Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Research Articles

Vol. 12 No. sp4 (2025): Recent Advances in Agriculture by Young Minds - III

Impact of electrically operated tubewells on water use, water productivity and profitability of major crops in Gorai village, Samastipur district of Bihar

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.8818
Submitted
11 April 2025
Published
05-11-2025

Abstract

A field study was conducted in Gorai village of Kalyanpur block, Samastipur district, to evaluate the economic and water-use efficiency of electric versus diesel-operated tubewell irrigation systems across major crops. The study encompassed 20 farmers and analysed multiple parameters including water productivity, irrigation costs, crop profitability and water balance. The irrigation water productivity values were highest for kharif maize at 7.77 kg/m³, followed by wheat (1.95 kg/m³), spring maize (1.45 kg/m3), rabi maize (1.01 kg/m³) and paddy (0.79 kg/m³). In terms of gross water productivity, wheat showed the highest efficiency at 1.69 kg/m³, followed by rabi maize (0.95 kg/m³), spring maize (0.89 kg/m³), kharif maize (0.74 kg/m³) and paddy (0.44 kg/m³). Economic analysis revealed that diesel pump irrigation costs were substantially higher than electric pump costs, ranging from 30 to 37 times more expensive across crops. This cost differential significantly impacted profitability, with electric pump users achieving higher profits of 22 % more for paddy, 13 % for rabi maize, 7.8 % for wheat, 4 % for spring maize and 2 % for kharif maize. The study demonstrates that crop selection and irrigation technology choice are critical factors for optimizing both water use efficiency and farm economics. While electric tubewells demonstrate clear economic advantages, the extremely low electricity tariffs (₹ 0.75/unit) raise sustainability concerns regarding potential groundwater overextraction, necessitating integrated groundwater governance frameworks.

References

  1. 1. Chandra R, Kumari S. Estimation of crop water requirement for rice-wheat and rice-maize cropping system using CROPWAT model for Pusa, Samastipur district, Bihar. J Agri Search. 2021;8(2):143–8. https://doi.org/10.21921/jas.v8i2.7299
  2. 2. Census of India. Provisional population totals: India [Internet]. New Delhi: Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India; 2021 [cited 2025 Aug 17]. Available from: https://censusindia.gov.in/census.website/
  3. 3. Central Ground Water Board. Groundwater yearbook of India [Internet]. New Delhi: Ministry of Jal Shakti, Government of India; 2021 [cited 2025 Aug 17]. Available from: https://www.cgwb.gov.in/old_website/GW-Year-Book.html
  4. 4. Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers' Welfare. 6th Minor irrigation census [Internet]. New Delhi: Government of India, 2021. 510 p. [cited 2025 Aug 17]. Available from: https://mowr.nic.in/core/WebsiteUpload/2023/MI6.pdf
  5. 5. Durga N, Rai GP. Catalysing competitive irrigation service markets in North Bihar: the case of Chakhaji solar irrigation service market. In: Sitaram Rao, editor. Livelihoods India case study compendium. New Delhi: Access Development Services; 2018. p. 1–12.
  6. 6. Gupta D. Free power, irrigation and groundwater depletion: impact of farm electricity policy of Punjab, India. Agric Econ. 2023;54(4):515–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12773
  7. 7. Patel K, Singh M. Economic impact of electric tubewells in Gujarat. Indian J Agric Econ. 2023;74(2):225–34.
  8. 8. Mehta S, Kumar P. Comparative analysis of irrigation systems in Bihar: Economic and environmental implications. J Water Resour Econ. 2024;35:100198.
  9. 9. Sharma V, Reddy K. Groundwater depletion patterns and electric tubewell density: a spatial analysis. J Hydrol. 2023;616:128721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.128721
  10. 10. Gupta R, Singh M, Kumar A. Sustainable groundwater management in areas with high electric tubewell density. Groundw Sustain Dev. 2023;18:100789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2023.100789
  11. 11. Michael AM. Irrigation: theory and practice. 2nd ed New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House Pvt. Ltd.; 2010.
  12. 12. Molden D, Oweis T, Steduto P, Bindraban P, Hanjra MA, Kijne J. Improving agricultural water productivity: between optimism and caution. Agric Water Manag. 2010;97(4):528–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2009.03.023
  13. 13. Singh OP, Singh R, Singh MK. Impact of farm sector electricity subsidy on water use efficiency and water productivity in India. Indian J Agric Econ. 2014;69(3):404–13. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.229844
  14. 14. Kumari N, Chandra R. Estimation of water productivity of different varieties of rice in Burhi Gandak basin of north Bihar. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2018;8(1):2631–4. https://www.phytojournal.com/archives/2019.v8.i1.7177
  15. 15. Singh S, Kaur P, Sachdeva J, Bhardwaj S. Profitability analysis of major crops in Punjab: Some evidence from cost of cultivation survey data. Indian J Econ Dev. 2017;13(1):71–8. https://doi.org/10.5958/2322-0430.2017.00010.5

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.