Drip irrigation systems considerably improve water use efficiency: The improved black pepsee pipes deliver water directly to the chilli pepper plants. (Shilp Verma)

Pepsee micro-irrigation system (India)

Pepsee

Description

A grassroots innovation that offers most of the advantages of conventional micro-irrigation at a much lower establishment cost.

The continued expansion of irrigation in India is causing increasing water shortages. This may be compounded by the potential effects of climate change. Drip irrigation - delivering small amounts of water directly to the plants through pipes - is a technology that could help farmers deal with water constraints. It is considerably more efficient in terms of water use than the usual open furrows or flood irrigation.
In West Nimar, Madhya Pradesh, droughts, diminishing groundwater, limited and erratic power supply coupled with poverty, compelled farmers to look for a technology that would enable them to irrigate their crops (mainly cotton) within these constraints. They tried out several cost-saving options such as using old bicycle tubes instead of the conventional drip irrigation pipes. But nothing caught on - until about five years ago - when a local farmer experimented with thin poly-tubing normally used for frozen fruit-flavoured ‘lollypops’ called pepsee. It spread to neighbouring cotton farmers, and its popularity has meant that today pepsee has become widespread in the region. Pepsee micro-irrigation systems slowly and regularly apply water directly to the root zone of plants through a network of economically designed plastic pipes and low-discharge emitters.
Technically speaking pepsee systems use low density polythene (65-130 microns) tubes which are locally assembled. Being a low pressure system the water source can be an overhead tank or a manually operated water pump to lift water from a shallow water table.
Such a system costs less than US$ 40 per hectare for establishment. But the tubes have a short life span of one (or two) year(s); an equivalent standard buried strip drip irrigation system amounts to between five and ten times the initial cost. The latter would, however, last for five to ten years. The critical factor is the low entry cost. Pepsee systems thus act as ‘stepping stones’ for poor farmers who are facing water stress but are short of capital and cannot afford to risk relatively large investment in a technology which is new to them, and whose returns are uncertain. The technology is today available in two variants: the original white pepsee and a recently introduced black pepsee which is of slightly better quality.
Recently, a more durable and standardised version of pepsee, given the brand name ‘Easy Drip’, has been developed and promoted by a local NGO, IDEI (see corresponding approach). Easy Drip is one product within a set of affordable micro-irrigation technologies (AMIT) promoted by IDEI.

Location

Location: West Nimar, Madhya Pradesh, India

No. of Technology sites analysed:

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • 82.8556, 20.1825

Spread of the Technology:

In a permanently protected area?:

Date of implementation:

Type of introduction

Classification of the Technology

Main purpose
  • improve production
  • reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
  • conserve ecosystem
  • protect a watershed/ downstream areas – in combination with other Technologies
  • preserve/ improve biodiversity
  • reduce risk of disasters
  • adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
  • mitigate climate change and its impacts
  • create beneficial economic impact
  • create beneficial social impact
Land use

  • Cropland
    • Annual cropping: fibre crops - cotton
    Number of growing seasons per year: 2
Water supply
  • rainfed
  • mixed rainfed-irrigated
  • full irrigation

Purpose related to land degradation
  • prevent land degradation
  • reduce land degradation
  • restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land
  • adapt to land degradation
  • not applicable
Degradation addressed
  • water degradation - Hq: decline of groundwater quality
SLM group
  • irrigation management (incl. water supply, drainage)
SLM measures
  • structural measures -
  • management measures -

Technical drawing

Technical specifications
Components of pepsee/‘Easy Drip’ irrigation systems are described below.
1) Water source: For pepsee, commonly a water pump (in most cases electric) is used to lift water from a well and directly feed the irrigation system.
Alternatively, an overhead tank (minimum of 1 m above ground level) can be used for smaller systems up to 400 m2 area.
2) Control valve: valve made of plastic or metal to regulate pressure and flow of water into the system
3) Filter: Strainer filter to ensure that clean water enters into the system (optional in pepsee systems).
4) Mainline: 50 mm PVC (Polyvinyl chloride) or PE (Polyethylene) pipe to convey water from source to the sub-main.
5) Sub-main: PVC/PE pipe to supply water to the lateral pipes which are connected to the sub-main at regular intervals.
6) Lateral: PE pipes along the rows of the crops on which emitters are connected directly. Pipe size is 12–16 mm.
7) Emitters/micro-tubes: Device through which water is emitted at the root zone of the plant with required discharge. In pepsee farmers simply make pin holes in the plastic tube for water to pass. Easy Drip has inbuilt drippers/outlets along the lateral line which give a continuous wetting strip.
It is mainly used for row crops.
Pepsee uses cheap, recycled plastic tubes instead of the rubber pipes used in conventional drip irrigation kits. Space between emitters is variable, for cotton cultivation it is commonly 1.2 m (between plants, within and between rows). There is (usually) one emitter for each plant. Different sizes of valves, mainlines, etc, are available, depending on flow rate of water in the system. Additional components are joints (connectors) and pegs (used to hold the lateral and micro-pipes in place).

