TRICKLE-L: 199603XX
is the compilation of discussion during Mar 96
via AB4EL Web Digests @ SunSITE
>From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Fri Mar 1 11:50 EST 1996
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 10:40:28 -0600
Message-Id: <199603011640.AA21405@crcnis1.unl.edu>
Subject: TRICKLE-L digest 433
Contents:
Response from new member (Richard Mead <rmead@asrr.arsusda.gov>)
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 11:43:28 -0500
From: Richard Mead <rmead@asrr.arsusda.gov>
Subject: Response from new member
The following welcome survey response is from a new subscriber to Trickle-L,
Jeremy Fogg.
1) Briefly, what is your affiliation with trickle/drip irrigation?
Only as an amateur grower concerned with the efficient use of resources (and
effort !)
I'm also interested in computer control.
2) What crops or plants do you use drip irrigation on?
I'm currently on the threshold of choosing between drip and hydroponics for
tomatoes,
peppers, eggplant but otherwise it will be cucurbits and border plants
generally.
4) What problems have you encountered with drip irrigation?
My early attempts were prone to clogging / air locks.
11) How did you find out about our mailing list?
>From "The Garden Gate" WWW page I think.
Sorry for lack of answers - I'm only just getting really interested in the
subject !
Jeremy Fogg, Technician, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK.
----------------------------------
Welcome to Trickle-L Jeremy !!
Richard Mead
Trickle-L owner/manager
----------------------------------
End of Digest
>From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Sat Mar 2 11:50 EST 1996
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 1996 10:40:42 -0600
Message-Id: <199603021640.AA07121@crcnis1.unl.edu>
Subject: TRICKLE-L digest 434
Contents:
Flow Measurement (Spofford <engts@wntcdb.wntc.nrcs.usda.gov>)
Re: Flow Measurement (redling@gumbo.bae.lsu.edu (Robert Edling))
Re: Fertilizer injector (GrapeGrowr@aol.com)
Re: Fertilizer injector (BradMitchell@nfocus.com)
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 96 10:01:20 PST
From: Spofford <engts@wntcdb.wntc.nrcs.usda.gov>
Subject: Flow Measurement
I am seeking references for hydraulic flow measurement in open and
closed systems. Preferably stand alone references. I am aware of
USBR's (USA) "Water Measurement Manual" and ASAE "Flow Measurement
Flumes for Open Channel Systems". Can anyone suggest other english
language sources?
Tom
=================================================
Thomas (Tom) L. Spofford, Irrigation Engineer
Natural Resources Conservation Service
National Water and Climate Center
101 SW Main St., Suite 1600
Portland, OR 97204-3224
PH: (503) 414-3075 / FAX 3101
e-mail: a16tspofford@attmail.doc
"It took 1400 gallons to make your hamburger, fries
and soft drink"
=================================================
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 12:07:08 -0600
From: redling@gumbo.bae.lsu.edu (Robert Edling)
Subject: Re: Flow Measurement
Tom:
What was the SCS also has material on flow measurement. Check with the local
office or the State Engineer.
Bob Edling-LSU
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 14:15:10 -0500
From: GrapeGrowr@aol.com
Subject: Re: Fertilizer injector
A few weeks ago I offered to send a picture of an injector set-up I use
to inject dry product into the drip system. I now have a gif or pict
file photo that I can send to who is interested. Whoever sends me a
response please tell me what format file you can use and I'll send it.
(gif files are less resolution but faster to send and view. R. Carian
Date: 2 Mar 1996 07:27:54 cdt
From: BradMitchell@nfocus.com
Subject: Re: Fertilizer injector
Reply to R. Carian
I would be interested in obtaining a *.gif photo of your fertilizer
injector. I could not find your e-mail address on your post. Please
send file to bradmitchell@nfocus.com
Thanks
End of Digest
>From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Sun Mar 3 11:50 EST 1996
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 1996 10:41:33 -0600
Message-Id: <199603031641.AA13949@crcnis1.unl.edu>
Subject: TRICKLE-L digest 435
Contents:
Re: Fertilizer injector -Reply (Byron Irvine <pf22408@em.agr.ca>)
New Member Introduction (Bernard James Peasley <s_bjp@eduserv.its.unimelb.EDU.AU>)
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 1996 11:49:50 -0500
From: Byron Irvine <pf22408@em.agr.ca>
Subject: Re: Fertilizer injector -Reply
I would like to receive a picture of your injector in GIF format
>>> <GrapeGrowr@aol.com> 03/01/96 01:11pm >>>
A few weeks ago I offered to send a picture of an injector set-up I use
to inject dry product into the drip system. I now have a gif or pict file
photo that I can send to who is interested. Whoever sends me a
response please tell me what format file you can use and I'll send it. (gif
files are less resolution but faster to send and view. R. Carian
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 00:45:08 +1100 (EST)
From: Bernard James Peasley <s_bjp@eduserv.its.unimelb.EDU.AU>
Subject: New Member Introduction
I have only just subscribed to Trickle-L and by way of introduction
provide answers to Richard Mead's <rmead@cybergate.com> questionnaire below:
1) Briefly, what is your affiliation with trickle/drip irrigation?
I am a partner in an independent irrigation design consultancy in
Melbourne, Australia. Our consultancy has been operating in eastern
Australia for 16 years, predominantly in the landscape/turf area. Our
services do not extend to any form of product sales or contracting.
2) What crops or plants do you use drip irrigation on?
A small part of our work involves both the design and assessment of drip
irrigation systems for agricultural/horticultural crops, wastewater reuse
and landscapes. The crops we have been involved with are generally table
and wine grapes, fruit trees, nursery plants, plantation trees, and
ornamental plantings.
3) If using subsurface drip irrigation, what is the average depth of
placement of the drip lateral?
We have not as yet used SDI ourselves, and are very wary of doing so
until we can learn more about its actual (real) advantages, limitations
and susceptibilities. To date its been a real effort distinguishing
between marketing hype, genuine successful applied research and proven
long term reliability. Currently it has become fashionable to install SDI
on sportsturf (ovals, golf greens etc) and we are concerned these
projects have not be thought through properly, particularly with respect
to the level of operator experience, attention to correct scheduling,
root intrusion and interference from other turf maintenance procedures. I
have already read with interest some of the postings from Trickle-L
subscribers in this area.
4) What problems have you encountered with drip irrigation?
Mostly those normally encountered - root intrusion, insufficient root
mass coverage, plugging, biological slime growth, algal blockages, high
maintenance, lack of operator experience and inappropriate application.
5) Fertigation is a real advantage of drip irrigation. What form of N, P and
K have you been trying and to what success?
We have insufficient experience with fertigation but would like to learn
more. This is one of the reasons for subscribing to Trickle-L.
6) Have you experienced a reduction in fertilizer and/or water use?
We would expect to and our clients may be able to confirm so, however we
have had insufficient management experience to draw firm conclusions at
this stage.
7) Do you have water quality problems? If so, how do you tackle the
situation?
Our wastewater reuse systems often suffer from poor and variable water
quality, usually biological in origin. Lagoons frequently bloom with
various types of algae, both suspended unicellular as well as blue-green
floating mats. In general we avoid drip where possible, preferring to
keep systems simple, with minimum maintenance. Where drip is required
with wastewater we have provided heavy duty filtration (sand and auto
screen), and chlorine and acid injection. Many problems seem to relate to
lack of diligent maintenance.
8) How frequent do you irrigate? Many times a day or just one long session
per day or several days?
We would normally prefer to irrigate infrequently if the soil type
permits. Each application would be assessed for its rate of soil moisture
depletion within the volume of the root mass and the schedule adjusted to
suit.
9) Do you have rodent damage? If so, how do you control the problem?
We have experience with only two instances of this problem - one of
rabbit damage to above ground drip lines on a process wastewater reuse
scheme, irrigating trees and the other from termite (not a rodent but a
pest anyway) attack on conduited solenoid valve control wiring.
10) Are you pleased with the uniformity of your system or systems? Were they
designed correctly?
In general yes, although we have some reservations about the marketing
claims of some products and wonder sometimes whether advertised
performance data really has a basis in solid research and development and
long term field testing. We frequently become involved in mediation
and/or litigation between growers and product manufacturers/installers,
over systems that have failed. For this reason we may have a biased view
of the success or failings of many drip/micro systems. In general, we
believe the systems should be successful, provided they are chosen for
the appropriate application, the product is good, the hydraulics designed
correctly, the equipment installed correctly and cared for diligently,
and operated properly. If these criteria cannot be guaranteed, then drip
systems often produce more serious consequences than other systems. In
many cases something (often cost) gets in the way of success.
11) How did you find out about our mailing list?
>From a tomato growers seminar at Kyabram run by Lauren Thompson (one of
your subscribers).
I am already amazed by the activity of the Trickle-L group and the
frequency of the postings I have seen so far. I am also amazed by the
size of some of the projects discussed. I have a question for Dave
Enyeart <GroAire@aol.com> who posted the following message last week:
_______________________________________________________________________________
UCDate: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 20:20:25 -0600
From: GroAire@aol.com
Reply to: trickle-l@unl.edu
To: Multiple recipients of list <trickle-l@unl.edu>
Subject: Re: Drip & Wastewater Numbers
Hello Paula & Manrique
I received the file fine that you emailed. Thank you !
You requested info on total acreage of effluent and drip. The project I'm
currently working on is a total of 7500 acres here in Colorado. It will be
native grass when completed and the system will be used two years then
abandoned.
Dave Enyeart
GroAire@aol.com
_______________________________________________________________________________
What was the economic justification behind the project you described? I
find it difficult to imagine how any effluent disposal scheme so large,
could be abandoned after only 2 years, especially after what must have
been a huge financial investment. What were the circumstances behind the
choice of SDI (I assume it was SDI) for this project? Was the drip tape
trenched into native pasture or was the grass sown afterwards? Do you get
involved in projects of this size very often? Is this a typical gross
area for wastewater disposal projects in the US? How often is SDI used in
effluent disposal? Sorry for the interrogation - it has had me intrigued
since I read your message.
I look forward to future postings.
Regards
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Bernard Peasley
Email: <s_bjp@eduserv.its.unimelb.EDU.AU>
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
End of Digest
>From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Mon Mar 4 11:53 EST 1996
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 10:44:09 -0600
Message-Id: <199603041644.AA00615@crcnis1.unl.edu>
Subject: TRICKLE-L digest 436
Contents:
pH, acid, chlorine, waste water questions (Manrique Brenes <mjbrenes@ucdavis.edu>)
Rodents in ***SDI only**** (FLamm@oznet.ksu.edu (Freddie Lamm))
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 1996 10:48:51 -0800
From: Manrique Brenes <mjbrenes@ucdavis.edu>
Subject: pH, acid, chlorine, waste water questions
I could use some help with the following information:
pH regulation: What are the acids most commonly used for pH regulation =
and what is their approximate price and concentration?
Chlorination: What are the most commonly used chlorinating chemicals and =
their cost?
Waste water and chlorine: I have done a bibliographical response of =
waste water disposal using drip systems and almost every paper concludes =
that some dose of chlorination is necessary to prevent bacterial slime =
growth (and the subsequent emitter plugging), however a few members of =
trickle-l have refered me to people that are using drip system with WW =
succesfully without using chlorine at all (only regular line flushing). =
Can anyone help me with a published reference of this information.
Finallly does anyone have the number of a comapany called WWS Inc. =
(Waste Water Systems Inc. Based out of Georgia). They seem to be =
marketing a complete kit for drip disposal of WW.
Thanks.
Manrique Brenes
Bio. & Ag. Eng.
UC Davis.
Date: 04 Mar 96 10:01:04 CST
From: FLamm@oznet.ksu.edu (Freddie Lamm)
Subject: Rodents in ***SDI only****
These are summaries I promised to post to TRICKLE-L of the limited
number of responses I got to my rodent inquiry. Other postings to
Freddie Lamm will still be welcomed and summarized.
Freddie
*
*****BEGINNING OF SUMMARY*****
We installed 3 acres (18 plots) of SDI here in Nevada last summer.
In early September we planted alfalfa and then flooded it to
germinate.
This summer will be the first production and data collection year.
We had some problems during the installation and had the tape in
the ground for about a month before we turned on the water. We are
in gopher country and had to do some patching once the system was
turned on. Throughout the summer we trapped gophers and when we
turned the system off last fall our plots were gopher free. However, I
know some gophers have moved back in over the winter. Needless
to say, I have been talking to a lot of people lately about materials
which can be injected into an SDI system to repel or kill gophers. I
have heard a couple of suggestions for chemicals to use (furidan,
dysyston). We have a producer who is planning to install an SDI
system on an alfalfa field and naturally he is concerned about
gophers. One day he mentioned to me that when he lived in CA he
never saw gophers in garlic fields. We are checking into the
possibility of injecting a garlic extract as a possible tool to help with
gopher control.
Perhaps when you post your summary of responses you can ask if
anyone has had any experiences with gophers in garlic
fields..........Jerry Neufeld
I HAVE A CUSTOMER WITH VINES ON A 8'*12' SPACING AND 20MM
GEOFLOW WITH 2 GPH EMITTERS @ 24". THE TUBING IS BURIED
10" - 12" DEEP IN LOOSE SANDY SOILS DOWN THE CENTER OF
EACH ROW. THE SYSTEM OPERATES 3 TIMES DAILY FOR ?1 HR.
THE RODENTS (WESTERN POCKET GOPHER?) ALMOST ATE US
ALIVE, WITH AS MANY AS 5 STRIKES PER ACRE ON SPRING
STARTUP AND 1 PER ACRE WEEKLY. THE CUSTOMER KEPT HIS
THREE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AGE BOYS BUSY CATCHING
GOPHERS ON PIECEWORK. THEY WERE GETTING RICH AND THE
FATHER WAS GETTING POOR. LAST SPRING HE SHANKED IN
GOPHER POISON LIBERALLY AROUND HIS FIELD AS WELL AS
DOWN EVERY ROW. THE PROBLEM WAS REDUCED TO ?0.25
STRIKES PER ACRE FOR THE SUMMER OF 1996........KEVIN
BRONSON.
Anything that is within a diameter of 1 1/4 inches is within the bite
radius of the gopher.We install allof our 3 phase electrical lines in at
least 11/2" of PVC to eliminate this problem. Prior to pvc we used to
use a gopher repellant liquid that would be sprayed along the lines
that would act as a deterent to the gopher for a couple of years. In
the installations of SDI & SA that I have been involved in have been in
some gopher rich laden soils. However the problems of gophers have
not shown up as bad as had been anticipated. This was due to
propwerly managing the water to maintain the field capacity at a high
level. In farms where there was not the high degeree of water
management the incidence of gopher attacks increased. Where we
used SA, the attacks decreased irregardless. This was due
to one or two factors that has never been substantiated by qualitative
or quantitative research - only results..........Dave Enyeart
****END OF SUMMARY***
Freddie
*
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Freddie Lamm *
Research Agricultural Engineer *** o
KSU Northwest Research-Extension Center ***** /|\
105 Experiment Farm Road *******\\
Colby, Kansas 67701-1697 *********
Ph. 913-462-6281 ***********
FAX 913-462-2315 *************
Email:flamm@oznet.ksu.edu It's all downhill from here.
