Water Harvesting Based Integrated Vertical Farming

R.K. Sahu1, A. K. Pali2 and J. Sinha3

ABSTRACT
Water shortage at critical times is a dominant constraint in most rain fed areas. Small Farm Reservoir (SFR) could play an important role in alleviating the problem by mitigating drought situation and/or submergence in these areas. It has multiple uses such as reducing drainage congestion, irrigation and aquaculture, improved cropping systems, increasing productivity and income, harnessing idle farm labour and improving family nutrition, although the utilization of full potential of SFR depends on innovativeness of the owner. To address the main issue of the farmers who do not wish to loose 5 to 20% land forever, it is imperative to consider integrated vertical farming to have multifarious uses of the same land/water. The multi-storeyed farming and animal rearing on the bunds of SFR is one of the options. The stored water of SFR can be used for fish (below water surface) and duck rearing (on the water surface) and space above it for poultry and rabbit farming. This system has great potential to boost the economy of farmers. The excreta of rabbits and poultry birds served as a part of the fish-food as well as add value to the stored water. Besides the animal rearing practiced on peripheral bunds would produce good amount of dung and urine, which was sloped down to SFR water which further helped to provide feed and value addition to the water. This organic water through drip irrigation system was used to irrigate orchards grown in the vicinity of SFR. The B:C ratio of such a system varied from 5.08 to 6.17 depending upon the intensity of remunerative activities. This paper reviews some of the systems installed at various places in the country to bring out the practical applications. It is concluded that in view of the decreasing trend in the average land holdings, innovative forms of this technology could be used by adding suitable components to enhance the farmers income.

Small and marginal land holdings (< 2ha) constitute a formidable group (78.2% in numbers and 32.4% in area) in India (Anon, 1998). Most of these holdings lie in rain fed areas. Unfavourable geologic conditions in many areas often limit the availability and harnessing of ground water. Runoff water harvesting in such areas thus becomes imperative for improving farming practices. Small farmers reservoirs (SFR) have been used to make this proposition a reality. SRF being individually owned, farmers are able to manage SFR relatively in a simple and easy way (Moya et al., 1994). Farmers field isolated by bunding/trenching from surrounding area even in a relatively flat topography resembles an artificially created micro-watersheds (MW). Within such a MW, all rainwater is conserved and stored in SFR, and subsequently recycled for crop production. Potential of rain water harvesting through SFR to augment water supply in rain fed areas has been demonstrated by researchers (Sahu and Kadrekar, 1981; Bharadwaj and Singh, 1990), extension workers and NGOs (Sinha, 1988; Verghese, 1990). Construction of series of stop dams, tanks and SFRs in a topo-sequence, improve water resources and environment (Bortrall and John, 1991; Pal and Bhuyan, 1995). However, adoptions of these new technologies need to be integrated with existing farming systems through
1

interactive process of research and developments (Singh, 1996; Sarkar and Singh, 1997). Such a step requires location-specific studies in order to improve production and protection against degradation (Singh and Bhattacharya, 1998). In order to arrive at scientific designs, integrated vertical components to be applied and economics of SFR, a comprehensive review was carried out and salient results reported. Design Considerations for SFR and Related Structures Suitability and location The SFR technology is highly suitable to mild rolling landscape with heavy soils where runoff collection and storage are convenient and lower fields could be irrigated by gravity flow. The technology could also be adopted in flat areas, using suitable water lifting devices (Moya et al., 1994). Excavating type SFR can be constructed in varying topo-sequences. It is generally constructed at the lowest area of MW where a higher water storage capacity is achievable per unit volume of earth work (Sahu, 1996; Sahu, 1999; Radder et al., 1995). Design of SFR The design of SFR consists of finding a suitable

Dean (rksahu1@indiatimes.com), 2Associate Professor and 3Assistant Professor, Faculty of Agricultural Engineering, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), Pin 492-006.

