Proposed changes to transplanting dates raise alarm

SOME policy measures and technological elements focussed on national food security have led to a manifold increase in rice acreage since the late 1960s, leading to precipitous groundwater depletion in Punjab. Among the few counterbalancing measures, one of the most important has been The Preservation of Subsoil Water Act 2009. The Act empowers the government to notify a date to start raising the rice nursery and its subsequent transplanting. This is done to check the early planting of rice in the pre-monsoon period so as to minimise the overlap of the rice cultivation season with the dry, hot phase of the year and, consequently, reduce the irrigation water requirement.

The rice transplantation time till 1985 was the first fortnight of July, as per the recommendation of PAU, Ludhiana. Thereafter, it was advanced to June 10. But it was seen that many farmers were transplanting rice during the second half or last week of May. The trend towards early transplanting was fuelled by competition for migratory labour, escaping pest build-up (which meant shifting the burden of larger pest population to the timely planters) and yield advantage offered by long-duration varieties like Pusa 44 (not recommended). The procurement start-date of October 1 (during the 1970s) shifted, over time, to September 1.

May and June are characterised by disproportionately large evapo-transpiration losses and exorbitant irrigation requirement for crop raising. The unregulated rice transplantation and rising acreage under this water-intensive crop led to an unprecedented water table fall in Punjab. It was in this context that the rice transplanting date was brought under regulation in 2008 through an ordinance, which matured into the Act in 2009.

The response showed coherence among various stakeholders: sound and pro-active scientific input from PAU, formulation of the Act by the Punjab Farmers’ Commission, implementation by the State Department of Agriculture and farmers’ cooperation.

Empirical studies following the transplanting date regulation (2008-2015) showed a substantial reduction in the rate of water table fall in Mohali, Ropar, Amritsar, Tarn Taran, Jalandhar, Kapurthala, Moga and Fazilka districts and different impact levels elsewhere.

Given the below-normal average monsoon rainfall in the state in the 20 of the 24 years of this century, one can imagine that the fall in water table would have been much worse in the absence of the 2009 Act. Motivated by high compliance and positive impact, the transplanting date was shifted from June 10 to June 15 from 2015 to 2017. In 2018, it was further moved to June 20 with an aim to aligning rice cultivation more closely with monsoon arrival.

A regulatory or technological shift does not operate in isolation. It needs synergistic changes to cover up for emergent issues and disruptions. In view of the 2009 Act, the replacement of long-duration rice varieties with shorter-duration ones became important to harness its full impact. The challenge lay in not compromising the returns to the farmer. In 2013, rice variety PR 121 (110-days duration) was released and in 2017 , PR 126 (93 days). They became the dominant varieties by replacing the area under Pusa 44 (130 days). Besides saving water, farmers could realise an equivalent, if not better, profitability from the short-duration varieties, which required lower pesticides and other inputs.

Further, the low biomass of these varieties facilitated in-situ paddy straw retention (mulch or soil incorporation), reducing field operations for clearing paddy straw and sowing of the next crop, thereby obviating the need for a time window between two crops.

The transplanting date, thus, served as the core intervention with which short-duration rice varieties and in-situ paddy straw management could combine to lower the water requirement of the cropping system and add to soil organic matter.

The progress in this direction, however, became tardy with the first rollback of the transplanting date to June 13 in 2019 from June 20 in 2018. A dilution of emphasis on the regulation has been evident in subsequent years, but the original injunction of June 10 has not been breached.

However, recent media reports ascribed to the Chief Minister of Punjab that June 1 and June 5 are to be the dates to start rice transplanting for two groups of districts, and its impending notification have raised a red flag.

Indications are that water-saving under direct seeding of rice (DSR) will also be hit. Punjab’s first brush with DSR in 2010, probably aimed at labour-saving, got pushed back by weeds and micronutrient deficiency flare-up. A reformulated technology, largely oriented to water-saving came up in 2020 in the form of Tar Wattar DSR: direct seeding in Tar Wattar (high moist) conditions in the first fortnight of June and withholding of irrigation for about three weeks.

The three-week irrigation embargo not only saved water in the most crucial hot, dry, pre-monsoon phase (June) but also ensured minimal leaching of nutrients, weed suppression and deeper root growth, thereby reducing the frequency of irrigation during the entire life cycle of rice.

The water-saving in DSR owed as much to direct seeding as to the concomitant practices mentioned above. Advancing of the current DSR sowing date (1-15 June), as apprehended, would defeat the purpose of water-saving by creating a water burden greater than that of even transplanted rice.

The rice marketing and milling issues related to moisture content which came up during the last season and the perception of Punjab’s contribution to pollution in Delhi, seem to have prompted the proposal to advance the dates.

This response, however, is based on unfounded perceptions and is a likely effort to appease the vocal sections.

Evidences based on decades of research and interaction with farmers on water-saving, yield gain and profitability benefits of transplanting post-June 10 and the use of short duration varieties should not be ignored.

These water-saving technologies are also fully compatible with meeting the grain moisture standards, though better awareness and monitoring would be required in any case.

Therefore, let us not deal a lethal blow to the foundational regulation on which the entire ecosystem of water-saving technologies in rice rests.

Let us hope that better sense will prevail and the notification will align with the spirit of The Preservation of Subsoil Water Act and the sustainability of water resources for the sake of future generations.

Comments