msu-ceco/aec_v1 · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 0 1.09k
Pay particular attention if the minimum SDI system components are not met.
If not, ask why?
System longevity is a critical factor for successful adoption of SDI.
C.
Ask companies to clearly define their role and responsibility in designing, installing and servicing the system.
Determine what guarantees are provided.
3.
Obtaining an independent review of the design by an individual that is not associated with sales.
This adds cost but should be minor compared to the total cost of a large SDI system.
Subsurface drip irrigation offers a number of agronomic production and water conservation advantages but these advantages are only achieved with proper design, operation, and maintenance.
With proper care the SDI system can have an efficient, effective and long life.
One necessary change from the
current irrigation systems, however, is the need to understand SDI's sensitivity to clogging by physical, biological and/or chemical agents.
Before designing or installing an SDI system, a comprehensive water quality assessment should be conducted on the source water supply.
Once this assessment is completed, the system designer can alert the manager of any potential problems that might be caused by the water supply.
The old adage "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" is very appropriate for SDI systems.
Early recognition of developing problems and appropriate action can prevent larger problems.
While the management needs may seem daunting at first, most managers quickly become familiar with the SDI system and its operational needs.
The SDI operator/manager also needs to understand the need for and function of the various components of the SDI system.
Many accessory options are available for SDI systems that can be included during the initial design and installation phases or added at a later time.
More importantly, minimum design and equipment features must be included in the basic system.
SDI is a viable irrigation system option, but it should be carefully considered by producers before making any financial investment.
The above discussion is a brief summary prepared from materials available through K-State.
The SDI related bulletins and irrigation-related websites are listed below:
Related K-State Research and Extension Irrigation Websites:
Contribution No.
09-241-A from the Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station.
ASAE.
2008.
Design and Installation of Microirrigation Systems.
ASAE EP405.1 APR1988.
ASABE, St Joseph, MI.
5 pp.
Harvesting 300 bu/acre field corn grown using SDI at KSU Northwest Research-Extension Center, Colby Kansas in 1998.
After the collapse of Tunnel No.
2 on the Goshen/Gering-Fort Laramie main canal in 2019, temporary repairs were made to Tunnels No.
1 and 2.
Steel ribs were installed inside the tunnels to give support to the concrete tunnel walls.
When extreme dry conditions occur in the fall, irrigators will usually water after the winter annual seeds have been sown.
Ideally, fall-drilled wheat and rye should have available soil water below the planted seeds.
When extreme dry conditions occur in the fall, irrigators will usually apply 1.0 to 2.0 inches of water following drilling season.
Precision mobile drip irrigation is an irrigation system where drip hoses are attached to a center pivot sprinkler and drug on top of the ground.
The placement of water by the hoses on the ground could potentially increase irrigation efficiency over a standard drop nozzle system.
In addition, problems associated with wet wheel tracks should be reduced.
However, drag hoses lying on the ground could cause more management concerns for farmers.
One example would be animal damage to the drip hoses which disrupts uniform water distribution.
The objectives of this study were to compare yield from corn irrigated using precision mobile drip irrigation to sprinkler irrigation with drops.
The second objective was to discern if the emitters have a reduction in water flow over the season due to clogging.
Figure 1 is a sprinkler with the drag hoses attached.
The study was initiated on a center pivot sprinkler located seven miles north and three miles west of Hoxie, KS.
Cooperation from DLS Farms was very important to evaluating these two application methods.
Three spans, spans 4, 5, and 7, of an eight span center pivot sprinkler were divided into two sections.
Each section had either the PMDI system installed or the standard drop nozzle system.
With this configuration, three replications of each method were achieved for a total of six plots.
The center pivot sprinkler is nozzled to apply 300 gpm.
Drag hose spacing on the PMDI system was 60 inches while the spacing on the drop nozzle system was 120 inches.
The entire flow to the center pivot was screen filtered to 50 mesh.
For the 2004 growing season, the farmer strip-tilled the field the previous fall and applied 75 lbs/A of N as anhydrous ammonia and 7-25-0 lbs/A as 10-34-0.
The field was planted on May 2, 2004 in circular rows with Mycogen 2E685 treated with Cruiser at 26,000 seeds/A with 50 lbs/A of N as 32% UAN applied in a 2x2.
Appropriate pest management measures were taken to control weeds and insects.
For the 2005 growing season, manure was applied to the field, and then the field was strip-tilled in the fall.
On April 28, 2005 Mycogen 2E762 treated with Cruiser was seeded in straight noncircular rows at 26,000 seeds/A.
Appropriate pest management measures were taken to control weeds and insects.
Emitter water flow at the end emitter and then the 5, 10, and 15 emitter from the end of two drag hoses from each plot were captured for one minute on May 26, August 4, and September 13 in 2004 and May 27, July 29, and September 8 in 2005.
Water flow for the entire drag hose was also collected for the two drag hoses along with the water flow from two drop nozzles on the same span.
Corn yield was collected in two ways.
First, samples were hand harvested from forty feet of each plot.
Samples were then dried, threshed, weighed, and yield was calculated on a bu/a basis.
Yield was also collected at harvesting using a Green Star yield monitoring system for the entire field.
Weather conditions over the summer brought supplemental rainfall which allowed for respectable yields to be achieved at the site for both years.
When comparing hand harvest yields, there was no significant difference between the PMDI treatment and the drop nozzle treatment in either year or when combined across years.
When looking at the 2004 field map or the 2005 field map generated by a yield monitor, no discernable pattern was evident between the two systems.
Table 1.
Yield as influenced by irrigation treatment
Treatment 2004 2005 Combined Results
PMDI 233 239 236
Drop Nozzle 236 236 236
LSD NS NS NS
Fig.
2 2004 Field Map DLS Farms
Harvested Acres: 59.99 Date: 11/5/04 Yield: 234.58 bpa Moisture: 15.40% Harvest Hours: 4.33
GREENSTAR JOHN DEERE AG MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS
Fig.
3 2005 Field Map
Yield Map Client: Owner Farm: Dave Up North Field: E PivotW/2 DLS-2 SE12-7-29 Harvested Acres: 61.89 Date: 10/5/2005-10/6/2005 Yield: 227.73 bpa Moisture: 15.73% Harvest Hours: 4.61
GREENSTAR JOHN DEERE AG MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS
In 2004, the average emitter output over the summer declined from 214 ml/min.
on May 24 to 209 ml/min on August 4 to 180 ml/min on September 13.
Output from the emitters decreased by an average of 16% through the summer.
Output from the nozzles from span 4, 5, and 7 also decreased from an average of 2.51 gpm on May 26 to 2.48 gpm on August 4 to 2.28 gpm on September 13.
The average reduction in flow was 9%.
The 9% reduction in flow indicates that the overall pumping capacity of the well was reduced.
However, the additional 7% reduction in flow rate from the emitters is likely due to emitter clogging.
In 2005, the average emitter output over the summer declined from 180 ml/min.
on May 27 to 168 ml/min on July 29 to 158 ml/min on September 8.
Output from the emitters decreased by an average of 14% through the summer.
Output from the nozzles from span 4, 5, and 7 actually increased from an average of 2.13 gpm on May 27 to 2.17 gpm on July 29 to 2.49 gpm on September 8.
The average increase in flow was 17%.
Why there was an increase in flow over this time is difficult to explain, but it may be related to a difference in field evaluation for the locations where the sampling was conducted.
However, there was a greater difference in 2005 compared with 2004 in the flow between the average output of the emitters and the average output of the nozzles which implies increased clogging of the emitters.

