of available resources. The same is resulting in much lower agricultural

productivity from highly productive resource base of the province. High efficiency irrigation

systems (HEIS) have been found water and nutrient efficient and most appropriate option to

address various crop production issues. Growing vegetables with drip irrigation provides

more economic return than the conventional irrigation system as it reduces cost of

production and gives better yield. Agriculture Department (Water Management) provides drip

irrigation system on subsidized program to the farmers of the Punjab. Crop yields can be

increased through improved water and fertility management and reduced disease and weed

pressure. When drip irrigation is used with polyethylene mulch, yields can increase even

further.

1.5.1 General Characteristics of Tunnel Installed under the Project

Off Season Vegetables being cultivated

Cucumber

Sowing November 2016

Harvesting May 2017



1-10

Capsicum

Sowing November 2016

Harvesting May 2017

Average Intensity prevailing intensity is practiced as Cucumber 68% and Capsicum 32%.

1.5.2 General Specifications of Walking Tunnel Installed under the Project

Generally the specification of walking tunnel are described and approved as below;

Table 1.1: General Specifications of Walking Tunnel

Sr. No.

Item Detail Qty Unit Unit Cost

Total Cost

1 GI‐Pipe (Arch) Dia 3/4 inch, length 20 ft., gauge‐14 5 No. 1,050 5,250

2 GI‐Pipe (Arch) Dia 1/2 inch, length 20 ft., gauge‐14 16 No. 900 14,400

3 Iron bar Dia 6‐sooter and length 1.5 ft., iron bar per arch, 2x4=8 (1‐iron bar=1kg)

10 Kg 75 750

4 Iron Bar Dia 3‐sooter and length 1.5 ft., iron bar per arch, 2x16=32 (1‐iron bar=1/2kg)

32 Kg 75 2400

5 Bending/Welding exp. 21 No. 10 210

6 Washer 1.5 mm thickness 10 No. 10 100

7 Washer 9 mm thickness 32 No. 10 320

8 GI‐Wire (8‐Number) Dia‐3mm (3wires of 200ft length (200x3=600) (80ft. wire=1Kg)

8 Kg 150 1,200

9 Polythene Sheet Black .02 mm thickness 2.5 Kg 250 625

10 Plastic Sheet 6‐gage, width 12 ft. length 200 ft. 12 Kg 250 3,000

11 Labour LS Rs. ‐ 1,500

12 Door with frame LS Rs. ‐ 2,500

13 G. Total Rs. ‐ 32,255

14 Tunnels per acre No. ‐ 14

15 Total Exp. Per acre Rs. ‐ 451,570

1.6 Benefits of Tunnel Technology

Plant population can easily be maintained as per recommendation.

Temperature and humidity is artificially maintained according to requirement of the

vegetables, which helps in rapid growth and maximum yield.

Efficient use of fertilizers and water results in increased vegetables production.

Vegetables cultivated in tunnels can be managed easily due to smaller area.

As vegetables are covered with plastic sheet, attack of insets/ pests is minimum

resulting in lesser use of insecticides.

Weeds are easily controlled through black plastic mulching.



1-11

Production and income increase is manifolds i.e. 8-10 times as compared to open

field cultivation.

Figure ‐ 1.1: Project Area Map



2-12

2. METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH

2.1 Purpose of the Impact Evaluation

The project’s main objective is to maximize the productivity of precious crop production

inputs (water, fertilizer, energy etc.), besides enhancement of crop yields. The impact

evaluation provides an opportunity to assess (i) the increase in the income of the farmers

who shift from traditional crops to high value agriculture, transfer from conventional irrigation

system to drip irrigation system (ii) social benefits (iii) environmental impact and (iv)

employment generation.

2.2 Indicators of the Impact Assessment Study

For impact assessment study following indicators were selected;

1) Maximization of the crop productivity

2) Reduction in cost of production

3) Shifting from traditional crops to high Value Agriculture

4) Employment generation

5) Social Impact

6) Environmental Effect

2.3 Approach & Methodology

Out of the total 50 farmers to whom the technology is provided during 2016-17, sample of 12

farmers were randomly selected for impact assessment study. A questionnaire was

developed for collection of data from sampled farmers has been attached as Annex-F. A

team was constituted for collection of data from the farmer’s located all over the Punjab. The

data was collected regarding crop yield, cost of production, area of vegetables grown,

employment generation and social impact. The data collected was transferred on an excel

sheet to facilitate tabulation. The analysis of the data was done by developing linked sheets

in XLS.

The qualitative data were also discussed, recorded and interpreted to describe the impact in

general. It is notable that all tunnel farmers under consideration have drip irrigation for

watering the tunnel crop.

In addition, a private agriculture farm practicing “Hydroponic Tunnel Farming” located at

Sharq Pur nearby Lahore was also visited by the senior team members of the M&E

Consultants and some data was recorded for comparison and for interest, as there is no

hydroponic farm established under the project.



