M.L. Jat & HS SidhuM.Jat@cgiar.org; www.cimmyt.org

Laser Land Leveling In India: A Success

Global Conservation Agriculture Program (GCAP)International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre

(CIMMYT)

Outline of presentation

• The 1990’s of Indian Agriculture

• Technological advancement/solutions

• The LLL technology: Brief history

• Research results/pilots

• Supply chain

• New innovations

• Impacts

• Lessons learnt

The 1990’s of Indian Agriculture

• Rice and wheat together accounts ~ 90% of cereal production in SA

• Since 1970’s, RW system emerged as food security system

• Average yield increases in rice and wheat during 1970-1990 were ~2% yr-1

• Realization of second generation problems of GR- decline FP, water, soil health, P. minor-decline in yield growth

• Escalating input costs, shrinking farm profitability-farming unattractive

• Sustainable food security is a issue

• New technological options- RCTs (ZT in wheat, bed planting etc)

• RWC (May, 1994)- Joint regional initiative of NARS and CGIAR

Zero Tillage in Wheat:Shown the way for infusion of out-of-box thinking on

technologies

• On-farm testing of zero-tillage with the Aitcheson drill began in the 1990-91

• Pant Nagar drill-1991-92

• Pant Nagar drill with “Inverted T opener”

• Commercial versions of zero-till drills- National

• Large scale demonstrations (1995-96)

• Addressed several issues-timely planting, save cost, energy, water ------ higher yields, reduce emissions etc

Still issues of adoption-

• mindset

• variable results

Source: Ladha et al (2009), IRRI-ADB-RWC Publ

305.00306.00307.00308.00309.00310.00311.00312.00313.00314.00315.00316.00317.00318.00319.00320.00

Distance (m

)

Traditional mindset:How traditional land leveling contributed to that in case of ZT

Source: Jat et al (2006) RWC Publ

Traditional land leveling techniques and equipments are not efficient

Poor crop establishment in many no-till fields

Potential benefits of RCTs/CA could not be realized due to in-field spatial variability in topography

Large losses of irrigation water

Poor input use efficiency

Environmental concerns

Land Leveling: Concerns

Transmitter

Laser Land Leveling: The Technology

Bucket

Source: Rickman (2002), RWC Publ

Salinity management experiments-1995 (CSSRI)

Limited to 1-2 station trials on salinity

Not explored for other potential benefits

Laser Land Leveling in India: The History

Every part was imported, very costly (~US$ 20K), no courage to take it to farmers

Photo: HS Jat, CSSRI

Laser Land Leveling System with First Indian Bucket- RWC Efforts (2001)

Photo Source: RWC

2001: RWC imported main components of Trimble unit

First Indian bucket at Beri Udyog, Karnal by RWC (Technical support by JF Rickman) taking design clue from imported version at CSSRI, Karnal

Placed with a farmer in Ghaziabad, WUP

JF Rickman (IRRI): Master trainer, spend several days in field

ICAR launched a project on PF under NATP at PDCSR, Meerut (2001)

First structured research trial during 2002

Large number of participatory field trials in WUP

Laser for water saving, complementing CE in

No-till systems of IGP

Some Research Results

Yie

ld (

Mg

ha

-1)

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

LL-rice TL-rice LL-wheat TL-wheat

Wate

r pro

ductivity (

kg g

rain

m-3

wa

ter)

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

LL-rice TL-rice LL-wheat TL-wheat

Savin

gs in

irr

iga

tio

n w

ate

r (h

a-c

m)

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Rice Wheat

LL-rice TL-rice LL-wheat TL-wheat

NU

E (

Kg k

g-1

)

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

Western Uttar Pradesh (N= 64)

Source: Jat et al (2006), RWC Publ

Crop establishment techniques

Grain yield(t ha-1)

Irrigation water use (m3 ha-1)

Water productivity (kg m-3)

Laser Traditional Laser Traditional Laser Traditional

CT-DSR 4.90 4.18 9067 9400 0.54 0.45

CT-TPR 4.94 4.49 10150 11171 0.49 0.40

Average 4.92 4.34 9608 10286 0.51 0.42

Interactive effect of land leveling and rice crop establishment techniques on yield and water

productivity (Western UP)

• CT-TPR to DSR under traditional leveling, water saving= 17 cm

• DSR (TL) to DSR (PL), further water saving= 5 cm

Sites Rice grain yield (Mg ha-1) Average yield

increase under laser leveling (%)

Saving in irrigation water under laser leveling over

traditional leveling (%)

Laser leveling

Traditional leveling

Site 1 8.78 ± 0.33 7.73 ± 0.21 13.60 26.2

Site 2 8.30 ± 0.46 7.53 ± 0.39 10.30 -

Site 3 7.60 ± 0.21 7.00 ± 0.25 8.57 25.0

Site 4 8.14 ± 0.44 7.72 ± 0.38 5.44 24.1

Site 5 7.77 ± 0.35 7.28 ± 0.40 6.70 -

Site 6 8.43 ± 0.40 7.35 ± 0.35 14.6 -

Mean across sites 10.82 25.1

Punjab (N= 22)

Source: Jat et al (2009b), IRRI-ADB-RWC Publ

0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

T im e ta k e n A re a in c re a s e Y ie ld in c r e a s e W a te r s a v in g

( h r h a -1 ) (% ) (% ) (% )

