Application of Extended Range Forecast for Climate Risk Management on crops in Coastal and Western Agro-ecosystems of Tamil Nadu - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Application of Extended Range Forecast for Climate Risk Management on crops in Coastal and Western Agro-ecosystems of Tamil Nadu PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 6f1d41-MzIxY



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Application of Extended Range Forecast for Climate Risk Management on crops in Coastal and Western Agro-ecosystems of Tamil Nadu

Description:

Application of Extended Range Forecast for Climate Risk Management on crops in Coastal and Western Agro-ecosystems of Tamil Nadu Dr. V. Geethalakshmi – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:26
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 38
Provided by: Econ93
Learn more at: http://iri.columbia.edu
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Application of Extended Range Forecast for Climate Risk Management on crops in Coastal and Western Agro-ecosystems of Tamil Nadu


1
Application of Extended Range Forecast for
Climate Risk Management on crops in Coastal and
Western Agro-ecosystems of Tamil Nadu
Dr. V. Geethalakshmi Professor
Agro Climate Research CentreTamil Nadu
Agricultural University Coimbatore
2
Objectives
  • To assess past climate anomalies, pattern and
    their impacts on agriculture with reference to
    extreme weather events.
  • To establish a system to provide climate
    information on time to selected locations for
    climate risk management in agriculture.
  • To train the target groups on the application of
    extended range weather forecast on farm decision
    making to reduce the climatic risks
  • Feed back analysis for refinement and improvement
    of the forecast and application of forecast
    information on decision making
  • Development of decision support system

3
Location Map of Study area
4
Normal Rainfall Temperature of Study region
5
Excess rainfall October 07 178 of LPA (358 mm
against 200 mm) December
07 231 LPA (371 mm
against 160 mm) March 08, 220 of LPA (160 mm
against 50
mm) Drought April 08 - 83 of LPA (8.4 mm
against 50 mm) July 08 - 96 of
LPA (4.4 against 109 mm)
Extreme weather events 2007 2008
Rf Oct 23rd, 2007 107.5 mm Drought
SWM, 2008 -32 of LPA
6
Choice of Crops
Upland Irrigated cotton - Coimbatore
Rainfed maize - Coimbatore
Irrigated Groundnut Nagapattinam
Lowland Rice - Nagapattinam
7
Cropping calendar
Crop Season Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Rice short duration                          
  medium duration                          
Maize Purattasi pattam                        
cotton Winter                          
groundnut Thai pattam                          
  Adi pattam                          




Sowing/Establishment Vegetative Flowering Maturity Harvest
         
8
Progress made so far
  • Village Selected
  • Cotton Avinashi, Coimbatore
  • Maize Pollachi, Coimbatore
  • Rice P.R.Puram, Nagapattinam
  • Groundnut Vettaikaran iruppu, Nagapattinam
  • Farmers selection in progress.
  • Collection of weather data Crop Yield data
    (1970 2000)
  • Assessing the past climate anomalies, pattern and
    their impacts on agriculture In Progress

9
Past Experience
  • ENSO based SCF and Farm Decision making
  • Economic Impact Analysis Project
  • Experimental Agromet Advisory Services
  • Weather based forewarning of Downy Mildew ICAR
    funded project