Technical knowledge required for land users: moderate

Main technical functions: water supply, improved water-use efficiency (reduced loss, well directed, selective - and targeted irrigation

Secondary technical functions: improvement of ground cover, higher - germination and establishment rate

Structural measure: irrigation infrastructure

Construction material (other): poly-tubes - low density polythene (65-130 microns)

Change of land use practices / intensity level: from furrow to drip irrigation
Author: Sijali IV 2001, Drip irrigation, RELMA, Nairobi

Establishment and maintenance: activities, inputs and costs

Calculation of inputs and costs
  • Costs are calculated:
  • Currency used for cost calculation: n.a.
  • Exchange rate (to USD): 1 USD = n.a
  • Average wage cost of hired labour per day: n.a
Most important factors affecting the costs
n.a.
Establishment activities
  1. Installation of water pump, control valve, filter (optional) and PVC piping(main/sub-main and lateral pipes). (Timing/ frequency: dry season)
Establishment inputs and costs
Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (n.a.) Total costs per input (n.a.) % of costs borne by land users
Labour
Labour ha 1.0 4.0 4.0 100.0
Construction material
Lateral piping (Pepsee tube) ha 1.0 17.0 17.0 100.0
Main/sub-main PVC piping ha 1.0 34.0 34.0 100.0
Other parts (valves, joints et ha 1.0 40.0 40.0 100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology 95.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD 95.0
Maintenance activities
  1. Re-installation of lateral pepsee tubes (Timing/ frequency: dry season/ (every 1–2 years).)
Maintenance inputs and costs
Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (n.a.) Total costs per input (n.a.) % of costs borne by land users
Labour
Labour ha 1.0 4.0 4.0 100.0
Construction material
Lateral piping (Pepsee tube) ha 1.0 17.0 17.0 100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology 21.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD 21.0

Natural environment

Average annual rainfall
  • < 250 mm
  • 251-500 mm
  • 501-750 mm
  • 751-1,000 mm
  • 1,001-1,500 mm
  • 1,501-2,000 mm
  • 2,001-3,000 mm
  • 3,001-4,000 mm
  • > 4,000 mm
Agro-climatic zone
  • humid
  • sub-humid
  • semi-arid
  • arid
Specifications on climate
n.a.
Slope
  • flat (0-2%)
  • gentle (3-5%)
  • moderate (6-10%)
  • rolling (11-15%)
  • hilly (16-30%)
  • steep (31-60%)
  • very steep (>60%)
Landforms
  • plateau/plains
  • ridges
  • mountain slopes
  • hill slopes
  • footslopes
  • valley floors
Altitude
  • 0-100 m a.s.l.
  • 101-500 m a.s.l.
  • 501-1,000 m a.s.l.
  • 1,001-1,500 m a.s.l.
  • 1,501-2,000 m a.s.l.
  • 2,001-2,500 m a.s.l.
  • 2,501-3,000 m a.s.l.
  • 3,001-4,000 m a.s.l.
  • > 4,000 m a.s.l.
Technology is applied in
  • convex situations
  • concave situations
  • not relevant
Soil depth
  • very shallow (0-20 cm)
  • shallow (21-50 cm)
  • moderately deep (51-80 cm)
  • deep (81-120 cm)
  • very deep (> 120 cm)
Soil texture (topsoil)
  • coarse/ light (sandy)
  • medium (loamy, silty)
  • fine/ heavy (clay)
Soil texture (> 20 cm below surface)
  • coarse/ light (sandy)
  • medium (loamy, silty)
  • fine/ heavy (clay)
Topsoil organic matter content
  • high (>3%)
  • medium (1-3%)
  • low (<1%)
Groundwater table
  • on surface
  • < 5 m
  • 5-50 m
  • > 50 m
Availability of surface water
  • excess
  • good
  • medium
  • poor/ none
Water quality (untreated)
  • good drinking water
  • poor drinking water (treatment required)
  • for agricultural use only (irrigation)
  • unusable
Is salinity a problem?
  • Yes
  • No