------ THERE'S NO DOMAIN LIKE OZ, THERE'S NO DOMAIN LIKE OZ. ------
End of Digest
>From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Tue Mar 5 11:57 EST 1996
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 10:44:47 -0600
Message-Id: <199603051644.AA00871@crcnis1.unl.edu>
Subject: TRICKLE-L digest 437
Contents:
Response from new member (rmead@asrr.arsusda.gov (Richard Soppe))
Another response from a new member (rmead@asrr.arsusda.gov (Richard Soppe))
What about "VECTOR" and "PULSE" subsurface drip (Louis Baumhardt <r-baumhardt@tamu.edu>)
(evan@griffith.dwr.csiro.au (Evan Christen))
Re: Fertilizer injector (Royce Goertzen <royce@mobynet.com>)
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 12:31:17 -0500
From: rmead@asrr.arsusda.gov (Richard Soppe)
Subject: Response from new member
The following is a response to the welcome survey from Randy Johnson
(randyjoh@dudley.lib.usf.edu).
=========================================================================
Thank you for your kind introductory letter. By way of my own
introduction, here are my thoughts on a few of your questions. I am
looking forward to learning more about the economic and social aspects of
irrigated agriculture!
1) Briefly, what is your affiliation with trickle/drip irrigation?
None, other than as a student of development economics. I am especially
interested in the Middle East, and how alternatives to flood irrigation
can best be used to support the demands of a growing population.
2) What crops or plants do you use drip irrigation on?
I am not an engineer or farmer; however I am especially interested in
learning more about those crops that are especially responsive to less
water-intensive methods of irrigation.
4) What problems have you encountered with drip irrigation?
The ones that I have studied have been scale growth, clogging of lines,
and what I would term improper or inefficient use of irrigation water.
7) Do you have water quality problems? If so, how do you tackle the
situation?
I am interested in learning more about irrigation in arid environments
using effluent. Quality problems with effluent, as far as the Middle East
is concerned, have largely been due to heavy metal contamination/seepage
into sandy aquifers.
11) How did you find out about our mailing list?
>From a list of environmental sources sent to me care of GROUNDWATER-L.
Randy Johnson
randyjoh@dudley.lib.usf.edu
Tampa, Florida
27* 56' N, 82* 27' W
============================================
Richard Soppe
ARS/USDA-Water Management Research lab
2021 S. Peach Ave phone: (209)453-3119
Fresno CA 93727-5951 fax: (209)453-3122
http://asset.arsusda.gov/WMRL/WMRL.html
============================================
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 12:36:07 -0500
From: rmead@asrr.arsusda.gov (Richard Soppe)
Subject: Another response from a new member
The following is a response from new member Frank M. Guidi
(coldfire@sierra.valleynet.com).
============================================================================
============
1) Briefly, what is your affiliation with trickle/drip
irrigation?
A commercial grower of various crops consisting of table grapes (ruby
seedless), citrus (navels) and nectarines (early maturing varieties)
2) What crops or plants do you use drip irrigation on?
All crops are presently under drip/micro sprinkler irrigation. Some crops were
converted from furrow to micro-sprinkler such as the citrus, but most
were established with drip/micro from the start. Some installations
in the grapes are 20 years old.
3) If using subsurface drip irrigation, what is the average depth of
placement of the drip lateral?
I had trials of subsurface drip in approximately 1 acre of grapes
using the Gaia leaky pipe product. The tests ran at differing depth
and lateral spacings using the 3/8" and 5/8" pipe.
4) What problems have you encountered with drip irrigation?
All yields under the subsurface test rows were extremely high with
excellent quality the first year. Subsequent seasons productions
yield then decreased to marginal yield thresholds with poor quality
of fruit. Problems were attributed to gradual plugging of the leaky
pipe hose. The original above-ground drip emitter system was
re-activated and the sub-surface system was abandoned.
All the above-ground drip systems are working satisfactory.
But I am convinced of the great potential of subsurface drip and will be
planting new crops using that system shortly as well as converting
established crop blocks.
I was waiting for a product that had the
flaws worked out and believe I have found it in the Geoflow hose.
5) Fertigation is a real advantage of drip irrigation. What form of N, P and
K have you been trying and to what success?
Good results have been obtained by using the Soil Solutions gypsum
injection machine for the injection of various solid and liquid
fertilizer/nutrient materials.
6) Have you experienced a reduction in fertilizer and/or water use?
Yes! Definitely!
7) Do you have water quality problems? If so, how do you tackle the
situation?
Good quality water is available from my own wells and irrigation
district surface water (when available).
8) How frequent do you irrigate? Many times a day or just one long session
per day or several days?
All irrigation scheduling is performed by my own proprietary ETo scheduling
software system gathering meteorological data from an inexpensive
Heath/Zeneth weather station. Data from the WS is captured and logged
on an hourly bases. ETo if performed using the modified Pennman
equation and displayed/printed. Previous days data is checked for accuracy
using CIMIS
data from nearby Parlier and Visalia CIMIS stations.
I'm in the process of interfacing SENSTEK R/F irrigation controller
subsystems into a completely closed irrigation system. With various
results. But that's another story!
9) Do you have rodent damage? If so, how do you control the problem?
Yes. Some gopher strikes in the 1/4" tubing running on the ground
going to the Bowsmith
micro sprinkler stakes are usually found in the spring as well as as
rabbit damage to the upper portions of the hose and/or emitter. Dog
or coyote damage is fairly common, primarily in the 16mm hose
running along the tree rows.
No damage has been found in the grapes since we attached the hoses 3
feet above ground onto the trellising stakes over 15 years ago. Prior
to that time we were receiving the same forms of damage found in the
trees now.
Much ant plugging is found in both the nectarine and in some citrus
blocks. The ants crawl up the stake in search of water and into the emitter
orifice where
the are then become lodged, plugging the micro sprinkler. The only
solution is to walk the rows looking for pluged emitters, removing
the heads and cleaning the orifice with a tool and re-attaching the
emitter to the stake. This procedure has to be performed often during the
growing season. Costly in terms of man hours.
10) Are you pleased with the uniformity of your system or systems? Were they
designed correctly?
The older systems in the grape blocks were designed poorly, before real
information was available to the first irrigation companies vying for
business.
Those installations had problems which were reworked and are now
tolerable as far as emitter uniformity and system uniformity. The
newer systems are better designed and have greater uniformity.
11) How did you find out about our mailing list?
>From arsusda home page and Rodney Ruskin of Geoflow.
============================================
Richard Soppe
ARS/USDA-Water Management Research lab
2021 S. Peach Ave phone: (209)453-3119
Fresno CA 93727-5951 fax: (209)453-3122
http://asset.arsusda.gov/WMRL/WMRL.html
============================================
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 1996 16:56:34 -0600
From: Louis Baumhardt <r-baumhardt@tamu.edu>
Subject: What about "VECTOR" and "PULSE" subsurface drip
To any and all tricklers:
A fairly long while ago "VECTOR" and "PULSE" irrigation appeared as
a topic on this list. Vector irrigation systems use a burried
impermeable barrier beneath the drip line to increase lateral water
movement. Pulse irrigation that intermitently saturates the soil
around the drip line followed by a delay for redistribution by
unsaturated flow, may increase lateral water movement. I am
interested in modeling this system.
Given that unsaturated flow through soil is really S L O W.
I have some doubts that "PULSE" irrigation does little more than
prevent water surfacing by "chimney flow". And, while I really would
like to believe that "VECTOR" type irrigation installations also
increase lateral water flow, I remain unconvinced that vector
installations do anything but increase costs.
I have 2 questions for co-tricklers of Trickle-l :
1) Has anyone actually measured increased lateral water movement with
subsurface drip irrigation in response to vector or pulse irrigation
methods.
2) Would someone direct me to journal articles documenting increased
lateral water movement with subsurface drip irrigation using either
vector or pulse irrigation methods. I found a few grey literature
weakies on my own but surely I missed the good ones.
Thanks!!
R. Louis Baumhardt
Texas Agric. Exp. Station
Lubbock, TX 79401-9757
r-baumhardt@tamu.edu
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 16:55:55 -0600
From: evan@griffith.dwr.csiro.au (Evan Christen)
Subject:
Is Geoflow a "Leaky pipe" type product. Perhaps Rodney Ruskin could fill me in.
Thanks
Dr Evan Christen
Irrigation and Drainage Management for Horticulture
CSIRO Division of Water Resources
Griffith Laboratory
Griffith
NSW 2680
Australia
Tel # 61 69 601586
Fax # 61 69 601600
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 21:01:44 -0600
From: Royce Goertzen <royce@mobynet.com>
Subject: Re: Fertilizer injector
At 01:08 PM 3/1/96 -0600, you wrote:
>A few weeks ago I offered to send a picture of an injector set-up I use
>to inject dry product into the drip system. I now have a gif or pict
>file photo that I can send to who is interested. Whoever sends me a
>response please tell me what format file you can use and I'll send it.
>(gif files are less resolution but faster to send and view. R. Carian
>
>
Please send me the pict file on dry fertilizer injection. I can take is a jpg or gif.
Royce Goertzen
royce@mobynet.com
End of Digest
>From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Wed Mar 6 11:56 EST 1996
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 10:45:01 -0600
Message-Id: <199603061645.AA24180@crcnis1.unl.edu>
Subject: TRICKLE-L digest 438
Contents:
Automating SDI Chemical Injections (JImB1331@aol.com)
Re: Automating SDI Chemical Injections ("Gary Clark" <GCLARK@falcon.age.ksu.edu>)
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 09:27:56 -0500
From: JImB1331@aol.com
Subject: Automating SDI Chemical Injections
I'd like to pose some questions to the group.
1) What would be the financial benefits of a fertilizer or dry chemical make
down and injection system for your SDI equipment.
2) Is it cheaper to buy the fertilizer and chemicals you use in a powdered
or dry form and then mix them onsite?
3) Would automation of pH and Chlorine injection to assure proper levels be
worth the cost in higher crop yields?
I'm thinking of a dry feeder arrangement dispensing into a 100 to 500 gallon
mixing tank with a mechanical mixer and some type of chemical injection pump
in one package, all automated for unattended operation. The chlorine and pH
system would be very simple, sampling the water line and injecting a chemical
through a static mixer ahead of a probe. We just spun off our chemical feed
group so we could concentrate on different industries, and I'm just fishing
for some type of direction to take the group towards.
Thanx
Jim Beshears
Stranco
800 882-6466
JimB1331@aol.com
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 08:48:28 CST
From: "Gary Clark" <GCLARK@falcon.age.ksu.edu>
Subject: Re: Automating SDI Chemical Injections
> Subject: Automating SDI Chemical Injections
Dear Jim,
> I'd like to pose some questions to the group.
>
> 1) What would be the financial benefits of a fertilizer or dry chemical make
> down and injection system for your SDI equipment.
***This is not very different from any other irrigation injection
arrangement especially for microirrigation systems that require a
well filtered and dissolved solution.***
>
> 2) Is it cheaper to buy the fertilizer and chemicals you use in a powdered
> or dry form and then mix them onsite?
***Generally, yes. Liquid products generally have more weight per
unit of active chemical, thus shipping and storage costs will
generally be higher. Many of the larger vegetable growers that I
worked with in Florida did not want to fuss with mixing their own
chemcials. To them the cost difference between a premixed chemcial
and one mixed on-site did not seem to be appealing. A reliable
automated mixing station could possibly pay for itself and then be
worth considering. Smaller operations were more likely to mix their
own fertilizer.
Solubility of the product and local water quality (for mixing and
injecting purposes) are very important considerations. Sources and
quality of irrigation water are quite variable from very clean
maintenance free sources to stuff that looks like a bad milkshake.***
>
> 3) Would automation of pH and Chlorine injection to assure proper levels be
> worth the cost in higher crop yields?
***Depends on the quality and chemical makeup of the irrigation
source, the crop, and soil conditions (pH and buffering capacity).***
>
> I'm thinking of a dry feeder arrangement dispensing into a 100 to 500 gallon
> mixing tank with a mechanical mixer and some type of chemical injection pump
> in one package, all automated for unattended operation. The chlorine and pH
> system would be very simple, sampling the water line and injecting a chemical
> through a static mixer ahead of a probe. We just spun off our chemical feed
> group so we could concentrate on different industries, and I'm just fishing
> for some type of direction to take the group towards.
>
> Thanx
>
> Jim Beshears
> Stranco
> 800 882-6466
> JimB1331@aol.com
>
*** Good luck***
Gary Clark
******************************************
Gary A. Clark, P.E.
Associate Professor
Biological and Agricultural Engineering
147 Seaton Hall
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506-2906
Tel: 913-532-5580
Fax: 913-532-5825
******************************************
End of Digest
>From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Thu Mar 7 19:09 EST 1996
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 17:58:22 -0600
Message-Id: <199603072358.AA24776@crcnis1.unl.edu>
Subject: TRICKLE-L digest 439
Contents:
subsurface micro irrigation (marionp@teleport.com (Marion L. Potterfield))
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 15:55:54 -0800
From: marionp@teleport.com (Marion L. Potterfield)
Subject: subsurface micro irrigation
Can someone direct me to one or more sources of information on the current
status (state-of-the-art) of subsurface micro irrigation. Also, who are the
leading edge companies in development of this technology around the world?
End of Digest
>From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Fri Mar 8 19:11 EST 1996
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 17:59:19 -0600
Message-Id: <199603082359.AA16900@crcnis1.unl.edu>
Subject: TRICKLE-L digest 440
Contents:
look here buddy!!! (BLUEGLUE@aol.com)
Re: look here buddy!!! (Marc Cramer <mcramer@moscow.com>)
Re: look here buddy!!! (Stephen Rawlins <srawlins@ncw.net>)
Re: subsurface micro irrigation (FLamm@oznet.ksu.edu (Freddie Lamm))
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 19:26:26 -0500
From: BLUEGLUE@aol.com
Subject: look here buddy!!!
I DO NOT APPRECIATE ALL THIS SHIT THAT YOU HAVE BEING SENT TO ME!!! PLEASE
STOP SENDING ME THOSE STUPID LETTERS, JOKES, ETC. I MUST HAVE RECIEVED ABOUT
50 OF THE SAME THING!! PLEASE STOP THIS NOW!!!!!
BLUEGLUE!!
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 1996 00:43:59 -0800
From: Marc Cramer <mcramer@moscow.com>
Subject: Re: look here buddy!!!