2-13

2.3.1 Team Composition

The data from the sampled farms was collected by the following team.

(i) Ch. Arshad Ali (Project Co-originator)

(ii) Tahir Mehmood (Field Agronomist)

The analysis and review of the findings were done by the senior technical team members

and the Project Economist.

2.4 Selection Criterion/Characteristics of the Tunnel Farmers

The following were the parameters defined for random selection of the tunnel farmer as part

of the impact evaluation study.

It should be a representative farm, means in general look like having an average and

standardized characteristics of the interventions (Tunnel and drip irrigation)

It must have operative tunnel farming in place

The sample tunnel farm should be representative in characters as described under

the project.

Irrigation system should comprised of:

Tunnel installed under the project

Year of tunnel installation 2016-17

2.4.1 Samples Covered

Below are the samples where form the data has been collected.

Non CCA 2 farms (drip irrigation at T/W)

CCA 10 farms (drip irrigation with water of T/W and canal)

2.4.2 Data Analysis / Evaluation

An XLS based linked worksheet model was developed to evaluate the data separately

collected for;

(i) Tunnel farming for the most popular and extensively cultivated vegetable crops

which are (a) cucumber and (b) capsicum with the irrigation using drip system

(HEIS).

(ii) Tunnel farming for the most popular and extensively cultivated vegetable crops

which are (a) cucumber and (b) capsicum using conventional Irrigation by

applying surface water (canal) for the crops covered in samples under tunnel

farming, this was particularly kept in view for comparing the results/ returns being

accrued the farms using different technologies.



2-14

(iii) Conventional farming cultivating the vegetables and for the vegetables same as

the sample collected for the vegetables being cultivated at the tunnel farming i.e.

(a) cucumber and (b) capsicum. The selection of similar crops was particularly

kept in view for comparing the results/ returns to investment with the tunnel

farming;

(iv) The same crops, i.e. Cucumber and Capsicum being cultivated at farms defined

as “Hydroponic Technology”. This technology is new in Pakistan and not being

funded under the project. Due to the fact that the hydroponic technology is very

much costly, there are limited sites available to visit and established in the

private sector where the project does not have any access. However, for the

interest of the readers and on the recommendation of the worthy Secretary

Agriculture, the information was collected and evaluated and

(v) Data was collected and compared from a number of sites about the capital and

operational cost of drip irrigation system with particular focus on its energy

source for pumping the water into HEIS for irrigating the fields. Towards this end,

the sites were selected with similar HEIS, farm size, crops and representing the

project. The only difference was considered that was motive power being used

for pumping water in HEIS. The comparison has been made among three

energy sources: (a) irrigation water is being pumped into HEIS using the diesel

engine; (b) irrigation water is being pumped imto HEIS using energy source by

installing electric driven motor and pump; and (c) Solar energy is being used for

the pumping water into the HEIS.



3-1

3. Results and Discussion of Tunnel Farming Versus Conventional Method of Vegetables Cultivation

3.1 Tunnel Farming

Below is the details and the analysis of data collected of the samples drawn for tunnel

farming for comparing with the outcomes of farms who are cultivating the similar vegetables

using different irrigation of farming technologies.

3.2 Land Holding Status

Data reveals that 42 percent of total sample farms have land holding from 10 to 20 acres. It

shows that farmers avail the project opportunity are medium farmers who has installed drip

irrigation for tunnel farming.

Table 3.1: Distribution of Sample according to Farm Ownership

Farm Area Average Farm Size

(Acre) Frequency Percent

<10 6.33 3 25

10‐49.99 11.70 5 42

50‐99.99 70.00 1 8

100‐199.99 128.33 3 25

Total 12 100

3.3 Transferred from Surface irrigation to Drip Irrigation System

The analysis reveals that 7 farmers (58%) installed tunnel along with conversion from

traditional irrigation system to drip irrigation. Whereas the remaining 5 farmers (42 %) has

already drip irrigation system at their farms. Out of these 5 farmers two were already doing

tunnel farming on drip irrigation system. All these 5 farmers received drip irrigation system

from the project and also extended the area under their tunnel farming.

Table 3.2: Distribution of Sample according to Area converted from Conventional Irrigation to HEIS due to Project Intervention

Area Converted to HEIS (Acre) Frequency Percent

0 ‐ 3.99 3 25

4 ‐ 9.99 7 58

10 ‐ 15.99 2 17

Total 12 100



3-2

The water management wing offered tunnel conditionally and allowed only if the farmer also

adopt transformation of conventional irrigation system to drip irrigation system, though

partially and even limited to the extent of tunnel farming.