January - March, 2011

Water Harvesting Based Integrated Vertical Farming

combination of water spread area and depth of storage and a permissible side slope for a given storage volume. Krimgold equation was found to be appropriate for the design of SFR size and capacity (Bhandarkar, 1985; Sahu and Chandrakar, 1993) using different water balance and hydrological parameters of a MW. Water yield from the catchment can be estimated by analyzing past 20-40 years daily rainfall data using curve number technique (Gupta et al., 1971), conservation factor approach (Singh, 1988; Bajpai, 1999) and Binnies and Stranges method (CGWB, 1994). Binnies method was found to be the most suitable for estimating runoff to design SFRs in black soil region of Bhopal (Bhandarkar, 1985) and medium textured soils of Bastar plateau (Sahu and Chandrakar, 1993). Depth of SFR may be kept 3 to 4 m in areas where geological conditions in the substrata are favourable. As far as possible, shallow depths of SFRs should be avoided, as it promotes aquatic weed growth inside SFR and depth beyond 4 m may not be conducive to fish rearing (FAO, 1998). The water spread area of SFR with 3.0 m depth works out to be roughly 10% and 12.5% of the MW for plains and plateau areas of Chhattisgarh, respectively (Sahu, 1996), when designed by Binnies method. In general, it may vary up to 20% of the MW area (Bhandarkar, 1985). Design of drainage system About 50% of rainfall anywhere in India occurs in a few high intensity storms that last for a total period of 20-30 hours. These high intensity storms create water submergence besides soil erosion. About 20-35% of annual rainfall (550-850 mm) could be harvested in cultivated red soils of Karnataka (Hegde et al., 1981). In Doon valley, 16.5% of the monsoon rainfall could be harvested. In submountain region of Maharashtra, it was observed to be 23% of monsoon rainfall (Chunale et al., 1994), whereas in Bellary (Karnataka) it worked out to 5000 m3.ha-1 of MW (Chittaranjan, 1982). The rainwater harvesting potential as percentage of monsoon rainfall with well laid out drainage system was found to be 54.4% in Bastar plateau (Sahu, 1995), 54.2% in vertisol and 44.2% in inceptisol MW in Chattisgarh plains (Pal et al., 1996). Scientifically, the curve number method could be used to estimate runoff volume (Sahu, 1999; Bhandarkar and Nimje, 1990). On an average, surface drains at a spacing of 7-10 m were found suitable in heavy to medium textured soils of Raipur and Jagdalpur, respectively (Pal et al., 1994; Sahu., 1996). Inlet, silt trap and diversion drain An inlet of 30 cm diameter hume pipe embedded in cement concrete with anti-seep collar arrangement is suitable for inletting runoff to SFR. Silt trap (1 m3 capacity, 0.6 m deep)
22

is provided to minimize sediments in the water entering the SFR. Natural vegetation grown in drainage channels was found to be effective in stabilizing side slopes and sediment reduction. SFRs do not require a spillway. Excess runoff, if any, is diverted to rice fields downstream of SFR through diversion drain (Sahu, 1996). The water which cannot enter the SFR through inlet by gravity, could be pumped into the SFR after closing the inlet. Water Balance of SFRs A simple water balance model of SFRs has been proposed by Husenappa et al.(1979), as: I = O+ AS + SL + EL Where, I O AS = Inflow, = Outflow, = Change in storage capacity, and (1)

SL, EL = Seepage and evaporation losses. Water balance components of such SFRs at Raipur (Pal et al., 1988), Jagdalpur (Sahu, 1999), Tarlac Phillipines (Guerre, 1988) and Bhopal (Bhandarkar and Nimje, 1990) are given in Table 1. Seepage and percolation cause major losses from SFR constituting about 40-60% of the total outflow components (Table 1). Studies at Dehradun and Rajkot (Vijayalakshmi, et al., 1982) revealed that seepage from a newly dugout SFR gets stabilized to a very low rate in a period of about 8 years due to silting. Seepage losses in light textured substrata of SFR were reduced from 71.3 to 24.1% by mixing of clay soil in SFR bed followed by trampling by animals, puddling and finally compacting by hand compactor and roller. Reduction in seepage losses have also been reported from 37.8% to 15.2% by compaction alone. To maintain low seepage rate, the SFR bed and sides are to be compacted and rolled every year at the start of monsoon season (Sahu, 1999). SFR Supported Production Activities Monsoon season crop production SFR water used to supplement irrigations during monsoon breaks stabilized monsoon crop production by minimizing drought stress in rain fed areas. Long-term data showed that rice yield was enhanced by 20-76% in different rice growing environments (Sahu and Chandrakar, 1993; Pal et al., 1996; Sahu, 1999; Moya et al., 1994; Islam et al., 1994). About 44 and 90% increase in rice yields were recorded at Bhopal with 2 and 4 supplementary irrigations from SFR (Bhandarkar and Nimje, 1990). Even