At 06:19 PM 3/7/96 -0600, you wrote:
>I DO NOT APPRECIATE ALL THIS SHIT THAT YOU HAVE BEING SENT TO ME!!! PLEASE
>STOP SENDING ME THOSE STUPID LETTERS, JOKES, ETC. I MUST HAVE RECIEVED ABOUT
>50 OF THE SAME THING!! PLEASE STOP THIS NOW!!!!!
>
>BLUEGLUE!!
>
>
I do not know what you are talking about. I have not sent you anything that
I know of.
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 07:01:50 -0800
From: Stephen Rawlins <srawlins@ncw.net>
Subject: Re: look here buddy!!!
At 02:41 AM 3/8/96 -0600, you wrote:
>At 06:19 PM 3/7/96 -0600, you wrote:
>>I DO NOT APPRECIATE ALL THIS SHIT THAT YOU HAVE BEING SENT TO ME!!! PLEASE
>>STOP SENDING ME THOSE STUPID LETTERS, JOKES, ETC. I MUST HAVE RECIEVED ABOUT
>>50 OF THE SAME THING!! PLEASE STOP THIS NOW!!!!!
>>
>>BLUEGLUE!!
>>
>>
>I do not know what you are talking about. I have not sent you anything that
>I know of.
>
The only offensive material I have seen on this forum is the note from Blueglue.
Steve
>
>
>
USDA/ARS -- Retired Richland, WA 9352
APPROPRIATE SYSTEMS Phone 509-627-4943
(Precision Farming Consultants) FAX 509-627-1841
2638 Eastwood Avenue Email srawlins@ncw.net
Date: 08 Mar 96 10:06:23 CST
From: FLamm@oznet.ksu.edu (Freddie Lamm)
Subject: Re: subsurface micro irrigation
SOMEONE WROTE ON MARCH 7:
> Can someone direct me to one or more sources of information on the current
> status (state-of-the-art) of subsurface micro irrigation. Also, who are the
> leading edge companies in development of this technology around the world?
>
>
ON MARCH 9, FREDDIE LAMM RESPONDED.
There is a lot of current information on SDI (20 references to
papers in subject index) in the Proceedings of the 5th International
Microirrigation Congress, April 2-6, 1995, Orlando Fl. This
congress was sponsored by ASAE and the proceedings are available from
ASAE. Contact hq@asae.org for information about ordering the
proceedings. They also have a companion compilation of papers on
microirrigation published by ASAE covering years from 1985 thru 1994.
"Status of subsurface microirrigation" (NOTE: one word according to
ASAE) is a emcompassing information request. Do you mean land area,
research status, or what?????
Freddie
*-------------------------------------------------------------------
Freddie Lamm *
Research Agricultural Engineer *** o
KSU Northwest Research-Extension Center ***** /|\
105 Experiment Farm Road *******\\
Colby, Kansas 67701-1697 *********
Ph. 913-462-6281 ***********
FAX 913-462-2315 *************
Email:flamm@oznet.ksu.edu It's all downhill from here.
------ THERE'S NO DOMAIN LIKE OZ, THERE'S NO DOMAIN LIKE OZ. ------
End of Digest
>From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Sat Mar 9 19:31 EST 1996
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 18:23:02 -0600
Message-Id: <199603100023.AA01930@crcnis1.unl.edu>
Subject: TRICKLE-L digest 441
Contents:
Re: What about "VECTOR" and "PULSE" subsurface drip (cburt@oboe.aix.calpoly.edu (Charles M. Burt))
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 16:20:36 -0800
From: cburt@oboe.aix.calpoly.edu (Charles M. Burt)
Subject: Re: What about "VECTOR" and "PULSE" subsurface drip
In about 1980, Tracy Slavin did an excellent M.S. (General Agriculture)
thesis here at Cal Poly (San Luis Obispo) on the radial movement of water
with buried emitters that were pulsed. He used different flows and
different soil types. The copy of his M.S. thesis should be available on
inter-library loan.
Charles Burt
Cal Poly ITRC
>To any and all tricklers:
>
>A fairly long while ago "VECTOR" and "PULSE" irrigation appeared as
>a topic on this list. Vector irrigation systems use a burried
>impermeable barrier beneath the drip line to increase lateral water
>movement. Pulse irrigation that intermitently saturates the soil
>around the drip line followed by a delay for redistribution by
>unsaturated flow, may increase lateral water movement. I am
>interested in modeling this system.
>
>Given that unsaturated flow through soil is really S L O W.
> I have some doubts that "PULSE" irrigation does little more than
>prevent water surfacing by "chimney flow". And, while I really would
>like to believe that "VECTOR" type irrigation installations also
>increase lateral water flow, I remain unconvinced that vector
>installations do anything but increase costs.
>
>I have 2 questions for co-tricklers of Trickle-l :
>1) Has anyone actually measured increased lateral water movement with
>subsurface drip irrigation in response to vector or pulse irrigation
>methods.
>2) Would someone direct me to journal articles documenting increased
>lateral water movement with subsurface drip irrigation using either
>vector or pulse irrigation methods. I found a few grey literature
>weakies on my own but surely I missed the good ones.
>
>Thanks!!
>
>R. Louis Baumhardt
>Texas Agric. Exp. Station
>Lubbock, TX 79401-9757
>r-baumhardt@tamu.edu
End of Digest
>From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Sun Mar 10 19:32 EST 1996
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 18:23:51 -0600
Message-Id: <199603110023.AA07701@crcnis1.unl.edu>
Subject: TRICKLE-L digest 442
Contents:
Re: What about "VECTOR" and "PULSE" subsurface drip (leontclp@ix.netcom.com (Leon Lazarus ))
Re: What about "VECTOR" and "PULSE" subsurface drip (leontclp@ix.netcom.com (Leon Lazarus ))
SORRY!!!!! (BLUEGLUE@aol.com)
unsubscribe (WLovett@aol.com)
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 17:17:49 -0800
From: leontclp@ix.netcom.com (Leon Lazarus )
Subject: Re: What about "VECTOR" and "PULSE" subsurface drip
unsub trickle-l leon lazarus
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 17:18:15 -0800
From: leontclp@ix.netcom.com (Leon Lazarus )
Subject: Re: What about "VECTOR" and "PULSE" subsurface drip
signoff
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 01:25:35 -0500
From: BLUEGLUE@aol.com
Subject: SORRY!!!!!
First and foremost I would like to appologize to ALL of the Trickle-l
subscribers!! I was very rude to have written that nasty note, and had I
known that it would have gone to 100's of subscribers i would not have
written it. So I am truely sorry for my hasty behavior, I only wrote that
note to assure that someone would take me off the subscribers list. So,
PLEASE take me off, if I knew anything about what you were talking about I
would be more that happy to recieve tons of mail on the subject but seeing as
though I am only a high school student with little interest in micro
irrigation! I am truely sorry to anyone that I may have offended and if any
of you have any idea as to how I can get off of this subscribe it would be
greatly appreciated!! Again I am deeply sorry to ALL OF YOU!!!!!! :).......
Also, I would like to thank Craig Thompson for being so understanding to my
hasty remarks! THANK-YOU!
Richard (RMEAD@ASRR) - If you would please take me off your mailing list it
would be greatly appreciated!! Please get back to me, so that I can be sure
that the proper channels have been taken to remove me from the listing.
Thank you,
BLUEGLUE......... KELLY
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 10:52:23 -0500
From: WLovett@aol.com
Subject: unsubscribe
unsubscribe
End of Digest
>From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Tue Mar 12 18:07 EST 1996
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 16:58:22 -0600
Message-Id: <199603122258.AA29970@crcnis1.unl.edu>
Subject: TRICKLE-L digest 443
Contents:
Effect on soils of chlorine and acids (thomson.tony@wpo.pi.sa.gov.au)
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 09:12:36 +0930
From: thomson.tony@wpo.pi.sa.gov.au
Subject: Effect on soils of chlorine and acids
Can anyone provide references or describe their experiences with:
1. long term effect on soils of chlorine dosing in drip systems
2. use of hydrogen peroxide as an alternative to chlorine for
dosing drip systems
3. long term effect on soil of acid (hydrochloric, sulphuric,
phosphoric, other) dosing of drip systems
Thanks
Tony Thomson, Irrigation Engineer
Primary Industries South Australia
Ph: +61 8 389 8839 Fax: +61 8 389 8899
Internet: thomson.tony@pi.sa.gov.au
End of Digest
>From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Wed Mar 13 18:15 EST 1996
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 17:06:18 -0600
Message-Id: <199603132306.AA05970@crcnis1.unl.edu>
Subject: TRICKLE-L digest 444
Contents:
New ?? Iron treatment (sjordan@seldon.terminus.com (Steve Jordan))
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 21:56:39 -0800
From: sjordan@seldon.terminus.com (Steve Jordan)
Subject: New ?? Iron treatment
I have had some problems with iron precipitate. Now the makers of Line
Master have a new product.
Problem: once the iron has precipitated you need a very, very low pH to put
it back into solution. I think pH 4.0 is too high. Dropping the pH in the
drip to say 1.0 or 2.0 causes problems with the tape. It makes the tape
britle (?) due to heat (?).
New product is a buffered dry sulfuric acid that has descaling polymers.
Apparently, it has EPA approval. The cost might be quite reasonable.
Any input?
Steve Jordan @ Second Foundation
End of Digest
>From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Thu Mar 14 18:16 EST 1996
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 17:06:18 -0600
Message-Id: <199603142306.AA16249@crcnis1.unl.edu>
Subject: TRICKLE-L digest 445
Contents:
soil analysis under trickle irrigation (Jochen.Eberhard@t-online.de (Jochen Eberhard))
Re: soil analysis under trickle irrigation (GEORGE HOCHMUTH <GJH@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>)
Re: soil analysis under trickle irrigation (sjordan@seldon.terminus.com (Steve Jordan))
Re: soil analysis under trickle irrigation (Clint Shock <mesosu@primenet.com>)
SDI on Turf ("Jerry Neufeld" <jneufeld@fs.scs.unr.edu>)
Re: SDI on Turf ("J.D. Oster" <oster@mail.ucr.edu>)
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 96 09:27 +0100
From: Jochen.Eberhard@t-online.de (Jochen Eberhard)
Subject: soil analysis under trickle irrigation
Hi tricklers,
here is Jochen again with a new-old question which you might have discussed
before. Here in Germany we are very concerned about nutrient leaching in the
field. So especially for nitrate we have maximum levels (kg nitrogen per
hectar) for some regions. This is o.k. with the typical application of the
fertilizer where it is spread homogen across the field. But when using trickle
irrigation system to fertigate it is impossible to estimate the amount of
nitrate per hectar by analysing soil sample.
One the other hand, is the plant sap analysis for nutrients in combination with
suction lysimeters the *state of art* (I mean, the best system awailable) to run
a good fertigation program especially for vegetable production?
If you have already discused this problems please give me a hint.
Jochen Eberhard
Dannstadter Str.91
67105 Schifferstadt
Germany
email: Jochen.Eberhard@t-online.de
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 09:54:50 -0500 (EST)
From: GEORGE HOCHMUTH <GJH@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>
Subject: Re: soil analysis under trickle irrigation
At 04:17 AM 3/14/96 -0600, you wrote:
>Hi tricklers,
>here is Jochen again with a new-old question which you might have discussed
>before. Here in Germany we are very concerned about nutrient leaching in the
>field. So especially for nitrate we have maximum levels (kg nitrogen per
>hectar) for some regions. This is o.k. with the typical application of the
>fertilizer where it is spread homogen across the field. But when using trickle
>irrigation system to fertigate it is impossible to estimate the amount of
>nitrate per hectar by analysing soil sample.
>One the other hand, is the plant sap analysis for nutrients in combination
with
>suction lysimeters the *state of art* (I mean, the best system awailable)
to run
>a good fertigation program especially for vegetable production?
>If you have already discused this problems please give me a hint.
>
>Jochen Eberhard
>Dannstadter Str.91
>67105 Schifferstadt
>Germany
>email: Jochen.Eberhard@t-online.de
>
This is a reply to Jochen Eberhard, regarding the fertilizer rates for
drip-irrigated vegetables. Jochen raises an age-old question about the math
involved in fertilizer rate calculations. We deal with this on a continual
basis here in Florida, mostly because we have "graduated" from open-field
vegetable culture to systems using beds and mulch, and now drip irrigation.
The latter systems imply a "band" approach to fertilizer application.
We have chosen to express our fertilizer rates still on a "broadcast"
basis, e.g. pounds per acre or kg per hectare, even though the actual
application is more like banding. The broadcast expression is used because
that is the calculation methodology used by most, if not nearly all
researchers doing field fertilization work with vegetables. Now granted,
the fertilizer in a mulched crop or a drip-irrigated crop is applied in more
of a band approach. Our vegetable growers often think in terms of a
quantity of fertilizer per some number of roll of polyethylene mulch. For
example, they think in terms of 200 pounds of N per three rolls of plastic.
Three rolls of plastic is needed for one acre of tomatoes planted with six
feet between centers of the beds. Is this getting confusing yet?
This problem gets real difficult when one has to deal with growers who
grow crops on variable bed spacings, e.g. one grower with tomatoes on
six-foot bed spacings and another with five or even eight-foot bed spacings.
Then try watermelons, where growers use anything from five to twelve-foot
bed spacings! It soon becomes impossible to talk about fertilizer rate in
terms of lbs per acre! If the recommendation was 100 lbs N per acre and each
of these watermelon growers used that rate at face value, we would have all
kinds of amounts of nutrients under the mulch, perhaps some too much and
some inadequate.
Our solution is to provide the fertilizer recommendation in two formats,
one expressed in the basic form of lbs per acre, and the other in terms of
lbs per 100 linear bed feet. So, the research is done with the "per acre"
approach, and then we extension people interpret the rate in terms of lbs
per 100 linear bed feet. To be precise, we have chosen "typical bed
spacings" for our mulched vegetables, for example, the typical bed spacing
for tomato is 6 feet. So, if the best rate of N determined from research
(on mulched tomato using 6-ft beds and with the fertilizer injected) is 180
lbs per acre, then this also would equate to 2.48 lbs of N per 100 linear
bed feet. Now, armed with this information, the goal of achieving the
proper amount of N in the soil under the mulch will be realized no matter
what the chosen planting pattern (bed spacing).
We have found that simply by conducting research with bed placement(or
with fertigation) of nutrients, we are using less total fertilizer than
would be used under systems where all of the fertilizer was broadcast over
the soil surface. Perhaps some day we will graduate further to an
understanding of the required concentrations of nutrients in the root zone.
But that requires soil nutrient extractant calibration work. The suction
lysimeter tries to get at this approach but has limitations. It relies on
the soluble nutrients and does not account for other pools of nutrients,
e.g. exchangeable,etc. that can be available to the crop. Therefore, the
data from suction lysimeters comprise only a snapshot of the current soil
nutrient status. For highly mobile elements, such as N, this can be trouble
if N is leached with heavy rain, high water tables, or excessive irrigation.