3.4 Transformation from Conventional Cropping System to Tunnel Farming

Due to less market price of different crops, farmers did not getting sufficient profit from

cotton, rice, maize and sugarcane crops. Therefore, farmers shifted from conventional

farming system to tunnel farming to increase their income. Total area of sample farmers is

estimated as 533 acres, out of which 152 acres area was shifted from conventional farming

to tunnel farming due to project intervention as shown in Figure 3.1. Out of total sample, one

sample from kamalia told his complete story. He said that he lot of loss from cotton crop in

2015-16 years. He said that he decided to shift from convention farming to tunnel farming in

2016-17. After that farmer installed drip irrigation system on 7 acres and got 7 cares tunnel

structure on 50 % subsidy. Now a days that farmer is satisfied on shifting from conventional

farming system to high value agriculture.

Figure - 3.1: Percent of sample area shifted from conventional farming to tunnel farming

3.5 Cost of Production and Net Income

Agriculture Department (Water Management) providing the tunnel structure on 50% subsidy

to farmers. Due to subsidy on tunnel structure, cost of production decreased and net income

increased. Data shows that total cost of production of vegetables under the tunnel which was

provided to farmers on 50 % subsidy on drip irrigation is less as compared to the cost of

production of vegetables under the tunnel which was purchased farmer itself and grow

vegetables on surface irrigation is more. Data reveals that average yield has been increased

74 % which was may be due to the drip irrigation system. Similarly, average cost of

Total Area of the Sample FarmsSample Area shifted from conventional farming to tunnel farming



3-3

production of vegetables grown drip irrigation system with subsidized tunnel structure has

been decreased to 14 % as compared to vegetables grown surface irrigation under the

tunnel without subsidy due to the 50 % subsidized project which was provided by the OFWM

department. Net income of sample farm has been also increased by 109% due to tunnel

structure and drip irrigation system.

Table 3.3: Comparison of cost of production and net income of cucumber crop for the year 2016‐17

on one acre under walk in tunnel on drip and surface irrigation at sample farms

Parameters Cultivation of Cucumber under Tunnel with Drip

Irrigation

Cultivation of Cucumber under tunnel with Surface Irrigation

Impact due to Project Intervention

(+/‐)

Average Yield (kg) 61200 35100 +74 %

Average Cost of Production (Rs.)

374514 436104 ‐14 %

Net Income per acre (Rs.)

298686 143046 +109 %

Figure ‐ 3.2: Comparison of Average Yield, Average cost of production and Average net

income of cucumber under tunnel and without tunnel

Cucumber under Tunnel with Drip Irrigation Cucumber without tunnel with Surface Irrigation

Average Yield (Kg) Average Cost of Production (Rs) (RS.)

Net Income per Acre (RS.)



3-4

3.6 Net Income

Data below in the table shows that net income of the cucumber has been increased 109 %

as compared to cucumber grow without tunnel. Similarly, net income of capsicum also has

been increased 64 % as compared to capsicum grown without tunnel. It shows that project

intervention has increased the income of the farmers and create a positive impact on the

farmer’s income.

Table 3.4: Net Income of vegetables with and without Drip irrigation

Crop Name

Net Income under Tunnel Farming

with drip irrigation (Rs.)

Net Income under Tunnel Farming with surface irrigation

(Rs)

Impact in Monitory Terms due to

Project Intervention (Rs)

Percent of Increase due to Project

(+/‐)

Cucumber 298686 143046 155640 +109 %

Capsicum 208036 126700 81336 +64 %

Figure - 3.3: Comparison of net Income under tunnel and without tunnel

Rs.389236 Rs.208036

Cucumber (RS.) Capsicum (Rs.)

Impact

Impact

Impact

Cucumber and Capsicum under Tunnel with Drip Irrigation Cucumber and Capsicum under tunnel with Surface Irrigation Increased in Net Income due to project intervention

Impact

Impact



3-5

3.7 Employment Generation

Tunnel farming required more labours to operate different agriculture practices. Following

analysis reveal that an average 15 man-days are required in conventional farming and an

average 84 man-days are required in tunnel farming for different agriculture practices like

land preparation, sowing, harvesting and post-harvest handling. Therefore, 69 man-days are

more required in tunnel farming and it produces a positive impact to generate an amount Rs.

34500 for labour opportunity.

Table 3.5: Person‐Days used in tunnel farming and conventional farming in different

Agriculture practices

Agriculture Practices Tunnel Farming

(Man‐Days)

Conventional Farming

(Man‐Days)

Impact due to Tunnel Farming

(Man‐Days)

Impact due to Tunnel Farming

(Rs.)

Land Preparation‐Person Days 1 1

69 34500

Sowing Transplanting & Intercultural Labor‐Person Days

13 0

Harvesting Labor Person‐Days 50 6

Threshing‐Person Days 0 3

Post‐harvest handling Man‐Days 20 5

Total 84 15

3.8 Farmer’s Livelihood

Those farmers who has received tunnel structure on subsidy got more net income as

compared to conventional farming system. Because tunnel structure on subsidy decreased

the cost of production and increased the profit. Some farmers of the sample farm are going

to start allied services like dairy farming and poultry farming from the income of the tunnel

farming. Some farmers maintain their houses and increased the cultivation land on leased.

