Ukraine has been discussing irrigation again.

The minister of economy, trade & ag said
“only by regulating irrigation on an area of ​​500-550KHA will allow us to produce an additional 8-10MMT of agricultural products annually"

This Ukraine irrigation story pops up every now and then as ministers, who are not agricultural specialists, are sold a simple message that irrigation increases yields and increased yields are good.

Well, yes and no.

First off, There seems to be this assumption that just because the old soviet canal irrigation is there it should be used, I'm sure there are a few old heads looking back to former times here.

Secondly, finance needs to be found to fund the not-insignificant investment, as does an agribusiness looking to commit to such a project.

Then there is the need for expertise, irrigation is not just turning the tap on and off, it's about balancing the cost against yield increases, supporting yield increase with better genetics and agronomy (more dollars), and not causing environmental damage such as salinisation.

Also, by expressing the need to increase production with no reference to profitability, the minister in question illustrates a perennial issue in FSU states, namely a fixation with output over margin.

I'm very familiar with the regions of Ukraine where irrigation would be established; low rainfall, light soils, large flat fields, and very high evapotranspiration rates.

I'm also familiar with farming systems that centre around cultivating soils to create seedbed, high seed rates, and dubious agronomic decisions (there are few if any independent agronomists currently operating in Ukraine).

Ukraine could do better to think less about grandiose irrigation projects and focus more on mundane research and development looking at dryland farming techniques such as direct drilling, plant spacings, cover crops, and so on.

Yields might not increase but profitability and sustainability would while at the same time, volatility would reduce.

End of thread.