Ministry of Water Resources and IrrigationNational Water Research Center Water Management Research Institute

Innovative Method for Rice Irrigation

With High Potential of Water Saving

Received Award International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage

(ICID) 14 October 2008 in the field of water

an innovative way

Prof. Dr. / Yosri Ibrahim AttaResearch Professor at the Institute of Water

Management Research

Email: prof.yosri2008@yahoo.com

1

Introduction:Rice is one of the most inefficient in water use because it grown generally

under submerged condition in Egypt. It is means stable food for majority of the

population and has become exportable crop in Egyptian agricultural system after the

free cropping pattern policy. For these reasons, the areas cultivated with rice have

been increased. The authorities in Egypt limit the area devoted to rice to be about

46000 hectares every year but the farmers cross this area to almost the double because

rice is more profitable crop than other summer crops namely maize and cotton.

Consequently the pressure increase on the limited area resources in the country and

sometimes causes irrigation water shortage during the peak summer season.

The water resources in Egypt are considered limited although the population

increasing continuously. In the sense that they will not have sufficient water resources

to meet their agricultural, domestic, industrial and environmental needs.

One of the main strategies to overcome this problem is to achieve better water

management policy. Irrigation management under old lands conditions which

irrigated by surface irrigation method is very important to improve production and

water saving. For increasing water use efficiency of rice can be improved without

additional costs to the farmers and consequently water save. So saving water is

necessary to face the water shortage in the future. Such saving for irrigation water of

rice is like to be achieved by using a new planting and irrigation method with high

potential for water saving.

The aim of this study was performed in order to seek a possibility of growing

rice cultivar Sakha 104 on strips in order to decrease the amount of irrigation water as

well as increasing water productivity.

Background:The traditional method for rice

cultivation require that rice seeds be first

soaked in sufficient water for 48 hr and then

incubated for 24 hr to enhance the germination.

Then after that, it were handly broadcasted.

2

Field preparation and nursery

practices performed according to the

traditional local management. 30 days old

seedlings were transferred from the nursery

and transplanted in the permanent field

after puddling. The field is usually divided

into basins. Transplanting of seedlings rice

on flat at the hills (4-5 plants) distance of

20 x 20 cm to give the rate of (25 hills/m2)

as recommended. All other cultural practices for rice were followed, the irrigation of

rice crop during growing season was applying with 10 cm. The farmers got used to

over irrigate their fields where losses of water are great. Hence decreasing of water

productivity, therefore it is necessary to find out a new planting method and a new

surface irrigation technique.

There are many trails to estimate

the amount of water used for land

preparation for both nursery and permanent

field, raising nursery for 30 days and the

amount use during transplanting stage was

measured 3983 m3/ha.

Some researchers such Nour and

Mahrous (1996) estimated this amount of

water and found it 4602 m3/ha, Nour et al

(1996) found it 4790 m3/ha, Sorour et al (1998) found it 4495 m3/ha and Atta (2005)

found it 4476 m3/ha.

Many investigators studied the

water requirements of rice at continuous

flooding in this respect Abou-Soliman et al

(1990) gave a range of 16190-21428

m3/ha, Nour and Mahrous (1994) found

this amount of water was 19152 m3/ha and

Atta (2005) found it 14870 m3/ha.

3

The innovative method:

This method is depending on

reducing irrigated area by land

deviation into furrows. Top of furrow

was named (border) and bottom of

furrow was named (tape). Every border

and tape named (strip). The seedlings

were transplanted in bottom of furrow

(tape) with using the same plant density

as recommended into two rows of

plants according to strip width. Planting irrigation was given with enough amount for

reaching to puddiling then the next irrigation were given for taps only with depth of 7

cm. Accordingly flooding area was less and consequently increased water saving by

about 30%-40% using this new method increased irrigation application efficiency and

water productivity, however it decreased percolation losses and decreased

evaporation.

Conservation of plant density:

Using this method, it achieved new plants distribution as recommended plant

density is (25 hills/m2) and in order to survive this density we can use the new method

whereas in this method the plant density can be calculated for example as follows:

Furrow with long 10m and wide at 0.8m.

Total area = 10 x 0.8 = 8 m2

No. of hills = 8 x 25 = 200 hills

No. of hills in each row = 200/2 = 100 hills

Distance between hills = 8/100 = 0.1 m

And consequently we can find that , No. of hills per unit area is equal for both new

and traditional methods.

Generally in this study the new planting method for rice (strip of furrow 80

cm) was always better than traditional method in reduction of irrigation water applied

and costs while it increase water productivity and grain yield because planting rice on

strips perhaps made a good advantages and important proprieties such as:

- Good distribution of plants.

4

- Less flooding area.

- Water saving 30%-40%.

- Raising water productivity.