Therefore, project intervention produced a positive impact on their lives and behaviour.

3.9 Comparison and Economic Evaluation of Tunnel Technologies

Hydroponics, by definition, is a method of growing plants in a water based, nutrient rich

solution. Hydroponics does not use soil, instead the root system is supported using an inert

medium such as perlite, rockwool, clay pellets, peat moss, or vermiculite.

There is new technology being introduced in Pakistan and its initial stage. On the

recommendation of worthy Secretary Agriculture Punjab, a farm was visited by M&E team

and some interesting information was collected which is being reproduced here for

comparison to tunnel farming.



3-6

Table 3.6: Financial inputs and outputs at One Acre under Tunnel Farming (Rs 000)

Sr. No Description Hydroponic Farming

Tunnel Farming With Drip Irrigation

Tunnel Farming With Surface Irrigation

1 Capital Investment for one acre 20,000 439 251

2 Average Economic Life of Structure (Years) 15 15 15

3 Amortized annual cost @ 12% Interest rate 2,936 64 37

4 Annual Running Expenses 4,000 375 436

5 Annualized cost over economic life 6,936 439 473

6 Gross Annual Revenues 8,000 673 563

7 Net Profit before recovery of capital 4,000 299 127

8 Net Profit with recovery of Capital 1,064 234 90

9 Payback period (Years) 2.5 5.0 1.88

10 FIRR 12% 31% 15%



4-7

4. Economical Option of Investment in Selecting Motive Power for Pumping Water to HEIS

4.1 What is Motive Power

In broader sense the motive power is defined as means of supplying power to an engine,

vehicle or motor. In case of HEIS, the motive power is defined as the source of energy

required to pump the water into the system placed for irrigating the farmers’ field. For

comparison, the basic assumptions of technical parameters are as summarized below.

All the equipment and component of the equipment starting from the pump to the

field have been assumed identical

From energy source to pump, all the fittings and equipment is considered similar for

comparison amongst the three; (i) Solar System; (ii) Electric system to rum the pump;

or (iii) diesel Engine required to run the pump.

The pump is considered to draw the water from the source and deliver to the high

efficiency irrigation system (HEIS) for irrigation in the fields

Both the capital and operational costs have been considered and annuitized for

evaluating the most economical option.

4.2 Approach and Methodology

4.2.1 Basic Parameters for the Optimization Analysis

The economical comparison between all the photovoltaic system, diesel system and electric

driven system needs some parameters such as:

Initial or fixed investment cost.

Operational costs, maintenance cost and administrative costs.

Required power and the power that can be generated by the system under

consideration.

Lifecycle cost calculation analysis of each system

Using parameters that has been determined under the study and data collected from various

sources, an analysis has been carried out by developing XLS linked worksheet model in

combination with the HOMER simulation analytical model for the optimized solution of

energy in term of costs. The analysis considered the lowest lifecycle cost between these



4-8

4.2.2 Lifecycle Cost Calculations

Lifecycle cost consists of capital costs, maintenance costs, operational costs, fuel costs and

equipment salvage value. This calculation method approximated by using a discounted cash

flow factor (DCF). By using DCF, all future costs such as maintenance over the different life

cycle of all the three systems under consideration have been converted to the equivalent

present value.

4.2.3 Capital Investment Costs

Capital cost of PV arrangement (solar power), the cable network, supporting structure,

installation, inverters and associated electronic components has been estimated based upon

the prevailing market prices. Similarly, separate sets of costs have been developed for the

diesel engine and allied system as well as the electric driven system associated costs

needed to run identical irrigation system for the same area of farm fields to irrigate during a

specific period of time.

All the prices and estimates have been made at the level of December 2017 price levels.

4.2.4 Operation and Maintenance Costs

Annual operation and maintenance costs has also been estimated separately for all the

three systems under consideration.

4.3 Annuitized Costs

All the capital and operational costs have been annuitized for comparison of all the three

systems under consideration. For simplicity no salvage value has been accounted for any of

the system.

The Tables below summarizes all the cost and other data.



