Assessment of the Technical Performance and Operational Limits of a Low Cost Drip Irrigation System for Peri-Urban and Smallholder Farmers

Senzanje, Aidan; Motsi, K.E.; Rwakatiwana, P

doi:10.4314/dai.v16i1.15661

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Emission uniformity (EU) and flow variation (FV) were computed from Equations (1) and (2), respectively. The equations have been widely used in evaluation of different drip irrigation systems Karmeli, 1974, 1975;Wu and Gitlin, 1977;Nakayama and Bucks, 1986 Senzanje et al, 2004).…”

Section: Methodology For Evaluating Drip Irrigation Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Technical evaluation and development of low‐head drip irrigation systems in Kenya

Ngigi

2008

Irrigation and Drainage

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Low-head drip irrigation technology was recently introduced in Kenya. Imported drip systems are delicate to handle and require special maintenance. No guidelines regarding the optimum combination of lateral length, land slope and operating head were provided. To address the constraints, farmers appealed for technical assistance from research institutions. The objective of the present research was to address the farmers' challenges by evaluating existing low-head drip irrigation systems to ascertain their performance in terms of water distribution/emission uniformity and to develop simple locally assembled drip irrigation kits. The research work focused on evaluation of emission uniformity and flow variation at different water supply heads, lateral lengths and land slopes. A number of the existing high-head drip systems were evaluated under low-head conditions with satisfactory results. Low-head drip irrigation systems can be used effectively at 0.5-1.5 m water heads without compromising emission uniformity. Based on the technical evaluation, locally assembled drip irrigation systems ''dream drip kits'' were developed. The paper presents the methodology used for technical evaluation of different drip systems, results of the evaluation and a brief description of the design and development of locally assembled drip irrigation systems.

show abstract

Section: Methodology For Evaluating Drip Irrigation Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Technical evaluation and development of low‐head drip irrigation systems in Kenya

Ngigi

2008

Irrigation and Drainage

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These kits however have not been widely studied. The only recent studies on the different kits have been the work carried out in a laboratory to test the performance of these kits by Chigerwe et al (2003) and by Senzanje et al (2004) to test the operational limits of such drip kits. The tests by Chigerwe et al (2003) found that in the laboratory the imported kits (Netafim Ò , Plastro Ò , IDE Ò and EIN-TAL Ò ) 1 had superior quality and work-manship on all components than locally available kits.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On farm evaluation of the effect of low cost drip irrigation on water and crop productivity compared to conventional surface irrigation system

Maisiri

Senzanje

Rockström

et al. 2005

Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This on-farm research study was carried out at Zholube irrigation scheme in a semi-arid agro tropical climate of Zimbabwe to determine how low cost drip irrigation technologies compare with conventional surface irrigation systems in terms of water and crop productivity. A total of nine farmers who were practicing surface irrigation were chosen to participate in the study. The vegetable English giant rape (Brassica napus) was grown under the two irrigation systems with three fertilizer treatments in each system: ordinary granular fertilizer, liquid fertilizer (fertigation) and the last treatment with no fertilizer. These trials were replicated three times in a randomized block design. Biometric parameters of leaf area index (LAI) and fresh weight of the produce, water use efficiency (WUE) were used to compare the performance of the two irrigation systems. A water balance of the inflows and outflows was kept for analysis of WUE. The economic profitability and the operation, maintenance and management requirements of the different systems were also evaluated. There was no significant difference in vegetable yield between the irrigation systems at 8.5 ton/ha for drip compared to 7.8 ton/ha in surface irrigation. There were significant increases in yields due to use of fertilizers. Drip irrigation used about 35% of the water used by the surface irrigation systems thus giving much higher water use efficiencies. The leaf area indices were comparable in both systems with the same fertilizer treatment ranging between 0.05 for surface without fertilizer to 6.8 for low cost drip with fertigation. Low cost drip systems did not reflect any labour saving especially when manually lifting the water into the drum compared to the use of siphons in surface irrigation systems. The gross margin level for surface irrigation was lower than for low cost drip irrigation but the gross margin to total variable cost ratio was higher in surface irrigation systems, which meant that surface irrigation systems gave higher returns per variable costs incurred. It was concluded that low cost drip systems achieved water saving of more than 50% compared to surface irrigation systems and that it was not the type of irrigation system that influenced the yield of vegetables significantly but instead it is the type of fertilizer application method that contribute to the increase in the yield of vegetables. It was recommended that low cost technologies should be used in conjunction with good water and nutrient management if higher water and crop productivity are to be realized than surface irrigation systems.