Another problem is the sampling accuracy.Where do you take the sample
relative to an emmitter or position in the bed. My biggest criticism with
the lysimeter approach has to do with the lack of calibration data. Then,
what about the moisture content of the soil when the samples are taken
Lysimeter users often recommend Hoaglands concentrations of nutrients in the
soil at all times. This is too much fertilizer for us in Florida.
SO to summarize:
1. Fertilizer research data usually expressed on per acre or hectare basis,
even though the researcher may have applied it in band-like fashion.
2. Assuming the research was "good", i.e. all the treatment fertilizer ended
up in the root zone and was not leached, then a "winner" treatment can be
chosen.
3. We convert the winning treatment to a recommendation based on the linear
bed approach so the the rate expression will be neutral of planting pattern
chosen by the grower.
I realize not everyone does everything in the same fashion and there
might be comments on this approach, which I would be interested in
hearing.The older I get, the more easily confused I get, and this one has
been difficult to reach a consensus on, especially among colleagues. The
growers were easy! We have several extension publications on this topic for
those really interested.
OK, now your turn,
George Hochmuth,
University of Florida,
GJH@gnv.ifas..ufl.edu
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 06:58:16 -0800
From: sjordan@seldon.terminus.com (Steve Jordan)
Subject: Re: soil analysis under trickle irrigation
>Hi tricklers,
>here is Jochen again with a new-old question which you might have discussed
>before. Here in Germany we are very concerned about nutrient leaching in the
>field. So especially for nitrate we have maximum levels (kg nitrogen per
>hectar) for some regions. This is o.k. with the typical application of the
>fertilizer where it is spread homogen across the field. But when using trickle
>irrigation system to fertigate it is impossible to estimate the amount of
>nitrate per hectar by analysing soil sample.
In California, we too have problems with nitrate.
1. Old BMP- soil test before crop. Problem: not especially accurate
because it could not measure nitrogen dynamics. Also, could not monitor the
plants progress.
2. Foliar- better, but with some problems. Foliar is better with drip than
conventional methods if you consistently fertilize. when you sidedress the
nitrogen is applied in large quantities and there are uptake and conversion
timing problems. Foliar testing drip does not have that problem. Foliar
test still have problems. Even under best conditions nitrate in leaf
tissues change radically over time. We have only calibrated for certain
times (head formation). Also depending on crop, it can be problematic on
which part of the plant to sample.
3. Tim Hartz and others have developed a quick soil test, which I believe
is best. A soil test in the seed line is quickly and cheaply ('$2 / test)
analyzed for nitrate. If there is plenty of nitrate in the oil, why add
nitrate?
>One the other hand, is the plant sap analysis for nutrients in combination
with
>suction lysimeters the *state of art* (I mean, the best system awailable)
to run
>a good fertigation program especially for vegetable production?
>If you have already discused this problems please give me a hint.
>From what I understand, the soil suction lysimeters are inconsistent. Its
an attractive technology, but (from a California perspective) unusable.
There are farmers successfully and substantially reducing nitrate levels
with the soil quick test backed up with petioles.
Steve Jordan @ Second Foundation
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 11:43:32 -0700
From: Clint Shock <mesosu@primenet.com>
Subject: Re: soil analysis under trickle irrigation
Malheur County's areas of most intensive horticulture has a groundwater
nitrate problem and consequently has the need to manage nitrogen fertilizers
and irrigation water carefully. Researchon N use has been done with SDI,
sprinkler, and furrow irrigation. Generally the environment is dry with very
little rainfall during the growing season.
With all irrigation systems here, yields are maximized at N inputs below
locally recommended N rates for onions, potatoes, wheat, and sugarbeets. What
works on small plots on the experiment station seems to workin
"on farm" trials in growers fields. Preplant broadcast N
applications are omitted in this N strategy. Applying N during plant growth
and monitoring plant nitrate status is valueable and can reduce growers'
production costs.
With SDI less total N is applied to onions thanwhat growers are applying to
furrow irrigated onions. The total N amount is divided into 5
equal increments during rapid plant growth.
Soil water potential is monitored with granular matrix sensors (GMS) sold as
Watermarks by the Irrometer Co. The cropisonly irrigated if it has reached
it's irrigation criteria.
Clint
--
--------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Clinton C. Shock
Malheur Experiment Station, Oregon State University
595 Onion Ave.
Ontario, OR 97914
(541) 889-2174
Fax (541) 889-7831
http://www.primenet.com/~mesosu/index.html
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 96 13:33:34 PST
From: "Jerry Neufeld" <jneufeld@fs.scs.unr.edu>
Subject: SDI on Turf
I was contacted today by a representative from a small town in
northern Nevada. They are planning to install a golf course and would
like to irrigate it with a SDI system. I need some help. I'm not
familiar with the literature on SDI systems with turf. Can anyone
suggest some literature on this topic? Also, can anyone suggest any
individuals or companies with experience using SDI systems on turf?
Jerry Neufeld
(702) 635-5565
Fax (702) 635-8309
jerry@scs.unr.edu
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 16:46:38 -0600
From: "J.D. Oster" <oster@mail.ucr.edu>
Subject: Re: SDI on Turf
Victor Gibeault, Extension Environmental Horticlturist at the University of
California at Riverside may be able to help. His phone number is
909-787-4437 and his e-mail address is gibeault@ucrac1.ucr.edu.
Jim At 03:56 PM 3/14/96 -0600, you wrote:At 03:56 PM 3/14/96 -0600, you wrote:
> I was contacted today by a representative from a small town in
> northern Nevada. They are planning to install a golf course and would
> like to irrigate it with a SDI system. I need some help. I'm not
> familiar with the literature on SDI systems with turf. Can anyone
> suggest some literature on this topic? Also, can anyone suggest any
> individuals or companies with experience using SDI systems on turf?
>
>
> Jerry Neufeld
> (702) 635-5565
> Fax (702) 635-8309
> jerry@scs.unr.edu
>
>
J.D.(Jim) Oster
Dept. of Soil & Env. Sciences
University of California
Riverside, CA 92521
Phone (909)787-5100
FAX (909)787-5522
End of Digest
>From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Fri Mar 15 18:17 EST 1996
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 17:07:11 -0600
Message-Id: <199603152307.AA22679@crcnis1.unl.edu>
Subject: TRICKLE-L digest 446
Contents:
Re: Drip verses Micro Sprinklers (agrilink@iinet.net.au (Peter Moller))
Re: soil analysis under trickle irrigation (al shields <shieldsa@andrews.edu>)
Re: Drip verses Micro Sprinklers ("W. Bryan Smith" <WSMTH@prism.clemson.edu>)
Soil Analysis Under Trickle Irrigation (Irrometer@aol.com)
Re: Drip verses Micro Sprinklers -Reply (Byron Irvine <pf22408@em.agr.ca>)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 11:08:08 +0800
From: agrilink@iinet.net.au (Peter Moller)
Subject: Re: Drip verses Micro Sprinklers
Dear All,
Hello from Western Australia!!!
I would appreciate feedback regarding the advantages &/or limitations to
consider when choosing between Dripline systems or Micro Sprinkler systems.
What are the agronomic, soil moisture management, & irrigation
infrastructure issues that arise when a selection is to be made.??
At present there is debate &/or confusion for growers as to which is the
most appropiate system.
Typical crops that are irrigated by either method in W.A. include table
grapes, pome & stonefruit & bananas.
Also any avialable information on comparative trials between various systems
would be appreciated.
Regards
Peter Moller
Irrigation Agronomist
Agrilink Water Management Services
P.O. Box 260
Bassendean W.A. 6054
P: +61 9 275 9990
F: +61 9 275 9991
agrilink@iinet.net.au
http://www.iinet.net.au/~agrilink
Peter Moller
Irrigation Agronomist
Agrilink Water Management Services
P.O. Box 260
Bassendean W.A. 6054
P: +61 9 275 9990
F: +61 9 275 9991
agrilink@iinet.net.au
http://www.iinet.net.au/~agrilink
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 22:29:24 -0500 (EST)
From: al shields <shieldsa@andrews.edu>
Subject: Re: soil analysis under trickle irrigation
Do
On Thu, 14 Mar 1996, GEORGE HOCHMUTH wrote:
> Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 09:39:45 -0600
> From: GEORGE HOCHMUTH <GJH@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <trickle-l@unl.edu>
> Subject: Re: soil analysis under trickle irrigation
>
> At 04:17 AM 3/14/96 -0600, you wrote:
> >Hi tricklers,
> >here is Jochen again with a new-old question which you might have discussed
> >before. Here in Germany we are very concerned about nutrient leaching in the
> >field. So especially for nitrate we have maximum levels (kg nitrogen per
> >hectar) for some regions. This is o.k. with the typical application of the
> >fertilizer where it is spread homogen across the field. But when using trickle
> >irrigation system to fertigate it is impossible to estimate the amount of
> >nitrate per hectar by analysing soil sample.
> >One the other hand, is the plant sap analysis for nutrients in combination
> with
> >suction lysimeters the *state of art* (I mean, the best system awailable)
> to run
> >a good fertigation program especially for vegetable production?
> >If you have already discused this problems please give me a hint.
> >
> >Jochen Eberhard
> >Dannstadter Str.91
> >67105 Schifferstadt
> >Germany
> >email: Jochen.Eberhard@t-online.de
> >
>
>
> This is a reply to Jochen Eberhard, regarding the fertilizer rates for
> drip-irrigated vegetables. Jochen raises an age-old question about the math
> involved in fertilizer rate calculations. We deal with this on a continual
> basis here in Florida, mostly because we have "graduated" from open-field
> vegetable culture to systems using beds and mulch, and now drip irrigation.
> The latter systems imply a "band" approach to fertilizer application.
> We have chosen to express our fertilizer rates still on a "broadcast"
> basis, e.g. pounds per acre or kg per hectare, even though the actual
> application is more like banding. The broadcast expression is used because
> that is the calculation methodology used by most, if not nearly all
> researchers doing field fertilization work with vegetables. Now granted,
> the fertilizer in a mulched crop or a drip-irrigated crop is applied in more
> of a band approach. Our vegetable growers often think in terms of a
> quantity of fertilizer per some number of roll of polyethylene mulch. For
> example, they think in terms of 200 pounds of N per three rolls of plastic.
> Three rolls of plastic is needed for one acre of tomatoes planted with six
> feet between centers of the beds. Is this getting confusing yet?
> This problem gets real difficult when one has to deal with growers who
> grow crops on variable bed spacings, e.g. one grower with tomatoes on
> six-foot bed spacings and another with five or even eight-foot bed spacings.
> Then try watermelons, where growers use anything from five to twelve-foot
> bed spacings! It soon becomes impossible to talk about fertilizer rate in
> terms of lbs per acre! If the recommendation was 100 lbs N per acre and each
> of these watermelon growers used that rate at face value, we would have all
> kinds of amounts of nutrients under the mulch, perhaps some too much and
> some inadequate.
> Our solution is to provide the fertilizer recommendation in two formats,
> one expressed in the basic form of lbs per acre, and the other in terms of
> lbs per 100 linear bed feet. So, the research is done with the "per acre"
> approach, and then we extension people interpret the rate in terms of lbs
> per 100 linear bed feet. To be precise, we have chosen "typical bed
> spacings" for our mulched vegetables, for example, the typical bed spacing
> for tomato is 6 feet. So, if the best rate of N determined from research
> (on mulched tomato using 6-ft beds and with the fertilizer injected) is 180
> lbs per acre, then this also would equate to 2.48 lbs of N per 100 linear
> bed feet. Now, armed with this information, the goal of achieving the
> proper amount of N in the soil under the mulch will be realized no matter
> what the chosen planting pattern (bed spacing).
> We have found that simply by conducting research with bed placement(or
> with fertigation) of nutrients, we are using less total fertilizer than
> would be used under systems where all of the fertilizer was broadcast over
> the soil surface. Perhaps some day we will graduate further to an
> understanding of the required concentrations of nutrients in the root zone.
> But that requires soil nutrient extractant calibration work. The suction
> lysimeter tries to get at this approach but has limitations. It relies on
> the soluble nutrients and does not account for other pools of nutrients,
> e.g. exchangeable,etc. that can be available to the crop. Therefore, the
> data from suction lysimeters comprise only a snapshot of the current soil
> nutrient status. For highly mobile elements, such as N, this can be trouble
> if N is leached with heavy rain, high water tables, or excessive irrigation.
> Another problem is the sampling accuracy.Where do you take the sample
> relative to an emmitter or position in the bed. My biggest criticism with
> the lysimeter approach has to do with the lack of calibration data. Then,
> what about the moisture content of the soil when the samples are taken
> Lysimeter users often recommend Hoaglands concentrations of nutrients in the
> soil at all times. This is too much fertilizer for us in Florida.
> SO to summarize:
> 1. Fertilizer research data usually expressed on per acre or hectare basis,
> even though the researcher may have applied it in band-like fashion.
> 2. Assuming the research was "good", i.e. all the treatment fertilizer ended
> up in the root zone and was not leached, then a "winner" treatment can be
> chosen.
> 3. We convert the winning treatment to a recommendation based on the linear
> bed approach so the the rate expression will be neutral of planting pattern
> chosen by the grower.
>
> I realize not everyone does everything in the same fashion and there
> might be comments on this approach, which I would be interested in
> hearing.The older I get, the more easily confused I get, and this one has
> been difficult to reach a consensus on, especially among colleagues. The
> growers were easy! We have several extension publications on this topic for
> those really interested.
>
> OK, now your turn,
> George Hochmuth,
> University of Florida,
> GJH@gnv.ifas..ufl.edu
>
>
>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 08:41:30 -0500 (EST)
From: "W. Bryan Smith" <WSMTH@prism.clemson.edu>
Subject: Re: Drip verses Micro Sprinklers
Peter,
As was previously mentioned, microsprinklers can offer some degree of
undertree frost protection if used properly (reports I have heard say 2 to
3 degrees F). They also provide a larger wetted pattern, which is necessary
on very coarse soils to provide more roots with water contact.
Microsprinklers do lose more water to evaporation than drip systems, so
you will need to pump more water for the same net application rate. I do
not suggest that the microsprinkler's application efficiency is as low as a
conventional sprinkler, but it is somewhere between a conventional sprinkler
and a drip emitter.
Finally, you will need either (1) a good many more submains using the same
pump size as the drip or (2) a larger pump using the same number of submains
as the drip (and larger lateral sizes). Microsprinklers apply more water
per device. Typically they will be spaced farther apart than drip emitters,
but usually the water flow per lateral is increased significantly above
drip emitters. The good point? The application rate is higher, which means
more "sections" or "zones", but which also means you may be able to catch up
with your irrigation a little better should you fall behind due to mechanical
problems.
Just a few thoughts - by no means the definitive answer! I typically use
drip in heavier soils and microsprinklers in coarse sands. One installation
note - a drip emitter can be placed at almost any orientation with respect to
the ground and function properly. The microsprinkler must be on a stake or
stand and must throw a pattern parallel to the ground for maximum effective-
ness. An angled microsprinkler stake can cause runoff problems on one side
and higher evaporation rates on the other.