4-9

Table 4.1: Summary of Capital and Operational Costs of all the Three Motive Power Systems

Primovers Unit Diesel Electrical Solar

A. Capital Investment Costs

HEIS cost 5 acres on orchard Rs 769,205 807,325 865,000

HEIS cost 5 acres on vegetables Rs 1,015,190 1,045,520 2,030,000

HEIS cost 15 acres on orchard Rs 1,634,775 1,698,870 1,174,995

HEIS cost 15 acres on vegetables Rs 2,380,830 2,528,130 2,800,005

Average cost of the HEIS System Rs 1,450,000 1,519,961 1,717,500

Useful Life of the System Years 5 10 15

Amortized Cost of the System @ 12% DCF Rs/Year 402,244 269,009 252,171

B. Annual Operational Costs

Management cost Rs./Year 4,500 3,500 2,000

Operational Hours per Year Hours 1,226 1,577 4,380

Water Pumped Out AF 101 101 101

Diesel Consumption Litre/Hour 3 ‐ ‐

Rate of Diesel Rs./Litre 89 ‐ ‐

Other Lubricants and Necessary Maintenance Rs./Year 3,560 1,500 1,000

Unit Consumption kWh ‐ 8 ‐

Electricity Rate Rs/kWh ‐ 11 ‐

R&M Cost Rs./Year 6,500 6,000 ‐

Total Operational Cost per Year Rs./Year 340,169 143,451 6,000

Annuitized Costs including Capital and Operational Costs

Rs/Year 742,413 412,460 255,171

4.4 Comparison of operational cost of HEIS operated by different source of Energy in Cucumber crop

A survey was conducted in district Faisalabad of cucumber’s farmers to evaluate the

operational cost of HEIS operated by different source of energy in cucumber crop. The figure

below shows that diesel operated HEIS has high operational cost Rs. 26,283 as compared

to electric operated Rs. 13,408 and solar operated Rs. 33,00 per acre/season of cucumber.

Study reveal that HEIS should be operated through solar system.



4-10

Figure - 4.1: Comparison of operational cost of HEIS operated by different source of energy

4.5 Summary and Conclusion

The economical comparison between solar PV, diesel operative system and electric

operative system for placing the HEIS for irrigating the fields were analysed using lifecycle

cost calculation, annual operational costs with combination to HOMER simulation model for

optimization. The analysis provided that using photovoltaic for water pumping system only

spend 66% less cost if compared to the system installed with diesel operative mechanism

and about 38% less costs if compared to the electric driven system. On the other hand,

HOMER analysis shows that the cost oCOE value for photovoltaic usage is 34 Rs/kWh, and

COE value for diesel generator is 43 Rs/kWh. Photovoltaic technology is the appropriate

technology for water pumping energy source that can be implemented in rural area as Tepus

district, Gunung Kidul, DIY. This analysis use subsidized fuel price in Indonesia, it points out

that the chance of renewable energy development could be cheaper than conventional

energy.



4-11

ANNEXURES



4-12

ANNEXURE-A COST OF PRODUCTION AND NET INCOME OF CUCUMBER CROP FOR THE YEAR 2016‐17 ON ONE ACRE UNDER WALK IN

TUNNEL THROUGH DRIP IRRIGATION

Sr. No Name of Operation Unit No/Qty Rate/Unit Expenses

1 Seed Bed Preparation

a Furrow turning Nos. 2 1000 2000

b Cultivator Nos. 3 800 2400

c Rotavator Nos. 2 1200 2400

d Planking Nos. 3 600 1800

2 Cost of Seed Packs 15 3600 54000

3 Cost of Nursery Raising Rs. 6000

4 Cost of Manure & Fertilizer

a FYM (trolleys) Nos. 2 1600 3200

b Labour of applying FYM (Men) Nos. 2 400 800

c DAP Bags Bags 2 2800 5600

d Urea Bags Bags 1 1400 1400

e SOP (25 Kg) Water Soluble Bags 4 4500 18000

F NPK (20:20:20) 25 Kg Water Soluble Bags 6 4000 24000

G Labour of Applying Fertilizer (Men) Nos. 2 400 800

5 a Bed marking with ridger Rs. 1 2000 2000

b Sowing / transplanting Nos. 8 300 2400

6 Cost of irrigation

a Drip Irrigation Rs. 20350

b Labour charges for irrigation (M/D) Rs. 10 500 5000

c Labour charges for Earthing up & weeding Nos. 4 500 2000

d Plant protection charges (No. of Spray+Man) Nos. 15 1400 21000

7 Harvesting

a Harvesting (W/D) Nos. 140 300 42000

b Handling (M/D) Nos. 30 500 15000

c Transportation charges Nos. 30 2000 60000

8 Baskets / Cartons / Crates/Jali Nos. 1360 30 40800

9 Land revenue & other taxes Nos. 0 0 0

10 Land rent for six months Nos.

a Tunnel Cost of walk in Tunnel (10 years life) on 50% Subsidy Total Cost= 325000/acre, After Sussidy = 162500

Rs. 0.1 162500 16250

b Plastic Sheet (@ 50 % Subsdiy) Kg 210 210 22050

c Hanging Wire for Net (40 Kg for 3 Years) Rs. 0.34 9600 3264

Total Expenditure

11 a Interest on capital @ 10% of total Exp.