- Increasing fertilizers use efficiency.

This innovative method has been conducted in 2002 on small research area as an experimental work. After that, through years of 2003 till 2005, whereas the experiments showed good achievement, the Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation co-operated with Water Management Research Institute for extend this innovative method on different governorates covering all climate and soil conditions in Egypt. These governorates were located on different regions (North Delta, Middle Delta, West Delta and East Delta). This extension works aimed to convince the farmers by using this new method in order to save water. During theses extension years we achieved a very good results on water saving by convincing many farmers by this method. The cultivated areas were 50 hectares distributed on different sites.

After this extension work, The Minster of Water Resources and Irrigation allowed to forbidden rice cultivation areas (such Fayoum Governorate) to cultivate rice but under using this Innovative method which save the applied water by 40%. The Minster announced this through the media. In addition to the Minster gave his instructions to irrigation districts to use this new method and to be wide used all over Egypt. Then this method through years 2006 and 2007 has been used on large scale on five regions including Fayoum Governorate, Middle Egypt on cultivation area about 150 hectares.

Some piece information about this innovative method have been published in Grid

(FAO Journal) Volume 25, 2006, Arabic and English versions.

5

And Water Management

Project in Fayoum recommended

this method to be world wide used.

And currently Irrigation

Improvement Projects applying this

new method on the command areas.

WUAs now using this method and

they doing extension for it.

Methodology:The Innovative method of rice cultivation (on strips) was applied in farmers

fields on five governorates under different soil and climate conditions in Egypt in 150

hectares, This study aimed to seek the possibility of growing rice in the bottom of

furrows (strips) in order to increase water use efficiency of rice cultivar Sakha 104

with cropping period (135 days). Some soil physical and chemical properties of

cultivated areas are presented in Table (1). A Complete randomized blocks design

with four replicates was used.

Table (1) : some physical and chemical properties for the experimental sites

SitesSand

%

Silt

%

Clay

%

Soil

TexturepH

EC

(dS/m)

F.C.

%

W.P

%

East Delta 26.7 28.5 44.8 Clay 8.1 1.19 38.34 19.90

West Delta 27.2 12.8 60.0 Heavy Clay 8.5 1.5 42.30 20.80

Middle Delta 17.4 19.1 63.5 Heavy Clay 8.3 2.1 41.60 19.60

North Delta 24.8 32.6 42.6 Clay 7.9 1.2 34.80 20.80

Middle Egypt 21.1 40.6 38.3 Clay loam 8.0 2.8 36.41 21.30

6

Top45 cm

35 cmBottom

80 cm

20 cm

Factors of study:

Planting methods (M): two planting methods were followed in the permanent

field, they were:

M1: Traditional transplanting:

Transplanting of seedlings rice on flat at the hills (4-5 plants) distance of 20×

20 cm. to give the rate of (25 hills/m2) and,

M2: Transplanting in strips of furrows 80 cm wide:

(Top of furrow 45cm. and 35 cm. for bottom) Seedlings were transplanting in

hills (4-5 plants) 10 cm. apart in the two rows on the bottoms of furrows (strips)

keeping population the same as in the traditional method (25 hills/m2) as

recommended as shown in Fig. (1).

Fig (1) : Strips of Furrows Diagram (80 cm wide).

Rice variety Sakha 104 was planted in these regions. Field preparation and

nursery practices performed according to the traditional local management. Rice seeds

were soaked in sufficient water for 24 hours and then incubated for 48 hours to

enhance germination. Thereafter, it was broadcasted. Thirty days old seedlings were

manually transplanted.

Dates of some cultural practices as follows:

SitesEast

Delta

West

Delta

Middle

Delta

North

Delta

Middle

Egypt

Sowing May, 20 May, 15 May, 21 May 18 May 16

Transplanting June, 20 June, 15 June, 21 June 18 June 16

Harvesting 29 Sep. 30 Sep. 4 Oct. 3 Oct. 1 Oct.

7

The fertilizers requirements for the nursery were added according to the

recommended doses according to Crops Research Institute, Agricultural Research

Center (ARC). Nitrogen fertilizer in the form of ammonium sulphate (20.6 % N) was

used at a rate of 140 kg N/ha. Phosphate fertilizer in the form of Calcium super-

phosphate (15.5 P2O5) at the rate of 70 Kg P2O5 per hectare was added during

permanent field preparations. The complementary fertilizers such as potassium and

Zinc were applied as recommended in time. All other cultural practices for rice

production were followed.

Data Recorded:

(A) Water Management Data:

I. Irrigation Water Measurement:

Irrigation water was measured using water meter (in m3). The amount of water

used for land preparation for both nursery and permanent field, irrigation of the

nursery for 30 days and through the first seven days after transplanting were

measured to be 3983 m3/ha. The amount of irrigation water delivered to each

treatment was also, recorded and added to get the total water used. Irrigation of the

permanent field started after seven days from transplanting process and stopped

before 10 days from harvesting process in all seasons. The water depth at the

irrigation day was about 7 cm for all treatments with 3 days of irrigation interval.