R.K. Sahu, A. K. Pali and J. Sinha

JAE : 48 (1)

Table 1. Water balance of SFRs at selected places Water balance component As % of inflow into SFR 1. Direct rainfall over SFR 2. Surface runoff 3. Subsurface runoff 4. Pumping a part of outflow in SFR As % of out flow from SFR 1. Evaporation losses 2. Seepage and percolation losses 3. Irrigation / land preparation As % of total runoff in MW 1. Accommodated in SFR 2. Un-accommodated outflow MW and SFR description 1. MW area (ha) 2. SFR capacity (m3) 3. Irrigated area (ha, Non- monsoon) 4. SFR water spread area (ha) Raipur, India 36.5 63.5 11.3 59.3 29.4 80.2 19.8 1 970 0.85 0.09 Jagdalpur, India 21.5 68.5 9.0 1.0 19.4 40.8 39.8 82.1 17.9 2 6640 1.08 0.25 Tarlac, Philippines 36 64 . 25 45 30 93 7 2.8 2256 0.52 0.20 Bhopal, India 56.9 43.1 . -

43.5* 56.3 100 0 7 22,000 4 1.3

* Induced evaporation losses downstream seepage of SFR could be utilized to increase rice yield by 83.4% (Chunale et al., 1994). With assured water supply, crop diversification is also a possibility. Banana and rice were grown utilizing downstream seepage at Jagdalpur and Raipur, respectively. Papaya and pigeon pea were grown on top of SFR bund. Sweet potato and soybean were grown on outer slope of SFR bund (Sahu and Chandrakar, 1993). Vegetables were cultivated over area raised with excavated SFR soil with better aeration and drainage (Pal et al., 1994). Vegetables response to supplementary irrigations led to 3-4 times higher income than with grain crops (Pal et al., 1994). Post-monsoon crop production With almost full capacity of reservoirs at the end of monsoon, grain yield of chickpea, linseed and safflower were increased by 90, 56 and 51% with 2 supplemental irrigations from SFR at Bhopal (Bhandarkar and Nimje, 1990). Gram, mustard and vegetables were grown with substantial yield advantage due to increasing number of irrigations (Pal et al., 1994; Sahu, 1999; Guerre et al., 1988). Onion, Okra and radish gave the highest yield advantage to increased number of irrigations as compared to other crops (Sahu, 2000). Fish production in SFR A fish catch of 1.46 t.ha-1.year-1 was obtained for an average
23

culture period of 133 days at Jagdalpur with SFR of 0.25 ha. Since agriculture is major occupation in the area, crop irrigation was given priority over fish culture in terms of water allocation and use. Poaching, theft and availability of fish seeds were major constraints in taking up aquaculture (Paul, 1991). Intensity of cropping and area covered by SFR SFR constructed in black soils with a capacity of 20,125 m 3 provided two irrigations for 1.6 ha rice and two irrigations for wheat and 6.5 ha of gram. Same SFR, with enhanced capacity of 23,345 m3, provided 4 irrigations for 1.5 ha rice and 7 ha area of gram and wheat with one irrigation (Bhandarkar and Nimje, 1990). The cropping intensity in two MWs, each of 2 ha area with a SFR of 6640 m3 capacity each, increased from 75.5 to 164% (MW 1) and 62.5% to 186% (MW2) with area coverage of 0.80 and 1.37 ha respectively in Bastar Plateau (Sahu, 1999). Similarly, cropping intensity increased from 100 to 177% in heavy soils of Raipur with 0.9 ha area covered by SFR of 970 m3 capacity (Pal et al., 1994). Benefits of SFR Based Farming Benefits from the use of SFR water for rice and fish production in the two seasons were higher than the investment needed for SFR construction. Economic analysis assuming a 15 year life span of SFR with a 3-year cyclic