show abstract

“…Several lab and on-farm studies have been carried out in Zimbabwe on the technical evaluations of the drip kit performance including how it affects crop yield and water productivity (Chigerwe et al, 2004;Maisiri et al, 2005;Nkala, 2003;Senzanje, 1997Senzanje, , 1998Senzanje et al, 2003Senzanje et al, , 2004. From these studies it was found that low cost drip systems had a potential to be beneficially adopted by smallholder farmers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact and sustainability of low-head drip irrigation kits, in the semi-arid Gwanda and Beitbridge Districts, Mzingwane Catchment, Limpopo Basin, Zimbabwe

Moyo¹,

Love²,

Mul³

et al. 2006

Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Resource-poor smallholder farmers in the semi-arid Gwanda and Beitbridge districts face food insecurity on an annual basis due to a combination of poor and erratic rainfall (average 500 mm/a and 345 mm/a, respectively, for the period 1970-2003) and technologies inappropriate to their resource status. This impacts on both household livelihoods and food security. In an attempt to improve food security in the catchment a number of drip kit distribution programmes have been initiated since 2003 as part of an ongoing global initiative aimed at 2 million poor households per year. A number of recent studies have assessed the technical performance of the drip kits in-lab and in-field. In early 2005 a study was undertaken to assess the impacts and sustainability of the drip kit programme. Representatives of the NGOs, local government, traditional leadership and agricultural extension officers were interviewed. Focus group discussions with beneficiaries and other villagers were held at village level. A survey of 114 households was then conducted in two districts, using a questionnaire developed from the output of the interviews and focus group discussions. The results from the study showed that the NGOs did not specifically target the distribution of the drip kits to poor members of the community (defined for the purpose of the study as those not owning cattle). Poor households made up 54% of the beneficiaries. This poor targeting of vulnerable households could have been a result of conditions set by some implementing NGOs that beneficiaries must have an assured water source. On the other hand, only 2% of the beneficiaries had used the kit to produce the expected 5 harvests over the 2 years, owing to problems related to water shortage, access to water and also pests and diseases. About 51% of the respondents had produced at least 3 harvests and 86% produced at least 2 harvests. Due to water shortages during the dry season 61% of production with the drip kit occurred during the wet season. This suggests that most households use the drip kits as supplementary irrigation. Conflicts between beneficiaries and water point committees or other water users developed in some areas especially during the dry season. The main finding from this study was that low cost drip kit programs can only be a sustainable intervention if implemented as an integral part of a long-term development program, not short-term relief programs and the programme should involve a broad range of stakeholders. A first step in any such program, especially in water scarce areas such as Gwanda and Beitbridge, is a detailed analysis of the existing water resources to assess availability and potential conflicts, prior to distribution of drip kits.

show abstract

Assessment of the Technical Performance and Operational Limits of a Low Cost Drip Irrigation System for Peri-Urban and Smallholder Farmers

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Technical evaluation and development of low‐head drip irrigation systems in Kenya

Technical evaluation and development of low‐head drip irrigation systems in Kenya

On farm evaluation of the effect of low cost drip irrigation on water and crop productivity compared to conventional surface irrigation system

Impact and sustainability of low-head drip irrigation kits, in the semi-arid Gwanda and Beitbridge Districts, Mzingwane Catchment, Limpopo Basin, Zimbabwe

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About