Pay particular attention if the minimum SDI system components are not met.

If not, ask why?

System longevity is a critical factor for successful adoption of SDI.

C.

Ask companies to clearly define their role and responsibility in designing, installing and servicing the system.

Determine what guarantees are provided.

3.

Obtaining an independent review of the design by an individual that is not associated with sales.

This adds cost but should be minor compared to the total cost of a large SDI system.

Subsurface drip irrigation offers a number of agronomic production and water conservation advantages but these advantages are only achieved with proper design, operation, and maintenance.

With proper care the SDI system can have an efficient, effective and long life.

One necessary change from the

current irrigation systems, however, is the need to understand SDI's sensitivity to clogging by physical, biological and/or chemical agents.

Before designing or installing an SDI system, a comprehensive water quality assessment should be conducted on the source water supply.

Once this assessment is completed, the system designer can alert the manager of any potential problems that might be caused by the water supply.

The old adage "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" is very appropriate for SDI systems.

Early recognition of developing problems and appropriate action can prevent larger problems.

While the management needs may seem daunting at first, most managers quickly become familiar with the SDI system and its operational needs.

The SDI operator/manager also needs to understand the need for and function of the various components of the SDI system.

Many accessory options are available for SDI systems that can be included during the initial design and installation phases or added at a later time.

More importantly, minimum design and equipment features must be included in the basic system.

SDI is a viable irrigation system option, but it should be carefully considered by producers before making any financial investment.

The above discussion is a brief summary prepared from materials available through K-State.

The SDI related bulletins and irrigation-related websites are listed below:

Related K-State Research and Extension Irrigation Websites:

Contribution No.

09-241-A from the Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station.

ASAE.

2008.

Design and Installation of Microirrigation Systems.

ASAE EP405.1 APR1988.

ASABE, St Joseph, MI.

5 pp.

Harvesting 300 bu/acre field corn grown using SDI at KSU Northwest Research-Extension Center, Colby Kansas in 1998.

After the collapse of Tunnel No.

2 on the Goshen/Gering-Fort Laramie main canal in 2019, temporary repairs were made to Tunnels No.

1 and 2.

Steel ribs were installed inside the tunnels to give support to the concrete tunnel walls.

When extreme dry conditions occur in the fall, irrigators will usually water after the winter annual seeds have been sown.

Ideally, fall-drilled wheat and rye should have available soil water below the planted seeds.

When extreme dry conditions occur in the fall, irrigators will usually apply 1.0 to 2.0 inches of water following drilling season.