(continuous flooding).

2. Water Use Efficiency (WUE) :

It was calculated according to Israelsen and Hansen (1962) as follows:

WUE = Rice grain yield (Kg/ha.) / Total water used (m3/ha.)

(B) Grain Yield (ton/ha.):

The central samples of each field were harvested to determine grain yield in

ton/ha as adjusted at 14% moisture content. All data were subjected to analysis of

variance according to Cochran and Cox (1957) then treatment means were compared

by LSD test.

8

( C ) Economic analysis

In order to identify the difference between the two methods, economic analysis will

be applied. This analysis will depend on the following two indicators:

Net return/m3 of water: This indicator will be callculated by dividing the net

return arising from each method by the total amount of water applied

Net Return /Total water applied…………….(1)

Benefit cost ratio (B/C) : This ratio is calculated" by dividing the total net

return for each method by its total costs. The higher ratio refer is the better

economic efficiency.

B /C = total net returns / total costs.

Results and Discussion:Data for grain yield collected and presented in Table (2). The obtained data

showed that, the planting methods had a significant effect on grain yield/ ha. The

highest grain yield/ha (9.275 t/ha.) was obtain from M2 treatment, While the lowest

value was recorded from M1 treatment (8.789 t/ha.). Similar results were obtained by

Atta (2005).

9

Table (2): average of total water used, water saving, grain yield, yield increment and

water use efficiency as affected by planting methods for five regions.

SitesPlanting Method

(M)

Total water used

m3/ha.

Water saving (%) Grain yield (t/ha)

Yield increment

(%)

WUEkg/ m3

m3/ha %

Eas

t D

elta M1 14871.3 - - 9.405b - 0.632

M2 9190.4 5680.9 38.2 9.954a 5.84 1.083

Wes

t D

elta M1 13952.4 - - 7.939b - 0.569

M2 8133.4 5819.0 41.7 8.402a 5.83 1.033

Mid

dle

Del

ta M1 15628.6 - - 8.721b - 0.558

M2 9028.6 6600.0 42.23 9.146a 4.87 1.013

Nor

th

Del

ta M1 15047.4 - - 9.090b - 0.604

M2 9500.0 5547.4 36.87 9.700a 6.71 1.021

Mid

dle

Egy

pt M1 15300.0 - - 8.830b - 0.577

M2 9260.1 6039.9 39.48 9.365a 6.06 1.011

Ove

r A

ll A

vera

ge

M1 14959.94 - - 8.797b - 0.588

M2 9022.5 5937.44 39.69 9.313b 5.86 1.032

M1:Traditional method

M2: Strips of furrows 80 cm

10

Table (3): average of water used (m3/ha) before and through irrigation treatments for five regions

IrrigationPeriodEast DeltaWest DeltaMiddle

DeltaNorthDelta

Middle Egypt

Over all Averages

A: Before Treatments*4128.53581.04252.43971.44160.04018.66

B: During TreatmentsM110742.810371.411376.211076.011140.010941.28M25061.94552.44776.25528.65100.15003.48

C: Total Water UsedM114871.313952.415628.615047.415300.014959.94M29190.48133.49028.69500.09260.19022.50

* Amount of water for land preparation for both nursery and permanent field, as will as rising for 30 days and through 7 days after transplanting.

Grain Yield:

Data for grain yield collected and presented in Table (2). The obtained data showed

that, the planting methods had a significant effect on grain yield/ ha. The highest

grain yield/ha (9.275 t/ha.) was obtain from M2 treatment, While the lowest value was

recorded from M1 treatment (8.789 t/ha.). Similar results were obtained by Atta

(2005).

Though transplanting was done in

more intense way by doubling the

population within the furrow of the strip,

yet the rice crop performed better when

transplanted in the bottoms of the furrows

(strips) M2 treatment than M1 treatment as

shown in Table (2).

Grain yield had higher value with

transplanting on strips of furrows (M2).

Increase grain yield/ha by 5.86 % using (M2) treatment compared with traditional

transplanting (M1) treatment.

This result can be explained that the plant of rice found better environment

where, planted with a distance of 45 cm. for M2 away from the other plant planted in

the neighboring furrow though, it may be competing with the other hill planted 10 cm

apart within the same row. On other words, the intra-row competition especially for

11

8.8

9.3

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

9.5

10

Traditional method Strips of furrow s 80 cm

Cultivation Method

Gra

in Y

ield

(ton

/ha)

light was minimized against increase in the inter-row competition. The rate of effect

of these two competitions was in favour of the intra-row competition resulted in a

better environment for rice plants.