12 b Invisible charges Rs. 0

13 Total cost of production Rs. 374514

14 Total Yield (kg) Kg 61200

15 Average Rate Per Kg Rs. 11 673200

16 Net Income per acre (Rs.) Rs. 298686



4-13

ANNEXURE-B COST OF PRODUCTION AND NET INCOME OF CUCUMBER CROP FOR THE YEAR 2016‐17 ON ONE ACRE UNDER WALK IN TUNNEL

THROUGH FURROW IRRIGATION














e SOP (50 Kg) Bags 6 3800 22800

f Nitophous (50 Kg) Bags 10 2600 26000

g SOP (25 Kg) Water Soluble Bags 4 4500 18000

h NPK (20:20:20) 25 Kg Water Soluble Bags 4 4000 16000

i Labour of Applying Fertilizer (Men) Nos. 2 400 800




a Furrow Irrigation (Tubewell) Rs. 45000

b Cleaning of Watercourse (M/D) Rs. 4 500 2000

c Labour charges for irrigation (M/D) Rs. 15 500 7500

d Labour charges for Earthing up & weeding Nos. 4 500 2000

e Plant protection charges (No. of Spray+Man) Nos. 26 1400 36400

7 Harvesting




e Packing Bags Nos. 780 30 23400

f Land revenue & other taxes Nos. 0 0 0

g Land rent for six months Nos.

h Tunnel Cost of walk in Tunnel (10 years life) Total Cost= 325000/acre Rs. 0.1 325000 32500

i Plastic Sheet Kg 210 210 44100

j Hanging Wire for Net (40 Kg for 3 Years) Rs. 0.34 9600 3264

8 Total Expenditure

a Interest on capital @ 10% of total Exp.

b Invisible charges Rs. 10000



11 Average Rate Per Kg Rs. 16.5 579150

12 Net Income per acre (Rs.) Rs. 143046



4-14

ANNEXURE-C

COST OF PRODUCTION AND NET INCOME OF CAPSICUM CROP FOR THE YEAR 2016‐17 ON ONE ACRE UNDER WALK IN TUNNEL THROUGH DRIP IRRIGATION














e SOP (25 Kg) Water Soluble Bags 6 4500 27000

F NPK (20:20:20) 25 Kg Water Soluble Bags 10 4000 40000

G Labour of Applying Fertilizer (Men) Nos. 2 400 800




a Drip Irrigation Rs. 30000

b Labour charges for irrigation (M/D) Rs. 10 500 5000

c Labour charges for Earthing up & weeding Nos. 4 500 2000

d Plant protection charges (No. of Spray+Man) Nos. 16 1400 22400

7 Harvesting




8 Baskets / Cartons / Crates/Jali Nos. 880 30 26400

9 Land revenue & other taxes Nos. 0 0 0

10 Land rent for six months Nos.

a Tunnel Cost of walk in Tunnel (10 years life) on 50% Subsidy Total Cost= 325000/acre, After Sussidy = 162500

Rs. 0.1 162500 16250

b Plastic Sheet (@ 50 % Subsdiy) Kg 210 210 22050

c Hanging Wire for Net (40 Kg for 3 Years) Rs. 0.34 9600 3264

Total Expenditure

11 a Interest on capital @ 10% of total Exp.

12 b Invisible charges Rs. 10000



15 Rate Per Kg (Expected) Rs. 21 646800

16 Expected Net Income per acre (Rs.) Rs. 208036



4-15

ANNEXURE-D COST OF PRODUCTION AND NET INCOME OF CAPSICUM CROP FOR THE YEAR 2016‐17 ON ONE ACRE UNDER TUNNEL

THROUGH FURROW IRRIGATION














e SOP (50 Kg) Bags 2 3800 7600

f Nitophous (50 Kg) Bags 4 2600 10400

g SOP (25 Kg) Water Soluble Bags 1 4500 4500

h NPK (20:20:20) 25 Kg Water Soluble Bags 1 4000 4000

i Labour of Applying Fertilizer (Men) Nos. 2 400 800




a Furrow Irrigation (Tubewell) Rs. 30000

b Cleaning of Watercourse (M/D) Rs. 4 500 2000

c Labour charges for irrigation (M/D) Rs. 15 500 7500

d Labour charges for Earthing up & weeding Nos. 4 500 2000

e Plant protection charges (No. of Spray+Man) Nos. 14 1400 19600

7 Harvesting




e Baskets / Cartons / Crates/Jali Nos. 400 30 12000

f Land revenue & other taxes Nos. 0 0 0

8 Total Expenditure

a Interest on capital @ 10% of total Exp.

b Invisible charges Rs. 10000



11 Rate Per Kg (Expected) Rs. 21 378000

12 Expected Net Income per acre (Rs.) Rs. 126700



4-16

ANNEXURE-E

List of Tunnel Farming Sample Farms

Sr. No.