Precision mobile drip irrigation is an irrigation system where drip hoses are attached to a center pivot sprinkler and drug on top of the ground.

The placement of water by the hoses on the ground could potentially increase irrigation efficiency over a standard drop nozzle system.

In addition, problems associated with wet wheel tracks should be reduced.

However, drag hoses lying on the ground could cause more management concerns for farmers.

One example would be animal damage to the drip hoses which disrupts uniform water distribution.

The objectives of this study were to compare yield from corn irrigated using precision mobile drip irrigation to sprinkler irrigation with drops.

The second objective was to discern if the emitters have a reduction in water flow over the season due to clogging.

Figure 1 is a sprinkler with the drag hoses attached.

The study was initiated on a center pivot sprinkler located seven miles north and three miles west of Hoxie, KS.

Cooperation from DLS Farms was very important to evaluating these two application methods.

Three spans, spans 4, 5, and 7, of an eight span center pivot sprinkler were divided into two sections.

Each section had either the PMDI system installed or the standard drop nozzle system.

With this configuration, three replications of each method were achieved for a total of six plots.

The center pivot sprinkler is nozzled to apply 300 gpm.

Drag hose spacing on the PMDI system was 60 inches while the spacing on the drop nozzle system was 120 inches.

The entire flow to the center pivot was screen filtered to 50 mesh.

For the 2004 growing season, the farmer strip-tilled the field the previous fall and applied 75 lbs/A of N as anhydrous ammonia and 7-25-0 lbs/A as 10-34-0.

The field was planted on May 2, 2004 in circular rows with Mycogen 2E685 treated with Cruiser at 26,000 seeds/A with 50 lbs/A of N as 32% UAN applied in a 2x2.

Appropriate pest management measures were taken to control weeds and insects.

For the 2005 growing season, manure was applied to the field, and then the field was strip-tilled in the fall.

On April 28, 2005 Mycogen 2E762 treated with Cruiser was seeded in straight noncircular rows at 26,000 seeds/A.

Appropriate pest management measures were taken to control weeds and insects.

Emitter water flow at the end emitter and then the 5, 10, and 15 emitter from the end of two drag hoses from each plot were captured for one minute on May 26, August 4, and September 13 in 2004 and May 27, July 29, and September 8 in 2005.

Water flow for the entire drag hose was also collected for the two drag hoses along with the water flow from two drop nozzles on the same span.

Corn yield was collected in two ways.

First, samples were hand harvested from forty feet of each plot.

Samples were then dried, threshed, weighed, and yield was calculated on a bu/a basis.

Yield was also collected at harvesting using a Green Star yield monitoring system for the entire field.

Weather conditions over the summer brought supplemental rainfall which allowed for respectable yields to be achieved at the site for both years.

When comparing hand harvest yields, there was no significant difference between the PMDI treatment and the drop nozzle treatment in either year or when combined across years.

When looking at the 2004 field map or the 2005 field map generated by a yield monitor, no discernable pattern was evident between the two systems.

Table 1.

Yield as influenced by irrigation treatment

Treatment 2004 2005 Combined Results

PMDI 233 239 236

Drop Nozzle 236 236 236

LSD NS NS NS

Fig.

2 2004 Field Map DLS Farms

Harvested Acres: 59.99 Date: 11/5/04 Yield: 234.58 bpa Moisture: 15.40% Harvest Hours: 4.33

GREENSTAR JOHN DEERE AG MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Fig.

3 2005 Field Map

Yield Map Client: Owner Farm: Dave Up North Field: E PivotW/2 DLS-2 SE12-7-29 Harvested Acres: 61.89 Date: 10/5/2005-10/6/2005 Yield: 227.73 bpa Moisture: 15.73% Harvest Hours: 4.61

GREENSTAR JOHN DEERE AG MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

In 2004, the average emitter output over the summer declined from 214 ml/min.

on May 24 to 209 ml/min on August 4 to 180 ml/min on September 13.

Output from the emitters decreased by an average of 16% through the summer.

Output from the nozzles from span 4, 5, and 7 also decreased from an average of 2.51 gpm on May 26 to 2.48 gpm on August 4 to 2.28 gpm on September 13.

The average reduction in flow was 9%.

The 9% reduction in flow indicates that the overall pumping capacity of the well was reduced.

However, the additional 7% reduction in flow rate from the emitters is likely due to emitter clogging.

In 2005, the average emitter output over the summer declined from 180 ml/min.

on May 27 to 168 ml/min on July 29 to 158 ml/min on September 8.

Output from the emitters decreased by an average of 14% through the summer.

Output from the nozzles from span 4, 5, and 7 actually increased from an average of 2.13 gpm on May 27 to 2.17 gpm on July 29 to 2.49 gpm on September 8.

The average increase in flow was 17%.

Why there was an increase in flow over this time is difficult to explain, but it may be related to a difference in field evaluation for the locations where the sampling was conducted.

However, there was a greater difference in 2005 compared with 2004 in the flow between the average output of the emitters and the average output of the nozzles which implies increased clogging of the emitters.