Bryan
----------------------------------------------------------------
W. Bryan Smith Office: 803 276-1091
Area Agent - Water Quality FAX: 803 276-1095
Clemson Extension Service
P.O. Box 160 Email: wsmth
Newberry, SC 29108 Internet: wsmth@.clemson.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------
All opinions are my own and not reflective of the policies of
Clemson University or the Cooperative Extension Service.
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 13:33:56 -0500
From: Irrometer@aol.com
Subject: Soil Analysis Under Trickle Irrigation
Jochen Eberhard's questions of how to approach the concern about nutrient
leaching
[esp. N], in my view has introduced the practical fact that there can be
significant "uniqueness" involved, besides the crop specific nutrient need.
I agree with George
Hochmuth that "the older I get, the more easily confused I get". But the
bottom line, at least in my view, is that production agriculture hasn't "seen
anything yet" about good
old H2O, like it will see in the future in regards to "clean water" and
non-point source
pollution issues.
The cornerstone is to manage the scheduling of irrigation to prevent
excessive leaching of mobile nutrients. Then you have the problem of
rainfall events in areas like Florida and Germany - sort of hard to "manage".
And we can't lose sight of the fact that the principal goal is to nourish
the crop as required. Fertigation is simply the mechanical
means.
Clint Shock in Oregon has done work on the nitrogen requirement of potato
under a
holistic approach, and has demonstrated something vastly different than
conventional
wisdom- at least in relationship to common sprinkler and/or furrow irrigation
regimes.
I'd let anyone guess as to where the excess N now resides. I'm sure that
other of you
have had similar experiences.
I'm an advocate of "measuring" things-particularly soil water. Theory is
great. Models
are great. "Measuring", although not without its drawbacks, gets us closer to
the "real thing". Suction Lysimeters are a practical means for extracting a
soil water sample
which can be analyzed/measured. Tissue sampling [plant based] maybe can tell
you
a bit more--and even more still if coupled[correlated] with the soil supply
of N. And I
don't feel it is practical to quickly dismiss anything which the grower can
learn to use
properly to better manage his practices--even if he needs to learn the
relationship
between this one and that one. The use of suction lysimetry is growing; we
can see this from our sales of these simple devices. But I'm not positive
that the actual users
in agriculture are fully operating the "system" correctly--and it's difficult
for us to offer
truly expert advice. We have to rely on the experience and advice of people
like Shock,
Hartz, Hochmuth, etc. as this process is moved from the lab, to plots to the
farm.
We know a few things from 45 years in this business, but practically all of
it from
others. We're trying to make it work for the farmer--so he can progress in
his ever more
demanding environment.
Regards, Bill Pogue, Irrometer Co. , irrometer@aol.com
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 14:56:03 -0500
From: Byron Irvine <pf22408@em.agr.ca>
Subject: Re: Drip verses Micro Sprinklers -Reply
The use of Wade Rain's "pulsator" technology allowed me to protect
tomatoes from a frost of 6 C for 3 nights. The advantage is that water
use is lower since sprinklers do not run all the time. I do not know if they
are cost effective but that would depend on water supply submain
design etc.
Byron Irvine
Saskatchewan Irrigation Development Centre.
W. Bryan Smith <WSMTH@prism.clemson.edu> wrote on03/15/96
07:39am >>>
Peter,
As was previously mentioned, microsprinklers can offer some degree
of undertree frost protection if used properly (reports I have heard say 2
to
3 degrees F). They also provide a larger wetted pattern, which is
necessary on very coarse soils to provide more roots with water
contact.
Microsprinklers do lose more water to evaporation than drip systems,
so you will need to pump more water for the same net application rate. I
do not suggest that the microsprinkler's application efficiency is as low
as a conventional sprinkler, but it is somewhere between a conventional
sprinkler and a drip emitter.
Finally, you will need either (1) a good many more submains using the
same pump size as the drip or (2) a larger pump using the same number
of submains as the drip (and larger lateral sizes). Microsprinklers apply
more water per device. Typically they will be spaced farther apart than
drip emitters, but usually the water flow per lateral is increased
significantly above drip emitters. The good point? The application rate is
higher, which means more "sections" or "zones", but which also means
you may be able to catch up with your irrigation a little better should you
fall behind due to mechanical problems.
Just a few thoughts - by no means the definitive answer! I typically use
drip in heavier soils and microsprinklers in coarse sands. One installation
note - a drip emitter can be placed at almost any orientation with respect
to the ground and function properly. The microsprinkler must be on a
stake or stand and must throw a pattern parallel to the ground for
maximum effective- ness. An angled microsprinkler stake can cause
runoff problems on one side and higher evaporation rates on the other.
Bryan
----------------------------------------------------------------
W. Bryan Smith Office: 803 276-1091
Area Agent - Water Quality FAX: 803 276-1095
Clemson Extension Service
P.O. Box 160 Email: wsmth
Newberry, SC 29108 Internet: wsmth@.clemson.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------
All opinions are my own and not reflective of the policies of
Clemson University or the Cooperative Extension Service.
End of Digest
>From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Sat Mar 16 19:29 EST 1996
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 18:20:46 -0600
Message-Id: <199603170020.AA00564@crcnis1.unl.edu>
Subject: TRICKLE-L digest 447
Contents:
Re: SDI on Turf (GroAire@aol.com)
Re: Soil Analysis Under Trickle Irrigation (HOPSRME@aol.com)
performance of tape (buescher@wiz.uni-kassel.de (Michael Buescher))
Re: Drip verses Micro Sprinklers -Reply (Masoud Meshkat <mmeshkat@groucho.bae.uky.edu>)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 19:12:31 -0500
From: GroAire@aol.com
Subject: Re: SDI on Turf
Hello Jerry,
I have been installing SDI on turf for 12 years on residential and commercial
properties.
I have been eager to get the opportunity to bid a golf course. I will givwe
you a call later and if I miss you e-mail me or something.
Dave Enyeart
GroAire@aol.com
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 00:40:23 -0500
From: HOPSRME@aol.com
Subject: Re: Soil Analysis Under Trickle Irrigation
I am a hop grower in Washington state that uses drip irrigation. I am
purchasing a Motorola Irrinet controller for my system and was wondering if
anybody had any info on a soil moisture probe that could be hard-wired back
to my Motorola controller? I envision a system that is started and stopped
as field conditions warrant, i.e. when the probes determine water is
necessary the system turns on, when water requirements are sufficient, the
system turns off. My water source is from a well and I have enough pumping
capacity to run all sets at once, the pump is also on a variable speed
electrical panel, so smaller sets are also possible without hurting the pump.
Is the technology there for this type of system???
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 13:49:48 +0100 (MEZ)
From: buescher@wiz.uni-kassel.de (Michael Buescher)
Subject: performance of tape
Some growers in drought sensitive areas in Southern Germany are
interested in using tape for irrigation during the summer month.
Thus I'd like to pose some questions regarding tape to the group.
1.) How popular is it in the US?
2.) Do growers bury tape underground for 2 - 3 seasons?
It shall be possible - but is it realy done!
3.) How much is the performance declining after 2-3 seasons?
3.) Is a maschine existing to roll it up after the season?
4.) Do you have to disposal it due to environmental laws?
Thanks a lot!
Michael Buescher
University of Kassel
Faculty of Agriculture, International Rural Development
and Environmental Protection (FB 11)
Nordbahnhofstr. 1a
D-37213 Witzenhausen
(FRG)
email: buescher@wiz.uni-kassel.de
http://dino.wiz.uni-kassel.de/model_db/Michael_Buescher.html
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 11:12:07 -0500 (EST)
From: Masoud Meshkat <mmeshkat@groucho.bae.uky.edu>
Subject: Re: Drip verses Micro Sprinklers -Reply
>
> W. Bryan Smith <WSMTH@prism.clemson.edu> wrote on03/15/96
> 07:39am >>>
>
>
> Microsprinklers do lose more water to evaporation than drip systems,
> so you will need to pump more water for the same net application rate. I
> do not suggest that the microsprinkler's application efficiency is as low
> as a conventional sprinkler, but it is somewhere between a conventional
> sprinkler and a drip emitter.
>
Is this your personal opinion or is it based on some research?
Please inform me of any evaluation that you may have cited in literature.
Thank you.
Masoud Meshkat
End of Digest
>From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Sun Mar 17 19:29 EST 1996
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 18:21:04 -0600
Message-Id: <199603180021.AA09169@crcnis1.unl.edu>
Subject: TRICKLE-L digest 448
Contents:
Re: Drip verses Micro Sprinklers -Reply ("W. Bryan Smith" <WSMTH@prism.clemson.edu>)
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 20:13:57 -0500 (EST)
From: "W. Bryan Smith" <WSMTH@prism.clemson.edu>
Subject: Re: Drip verses Micro Sprinklers -Reply
Masoud,
The relative efficiencies of drip and microsprinkles have been discussed
by a number of associates and fellow designers over the last several years.
I do not have any hard research to indicate that microsprinklers have
a lower application efficiency than drip, but I would bet some exists. By
way of comparison, cosider the two: Drip applies water in large drops,
droplets, or an almost continuous stream. Usually (exception: trellis
applications where the drip is attached to a wire) the drip is located
on the ground (or under it). The large droplet size and small travel time
to the ground surface promote a high efficiency, as does the slow application
rate (allowing infiltration of almost all applied water.
Now consider microsprinklers. Typically they are installed on a stake of
some height (say 0.3 meter for example). The spray from the microsprinkler
is a finer mist ( or smaller droplet size) than the drip emitter's, hence it
is more readily evaporated and is moredrastically affected by wind. Also,
a typical spray pattern may be flat or on a slightly upward trajectory
(although some do come with a downward trajectory), which increases the
time required for the water to reach the ground surface. All of the factors
seem to indicate that a microsprinkler's application efficiency should be less
than drip.
How much less? I don't have any real idea on that. I would hazard a guess
and say at least 5%, maybe 10% depending on weather and wind. Just an
estimate on my part - again, no hard facts here.
I would be very interested in any data out there with research showing the
relative efficiencies of drip and microsprinklers. All of this is basically
my opinion based on some common sense, and there are numerous times when
common sense does not provide the correct answer. One note - there are a
myriad of microsprinkler designs out there. I would guess that one that
provides larger droplet size and is closer to the ground surface would be
more efficient - again, only a guess.
If you have experience with this please reply to the list. I would sure
like to see some hard data, regardless of whether it supports or destroys
my "common sense" ideas!
Bryan
=====================================================================
W. Bryan Smith
Clemson Extension Service
P.O. Box 160
Newberry, SC 29108
(803) 276-1091
wsmth@clemson.edu
=====================================================================
All opinions are my own and are not reflective of the policies of the
Cooperative Extension Service or Clemson University.
End of Digest
>From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Mon Mar 18 19:34 EST 1996
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 18:25:37 -0600
Message-Id: <199603190025.AA15855@crcnis1.unl.edu>
Subject: TRICKLE-L digest 449
Contents:
Re: Drip verses Micro Sprinklers -Reply (cburt@oboe.aix.calpoly.edu (Charles M. Burt))
Algae Growth in a storage reservoir ("Jerry Neufeld" <jneufeld@fs.scs.unr.edu>)
New member response ! (Richard Mead <rmead@asrr.arsusda.gov>)
Re: Algae Growth in a storage reservoir ("Gary Clark" <gclark@falcon.age.ksu.edu>)
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 17:23:48 -0800
From: cburt@oboe.aix.calpoly.edu (Charles M. Burt)
Subject: Re: Drip verses Micro Sprinklers -Reply
>>
>> W. Bryan Smith <WSMTH@prism.clemson.edu> wrote on03/15/96
>> 07:39am >>>
>>
>>
>> Microsprinklers do lose more water to evaporation than drip systems,
>> so you will need to pump more water for the same net application rate. I
>> do not suggest that the microsprinkler's application efficiency is as low
>> as a conventional sprinkler, but it is somewhere between a conventional
>> sprinkler and a drip emitter.
>>
>
>Is this your personal opinion or is it based on some research?
>Please inform me of any evaluation that you may have cited in literature.
>Thank you.
>
>Masoud Meshkat
>
For growers, the question is generally not "is a microsprinkler more
efficient, in the standard irrigation sense, than a drip emitter". Rather,
it is a question of how the crop responds in terms of yield.
The bottom line is that some crops, especially on some soils, seem to much
better if they have a large percentage wetted area. If that's the case,
you have a choice: lots of emitters, or some microsprinklers
(microsprayers), or sprinklers.
Classic examples in California are avocadoes and almonds.
Other questions, such as pluggability, must also be considered when asking
which general category is "more efficient". I remember in the early days
of drip when we used to be fairly hung up on just the hydraulic
characteristics of emitters, specifically the exponent. We would use
vortex emitters, for example, with very small flow rates - great for
economics and brand new DUs. We soon learned that bigger is sometimes a
lot better, even if it costs more - long term pluggability turned out to be
a real significant issue, and our "theoretical" DU values went down the
tubes in that case.
Charles Burt
Cal Poly ITRC
Charles M. Burt, P.E., Ph.D.
Professor and Director of the Irrigation Training and Research Center (ITRC)
California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly)
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
ph: 805-756-2379
FAX: 805-756-2433
e-mail: cburt@oboe.calpoly.edu
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 96 09:58:26 PST
From: "Jerry Neufeld" <jneufeld@fs.scs.unr.edu>
Subject: Algae Growth in a storage reservoir
Does anyone have information about management techniques or products
which can be used to control algae growth in a storage reservoir used
to hold water for a SDI system?
Thanks for your help.
Jerry Neufeld
Nevada Cooperative Extension
113 Carson Road
Battle Mountain, NV 89820
(702) 635-5565
Fax(702) 635-8309
jerry@scs.unr.edu
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 16:55:38 -0500
From: Richard Mead <rmead@asrr.arsusda.gov>
Subject: New member response !
The following is a response from a new subscriber, Hugh Campbell.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your welcome. Here are my answers to your enquiry.
1) Briefly, what is your affiliation with trickle/drip irrigation?
I am an Agricultural Engineer in private consulting practice in southern NSW
in Australia. I design a range of pressurised irrigation systems and stock
and domestic water reticulation systems for private and government clients
using IRRICAD software.
2) What crops or plants do you use drip irrigation on?
Crops I have designed for include grapes, oranges, cherries, peaches, plums,
tomatoes, apples, nectarines figs, pistachios and pears.
3) If using subsurface drip irrigation, what is the average depth of
placement of the drip lateral?
One design for tomatoes was placed at 150mm depth.
4) What problems have you encountered with drip irrigation?
Clients choosing cheaper screen filters when I have recommended media filters,
cheap layflat mains and submains stretching too much and causing a real mess
and sand particles firmly lodged in screen filters.
5) Fertigation is a real advantage of drip irrigation. What form of N, P and
K have you been trying and to what success?