January - March, 2011

Water Harvesting Based Integrated Vertical Farming

maintenance schedule revealed a high B-C ratio of 5.1 or IRR of 177% (Moya et al., 1994). It was concluded that the profit from fish culture was nearly two times the cost of SFR and about five times the net value of output foregone in the portion of the farm used for SFR. Studies conducted in Orissa showed that more than 60% of the total cost of SFR was recovered from increased production in one year (Das and Mandal, 1991). Economic returns accruable from the use of SFR in a 1.05 ha MW based on 3-year average crop performance indicated that even if the returns from SFR in actual farmer field conditions were half of those in research experiment, the construction cost of SFR and associated interest could be fully recovered in 3-4 years (Pal et al., 1994). Similar study in two MWs at Jagdalpur revealed an attractive B-C ratio of 1.69 including B-C ratio of 2.29 of fish rearing alone (Sahu, 1999). The optimum crop area allocation process ensures high monetary returns from available water and land resources. Model studies for two MWs, each at Raipur and Jagdalpur (Sahu, 2000), revealed enhanced B:C ratio of 2.5- 2.8 with full utilization of water and land available for cultivation. Intangible benefits Like any other activity, SFRs also led to many intangible benefits such as social gains (employment generation, reduced migration, improved economic status), national gains (poverty alleviation, increased productivity, increased cropping intensity, and improved eco-system), value addition (increased value of land) and agricultural environmental gains (improved ground water status). As an example, additional employment opportunities (> 100 man-day.ha-1.year-1) could be generated for crop cultivation and fish culture (Pal et al., 1994). Additional 3240 manday were required initially to establish the SFR and drainage system while 35 man-day were required annually to maintain the system (Sahu and Chandrakar, 1993). Seepage losses from SFR contribute to groundnut water recharge. About 520.8 and 480 m3 groundwater was utilized in different years through the shallow dug wells due to increased water yields of these wells by 11-27% (1st year) and 15-34% (2nd year). The water table rose by 0.25-1.50 m (1st year) and 0.75-1.75 m (2nd year) after installation of SFR based farming system (Sahu, 1995; Pal and Bhuiyan, 1995). Due to absence of standardized methods, some of these gains could be quantified but could not be transformed into monetary units. However, these benefits should be considered while working out the overall economics of SFR based fanning systems (Sahu, 2000).

CONCLUSIONS On the basis of studies conducted on SFRs covering widely varying agro-climatic conditions, it could be concluded that the technology when integrated with vertical farming systems such as diversified cropping, aquaculture, animal rearing etc. could lead to high income to the farming communities. REFERENCES Anon, 1998. Agricultural Statistics at a Glance. Min. of Agriculture. New Delhi. Bajpai A.K. 1999. Assessment of water yield from small watersheds under selected agro-hydrological conditions. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, IARI, New Delhi. Bhandarkar D M 1985. Design and feasibility of dugout pond in black soils of Bhopal region. Proc. ISAE, SJC 2 (III), 30-37. Bhandarkar D M; Nimje P M. 1990. Drainage needs of heavy black soils of Bhopal region. Proc. third IWRS National Symposium on Watershed Development and Management, Kanpur, 145-151. Bharadwaj S P; Singh G. 1990. Achievements and performance of 20 ORP on integrated watershed management. Proc. Third International Symposium on Watershed Development and Management, IWRS, Roorkee, 263-269. Bortrall A F; John K C. 1991. Adapting farming systems research to the needs of collective decision making. Eastern India Fmg. Syst. Res. Ext. Newsletter, 5(3), 3-8. CGWB 1994. Manual on Artificial Recharge of Ground Water. Tech. Series M, No. 3, CGWB, Faridabad. Chittaranjan S. 1982. Rainwater harvesting and recycling. Ind J. Soil Cons., 9(2,3), 100-106. Chunale G L; Patil R B; Kalke S D. 1994. Rainwater harvesting and its recycling for increasing crop yield in sub-montane zone of Maharashtra. Proc: National Seminar on Farming System Based on Watershed Research and Development, Nagpur, 43-48. Das C S; Mandal B. 1991. Water management as a critical component of low land farming systems in Eastern India. Fmg. Sys. Res. Ext. News, 5(3), 13-16. FAO. 1998. Inland Fisheries Enhancement. Tech. Paper 374, Rome. Guerre L C; Watson P G; Bhuiyan S L. 1988. Small farm reservoirs. Technology, 10 (6), 1-16.