Occurrence of flooding
  • Yes
  • No
Species diversity
  • high
  • medium
  • low
Habitat diversity
  • high
  • medium
  • low

Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Market orientation
  • subsistence (self-supply)
  • mixed (subsistence/ commercial)
  • commercial/ market
Off-farm income
  • less than 10% of all income
  • 10-50% of all income
  • > 50% of all income
Relative level of wealth
  • very poor
  • poor
  • average
  • rich
  • very rich
Level of mechanization
  • manual work
  • animal traction
  • mechanized/ motorized
Sedentary or nomadic
  • Sedentary
  • Semi-nomadic
  • Nomadic
Individuals or groups
  • individual/ household
  • groups/ community
  • cooperative
  • employee (company, government)
Gender
  • women
  • men
Age
  • children
  • youth
  • middle-aged
  • elderly
Area used per household
  • < 0.5 ha
  • 0.5-1 ha
  • 1-2 ha
  • 2-5 ha
  • 5-15 ha
  • 15-50 ha
  • 50-100 ha
  • 100-500 ha
  • 500-1,000 ha
  • 1,000-10,000 ha
  • > 10,000 ha
Scale
  • small-scale
  • medium-scale
  • large-scale
Land ownership
  • state
  • company
  • communal/ village
  • group
  • individual, not titled
  • individual, titled
Land use rights
  • open access (unorganized)
  • communal (organized)
  • leased
  • individual
Water use rights
  • open access (unorganized)
  • communal (organized)
  • leased
  • individual
Access to services and infrastructure

Impacts

Socio-economic impacts
Crop production
decreased
x
increased

production area (new land under cultivation/ use)
decreased
x
increased


More land brought under irrigation. This is seen as a negative aspect

workload
increased
x
decreased

irrigated area
decreased
x
increased


Greater irrigated area with same amount of water

Socio-cultural impacts
land use/ water rights
worsened
x
improved


More farmers able to irrigate their land

situation of socially and economically disadvantaged groups (gender, age, status, ehtnicity etc.)
worsened
x
improved


Poverty reduction

Ecological impacts
Water use efficiency
decreased
x
increased

Off-site impacts

Cost-benefit analysis

Benefits compared with establishment costs
Short-term returns
very negative
x
very positive

Long-term returns
very negative
x
very positive

Benefits compared with maintenance costs
Short-term returns
very negative
x
very positive

Long-term returns
very negative
x
very positive

Climate change

-

Adoption and adaptation

Percentage of land users in the area who have adopted the Technology
  • single cases/ experimental
  • 1-10%
  • 11-50%
  • > 50%
Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many have done so without receiving material incentives?
  • 0-10%
  • 11-50%
  • 51-90%
  • 91-100%
Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?
  • Yes
  • No
To which changing conditions?
  • climatic change/ extremes
  • changing markets
  • labour availability (e.g. due to migration)

Conclusions and lessons learnt

Strengths: land user's view
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • Low initial investment and recurrent costs: risk in adopting new system
    limited

    How can they be sustained / enhanced? Keep costs of new variations of pepsee low.
  • There are significant benefits in terms of reduced water use per unit
    of land, and in terms of yield per unit land area as well.
  • Few extra skills required to implement and operate the system.
  • An eventual shift to conventional drip system is feasible: pepsee acts as a ’stepping stone’

    How can they be sustained / enhanced? Promote improved drip systems where pepsee
    has taken off.
  • Higher yields, better quality, higher germination rate, lower incidence
    of pest attack; facilitates pre-monsoon sowing.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • Pepsee is based on drip pipes which have a limited life: delicate and
    cannot withstand high pressure Develop/use stronger piping materials
    such as ‘Easy Drip’.
  • The increased water use efficiency has allowed an expansion in the area
    irrigated – which has used up the water ‘saved’. Develop/use stronger piping
    materials such as ‘Easy Drip’.
  • Pepsee systems require replacement of lateral pipes each year and thus
    incur recurrent input and labour costs

References

Compiler
  • Shilp Verma
Editors
Reviewer
  • Fabian Ottiger
  • Alexandra Gavilano
Date of documentation: June 3, 2011
Last update: April 4, 2019
Resource persons
Full description in the WOCAT database
Linked SLM data
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution Project
Key references
  • Verma S, Tsephal S. and Jose T: Pepsee Systems: grassroots innovation under groundwater stress. Water Policy, 6,pp. 303–318.. 2004.:
  • http://www.iwaponline.com/wp/00604/wp006040303.htm:
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International