Water Relations:

Water used before and through treatments:

Table (3) showed the amount of

water used for land preparation, for both

nursery and permanent field, as well as

raising for 30 days and through 7 days after

transplanting and before treatments

application were 4018.66 m3/ha. as average.

Similar results were found by Nour and

Mahrous (1994), Nour et al., (1996)

Sorour et al., (1998) and Atta (2005). The

nursery area was about one tenth of

permanent field area. Water used through treatments application measured and was

found to be 10941.28 and 5003.48 m3/ ha. for M1 and M2 treatments as average

respectively.

Total water used: The results

showed that total water used by rice

according to the different planting methods,

where 14959.94 and 9022.5 m3/ha for M1

and M2 treatments respectively. From these

results, it can be reported that water saved

were about 5937.44 m3/ha (39.69 % ), and

yield increasing by 5.86 % for M2

treatment.

Some research workers estimated the water requirement of rice crop and they

differed in their estimates. Abo-Soliman et al., (1990) gave 16190 –21429 m3/ha.

Nour and Mahrous (1994) gave 19152 m3/ha. for Giza 176 cultivar, Nour et al.,

12

9022

14960

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

Traditional method Strips of furrow s 80 cm

Cultivation Method

Tota

l Wat

er U

sed

(m3 /h

a)

0.0%

39.7%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Traditional method Strips of furrow s 80 cm

Cultivation Method

Wat

er S

avin

g (%

)

(1996) gave 14976, 13333 and 14048 m3/ha. as the water needed for Giza 176, Giza

177 and Giza 178 cultivars, respectively.

Sorour et al., (1998) gave 14390 m3/ha. for Giza 176 cultivar, Ghanem and

Ebaid (2000) gave 13755 m3/ha. as water required to irrigate Sakha 101. cultivar and

Awad (2001) gave 12452 m3/ha. for Giza 178 cultivar from transplanting to harvest.

Atta (2005) reported that using strips of furrows 80 cm method as a new planting

method for transplanting rice Sakha 104 cultivar obtained water saving with 34.8 %,

increasing grain yield by 3.4 % and increased water use efficiency from 0.66 to 1.06

kg/m3.

Water Use Efficiency (WUE):

Table (2) showed that the highest

water use efficiency (WUE) was recorded

for M2 treatment (1.032 kg/m3).While the

lowest one was recorded for M1 treatment

(0.588 kg/m3). This due to the marked

reduction in the amount of water used with

a significant increase in grain yield.

Similar results were obtained by Atta

(2005).

Economic analysis

The analysis of the study results revealed that rice cultivation under strip

method is more effiecint than that under the traditional method.

The net return for rice cultivated under strip method (M2) were calculated at

0.182 $ /m3 of water compared to 0.089 $/m3 of water for rice cultivated under the

normal method (M1). On the other hand, Benifit cost ratio (B/C) for rice (M2) is

higher than that for rice (M1) as shown in table (4). This due to the less amount of

water used with rice planted under strip method.

13

0.588

1.032

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

11.11.21.31.41.5

Traditional method Strips of furrow s 80 cm

Cultivation Method

WUE

(kg/

m3 )

Table (4) Net return per m3 of water and Benifit cost ratio (B/C) for rice

according to planting methods.

Planting

Method

Grain

Yield

Kg/ha

Total

return

$/ha

Costs $/ha Net

return

$/ha

Water

applied

m3/ha

Net

return($) /

m3 of water

Benifit

cost ratio

(B/C)Variable Fixed Total

M1 8797 3838.7 1261.4 1246.0 2507.4 1331.3 14959.94 0.089 0.531

M2 9313 4063.9 1172.0 1246.0 2418.0 1645.9 9022.5 0.182 0.681

References

Abo soliman, M.S.M., S. A. Ghanem, S. A. Abd El-Hafez and N. El- Mowelhi,

(1990). Effect of irrigation regimes and nitrogen levels on rice

production and nitrogen losses under tile drainage. Ministry of Agric.

And land Reclamation, Agric. Res. 1: 14-15.

Atta,Y.I.M. (2005). Strip transplanting of rice : a new method for increasing water

use efficiency under splitting of nitrogen fertilizer. Egypt.J. of Appl. Sci;

20 (10 B ) : 501- 511.

Awad, H. A. (2001). Rice production at the North of Delta region in Egypt as

affected by irrigation intervals and nitrogen fertilizer levels, J. Agric.

Sci., Mansoura Univ., 26 (2): 1151-1159.

Chochran, W.G. and G.M. Cox (1957). Experimental designs. 2nd Edit. Pp. 661.

John wiley and sons, Inc . New York.