10
(No Transcript)
11
(No Transcript)
12
(No Transcript)
13
Weather Summary (Observed and Predicted) Banana
(2005)
Stage Operation Weather Prediction Impact
Establishment (March) Fertilizer application Rainfall 45mm forecasted 2.0 mm received Low nutrient use efficiency
Vegetative (April May) Intercultural operation Rainfall 60 mm forecasted 77.2 mm received Helped in planning intercultural operations
Flowering (July-August) Propping Wind speed July 10.2 KMPH -10.6 KMPH Aug 10.1 KMPH - 9.3 KMPH Correct wind speed forecast helped in giving propping recommendation and saved the crops from lodging.
14
Weather Summary (Observed and Predicted) Tomato
2005
Stage Operation Weather Prediction Impact
Entire crop growth period (June - October) Irrigation Rainfall August and October well predicted. June, July, September Under predicted Helped in saving irrigation water. Interfered with irrigation planning
Vegetative (July-August) Plant protection Rainfall Occurrence predicted well Helped in plant protection decision making
Temperature Increase in temperature well predicted. Correct temperature forecasts helped in controlling the sucking pest.
Wind speed Correctly predicted Helped in scheduling the spraying operation
Maturity (September-October) Drainage Rainfall Heavy rainfall well predicted Helped in reducing the yield loss.
Harvesting Rainfall Heavy rainfall well predicted Harvest of even half ripped fruits were recommended to avoid fruit damage
15
Economic Impact of AAS on manures and fertilizers
No difference in FYM usage AAS- used more
fertilizer 2004 26.5 - Rs. 1673 2005 29.1
- Rs. 2106 2006 15.2 - Rs. 1210
AAS farmers used lesser FYM (7.5 ) AAS- used
less fertilizer 2004 11.7 - Rs. 256 2005
14 - Rs. 72 AAS- used more fertilizer 2006
4.3 - Rs. 68
AAS farmers used lesser FYM in 2004 and 2005 (4.5
)But more in 2006 (10 ) AAS- used less
fertilizer 2004 13.6 - Rs. 466 2005 15 -
Rs. 77 AAS- used more fertilizer 2006 9 -
Rs. 247
Tomato Cotton - Well Distributed rainfall
during flowering and fruiting in 2006
16
Economic Impact of AAS on Pesticide usage
AAS- spent more on plant protection
chemicals 2004 Rs. 44 2006 Rs. 145
AAS farmers used lesser plant protection
chemicals Saving 2004 Rs. 94 2005 Rs.
168 2006 Rs. 297
Furadon sucker treatment
Weather based pest and disease management
AAS farmers used lesser plant protection
chemical Saving 2004 Rs. 76 2005 Rs.
92 2006 Rs. 71
17
Economic Impact of AAS on Labour usage
Saving of 2 Men labour on irrigation One labour
more for fertilizer application Four labour more
for intercultural operation
Saving of 1- 2 men labours on irrigation Saving
of 1 men labour on fertilizer application Saving
of 2 men 2 women labours on pesticide
application More labour for harvest
Saving of 2 men labours on irrigation Saving of 1
labour on fertilizer application Saving of 5 8
labours on intercultural operations More labour
for harvest
Weather based operations and labour management
18
Irrigation water saving - 2004
Crop AAS Non-AAS No. of irrigations saved Quantity of irrigation water saved Saving in terms of money
Banana 7 8 irrigations Saving of one irrigation on 03.08.2004 Saving of one irrigation on 14.09.2004 Saving of one irrigation on 24.09. 2004. 9 10 irrigations were given 2-3 irrigation saved. 450 m3 Rs. 7440 (6750 240 450)
Tomato 7 8 irrigations Saving of one irrigation on 03.08.2004 Saving of one irrigation on 14.09.2004 Saving of one irrigation on 24.09. 2004. 9 10 irrigations were given 2-3 irrigation saved. 450 m3 Rs. 7440 (6750 240 450)
Cotton 8 irrigations Saving of one irrigation on 03.08.2004 Saving of one irrigation on 14.09.2004 Saving of one irrigation on 24.09. 2004. 10 irrigations were given 2 irrigation saved. 300 m3 Rs. 4960 (Water cost 4500 Labour 160 Fuel 300)
19
Input Usage by farmers - Banana
  1. Marginal saving on seed material
  2. No difference in FYM usage
  3. AAS farmers used more fertilizers (15.2 to
    29.7)
  4. AAS farmers spent more on plant protection
    chemicals
  5. Saving of 2 Men labour on irrigation
  6. One labour more for fertilizer application
  7. Four labour more for intercultural operation

20
Input Usage by farmers - Tomato
  • AAS farmers used more seed materials
  • AAS farmers used lesser FYM (7.5 )
  • AAS- used less fertilizer 2004 11.7 - Rs.
    256

  • 2005 14 - Rs. 72
  • AAS- used more fertilizer 2006 4.3 -
    Rs. 68
  • 4. AAS farmers used lesser plant protection
    chemical
  • Saving of 2 men labours on irrigation
  • Saving of 1 labour on fertilizer application
  • Saving of 5 8 labours on intercultural
    operations
  • More labour for harvest

21
Input Usage by farmers - Cotton
  • Marginal saving on seed material
  • AAS farmers used lesser FYM (7.5 )
  • AAS- used less fertilizer 2004 11.7 -
    Rs. 256
  • 2005 14 -
    Rs. 72
  • AAS- used more fertilizer 2006 4.3 -
    Rs. 68
  • 3. AAS farmers used lesser plant protection
    chemicals
  • 4. Saving of 1- 2 men labours on irrigation
  • Saving of 1 men labour on fertilizer
    application
  • Saving of 2 men 2 women labours on
    pesticide application.
  • More labour for harvest