Name of Farmer Area under Tunnel

District Division Mobile Number Year of

Installation

1 M Hayat 10 Pakpattan Sahiwal 0300‐8694725 2016‐17

2 Ali Imran 10 Pakpattan Sahiwal 0300‐8694726 2016‐17

3 Asad Tareen 8 Sahiwal Sahiwal 0300‐8277218 2016‐17

4 Ghulam Nabi 4.5 Sahiwal Sahiwal 0300‐6918149 2016‐17

5 Husnain Ali 6.33 T.T. Singh Faisalabad 0321‐7120712 2016‐17

6 M Binyamin 5 T.T. Singh Faisalabad 0302‐5012917 2016‐17

7 Nadeem Javed 5 T.T. Singh Faisalabad 0333‐6881695 2016‐17

8 M Sadiq Jutt 5.4 Faisalabad Faisalabad 0345‐7482949 2016‐17

9 Abdul Qadeer 8 Faisalabad Faisalabad 0334‐6408594 2016‐17

10 M Javed Khan 5 Faisalabad Faisalabad 0334‐6408594 2016‐17

11 M Latif 7 Faisalabad Faisalabad 0300‐8797012 2016‐17

12 Abdul Sattar 9 Faisalabad Faisalabad 0333‐6692035 2016‐17

Data Collection Instrument for Tunnel Farming: Page 1 of 10

Key Code: 1 Self, 2 Son, 3 Daughter, 4 Brother, 5 Sister, 6 Spouse, 7 Employee

ANNEXURE-F

Data Collection Instrument for Tunnel Farming Promotion of High Value Agriculture through Provision of Climate Smart

Technology Package

Impact Assessment Survey for Tunnel Farming Under High Efficiency Irrigation System

Date: ____/____ /__________

Questionnaire # ….………..…..

Respondent ID ……..…....…….

A. Tunnel Farming Detail

1. Tunnel Owner’s Name: ___________________

2. Type of Tunnel: High walk In Low

3. Type of Tunnel Structure: Iron Bamboos

4. Type of Tunnel Pipes:

5. No of Pipes per Acre: _______ Nos.

________Nos.

6. Inner Diameters of Pipes: ________ mm

_________mm

7. Weight per Pipe: ________Kg

________Kg

8. Tunnel Structure Provided SSC Name: ________________

9. Year of Purchasing: ________________ (FY)

10. How many Acres Tunnel Purchased:_______________Acres

11. Total Cost of Tunnel per Acre: ______________Rs.

12. Total Area of Farm:____________ Acres

13. Area Under Tunnel: __________ Acres

14. Tunnel Farm Status: Barani Canal Command Area Non CCA

15. Tunnel Farm Status: HEIS Non HEIS

½” ¾”

½”

¾”

½”

¾”

½”

¾”


Key Code: 1 Self, 2 Son, 3 Daughter, 4 Brother, 5 Sister, 6 Spouse, 7 Employee

16. Satisfaction Level: Fully Satisfied Moderately Not Satisfied

17. Farm Location on WC: Head Middle Tail

18. Name of Tunnel Crops 1:______________________

2:______________________

3:______________________

19. Farm Operated by: Self Employee Shareholder

B. Identification

a. Name of Respondent: _______________________________

b. Relation of Respondent with HEIS Owner: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

c. Cell #: ____________________________________________

d. Village: ___________________________________________

e. Union Council:______________________________________

f. Tehsil:______________________ District:________________ C. Family Profile of HEIS Owner:

a. Total Members: ____________________________________

b. Male Members: ____________________________________

c. Children (<15 yrs.): _________________________________

d. Male Children: _____________________________________

e. Full Time Engaged Family Member:

(i) Male Member________________________________

(ii) Children____________________________________

D. Farm Holding:

1. Land Holding Status of Tunnel’s Owner (Acre):

Total Ownership

Rented in

Rented Out

Total Land Under Control

Total Land Under

Cultivation

Total Abundant

Land (Barren)

Area Under Tunnel


Key Code: 0 No, 1 Yes

2. Irrigation Facilities Available at Farm:

Canal (Acre) Warabandi

(Days) Farm’s Allocated Time (Mins.) Time Required(Self)/

Demand (Mins.) Self Rented

3. Do you Sell Canal Water to Others: (Yes/No)

4. Source of Energy for HEIS: Electric Diesel Solar Gravity

5. Source of Irrigation water for HEIS: Canal Tubewell Canal + T/W

6. Pumping Mechanism : Direct Pond

If Pond Then Pumping: Single Double

7. Tubewells Ownership:

Diesel (No.)

Delivery Pipe Dia

(Inch)

Electrical (No.)

Delivery Pipe Dia

(Inch)

Tractor (No.)

