Last week, I blogged on the problems with drip irrigation. This paper [PDF] supports some of that argument by pointing out how drip irrigation can increase yield but only by using more water, i.e., water consumption/acre goes up faster than yield/acre.
This argument against drip irrigation relies on a few assumptions:
- The farmer wants a higher yield/acre -- perhaps because labor costs/acre are high.
- The farmer is not worried about the fall in marginal productivity from water, i.e., water consumption doesn't matter as much as output.
- Water spread by flood irrigation is lost -- instead of recharging groundwater.
Bottom Line: Drip irrigation may not give a free lunch! Heresy!
2 comments:
Brilliant! "Drip irrigation may not be better"... Duh. Way to create and then refute a false argument. Farmers know drip irrigation may not be better. That's why not all of them use it. But it MAY be better. That's why more and more of them ARE using it. The world isn't black/white, either/or. Painting it as such and then refuting it contributes nothing to the real debates going on about water.
Anon -- your sarcasm bone is broken.
You also need to consider the LARGE number of people who think that Drip is the Second Coming. (I'm backing you up, silly.)
Post a Comment