22
Use of AAS bulletin on increase in yield (Qts/ac)
- Banana
Farmer category 2004 2004 2004 2005 2005 2005
Farmer category AAS Non Diff AAS Non Diff
Marginal 194 155
Small 217 186 31 (16.9) 175 152 23.2 (15.3)
Medium 213 201 12.1 (6.0) 172 161 11.7 (7.3)
Large 204 201 3.1 (1.5) 165 161 4.3 (2.7)
Overall 212 195 16.9 (8.7) 172 158 14.2 (9.0)
23
Use of AAS bulletin on increase in yield (Qts/ac)
- Tomato
Farmer category 2004 2004 2004 2005 2005 2005 2006 2006 2006
Farmer category AAS Non Diff AAS Non Diff AAS Non Diff
Marginal 123 118 4.4 (1.2) 112 100 12 (12) 123 106 17 (16)
Small 127 101 25.5 (25.7) 112 99 13 (13) 124 119 5 (4)
Medium 136 118 18 (15.2) 122 101 22 (22) 136 113 23 (20.3)
Large 111 94 17 (21.9) 104 81 23 (29) 112 110 2 (2)
Overall 129 110 19 (17.2) 111 99 12 (12) 123 112 13 (10.4)
24
Use of AAS bulletin on increase in yield (Qts/ac)
- Cotton
Farmer category 2004 2004 2004 2005 2005 2005
Farmer category AAS Non Diff AAS Non Diff
Marginal 6.9 6.4 0.5 (7.8) 8.3 7.9 0.4 (5.2)
Small 7.5 6.2 1.3 (20.9) 8.2 7.6 0.6 (8.5)
Medium 6.6 6.0 0.6 (10) 8.5 7.8 0.7 (8.7)
Large 7.0 7.8
Overall 7.2 6.2 1.0 (16.1) 8.3 7.7 0.6 (7.8)
25
Gross Return - Banana
Farmer category 2004 2004 2004 2005 2005 2005
Farmer category AAS Non Diff AAS Non Diff
Marginal 126175 72835
Small 140816 118790 22026 (18.5) 82090 76956 5134 (6.7)
Medium 123455 113120 10335 (9.1) 85024 81742 3282 (4.0)
Large 118495 102892 15602 (15.2) 80187 74865 5322 (7.1)
Overall 127549 114227 13322 (11.6) 82434 76000 5834 (7.6)
26
Gross Return - Tomato
Farmer category 2004 2004 2004 2005 2005 2005 2006 2006 2006
Farmer category AAS Non Diff AAS Non Diff AAS Non Diff
Marginal 79845 84320 -4475 (-5.3) 74160 67100 7060 (10.5) 85562 61965 23597 ()
Small 85105 69138 15967 (23.1) 75084 62544 12540 (20) 76907 57962 18944 ()
Medium 90717 81626 9091 (11.1) 73909 70159 3750 (5.3) 81043 70399 10644 ()
Large 66800 56400 10400 (18.4) 65625 58629 6996 (11.9) 54083 83170 -29086 ()
Overall 85781 73982 11799 (15.9) 74214 68078 6136 (9.0) 78610 69280 ()
27
Gross Return - Cotton
Farmer category 2004 2004 2004 2005 2005 2005
Farmer category AAS Non Diff AAS Non Diff
Marginal 14776 17221 2445 (-14.1) 15990 15107 883 (8.9)
Small 16146 16417 -271 (-1.6) 16010 14212 1798 (13)
Medium 14526 15735 -1209 (-7.6) 16287 14639 1648 (11.3)
Large 18900 12467
Overall 15543 16352 -809 (-4.9) 16028 14359 1669 (11.6)
28
Cost of Cultivation - Banana
Farmer category 2004 2004 2004 2005 2005 2005
Farmer category AAS Non Diff AAS Non Diff
Marginal 12311 29704
Small 15979 15196 783 () 32410 31728 682 (2.1)
Medium 16100 14760 1339 () 33884 30515 3369 (9.9)
Large 17846 12480 5005 () 33410 32476 933 (2.8)
Overall 16641 13686 6468 () 33361 31131 2230 (6.7)
29
Cost of Cultivation - Tomato
Farmer category 2004 2004 2004 2005 2005 2005 2006 2006 2006
Farmer category AAS Non Diff AAS Non Diff AAS Non Diff
Marginal 12852 14346 -1495 (-10.4) 16028 17219 -1191 (-6.9) 19400 20520 -1120 (-5.4)