Ghanem, S.A. and R.A Ebaid (2001). Effect of farm yard manure and water

regimes on productivity of rice and succeeding clover crop . Egypt. J.

Appl. Sci, 16 (6): 115 – 128.

Israelsen, B.O. and V.E. Hansen (1962). .Irrigation Principles and Practices 3rd

Edit. John Wiley and Sons Inc, New York.

Nour, M. A. and F.N. Mahrous (1994). Effect of varying irrigation intervals

during tillering, reproductive and ripening stages on rice yield and its

components Egypt. J. Appl. Sci, 9 (7):869-879.

14

Nour, M.A., A.E S.A. Ghonem Abd El-Wahab, and A.O. Bastawisi (1996).

Behavior of some rice cultivars under different water regimes.

Menofiya ; Agric . Res; Vol 21 (4): 837 – 850.

Sorour F. A.; M.E. Mosalem; F.N. Mahrous and I.S. El-Refaee. (1998). Effect

of irrigation interval and splitting of nitrogen on growth, yield and

quality of rice J. Agric. Res. Tanta Univ.24(1) 64-70.

15

The Influence of Sugar Cane Transplanting Methods on Water

Saving and Yield

16

Introduction

Sugarcane ( Saccharumofficinarum L. ) is consider to be one of the

most important sugar crops all over the world . But in Egypt sugar cane

production faces some problems which developed by time. The main problems

nowadays are the limited freshwater supply in Egypt and water requirements

increased accompanying the increase in temperature degrees and wind speed as

well as the reduction in the relative humidity. In addition, soils with low

productivity have high water needs. So, it was found that crops grown in the

same soil and the same season almost have equal water needs ( Moursi and

Nour El-din , 1977 , CCSC 2003 , Chapman et .al 1997 , EL- Shafai 1996

and ESST 2006 ).

Sugarcane is repeatedly accused with having the highest water

requirements among field crops. Therefore, some voices have lately risen up

demanding the replacement of sugarcane with sugar beet which has relatively

lower water need. It is true that sugarcane has a high water need for some

reasons. The first it occupies land for 12 months (Spring planting) or 14-16

months (Autumn planting) which is considered a long growing seasons. So

great of effort has been directed at improving farm land irrigation in Egypt. In

order to meet greater demand for agricultural products arising from population

pressures, the government of Egypt has looked to increasing production in both

the vertical and horizontal directions. In order to increase production in the

horizontal direction, desert lands must be cultivated; this means water

resources must be used more carefully to have water available for areas

currently not utilized. Likewise, improved on – farm water management plays a

role in the vertical direction. In this respect transplanting method is a good

techniques which has positive benefits such as saving water and the produce

highest yield with the least possible amount of water applied so the aim of this

work carried out to evaluate the economically effect transplanting method on

yield and quality of sugar cane.

17

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two field experiment were carried out for two seasons of 2004/2005 and

2005/2006 , at Mallawy water RequiremtsReasearch Station – El- Minia

Governorate ; Water Management Research Institude -National water Research

Center .A randomized complete bolcks design of four replications was used

where two trials of cane planting . First trial was transplanting after 70, 90 and

110 days from growing. Transplanting was conducted on 12th March in both

seasons. Second trial was the traditional or normal growing method on 12th

March (the optimal growing), and 12 th June (the late growing) in both

seasons, While, harvest was conducted on 12 months from growing. The sub-

plot consisted of 42 m2 (six , 100 cm wide rows , each of 7 meters long ) .

Some chemical and physical properties of the experimental soil before soil

preparation were estimated according to the procedures outlined by Jackson

(1968) and Olsen &Sommers (1982) are shown in Table (1)

Table (1): Some physical and chemical characteristics of the experimental soils*Properties Season 2002/3 Season2003/4

Texture analysis : Clay% 36.92 36.15Silt% 55.43 54.50Sand% 7.65 9.35

Texture grade : Silty clay loam Silty clay loamOrganic metter % 1.22 1.18pH (1:1 suspention) 8.10 8.00Ecm.mohs (1:1) 1.8 1.6

Soluble cations : Ca++ meq/L. 9.78 8.45Mg++ meq/L 2.72 2.75K++ meq/L 0.24 0.23Na++ meq/L 4.95 4.45

Soluble anions : CO3

-2 meq/L. - -HCO-2 meq/L. 3.86 3.25CI-meq/L. 5.80 4.90SO4

-2 meq/L. 8.36 7.78Available N mg /kg soil 21.1 19.35Available P ( ppm) 8.50 7.85

18

Exchangeablek mg / kg soil 175 180

Available S (ppm) 7.50 7.25Data obtained in this work were as follow:

1- Millable cane yield (ton / fed): cane stalks of the four inner rows were

harvested topped,cleaned , weighed and cane yield was calculated as ton/fed.