Delivery Pipe Dia

(Inch)

Tubewell Water Trading Sale-1 Purchase-2

Selling Rs./Hr

Purchasing Rs./Hr

8. Status of Ground Water:

Depth of Water Table (ft)

Quality of Ground Water

Fit-1, Marginal-2, Unfit-3

9. Frequency and Mechanism of Filter Cleaning:

a. Combination of Filters (i) Sand Media + Disc Filter-1 (ii) Hydro Cyclone + Disc Filter-2 (iii) Sand Media + Hydro Cyclone + Disc Fliters-3

b. Chocking of Emitters (i) Frequent-1 (ii) Rare-2 (iii) Never-3

c. Mechanism of Emitters Cleaning (i) Indeginious-1 (ii) Acidification/Chlorification-2



E. Benefits of the Tunnel Farming (Yes/No):

Yield Increased

Employment Generation

Farm Income Increased

Quality of the Produce

Increased

Cropping Intensity

Best Use of Fertilizer

What Type of major benefits other than above (If any)

(i) _____________________________________________________________

(ii) _____________________________________________________________


F. Agriculture Practices at Farm Level

1. Agricultural Practices Under Tunnel Farming: Types of Tunnel Tunnel Structure Types

(i) Low Tunnel-1 - Iron-1 (ii) Walk in Tunnel-2 - Bamboos-2 (iii) High Tunnel-3

Name of Tunnel Crop

Name of Variety

Area Under Tunnel (Acre)

Yields Mds./ Acre

Land Preparation Seed gm/ Acre

Sowing/ Transplanting & Intercultural Labour

Total Fertilizer Cost

Trolly/ Acre

Chemicals Total Drip Irrigation

Cost

Harvesting Labour Post-

harvest handling

Man-Days

Total Hired

Person -Days

Other Expense

Rs. Tractor (Rs./ Acre)

Person-

Days

Tractor (Rs./ Acre)

Person -Days

Rs/Acre FYM (Rs./Acre)

% Sprayed

No. of Spray

Rs/Acre Persons-

Days

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Vegetables under Tunnel with Drip Irrigation


2. Agricultural Practices Other than Tunnel Farming:

Crop Area

Cultivated (Acre)

Yields Mds./ Acre

Other Residue

Mds/ Acre

Land Preparation

Seed kg/

Acre

Sowing/ Transplanting &

Intercultural Labour Fertilizer Bag/Acre

Trolley/ Acre

Chemicals

Irrigation Time Hours/Acre

Harvesting Threshing Post-

harvest handling

Man-Days

Total Hired Person -Days Tractor

(Rs./ Acre)

Person- Days

Tractor (Rs./ Acre)

Person -Days

DAP Urea SSP NP SOP FYM (Rs./Acre)

% Sprayed

No. of Spray

Canal T/W Machine

(Rs./ Acre)

Person- Days

Machine (Rs./ Acre)

Person- Days

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Rabi Crops

Wheat

Potato

Vegetable

Vegetable

Berseem

Guara

Other

Kharif Crops

Cotton

Sugar cane

Rice

Maize

Vegetable

Vegetable

Sorghum/Jawar

Maize Fodder

Other


3. Chemicals Application per Acre for All Crops:

Crop (Specify)

Herbicide Insecticide Fungicide Others (Specify)

Chemicals Name

Dose (ml/gm)

Amount of Water Used

(Litre)

No. of Applications

Chemicals Name

Dose (ml/gm)


(Litre)

No. of Applications

Chemicals Name

Dose (ml/gm)


(Litre)

No. of Applications

Chemicals Name

Dose (ml/gm)

Amount of Water Used (Litre)

No. of Applications

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17



G. Did you Receive any Training on:

Subject No of

Training Received

Duration (Days)

Institute & Sponsor

Date/ Year

Usefulness of Training

Non-1, Satisfactory-2, Excellent-3

Nursery Growing Method

Method of Vegetables cultivation under Tunnel Farming

Fertilizer Scheduling

Farmers’ Day

Other (Specify)

H. How did you come to Know about Tunnel farming:

SSC OFWM Agri. Extension Fellow Farmer Media Farmers Field day

I. Market Outlet of Produce:

Sale Point at Price as compared to previous season

On-farm Storage (Yes/No)

Market Accessibility

Farm-1, Market-2, Export-3 Less-1, Avg.-2, More-3 Good-1, Fair-2, Poor-3

J. Major Source of Annual Income Rs. (Lump sum)

Source Amount (Rs.)

(i) Agriculture _____________________

(ii) Livestock _____________________

(iii) Service _____________________

(iv) Foreign Remitance _____________________

(v) Local Remitance _____________________

(vi) Business/Shop _____________________


K. Comments/Observations of Farmer (How to Promote this System):

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

L. Comments/Observations of Interviewer:

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

Signature of Interviewer: __________________ Date: ____/ ____/

________

Name of Interviewer: (________________________)

Data Entered by: __________________ Date: ____/ ____/ ________



0

Glimpses



1

Field visit in Sheikhupura of hydroponic system




2


Field Team visit Tunnel Farmer in district Faisalabad



3


Field Team visit Tunnel Farmer in district Faisalabad

impact assessment study on tunnel technology …

Documents