24

R.K. Sahu, A. K. Pali and J. Sinha

JAE : 48 (1)

Gupta S K; Ram Babu; Tejwani K G. 1971. Drainage coefficient for surface drainage of agricultural land for different parts of the country. Irrigation and Power Journal, January, 53-60. Hegde B R; Chanappa T C; Ananda Ram. 1981. Water harvesting and recycling in the red soils of Kamataka. Ind. J. Soil Cons., 9 (2,3), 107-115. Husenappa V; Bansal R C; Sastry G; Srivastava M N. 1979. Trends of storage losses from unlined farm ponds in Doon valley. Ind. J. Soil Cons., 7(2), 4-11. Islam M.H; Siddiqui M R; Hassan M N; Islam M N; Musa A M; Kar N K. 1994. OFRs for drought alleviation in the rainfed rice lands of Barind area of Bangladesh. In: Bhuiyan SI, (Ed.) OFR Systems for Rainfed Rice Lands, IRRI, Philippines. Moya T B; de La; Vina W C; Bhuiyan S I. 1994. Potential of OFR use for increasing productivity of rainfed rice areas: the Philippines case. In: Bhuiyan SI, (Ed.) OFR Systems for Rainfed Rice Lands, IRRI, Philippines, 59-70. Pal A R; Rathore A X; Sahu R K. 1994. Land use, soil and rainwater management for rainfed rice and rice based cropping systems. Proc. Nalt. Sem. on fing. Syst. Based on Watershed Manag. Res. and Develop., Nagpur, 64-74. Pal A R; Bhuiyan S I. 1995. Rainwater management for drought alleviation: opportunities and options for sustainable growth in agricultural productivity. Proc. Intl. Rice Res. Conf., IRRI, 187-216. Pal A R; Sahu R K; Rathore A L. 1996. Rainwater management for diversified, intensive and sustainable crop production in Chhattisgarh region: Research Highlights1995-96, IGAU. Raipur, 1-8. Paul D K. 1991. Feasibility of interim fish production in water harvesting tanks in rainfed drought-prone areas. Ind. J. Fisheries, 36(1), 63-65. Radder G D; Itnal C J; Belgaumi M L. 1995. Water harvesting procedures for dry-land areas. In: Singh R P (Ed.) Sustainable Develop, of Dryland Agric. in India. Scientific Publisher, Jodhpur, 195-205. Sahu R K. 1995. Water harvesting studies in Bastar region. Final Report of ICAR Adhoc Scheme. IGKV. Raipur.

Sahu R K. 1996. Micro-watershed development through water harvesting system and its techno-economic feasibility. J. Agric. Engng., XXXIII (1-4), 1-12. Sahu R K. 1999. Small Farm Reservoirs. In: Bhattacharya A.K (Ed.)Tech. Bull., ICAR, New Delhi. Sahu R.K. 2000. Development of water harvesting system for sustainable crop production in micro-watersheds, unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. IARI, New Delhi. Sahu R K; Chandrakar B S. 1993. Water harvesting through dugout farm ponds in Bastar plateau Agri-climatic Zone. Proc. of Natl. Sem. on Water Harvesting, Tiruchirapalli, 25-36. Sahu R K; Kadrekar S B. 1981. Prospects of farm ponds in coastal saline soils of Konkan. Proc. Second Conf. on Problems and Manag. of Coastal Saline Soils, Bombay, 209-214. Sarkar T K; Singh A. 1997. Development of sustainable production system - a case for interaction research and development. J. Soil and Water Cons. Soc. of India, 41(1,2), 71-80. Singh A. 1988. Effect of farming systems on hydrological behaviour in hilly micro-watersheds. Ind. J. of Dryland Res. and Develop., 3(2), 87-94. Singh A. 1996. Emerging concept on integrated research and development for watershed management. Proc. Intl. Symp. on Emerging Trends in Hydrology, (vol. I), Roorkee. Singh A; Bhattacharya A K. 1998. Research strategies for watershed management. Proc. Intl. Conf. on Watershed Manag. and Cons., CBIP, New Delhi, 449-453. Sinha A. 1988. Small can be beautiful: reflections on the efforts at harvesting rainwater in the tribal dist. of Singhbhum in Bihar (mimeo.) Verghese B G. 1990. Waters of hope. Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi. Vijayalakshmi K; Vittal K P R; Singh R P. 1982. Water harvesting and reuse. In, A Decade of Dryland Agric. Res. in India (1971-80). Inst. of Dryland Agriculture Research, Hyderabad.

25