2- Recoverable sugar yield ( ton/fed ) : was estimated according to the following

equation according to Mathur ( 1981 ) :

Recoverable sugar yield ( ton/fed ) =

Millable cane yield ( ton/fed ) x Purity % x Pol % .

3- Purity %juice was calculated as in Satiate et al. ( 1996 ) using the follow

formula :

Purity % = Sucrose % x 100 ÷ TSS % , where TSS% ( Total soluble solids )

was determined using “ Brix hydrometer “ standardized at 20 C as in A.O.A.C.

( 1995 ) .

4-Pol %cane of cane stalks was calculated by the following equation after

determination of sucrose % in the cane juice using succharometer according to

AOAC (1995).

Pol % = { Brix % - ( Brix % - sucrose % ) 0.4 } 0.73 .

The proper statistical analysis of all data was carried out according to

Gomez and Gomez (1984). Homogeneity of variance was examined before

combined analysis the differences between means of the different treatments

were compared using the least dignificant difference (LSD) at 5% level.

Some soil water – relationships data were recorded :

Water Measurements

In the two growing seasons water was measured by using a rectangular sharp

crested weir. The discharge was calculated using the following formula :

Q = CLH3 / 2(Masoud, 1967)

Where :

Q : The discharge in cubic meters per second .

L : The length of the crest in meters.

H :The head in meters .

19

Depth100

2 – 1100

C : An empirical coefficient that must be determined from discharge

measurements .

On the other hand ,quantity of water applied was measured in studied

area ( the farmer practices) by cut throat Flum size ( 20 x 90 cm) where water

applied was added during every irrigation and at the end of each growth season

the total quantity of water applied was estimated (m3/ fed.).

Water consumptive use (CU)

The quantities of water consumptive use were calculated for the 60 cm

soil depth which was assumed to be the depth of the roots zone as reported by

many investigators.

Monthly and seasonal water consumptive use was calculated by the

summation of water consumed for the different successive irrigation through

the whole growth season (Serry et al. 1980).

Water consumptive use per feddan (4200 m2 ) can be obtained by the

following equation .

CU = x b.d x x Area (4200 m2)

Israelsen and Hansen,1962

Where :

CU = Amount of water consumptive use.

2 = Soil moisture content % after irrigation.

1 = Soil moisture content befor the next irrigation.

b.d = Bulk density (g / cm3).Calculation of CU was repeated for all

irrigations until the harvesting date.

Crop water use efficiency (C.W.U.E)

Crop water use efficiency is the weight of marketable crop produced per

the volume unit of water consumed by plants or the evapotranspiration

quantity. The crop water use efficiency was computed for the different

treatments by dividing the yield (kg) on units of evapotranspiration expressed

20

Yield (kg/fed.)Water consumptive use (m3/fed.)C.W.U.E.=

Yield (kg/fed.)Water applied (m3/fed.)

Net profit (L.E/fed)Total costs ( L.E/fed)

as cubic meters of water (Abd El- Rasool et al. 1971 ) . It was calculated by

the following formula:

Field water use efficiency ( F.W.U.E . )

Field water use efficiency is the weight of marketable crop produced per

the volume unit of applied irrigation were expressed as cubic meters of water

(Michael , 1978).

It was calculated by the following equation:

F.W.U.E. =

Economic efficiency

Economic efficiency refers to the combinations of inputs that

maximize individual or social objectives. Economic efficiency is defined in

termsof two conditions: necessary and sufficient. Necessary condition is

met in production process when there is producing the same amount of

product with fewer inputs or producing more products with the same

amount of inputs. But the sufficient condition for efficiency encompasses

individual or social goals and values ( John and Frank 1987 ) .

It was calculated by the formula:

Economic efficiency =

Results and Discussion

1- Productivity and quality traits:

Prductivity traits of sugar cane such as cane and sugar yields (ton/fed ) as well

as quality properties expressed as pol%cane and purity %juice as influenced

by the different planting methods were presented in Tables ( 2 and 3 ) . The

results in Table (2) showed that transplanting date had a significant effect on

millable cane and recoverable sugar yields of sugar cane. The highest values of

21

millable cane and recoverable sugar yields were obtained from transplanting at

age of 90 days (57.35 and 6.50 tons/fed. respectively). While, the least values

were gained from treatment A1 53.25 and 5.84 ton / fed, respectively

( transplanting at age 70 days ) . This might be mainly due to that transplanting

at age of 90 days encountered within the early growth stage of seedling that

could boost their growth.