Most clients have stuck with urea at present - we are still learning!
6) Have you experienced a reduction in fertilizer and/or water use?
Grapegrowers are using less water than when they flooded but Citrus growers
are finding increased water use as their soil structure improves from
cessation of continuous cultivation and sterilisation.
7) Do you have water quality problems? If so, how do you tackle the
situation?
Generally no problems apart from minor salt loads in incoming water.
Typically slime and algae are the problems in older channels, sediment in new
channels.
8) How frequent do you irrigate? Many times a day or just one long session
per day or several days?
Depends on the client, the water delivery system (Govt. channels) and the soil
types.
9) Do you have rodent damage? If so, how do you control the problem?
Only big "rodents" like foxes and dogs. Baiting and fencing the usual
treatment.
10) Are you pleased with the uniformity of your system or systems? Were they
designed correctly?
Of course they were! ( I hope I have recently passed the IA / IAA Certified
Irrigation Designer programme). I am also a graduate engineer of 21 years.
I admit that one client had problems that he asked me to sort out (like 50 x
1inch laterals feeding from a single 2 inch submain!)
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 16:34:01 CST
From: "Gary Clark" <gclark@falcon.age.ksu.edu>
Subject: Re: Algae Growth in a storage reservoir
On Mon, 18 Mar 1996 12:03:30 -0600
> From: "Jerry Neufeld" <jneufeld@fs.scs.unr.edu>
> Subject: Algae Growth in a storage reservoir
> Does anyone have information about management techniques or products
> which can be used to control algae growth in a storage reservoir used
> to hold water for a SDI system?
>
> Thanks for your help.
>
Jerry,
You have posed a good, but open ended question. As with most of this
stuff - No Answer (or Question) Is Simple (Re: Simple Question a few
weeks ago). Anyway, I have posed a few additional questions to
myself (who has limited knowledge) and/or others aim in on a possible
solution.
What is the storage reservoir made from (earth, large poly container,
steel tank,...);
What is the location?? Above ground or below?
What is the size or volume?
What is the water residence time?
What is the current chemistry of the water (salts, pH, chlorides,
sulfates,...)?
What is the intended use (other than SDI), types of crops?
In general, algae can be controlled with chlorine (liquid, powder or
tablets, or gas - very effective, but dangerous); also copper sulfate
or copper chloride may be used.
Minimizing light entry into above ground storage with paint can help.
Good Luck.
Gary Clark.
******************************************
Gary A. Clark, P.E.
Associate Professor
Biological and Agricultural Engineering
147 Seaton Hall
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506-2906
Tel: 913-532-5580
Fax: 913-532-5825
******************************************
End of Digest
>From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Tue Mar 19 19:35 EST 1996
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 18:26:29 -0600
Message-Id: <199603200026.AA21469@crcnis1.unl.edu>
Subject: TRICKLE-L digest 450
Contents:
Re: Drip verses Micro Sprinklers (geoflow1@slip.net (Rodney Ruskin))
Re: Algae Growth in a storage reservoir (stein@wiz.uni-kassel.de (Thomas-M. Stein))
Re: Algae Growth in a storage reservoir (EnnisEng@aol.com)
Re: Drip verses Micro Sprinklers ("J.D. Oster" <oster@mail.ucr.edu>)
Re: Algae Growth in a storage reservoir ("Blake L. Sanden" <blsanden@ucdavis.edu>)
Re: Drip verses Micro Sprinklers -Reply ("Blake L. Sanden" <blsanden@ucdavis.edu>)
Re: Drip verses Micro Sprinklers ("Marekesh (Pvt) Ltd" <marakesh@harare.iafrica.com>)
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 96 18:22 PST
From: geoflow1@slip.net (Rodney Ruskin)
Subject: Re: Drip verses Micro Sprinklers
At 9:05 PM 3/14/96 -0600, Peter Moller wrote:
>Dear All,
>
>Hello from Western Australia!!!
>
>I would appreciate feedback regarding the advantages &/or limitations to
>consider when choosing between Dripline systems or Micro Sprinkler systems.
>
>What are the agronomic, soil moisture management, & irrigation
>infrastructure issues that arise when a selection is to be made.??
>
>At present there is debate &/or confusion for growers as to which is the
>most appropiate system.
>
>Typical crops that are irrigated by either method in W.A. include table
>grapes, pome & stonefruit & bananas.
>
>Also any avialable information on comparative trials between various systems
>would be appreciated.
>
In my experience the surface drip vs. subsurface drip vs. micro decision is
made by most growers based upon the crops, the soils, and the cultural
practices of the grower. For example the grower may believe that micro
gives him the best frost protection but still goes subsurface because of
damage during harvesting. i.e. the grower has made his decsion based on
avoiding a problem not on seeking a better way.
I personally believe that in 90% of cases for permanent crops deep pulsed
SDI is the best possible compromise, but I am well known to be hopelessly
compromised in this matter.
Rodney Ruskin.
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 09:02:27 +0100 (MEZ)
From: stein@wiz.uni-kassel.de (Thomas-M. Stein)
Subject: Re: Algae Growth in a storage reservoir
Gerry, Jerry,
There is a PC program called ALGAL "ALGAL GROWTH SIMULATION - PC"
which
"Simulates the effects of nitrates, phosphate, turbidity, pH,
temperature, ammonia, alkalinity and light on the growth of algae.
In addition periphyton photosynthesis is simulated under different
temperatures, different Carbon dioxide levels, and for light adapted
and shade adapted communities."
I didn't have the opportunity to checked that program myself but there
is an information page on our IRRISOFT server.
http://www.wiz.uni-kassel.de/kww/irrisoft_i.html
Choose
o Other Irrigation Programs
from the Main INDEX.
I would appreciate any experiences and feedback on that program.
Hope this was of some help.
Regards
Thomas
______________________________________________________________________________
Thomas-M. Stein
University of Kassel (FB11) Phone : (+49)-5542-98-1632
Dep. of Rural Engineering and Fax : (+49)-5542-98-1588
Natural Resource Protection Email : stein@wiz.uni-kassel.de
Nordbahnhofstr. 1a WWW : http://www.wiz.uni-kassel.de/kww/
D-37213 Witzenhausen, GERMANY List owner: IRRIGATION-L@listserv.gmd.de
______________________________________________________________________________
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 09:09:08 -0500
From: EnnisEng@aol.com
Subject: Re: Algae Growth in a storage reservoir
Jerry:
I approach SDI from the wastwater reuse side of the industry. Algae is a
common problem in pond systems for wastewater treatment. What kind of algae
are you producing?
There are several techniques that help reduce the quantity of algae:
as was mentioned chlorine or copper sulfate
adjusting the pH up or down
limiting the light penetration
creating an aquatic environment to have filter feeding fish (e.g. tilapia) to
remove the algae
A little experimented with technique that was "discovered" a few years ago
was that rotting hay gives off a chemical (naturally) that inhibits the
reproduction of algae. I haven't tried it myself and I haven't seen much
followup info about.
Let me know if these sound like potential alternatives for your situation.
Tom Ennis
Ennis Engineering
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 10:13:38 -0600
From: "J.D. Oster" <oster@mail.ucr.edu>
Subject: Re: Drip verses Micro Sprinklers
Greetins from sunny, southern California. SDI versus other pressurized
systems like surface drip and sprinkler. One reason avocado growers in
southern California switched from surface drip to microsprinkler was that it
was difficult to see whether emitters were working. When buried under the
old leaves on the soil surface, they found monitoring soil wetness to be a
problem. Almost all of them have switched to microsprinkler which reduces
this problem of monitoring irrigation. With SDI the visual evidence of
irrigation is reduced: in some situations the surface soil can look dry even
though irrigation is occuring correctly. Growers need to learn how to rely
more on water meters, pressure gauges, and crop ET estimates based on
wheather stations.
At 08:23 PM 3/18/96 -0600, you wrote:
>At 9:05 PM 3/14/96 -0600, Peter Moller wrote:
>>Dear All,
>>
>>Hello from Western Australia!!!
>>
>>I would appreciate feedback regarding the advantages &/or limitations to
>>consider when choosing between Dripline systems or Micro Sprinkler systems.
>>
>>What are the agronomic, soil moisture management, & irrigation
>>infrastructure issues that arise when a selection is to be made.??
>>
>>At present there is debate &/or confusion for growers as to which is the
>>most appropiate system.
>>
>>Typical crops that are irrigated by either method in W.A. include table
>>grapes, pome & stonefruit & bananas.
>>
>>Also any avialable information on comparative trials between various systems
>>would be appreciated.
>>
>
>In my experience the surface drip vs. subsurface drip vs. micro decision is
>made by most growers based upon the crops, the soils, and the cultural
>practices of the grower. For example the grower may believe that micro
>gives him the best frost protection but still goes subsurface because of
>damage during harvesting. i.e. the grower has made his decsion based on
>avoiding a problem not on seeking a better way.
>I personally believe that in 90% of cases for permanent crops deep pulsed
>SDI is the best possible compromise, but I am well known to be hopelessly
>compromised in this matter.
>
>Rodney Ruskin.
>
>
>
J.D.(Jim) Oster
Dept. of Soil & Env. Sciences
University of California
Riverside, CA 92521
Phone (909)787-5100
FAX (909)787-5522
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 08:31:28 -0800
From: "Blake L. Sanden" <blsanden@ucdavis.edu>
Subject: Re: Algae Growth in a storage reservoir
Jerry,
For algae control in reservoirs the simplest technique is to put large
copper sulfate crystals (bluestone) in a burlap sack and anchor/hang it near
your inlet pipe to dissolve as water comes in. For shock treatment you need
20-30 lb/ac-ft. Maintenance levels at 2-5 lb work great once the reservior
is clean.
Blake Sanden
Univ of California Coop Ext
Kern County
blsanden@ucdavis.edu
At 12:07 PM 3/18/96 -0600, you wrote:
> Does anyone have information about management techniques or products
> which can be used to control algae growth in a storage reservoir used
> to hold water for a SDI system?
>
> Thanks for your help.
>
>
> Jerry Neufeld
> Nevada Cooperative Extension
> 113 Carson Road
> Battle Mountain, NV 89820
>
> (702) 635-5565
> Fax(702) 635-8309
> jerry@scs.unr.edu
>
>
>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 09:31:50 -0800
From: "Blake L. Sanden" <blsanden@ucdavis.edu>
Subject: Re: Drip verses Micro Sprinklers -Reply
Gentleman,
I can no longer resist joining the frey (fray?) on this question. I spent 4
1/2 years with microsprinklers (ms) and single line drip systems on the
westside of the San Joaquin Valley irrigating over 20,000 acres of mature
and young orchards. If you're working with low flow ms (7 qph) on heavy
soils and 24 hours sets with a young orchard the evaporation off the wet
soil after shutoff can be a third of your total application. With 10-14 gph
the evap is closer to 20%.
In a four year trial comparing single line drip with 1 gph emitters and 10
and 12 gph ms in nearly mature pistachios we were able to maintain
subsurface water content under the drip (72 hour sets) between 50-70% field
capacity (FC = 3.9 inches/ft) under deficit irrigation (28 inches for the
season due to limited district supplies) while the same applied water under
ms maintained 30-55% FC with 24 hr sets (equivalent applied water/irrig).
Stress and salt burn was more evident under ms but total split nuts were
only slightly decreased. The following three years had full irrigation (~42
inches). FC under ms was consistently 15-20% less than the drip but yield
or trunk diameter increase between the different systems showed no
significant difference. Dave Goldhammer found ~5% of the flow evaporates
under a 3-5 mph wind before the water hits the ground.
Initial uniformities of ms were excellent, better than the inline or punch
on tortuous path drip emitters, but flowrates are more sensitive to pressure
differentials between hoses. We had some trouble with apparent UV light
degradation of the ms orfice with some flowrates increasing 25% for the same
pressure after only 1 year. I understand the manufacturer has now fixed the
chemistry to avoid this problem. The most trouble free and consistently
uniform (DU 83-89%)systems we had were in-line 1 gph drip tube, 4 1/2 foot
spacing, 600 foot runs and regulated with gate valves. Automatic pressure
regulators that we had (not Barmad) would silt up and cease functioning --
staying wide open.
POINT: if your water is on the skinny side then large wetted areas are
going to cost you. If the soil is quite course, though, this will not be as
big a problem.
At 07:09 PM 3/16/96 -0600, you wrote:
>
>Masoud,
> The relative efficiencies of drip and microsprinkles have been discussed
>by a number of associates and fellow designers over the last several years.
> I do not have any hard research to indicate that microsprinklers have
>a lower application efficiency than drip, but I would bet some exists. By
>way of comparison, cosider the two: Drip applies water in large drops,
>droplets, or an almost continuous stream. Usually (exception: trellis
>applications where the drip is attached to a wire) the drip is located
>on the ground (or under it). The large droplet size and small travel time
>to the ground surface promote a high efficiency, as does the slow application
>rate (allowing infiltration of almost all applied water.
>
> Now consider microsprinklers. Typically they are installed on a stake of
>some height (say 0.3 meter for example). The spray from the microsprinkler
>is a finer mist ( or smaller droplet size) than the drip emitter's, hence it
>is more readily evaporated and is moredrastically affected by wind. Also,
>a typical spray pattern may be flat or on a slightly upward trajectory
>(although some do come with a downward trajectory), which increases the
>time required for the water to reach the ground surface. All of the factors
>seem to indicate that a microsprinkler's application efficiency should be less
>than drip.
>
> How much less? I don't have any real idea on that. I would hazard a guess
>and say at least 5%, maybe 10% depending on weather and wind. Just an
>estimate on my part - again, no hard facts here.
>
> I would be very interested in any data out there with research showing the
>relative efficiencies of drip and microsprinklers. All of this is basically
>my opinion based on some common sense, and there are numerous times when
>common sense does not provide the correct answer. One note - there are a
>myriad of microsprinkler designs out there. I would guess that one that
>provides larger droplet size and is closer to the ground surface would be
>more efficient - again, only a guess.
>
> If you have experience with this please reply to the list. I would sure
>like to see some hard data, regardless of whether it supports or destroys
>my "common sense" ideas!
>
>Bryan
>
>=====================================================================
>W. Bryan Smith
>Clemson Extension Service
>P.O. Box 160
>Newberry, SC 29108
>(803) 276-1091
>wsmth@clemson.edu
>=====================================================================
>All opinions are my own and are not reflective of the policies of the
>Cooperative Extension Service or Clemson University.
>
>
>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 96 20:07 GMT+0200
From: "Marekesh (Pvt) Ltd" <marakesh@harare.iafrica.com>
Subject: Re: Drip verses Micro Sprinklers
A couple of my observations on this topic are as follows
1. In very hot areas ( 13-15mm evaporation/day ) micros on citrus ( and I
presume on other orchard crops ) appear to become very much less efficient
unless one uses a high emmission rate ( 120 l/hr or more ). This
unfortunately has the effect of increasing the cost of the scheme
considerably. It is also essential to use strikers that deflect the spray
down inside the trees canopy area.