Small 12985 13899 -915 (-6.5) 14901 16428 -1526 () 18204 19053 -849 (-4.4)
Medium 14542 13407 1135 (8.4) 15336 16587 -1251 (-7.5) 18357 17212 1145 10.9-)
Large 13577 11555 2022 (17.4) 14924 15851 -927 (5.8) 17650 15910 1740 (10.9)
Overall 13472 13331 142 (1.1) 15238 16508 -1270 (-7.7) 18402 18173 229 (1.3)
30
Cost of Cultivation - Cotton
Farmer category 2004 2004 2004 2005 2005 2005
Farmer category AAS Non Diff AAS Non Diff
Marginal 10415 12762 -2347 (-18.3) 8742 8843 -102 (-11)
Small 10786 12476 -1690 (-13.5) 8478 9166 -688 (-7.5)
Medium 10359 11785 -1426 (-12.1) 9190 9319 -129 (-1.3)
Large 12234 9667
Overall 10624 12275 -1651 (-13.5) 8629 9202 -573 (-15)
31
Net Return - Banana
Farmer category 2004 2004 2004 2005 2005 2005
Farmer category AAS Non Diff AAS Non Diff
Marginal 113864 43131
Small 124867 103594 21243 (20.5) 49680 45228 4452 (9.8)
Medium 107355 98359 8996 (9.1) 51140 51228 -88 (3.5)
Large 101009 90413 10597 (11.7) 46777 42389 4388 (10.4)
Overall 111212 104358 6854 (6.6) 49199 47861 3705 (8.1)
32
Net Return - Tomato
Farmer category 2004 2004 2004 2005 2005 2005 2006 2006 2006
Farmer category AAS Non Diff AAS Non Diff AAS Non Diff
Marginal 66993 69974 7622 (-4.2) 58132 49881 8251 (16.5) 66162 41445 24718 ()
Small 72121 55239 16882 (30.5) 60182 47646 12536 (26.3) 58702 410912 17611 ()
Medium 76175 68220 7955 (11.6) 58573 53572 5001 (9.3) 62686 53187 9499 ()
Large 53223 44845 8378 (18.7) 50701 42778 7923 (18.5) 36433 467260 8251 (16.5)
Overall 72309 60651 11658 (19.2) 58975 51569 7406 (14.4) 60216 51019 9196 ()
33
Net Return - Cotton
Farmer category 2004 2004 2004 2005 2005 2005
Farmer category AAS Non Diff AAS Non Diff
Marginal 4362 4460 -98 (-2.9) 7026 6597 429 (6.5)
Small 5360 3940 1420 (36) 7315 6529 786 (12)
Medium 4168 3950 218 (5.5) 5524 5158 365 (7.0)
Large 6666 6100
Overall 4919 4077 842 (20.6) 7059 6102 957 (15.6)
34
Banana (More investment More return)
Additional cost (Rs./ac) Yield increase (q/ac) Additional income (Rs./ac) Monitory benefit (Rs./ac)
1699 16.9 10140 8441
Cotton (More investment More return)
Farmers Category Added cost (Rs./ac) Yield increase (q/ac) Additional income (Rs./ac) Monitory benefit (Rs./ac)
Marginal 281 0.5 1100 819
Small 171 1.3 2860 2689
35
Cotton -Medium farmers (Less investment More
return)
Saving cost (Rs./ac) Yield Increase (q/ac) Increased income (Rs./ac) Monitory gain (Rs./ac)
386 0.7 1540 1926
Tomato (Less investment More return)
Farmers Category Reduced cost (Rs./ac) Yield increase (q/ac) Additional income (Rs./ac) Monitory benefit (Rs./ac)
Marginal 393 14.6 9636 10029
Small 40 21.9 14454 14494
Medium 415 9.9 6534 6949
Average 283 15.5 10208 10491
36
Tomato -large farmers (More investment Less
return)
Additional cost (Rs./ac) Yield reduction (q/ac) Reduced income (Rs./ac) Monitory loss (Rs./ac)
1739 6.0 3600 5339
Conclusion Tomato More sensitive to weather
Weather forecast helped in monitory gain up to
Rs. 15000 /ac
37
Thank you
About PowerShow.com