Haryana (N=92)

Source: Jat et al (2009b), IRRI-ADB-RWC Publ

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Rice (11) Wheat (38) Maize (09) Potato (02)

Bihar (N= 60)US$ ha-1

Saving in Irrigation Costs under Laser Leveling over Traditional Leveling

Source: Jat et al (2009b), IRRI-ADB-RWC Publ

10.0

10.2

10.4

10.6

10.8

11.0

11.2

11.4

11.6

11.8

12.0

Yr-1 Yr-2

Laser Traditional

0.53

0.76

RW System Productivity ( t ha-1)

Land Leveling effects on RW system productivity (on-station)

Source: Adopted from Jat et al (2009a), Soil & Till Res

Laser Leveling: Water Saving in CA v/sConventional till systems

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

Season-1 Season-2 Season-3 Season-4

Conventional Double no-till

% water saving

Source: Jat et al (2009a), Soil & Till Res

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

PLRB TLRB PLFB TLFBA

E-K

(k

g k

g-1

)

AE-K

0

5

10

15

20

25

PLRB TLRB PLFB TLFB

AE

-N (

kg

kg

-1)

AE-N2002-03 2003-04

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

PLRB TLRB PLFB TLFB

AE

-P (

kg

kg

-1)

AE-P

Source: Jat et al (2011); Am. J Pl Sc

Component Technology Effects on Agronomic Efficiency

Field Leveling Status

Time in tillage operation(min ha-1)

Fuel consumption(ltr ha-1)

Cultivator Harrowing Cultivator Harrowing

Laser 80 87.5 5.33 5.83

Traditionally 105 115 7.00 7.67

Difference 25 27.5 1.67 1.84

% Savings 23.8 23.9 23.7 24

Effect of land leveling on operational efficiency and fuel consumption of tractor

Additional area under crop- An example

Source: Jat et al (2006), RWC Publication

Farm level benefits in RWCS of IGP• ~7 % gain in crop productivity• ~20 % (18 ha-cm yr-1) saving in irrigation water,• US$ 113 to 175 ha-1 higher system profitability •10-13 % higher agronomic efficiency of nitrogen

Laser land leveling- The progress

Source: Jat et al, 2005, 2006, 2009a,b,2011

Supply Chain

Exporters

Dealers/Agencies

Local manufacturers

Assembling

Sub dealers Sub dealersSub dealers

Service provider/

Farmer

Farmer Farmer Farmer

Bucket, Hydraulic

System, Tripods

Training

Government

Su

bsi

dy

Subsidy

Bank

Lo

an

S. No Dealer Make Year #of Units

1 Spectra Precision Trimble 2001 1700

2 Elcome Tech Leica Geosystems 2004 3200

3 AJ Precision AGL, Control panel local 2007 2000

4 Topcon Topcon, Japan 2007 145

5 Shubham India Ltd Hybrid (assembling) 2007 250

6 Precision Cultivation

Apache Proshot, Control Panel from Pakistan

2008 750

7 Osaw Udyog MCE 2008 150

7 Futura Tools & Tech Futura 2008 250

8 Bankura Precision Laser Electronics, Greece 2008 325

9 AS Laser Systems AGL 2009 200

10 Apogee Apache-Spectra 2009 600

11 Misclenious Hybrids (assembling) - 450

Laser Land Leveler Suppliers in India

Data collected from different dealers/agencies

New Innovations

• Substantial indigenization

•Double tyre with more efficiency

• Built local capacity

•Units available now at less cost

• 2WT laser

• Direct employment generation: 350 person days/unit/yr

• At current level (~10000 units): 3.5 million person days/yr

• Indirect employment: manufacturing, transport, services

• Yield gains in RW system (1.2 mha, 0.5 t ha-1 yr-1)- 0.6 mt yr-1; US$12 million yr-1

• Electricity saving for irrigation in RW systems of IGP (1.2 mha)- ~US$ 25 million yr-1

• Water saving in RW system (1.2 mha, 18 ha-cm ha-1 yr-1) =2.2 km3 yr-1

• Other possible benefits- emission reduction, savings in fertilizer consumption and the associated savings in subsidy bill etc.

Impact of laser leveling technology

Impact Assessment on custom service providers

Inputs Costs (US$) Returns (US$)

Fuel 6343

14414Wages 800

Maintenance & Miscellaneous 1087

Interest on investment 2589

Total 10819 14414

Net returns (US$ yr-1) 3595

Annual returns through all custom service providers at current level- ~ US$ 36 million

• The efforts of RWC (CIMMYT-IRRI) have abundantly established the success of the private sector approach over the public sector “push” option

• The higher acceptance of laser has been associated with lowered cost of production through indigenization backed by a cadre of service providers- Best Example of “Technology led Business Model”

• The creation of the institutional mechanism of farmer co-operatives has brought about optimization in costs for inputs used for farming

• Complimentarity of technologies help adoption of either

Lessons Learned

• While initial expectations from applying laser technology for leveling of land were focused on water saving as a benefit, it found higher purpose being served on account of its ability to reduce cost of production, increase yields and improve efficiency of production inputs

• Successful induction of the LLL helped lay the foundation for improving the performance of other technologies covered under the paradigm of CA

• The technology has created an investment base of USD 80 million (>90% by farmers) just on laser plus tractors- Established an example of farmer investment in technology

Lessons Learned

THANKS