2. Again in very hot areas we are finding that for surface feeders such as
citrus, passion fruit etc. one dripper line per row is insufficient. We are
now debating whether it is better to go to micros on the closer spaced crops
such as passions, than to go to two dripper lines per row.
3. A number of farmers insist on using micros instead of drip because it is
easy to see whether it is working or not. This appears to be an idea that is
becoming less popular here.
However we have a large cheap labour supply, which the developed countries
do not have. This concept of being easy to see may therefore be more
important in developed countries.
I have in the past been more pro drip in the past, but I definately feel now
that micros can be better in certain applications ie.. each scheme has to be
evaluated on its own.
Marek Malujlo
Harare . Zimbabwe
End of Digest
>From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Wed Mar 20 19:36 EST 1996
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 18:26:53 -0600
Message-Id: <199603210026.AA23683@crcnis1.unl.edu>
Subject: TRICKLE-L digest 451
Contents:
Effect on soils of chlorine and acids (thomson.tony@wpo.pi.sa.gov.au)
Researcher looking for SDI info (fwd) (Bernard Peasley <s_bjp@eduserv.its.unimelb.EDU.AU>)
(Jochen.Eberhard@t-online.de (Jochen Eberhard))
Re: Researcher looking for SDI info (fwd) ("J.D. Oster" <oster@mail.ucr.edu>)
Futuristic topic (Richard Mead <rmead@asrr.arsusda.gov>)
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 16:47:05 +0930
From: thomson.tony@wpo.pi.sa.gov.au
Subject: Effect on soils of chlorine and acids
Message repeated.
Several replies expressed interest in same information but no
replies provided any references or experiences !
Can anyone provide references or describe their experiences with:
1. long term effect on soils of chlorine dosing in drip systems
2. use of hydrogen peroxide as an alternative to chlorine for
dosing drip systems
3. long term effect on soil of acid (hydrochloric, sulphuric,
phosphoric, other) dosing of drip systems
Thanks
Tony Thomson, Irrigation Engineer
Primary Industries South Australia
Ph: +61 8 389 8839 Fax: +61 8 389 8899
Internet: thomson.tony@pi.sa.gov.au
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 23:02:35 +1100 (EST)
From: Bernard Peasley <s_bjp@eduserv.its.unimelb.EDU.AU>
Subject: Researcher looking for SDI info (fwd)
Recipients of Trickle-l may like to repond to this request:
Forwarded Message:
Subject: Underground waste-water re-use for agriculture in suburban areas
[The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set]
[Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set]
[Some characters may be displayed incorrectly]
Hello,
I'm looking for informations about experiences of domestic sewage effluent
re-use by underground irrigation after decantation and anaerobic digestion
in sandy conditions.
This is part of a project of integrated community management for health,
aquifer recharge and social dynamism in a restructured favela in North
Brazil. Any information about crop contamination by patogens through the
soil, clogging problems and community management of such systems would be
very welcomed. The expected water consumption shoud be 80 liters per person
per day, and we are thinking of 10 M2 per person for drainage at a depth of
40 cm, between a layer of clay and the sandy soil. The crop production would
pay the sanitation system maintenance and health prevention/primary care
expenses. The policy is to introduce urban agriculture in suburban poor
areas in a environmentally safe way to help rural urbanised population in
precary conditions.
On the other hand, anyone interested in a collaboration for this integrated
already going project is welcome to let me know.
Pierre VAN DEN EYNDE home:
Universiti Cath. de Louvain
2/2 Pl. Croix du Sud 2, r F. Fonteny
B1348 Louvain-La-Neuve B1332 GENVAL
Belgium Belgium
tel: +32 10 47 37 11 tel +32 26 53 68 44
fax: +32 10 47 38 33 fax +32 26 54 77 11
vandeneynde@geru.ucl.ac.be
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 96 10:20 +0100
From: Jochen.Eberhard@t-online.de (Jochen Eberhard)
Subject:
I have to make something clear. In one of my comments I wrote something like
this, that in Germany nobody knew anything about (drip) irrigation.
This is not correct. Germany is not a country full of stupid fouls, than I would
be the most stupid of them all, which is by definition impossible. To be serious
now: all the scientific institution an research station dealing with vegetable-
and fruit production doing research with drip systems. What I ment was that the
transfer of know-how to the farmers is not easy. Many farmers try to use drip
irrigation systems now, but many of them have poor knowledge of the system and
they do not know where to get some help for their specific problems. That was my
intention, when I made this comment.
Jochen Eberhard
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 10:00:40 -0600
From: "J.D. Oster" <oster@mail.ucr.edu>
Subject: Re: Researcher looking for SDI info (fwd)
ljschwankle@ucdavis.edu, Irrigation Specialist, may be able to help. J. D.
(Jim) Oster. At 05:59 AM 3/20/96 -0600, you wrote:
>Recipients of Trickle-l may like to repond to this request:
>
>Forwarded Message:
>
>
>Subject: Underground waste-water re-use for agriculture in suburban areas
>
> [The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set]
> [Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set]
> [Some characters may be displayed incorrectly]
>
>Hello,
>
>I'm looking for informations about experiences of domestic sewage effluent
>re-use by underground irrigation after decantation and anaerobic digestion
>in sandy conditions.
>This is part of a project of integrated community management for health,
>aquifer recharge and social dynamism in a restructured favela in North
>Brazil. Any information about crop contamination by patogens through the
>soil, clogging problems and community management of such systems would be
>very welcomed. The expected water consumption shoud be 80 liters per person
>per day, and we are thinking of 10 M2 per person for drainage at a depth of
>40 cm, between a layer of clay and the sandy soil. The crop production would
>pay the sanitation system maintenance and health prevention/primary care
>expenses. The policy is to introduce urban agriculture in suburban poor
>areas in a environmentally safe way to help rural urbanised population in
>precary conditions.
>
>On the other hand, anyone interested in a collaboration for this integrated
>already going project is welcome to let me know.
>
>Pierre VAN DEN EYNDE home:
>Universiti Cath. de Louvain
>2/2 Pl. Croix du Sud 2, r F. Fonteny
>B1348 Louvain-La-Neuve B1332 GENVAL
>Belgium Belgium
>tel: +32 10 47 37 11 tel +32 26 53 68 44
>fax: +32 10 47 38 33 fax +32 26 54 77 11
>vandeneynde@geru.ucl.ac.be
>
>
>
J.D.(Jim) Oster
Dept. of Soil & Env. Sciences
University of California
Riverside, CA 92521
Phone (909)787-5100
FAX (909)787-5522
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 12:53:38 -0500
From: Richard Mead <rmead@asrr.arsusda.gov>
Subject: Futuristic topic
For those of you familiar with my postings, occasionally I post something
either on the cutting edge of microirrigation technology or something
bizarre that may or may not be involved in the future of microirrigation.
The following is something I gleaned off of CNN's homepage. It discusses a
new type of artificial "soil" which might be used to help farm in space and
maybe down here on planet earth. My only point in sharing this story with
you is that I assume that the future irrigation technique astronauts and
others will use with this "soil" will be MICROIRRIGATION. Take it for what
it's worth.
Richard Mead
Trickle-L owner/manager
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
The 'dirt' on synthetic soil
It's coming soon to a field near you
March 19, 1996 Web posted at:
>From Correspondent Lori Waffenschmidt:
HOUSTON, Texas (CNN) -- Imagine a farm field that needs
fertilizer only once every few years. Such a field may soon be a reality
thanks to the U.S. space program. NASA has developed a synthetic soil that
should score big with greenskeepers and environmentalists. What's more, the
new technology is getting a thumbs-up from green thumbs.
The space-age synthetic soil looks -- and works -- like the tiny
time-release pills you see advertised on television. Only it
releases nutrients over a period of years, instead of hours.
The soil was developed at NASA's Johnson Space Center in
Houston.
"Our long-term goal (is) to be growing plants on the moon
some day," says space scientist Doug Ming. But, he adds, the
soil has some valuable down-to-earth applications and would
likely reduce pollution and
runoff.
A group of common minerals called zeolites are the key ingredient of
synthetic soil. Zeolites absorb and store nitrogen and potassium,
two essential plant elements.
The zeolites are mixed with a supplemental mineral, called
synthetic apatite, that was developed by NASA. The
mineral stores other essential nutrients.
Ming says NASA was looking for easy, no-fuss ways to grow
plants in space. The zeolite soil mix, he says, is definitely easy to
use. And he's optimistic about its use aboard the proposed
international space station and in outer space
"(The soil) could realistically be on the moon by the first part of the
next century," he says.
It could be in your backyard garden even sooner; two companies
already have licensing rights.
The developers of the soil say it has great commercial
potential if it needs fertilizing only once or twice a year.
"The home gardener finds this very attractive. Most of us are
lazy and don't like to spend a lot of time fertilizing or taking
care of our plants."
The synthetic mix can be used by itself or mixed with conventional soil.
End of Digest
>From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Thu Mar 21 19:37 EST 1996
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 18:27:00 -0600
Message-Id: <199603220027.AA29531@crcnis1.unl.edu>
Subject: TRICKLE-L digest 452
Contents:
Re: ("Peter D. Spyke" <pdspyke@gate.net>)
Re: Futuristic topic ("Peter D. Spyke" <pdspyke@gate.net>)
Re: Drip Irrigation Sales Professional (txgator@ct.net (Jim Brigham))
Re: Effect on soils of chlori... (Dripigate@aol.com)
Revision of ASAE EP-458 (FLamm@oznet.ksu.edu (Freddie Lamm))
Re: performance of tape (sjordan@seldon.terminus.com (Steve Jordan))
Re: Drip verses Micro Sprinklers -Reply (Tivi.Theiveyanathan@cbr.for.csiro.au (Tivi Theiveyanathan))
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 19:52:49 -0500
From: "Peter D. Spyke" <pdspyke@gate.net>
Subject: Re:
Jochen,
Please do not be worried about what people thought you meant. When
I read your message, I understood your point. Perhaps some people
didn't, but they may not stop to think of how difficult it is to express
yourself in a foreign language. I personally think that you are much
more proficient in the English language than most of us are in German,
so I am very grateful that you are trying to contribute to this group,
and that you make the effort to communicate in English so the rest of
us can have the benefit of your insight.
Peter Spyke
At 07:09 AM 3/20/96 -0600, you wrote:
>I have to make something clear. In one of my comments I wrote something like
>this, that in Germany nobody knew anything about (drip) irrigation.
>This is not correct. Germany is not a country full of stupid fouls, than I
would
>be the most stupid of them all, which is by definition impossible. To be
serious
>now: all the scientific institution an research station dealing with
vegetable-
>and fruit production doing research with drip systems. What I ment was that
the
>transfer of know-how to the farmers is not easy. Many farmers try to use drip
>irrigation systems now, but many of them have poor knowledge of the system and
>they do not know where to get some help for their specific problems. That
was my
>intention, when I made this comment.
>
>Jochen Eberhard
>
>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 19:52:56 -0500
From: "Peter D. Spyke" <pdspyke@gate.net>
Subject: Re: Futuristic topic
I can't resist.
Do you suppose that after a few years of Moon Farming, we will
see the EPA establishing synthetic soil labeling, the farmers
complaining about over-production, and the government
proposing crop quotas? (I guess it all depends on the "export
markets").
Also wonder where the water will come from for irrigation up there.
Philosophical question: is water on the moon an environmental
pollutant?
Before I get flamed, please regard this as tongue-in-cheek. On the
serious side, I think it is really quite intriguing.
Thanks, Richard, for sending it.
At 11:44 AM 3/20/96 -0600, you wrote:
>For those of you familiar with my postings, occasionally I post something
>either on the cutting edge of microirrigation technology or something
>bizarre that may or may not be involved in the future of microirrigation.
>The following is something I gleaned off of CNN's homepage. It discusses a
>new type of artificial "soil" which might be used to help farm in space and
>maybe down here on planet earth. My only point in sharing this story with
>you is that I assume that the future irrigation technique astronauts and
>others will use with this "soil" will be MICROIRRIGATION. Take it for what
>it's worth.
>
>Richard Mead
>Trickle-L owner/manager
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>--------------------
>The 'dirt' on synthetic soil
>It's coming soon to a field near you
>
>March 19, 1996 Web posted at:
>
>>From Correspondent Lori Waffenschmidt:
>
>HOUSTON, Texas (CNN) -- Imagine a farm field that needs
>fertilizer only once every few years. Such a field may soon be a reality
>thanks to the U.S. space program. NASA has developed a synthetic soil that
>should score big with greenskeepers and environmentalists. What's more, the
>new technology is getting a thumbs-up from green thumbs.
>
>The space-age synthetic soil looks -- and works -- like the tiny
>time-release pills you see advertised on television. Only it
>releases nutrients over a period of years, instead of hours.
>
>The soil was developed at NASA's Johnson Space Center in
>Houston.
>
>"Our long-term goal (is) to be growing plants on the moon
>some day," says space scientist Doug Ming. But, he adds, the
>soil has some valuable down-to-earth applications and would
>likely reduce pollution and
>runoff.
>
>A group of common minerals called zeolites are the key ingredient of
>synthetic soil. Zeolites absorb and store nitrogen and potassium,
>two essential plant elements.
>
>The zeolites are mixed with a supplemental mineral, called
>synthetic apatite, that was developed by NASA. The
>mineral stores other essential nutrients.
>
>Ming says NASA was looking for easy, no-fuss ways to grow
>plants in space. The zeolite soil mix, he says, is definitely easy to
>use. And he's optimistic about its use aboard the proposed
>international space station and in outer space
>
>"(The soil) could realistically be on the moon by the first part of the
>next century," he says.
>
>It could be in your backyard garden even sooner; two companies
>already have licensing rights.
>
>The developers of the soil say it has great commercial
>potential if it needs fertilizing only once or twice a year.
>
>"The home gardener finds this very attractive. Most of us are
>lazy and don't like to spend a lot of time fertilizing or taking
>care of our plants."
>
>The synthetic mix can be used by itself or mixed with conventional soil.
>
>
>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 10:56:16
From: txgator@ct.net (Jim Brigham)
Subject: Re: Drip Irrigation Sales Professional
Hello from Florida.
My name is Jim Brigham and I am back on the "net" after a long absence due to
lack of local phone access.
I am still employed with Netafim Irrigation as Southwest District Manager,
however only until April 30th.
My wife decided that she did not want to live in Texas any longer and wanted
to move back home to Sebring, Fl. Netafim currently has no positions open in
the Eastern US, so I am now seeking a sales or sales management position in
Florida.
If any of you know of companies looking for someone with 16 years experience
in the drip irrigation industry and an excellent track record of sales growth,
please contact me at the above e-mail address or by phone at 941-655-4001. I
will be happy to forward my resume on request.
Thanks for your interest.