Concerning the conventional treatment ( grower practice ),the collected

data in Table (3 ) showed that planting date of sugar cane had a significant

effect on millable cane and recoverable sugar yields of sugar cane . The highest

values of millable cane and recoverable sugar yields of sugar cane were

obtained from B1 (the early planting on 12th march), 53.25 and 5.84 tons/fed,

while, the least values were gained from treatment B2 ( the late planting on 12th

June), 39.80 and 4.87 ton / fed, respectively. This result might be mainly due

to that the late planting recorded the lesser tillering and stalk length compared

with the early planting (the optimal growing ) . These results are in agreement

with those obtained El.Koliey and Abd. El.Latif( 1998 ) .

Table (2) Effect of transplanting dates on productivety and quality of sugar cane (combined of 2004/2005 and 2005/2006 seasons )

Transplanting dates

Millable cane yield

( ton/fed. )

Recverable sugar yield( ton/fed.)

Pol %cane Purity %juice

A1 53.25 5.84 13.30 82.50A2 57.35 6.50 13.50 84.00A3 54.20 5.92 13.20 82.82

Mean 54.93 6.09 13.33 83.19F value ** ** NS **

L S D % 05 0.40 0.010 0.45A1 = Transplanting at age 70days A2 = Transplanting at age 90daysA3 = Transplanting at age 110days

Table (3) Effect of normal planting on productively and quality of sugar cane (combined of 2004/2005 and 2005/2006 seasons )

Planting dates Millable cane yield

( ton/fed. )

Recverable sugar yield( ton/fed.)

Pol %cane Purity %juice

B1 49.50 5.64 13.65 83.50B2 39.80 4.10 12.86 80.05

Mean 44.65 4.87 13.25 81.77F value ** ** NS **

L S D % 50 0.49 0.12 - 0.55B1 = Normal planting on12th march ( the optimal growing ) B2 = Normal planting on12 th June ( the late growing )

22

The collected results in Tables ( 2 and 3 ) pointed out that transplanting

achieved The higher values of millable cane and recoverable sugar yields of

sugar cane than the normal planting , especially the late normal planting on 12th

June . This increase might be principally due to increasing number of millable

cane stalks per feddan and photosynthesis products which emigrate to storage

sites in sugar cane. These results pointed out that the higher increase value in

millable cane and recoverable sugar yields were achieved the studied

transplanting method at age 90 days than other transplanting dates.

Concerning quality properties of sugar cane, data in Tables (2 and 3)

showed that transplanting date as well as normal planting date of sugar cane

had a significant effect on purity %juice, but were insignificant on pol % cane.

The highest values of purity %juice were obtained from A2 (transplanting at

age of 90 days) and B1 (the early normal planting on 12th march) , 84.00 and

83.50.% respectively. This might be mainly due to that transplanting at age of

90 days and the early normal planting on 12th march led to increasing

photosynthesis products which emigrate to storage sites in sugar cane,

consequentely increase purity % juice .

Generally, it concluded that transplanting planting method is preferable

under the Egyptian conditions for sugar cane because it is gave higher value of

millablecane , recoverable sugar yields, pol %cane and purity %juice of sugar

cane . In addition,there were a positive correlation with both millable cane and

recoverable sugar yields of sugar cane . Transplanting can be consideredasan

important criterion in improvement of sugar cane productivity.

Saving of water (m3/ area )

Data in Table (4) show that average quantity of water applied and saving

of water ( m3/ area ) for different planting methods for sugar cane crop in the

two studied seasons .

The obtained results in the present study show that when the best method is use

(transplanting method) we can save water irrigation than normal planting in

23

March and June about 28.28% and 32.87% respectively with an overall average

of 30.57%

Data also show that water irrigation can be saved, as average about

191.749950 and 232.06365 million m3 /area than normal planting in March and

June respectively

This quantity of saving water enough to cultivate area about 29960.929

and 36259.945 fed in old lands.

In general, It could be concluded that water fast becoming an

economically scarce resource in many area of the world. So, the use of

transplanting method is very important to save water. The best method to

planting sugar cane should give favorable crop yield and optimum use of water.

Therefore, estimating economic of irrigation water becomes very important for

planning irrigation management where the over irrigation by the farmers

usually leads to low irrigation efficiency and high loss of water and fertilizer.

These results reflex how much irrigation water can be save to produced the

highest yield with least possible amount of water applied where the farmer’s

practices in sugar can irrigation ( conventional irrigation treatment ) utilized

much water without giving higher productivity . Thus to achieve the benefit ,

irrigation must be planed tacking into account crop , soil and weather

conditions .

The Economic Evaluation :

Total costs , production and total income ( L.E / fed )

Data in Table (5 ) showed that value of total costs , production , total

income ( L.E/fed ) and net return from unit of irrigation water ( L.E/m3) as

influence by different planting methods for sugar came crop in the two studied

seasons . Results in Table (5 ) show that the maximum values of total income

(9176 L.E/ fed . ) and net return from unit of water irrigation ( 0.94 and 0.60

L.E/m3 ) were obtained from plants which grown with transplanting method .

while , the lowest values of total income ( 6368L.E / fed . ) and met return from

unit of water irrigation ( 0.06 and 0.04 L.E /m3 ) were obtained with the

normal planting in 12th June ( late growing ).

24

From these results it could be concluded that the first treatment (transplanting

method) led to increase in total income and net return water irrigation are

mainly due to high yield production and decrease total costs. Where, the

highest values of net profit / fed was obtained from transplanting method

(transplanting after 90 days) about 4528 L.E/fed. and this profit rise from 4528

to 5348 in case of cultivating clover crop during exist period the sugar cane in

nursery

Also , data in Table ( 4 ) show that the percentages of increases in yield

were more than conventional methods which planting in 12th March ( early

grown ) or planting in 12th June ( late grown) compared with transplanting

method 15.86% and 44.10% respectively in the two studies seasons . This

results reflex low much irrigation water can be save to produce the highest

yield with least possible amount of water applied .

Table ( 4 ) : Quantity of total water saving ( m3 / fed) when we use the best treatments ( transplanting method) compared with other treatments for sugar can crop during the two studied seasons .

Treatments

Total yield(ton/fed)

%of

increase in

yield

Water applied ( m3/fed)

Saved water

Average

area cultivated plant cane crop

in Egypt

To total of

water saving

m3

million /area

The area (fed.) of old land

which can be cultivated as a

resulting of

saving water

m3/fed

%

Transplanting method Normal planting in March

57.35049.500 15.85

7517.201056.85

3043.65

28.28

6300 191.0749950

29960.929

Transplanting method Normal planting

57.35039.800

44.10 7517.2011200.75

3683.55

32.87

63000 232.063650

36259.945

25

in JuneAverage 29.97 3363

.6030.57

63000 211.906800

33110.437

Water use efficiency ( WUE ) Water use efficiency was considered as an evaluation on parameter of total

yield per unit of water applied and water consumptive use. WUE is a tool for

maximizing crop production per each unit of water irrigation. The effect of the

different planting methods on WUE is presented in Table (6 ) . From the

presented data, it is clear that values of WUE of sugar cane differed from one

treatment to other.

It is obvious from data in Table (6) the highest value was of field water

use efficiency and crop water use efficiency ( 7.63kg/m3 and 11.90 kg/m3 ) was

obtained under treatment transplant method after 90 days respectively .This is

mainly due to the higher yield of sugar cane and decrease water applied and

water consumptive use in transplanting method compared with the other

treatments . While the lowest value of field water use efficiency and crop water

use efficiency ( 3.25 and 5.27 kg/m3) was obtained from normal planting in

June respectively . These results indicated that the transplanting method is the

best treatment from the view point of water management for sugar cane yield .

This may lead to the conclusion that , transplanting method is the best regime

for sugar cane irrigation under condition of the studied area .

Table (6 ) : Values of total yield ( kg/ fed) of sugar cane crop , water applied ( m3 /fed) , water consumptive use ( m3 /fed) , water consumptive use ( m3 /fed) , field water use efficiency and crop water use efficiency in the two studies seasons

TreatmentsWater applied

( m3/fed.)

Total yield

( kg/fed.)

Field water use efficiency ( kg/m3)

Water consumptive use (m3/fed.)

Crop water use efficiency( kg/m3)

Tran

spla

ntin

g m

etho

d

70days

7517

.20

53250 7.08

4820

.34

11.04

90 57350 7.68 11.90

110 54200 7.21 11.24

Average 7517.20 54930 7.31 4820.34 11.3

Normal 10560.85 49500 4.69 7092.12 6.98

26

planting in March Normal

planting in June 11200.75 39800 3.55 7549.92 5.27

The economic efficiency :

Increasing net return or profit for crops refers to the decreasing of production

costs or for increasing crop production . So economic efficiency index refers to

agricultural and irrigation activities , which can gives the highest return from

each L.E.unit , which can spend on crop production .

Concerning to economic efficiency, presented data in Table (7 ) , reveal that

economic efficiency was 0.97 , 0.44 and 0.08 L.E / fed . for the transplanting

method , normal planting in March and normal planting in June , respectively .

From these results it could be conclude that the economic efficiency was

increased with transplanting method in the two studied seasons . This increases

in economic efficiency due to enhance of net profit (0.97 L.E for each L.E

spend ) compare with other treatments

Table ( 7 ) : Average values of the economic efficiency under lifting irrigation system for various treatments of sugar cane crop per feddan in the two studied seasons .

Treatments Total return Total costs Net profit Economic efficiency

Transplanting method ( after 90days )

9176 4648 4528 0.97

Normal planting in March

7920 5500 2420 0.44

Normal planting in June

6368 5890 478 0.08

27