Jim Brigham
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 12:22:00 -0500
From: Dripigate@aol.com
Subject: Re: Effect on soils of chlori...
I would suggest you write David Zoldoske at Cal. State Uni. Fresno, Center
for Irrigation Technology, 5370 N. Chestnut Avenue Fresno, Ca. 93740-0018.
Furhter to the above are you related to or do you know Roger Thompson ex
Wright Rain Rhodesia. I wwas with Wright Rain in Chiredzi for a number of
years. Am now with Netafim Irrigation in Fresno in charge of training and end
user applications.
David is a friend of mine and will direct you in right direction as to
specifics you request.
Also Cal State San Louis Obispo have several publications available. Charles
Burt is the contact there.
Best of luck .
Robin Franks.
Date: 21 Mar 96 12:03:46 CST
From: FLamm@oznet.ksu.edu (Freddie Lamm)
Subject: Revision of ASAE EP-458
I am working on revisions to ASAE EP-458 which is an engineering
practice entitled "Field Evaluation of Microirrigation Systems"
I would be happy to hear comments from those familiar with this
document on whether you have used it, what parts did you use, what
parts did you not use, etc.
I am currently working on structural changes to Section 3 to make it
easier to read and apply. Probably many of you are not familiar with
this document or do not have an immediate interest, so I would
encourage that comments be made directly to me to avoid cluttering
up Trickle-l.
I would also appreciate comments about the usefulness of Section 4
which has examples. There is some discussion about whether they
will be warranted if the document clarity can be improved.
ASAE SW-245 Microirrigation Technical Committee is the sponsoring
committee for these revisions.
Freddie
*
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Freddie Lamm *
Research Agricultural Engineer *** o
KSU Northwest Research-Extension Center ***** /|\
105 Experiment Farm Road *******\\
Colby, Kansas 67701-1697 *********
Ph. 913-462-6281 ***********
FAX 913-462-2315 *************
Email:flamm@oznet.ksu.edu It's all downhill from here.
------ THERE'S NO DOMAIN LIKE OZ, THERE'S NO DOMAIN LIKE OZ. ------
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 12:55:33 +0000
From: sjordan@seldon.terminus.com (Steve Jordan)
Subject: Re: performance of tape
I saw no other responses, so here is my best shot.
>1.) How popular is it in the US?
>
Some crops (strawberries) = universal. Some crops (wheat) almost zero. The
popularity is growing and depends on many factors- cost of water, $ of crop,
quality considerations, etc.
>2.) Do growers bury tape underground for 2 - 3 seasons?
> It shall be possible - but is it realy done!
Yes, it is done, and I do it. It takes care.
>
>3.) How much is the performance declining after 2-3 seasons?
With proper maintanence not much. But you need a total committment. My
problem is unusual in that I have an iron problem which is problematic.
>3.) Is a maschine existing to roll it up after the season?
>
We bury it and keep it there and other group and crops we pick it up. Yes,
there is a machine (or two)
>4.) Do you have to disposal it due to environmental laws?
Envrionmental laws? no problem (so far). That will change.
Steve Jordan @ Second Foundation
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 09:50:38 +1000
From: Tivi.Theiveyanathan@cbr.for.csiro.au (Tivi Theiveyanathan)
Subject: Re: Drip verses Micro Sprinklers -Reply
>Masoud,
> How much less? I don't have any real idea on that. I would hazard a guess
>and say at least 5%, maybe 10% depending on weather and wind. Just an
>estimate on my part - again, no hard facts here.
>
>
>Bryan
>
Our experience here in Australia ( in NSW) when irrigating tree plantations
(eucalypt) using microsprinklers (60 cm high) at 4.5 mm/h in a climate
where the pan evaporation varies from 8-12 mm/day in summer - we have
found (using TDR and interception troughs) that the total losses are about
12%. This includes losses due to evaporation during irrigation and storage
by leaf litter.
Tivi
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Tivi Thivianthan
CSIRO Division of Forestry and Forest Products
PO Box 4008
Queen Victoria Terrace
ACT (Canberra) 2600
AUSTRALIA
Phone: + 61 60 281 8231
Fax: + 61 60 281 8239
email: tivi@cbr.for.csiro.au
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
End of Digest
>From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Fri Mar 22 19:35 EST 1996
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 18:27:35 -0600
Message-Id: <199603230027.AA10526@crcnis1.unl.edu>
Subject: TRICKLE-L digest 453
Contents:
Rhodesians... ("Bruce Metelerkamp" <BRUCE@mailgate.icfrnet.unp.ac.za>)
Tape (buescher@wiz.uni-kassel.de (Michael Buescher))
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 10:32:21 +200
From: "Bruce Metelerkamp" <BRUCE@mailgate.icfrnet.unp.ac.za>
Subject: Rhodesians...
With all this talk of Rhodesians - I think there are quite a few
of us around?!? (ex Zimbos too).
I don't want to harp back on Whenwe days, but thought it
worthwhile to let everyone know there are a couple of Rhodesian
and ex-Rhodesian web pages out there. Mainly for making contact
with lost friends etc.
http://scorpion.cowan.edu.au/~rwebb/index.html
>From here there are plenty of links elsewhere.
I also found:
http://www.exclamation.com/rhodesia/
Go for it!
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
Bruce Metelerkamp SOIL WATER RESEARCH OFFICER
Institute for Commercial Forestry Research,
University of Natal, PO Box 100281
Scottsville, ZA3209
Rep. of South Africa Voice:27 331 62314
E-mail: bruce@icfr.unp.ac.za FAX:27 331 68905
URL http://www.icfrnet.unp.ac.za/~metele
/SoWaCS.html
/RR.html
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 19:54:45 +0100 (MEZ)
From: buescher@wiz.uni-kassel.de (Michael Buescher)
Subject: Tape
thank for the response about tape irrigation! :-)
Yet I have another one about the flushing capability of the tape emitter.
>It is difficult to measure the performance of a buried system. However,
>little clogging was found in a system using RAM tubing after 6 years.
>Others have reported using the tape as long as 10 years
But isn't the RAM a hard hose product? Wouldn't the Streamliner be the comparable product to call it a tape?
>However, in general, more acreage is being used with 1 year
>tape.
Has anyone made field evaluation of this type of tape (4 mil - 8 mil) and what the EU's were!?
Thanks a lot
Michael
End of Digest
>From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Sat Mar 23 19:36 EST 1996
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 18:27:59 -0600
Message-Id: <199603240027.AA11365@crcnis1.unl.edu>
Subject: TRICKLE-L digest 454
Contents:
Research ("Lampros E. Bourodimos-Mantzouranis" <bourodi@email.njin.net>)
establishment of nut trees (jdstewart@KanServU.ca (John Stewart))
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 96 16:49:09 EST
From: "Lampros E. Bourodimos-Mantzouranis" <bourodi@email.njin.net>
Subject: Research
Lampros E. Bourodimos-Mantzouranis
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Polytechnic University
24 Landry Road
Somerset, NJ 08873-2243
USA
(908) 545-3558
Email: bourodi@email.njin.net
I am a PhD candidate at the Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Polytechnic University in Brooklyn, New York, USA. My
thesis work involves research in the area of improving planning
protocols (or models) for water resources projects in developing
countries. I will be incorporating new concepts not presently considered
in the project appraisal process. As you may know, the failure rate for
such projects has been as high as 40-50%. My research goal is to
develop new planning models to help increase the success rate of
development projects.
I am in the conceptual phase of model development at this point in my
thesis work. My research is centered on what happens in the project
planning and appraisal process BEFORE the feasibility report stage. In
other words, what type of models or planning procedures can be applied
to project evaluation at the pre-feasibility report stage. Project evaluation
is used to determine whether the project will be successful (and
effective) or a failure in achieving project goals. In North America, and
especially in the USA, one such model or planning procedure that has
been used extensively is in the area of environmental analysis. This is
also known as an environmental impact statement (EIS) or environmental
impact assessment (EIA). There may be other relevant methodologies
besides the ones just mentioned. Such methodologies have not been
applied in developing countries in an effective way in most cases.
I would appreciate being informed if you have any computer models, or
know of any people doing work in this area. I would also appreciate if
you know of any papers related to any model(s) or procedures that you
may be aware of related to my research topic. If this is difficult, the
bibliographic citation in journals where they may be found would be
helpful. If possible and relevant, a diskette copy of your current model(s)
with analogous documentation would be very helpful. Any mailings
should be to the above address. Please feel free to contact me by
telephone as well.
I would welcome any input and suggestions that you may have. If you
are aware of other researchers in this area, I would welcome their
names, Email addresses or at least mailing addresses. If you wish, I will
let you know of my research results and publications when they are
completed. I look forward to dialogue of mutual interest and benefit.
Thank you for your kind attention.
Sincerely,
Lambro
bourodi@email.njin.net
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 19:08:00 -0500
From: jdstewart@KanServU.ca (John Stewart)
Subject: establishment of nut trees
I am planting 10 acres of grafted nut trees (Carpathian Walnut, sweet
chestnut, heartnut) here in southern Ontario. I was wondering if anyone
could give me an idea of what irrigation method is being used for orchard
establishment by other growers -California walnut growers, Oregon filbert
growers?
I currently use irrigation guns on my tobacco crop, but I feel that guns and
sprinklers are not the best long term method.
John Stewart
just making the world more chaotic
End of Digest
>From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Sun Mar 24 19:39 EST 1996
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 18:30:29 -0600
Message-Id: <199603250030.AA23874@crcnis1.unl.edu>
Subject: TRICKLE-L digest 455
Contents:
Re: Rhodesians... (Dripigate@aol.com)
Announcement of Microirrigation Forum (rmead@CyberGate.COM (Richard Mead))
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 03:05:37 -0500
From: Dripigate@aol.com
Subject: Re: Rhodesians...
I am ex Byo man now in California. Gwebi course 13. Am still in the
irrigation business, ( Netafim ). Fairly regular on trickle L.
Robin Franks.
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 16:04:44 GMT
From: rmead@CyberGate.COM (Richard Mead)
Subject: Announcement of Microirrigation Forum
Several months ago I stated on Trickle-L that I would create a web page
that would have pertinent information for anyone interested in
microirrigation. With the help of a few knowledgeable friends* and a little
practice with HTML language, there is now a web page for all of us to
share. As owner and manager of the Trickle-L discussion list, I invite all
of you to check out the new World Wide Web site "Microirrigation Forum"
(http://www.cybergate.com/~rmead).
The web site is composed of five areas:
1) A section that introduces Trickle-L (for those who haven't subscribed)
along with links to raw unedited archives (maintained by Steve
Modena..thanks Steve!!) and the "Best of" series of Trickle-L discussions,
where a lot of you have already contributed in the past 20 months. This
"index" is still being compiled, but already should be a favorite area for
interested individuals.
2) A chat area has been created such that a "billboard" type arrangement is
available to leave comments or questions to all that visit with an option
to leave your e-mail address for someone to contact you if they are
interested in your aspect of the forum.
Right now it also serves as a guest book. This would be one of two areas
you could leave a comment to me for your feedback concerning the MIF page.
3) I have created the "Digital Drip Directory". While some of you might not
like that name, at least it will be unique. At the moment only drip
irrigation manufacturing companies are available (let me know if I've
neglected yours). Eventually I plan to create within the DDD, subcategories
such as companies that deal with: Filters, Fertilizers, Fittings, Meters,
Pumps, Sensors and a list of microirrigation consultants.
If you would like to have your company listed in any of these categories,
please send me your snail mail, e-mail address and your web page URL if
available. Post this information to me at >rmead@cybergate.com< and NOT to
the Trickle-L gang.
4) There will be an area to post flyers or adds for future conferences and
meetings.
I already have several world wide events posted in sequence for this year.
Anything that relates to water or irrigation can be posted here. If you
would like your meeting or conference announced on this page, please send
me all the pertinent information to my e-mail address. I'm considering only
regional to international sized events at the moment.
5) Finally, I have created a section with Internet links that have anything
to do with microirrigation. This area is composed of two sections:
Institutions, laboratories, universities or magazines that have involvement
with the topic, and miscellaneous links labeled just by the category they
describe (most of which are from Florida and North Carolina).
One never knows how this web page will grow. It has been fun creating and
designing the graphics. I hope it will be useful to all who visit. Please
feel free to stop by while surfing the net.
Richard Mead
Trickle-L owner/manager
* I would like to thank Jerry Robb and Richard Soppe for helping me get
this web page up and running. Without their help, this page would still be
only a dream.
End of Digest
>From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Mon Mar 25 19:42 EST 1996
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 18:31:02 -0600
Message-Id: <199603260031.AA18435@crcnis1.unl.edu>
Subject: TRICKLE-L digest 456
Contents:
CHLORINE (thomson.tony@wpo.pi.sa.gov.au)
Phosphite fertilizer (GrapeGrowr@aol.com)
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 12:15:53 +0930
From: thomson.tony@wpo.pi.sa.gov.au
Subject: CHLORINE
ROBIN
THANKS FOR YOUR HELP.
I WILL WRITE TO DAVID ZOLDOSKE.
I WONDER WHETHER ANY RESEARCH HAS BEEN DONE ON THE
EFFECT ON SOIL MICROORGANISMS:
I SUSPECT NOT AS THERE HAVE BEEN NO REPLIES TO THIS LIST!
I DO NOT KNOW ROGER THOMPSON.
REGARDS
TONY THOMSON
THOMSON.TONY@PI.SA.GOV.AU
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 18:56:27 -0500
From: GrapeGrowr@aol.com
Subject: Phosphite fertilizer
This may not stay right on target as far as trickle drip goes, but I have
a question along the fertilization line. Has anyone out there heard of
Phosphites, as a more potent form of phosphates. I hear they're very
expensive, very effective and can reduce the overall need of all
fertilizers. I hear they are available in California, but in limited
amounts. Any knowledge on this out there?
End of Digest
>From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Wed Mar 27 03:43 EST 1996
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 02:32:21 -0600
Message-Id: <199603270832.AA28680@crcnis1.unl.edu>
Subject: TRICKLE-L digest 457
Contents:
Irrigating Olives ("Hugh Campbell" <Hugh_Campbell@msn.com>)
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 96 09:26:21 UT
From: "Hugh Campbell" <Hugh_Campbell@msn.com>
Subject: Irrigating Olives
Hello all
I am seeking information on current trends with the irrigation of olives.
Olives have not been planted for many years in our area. I now have a client
wishing to do so. Could I please have some assistance regarding the choice of
drip vs Mini sprinkler based on practical experience. Also what peak water use
should I expect relative to Et? Would it be sensible to design for drip
irrigation to establish then changeover to Sprinklers as the trees mature?
Your assistance would be greatly appreciated.
Many thanks,
Hugh Campbell
Riverina Irricad Design Services
11 Helenor Crescent
Narrandera 2700
NSW Australia
E-mail Hugh_Campbell @ msn.com
End of Digest
>From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Thu Mar 28 03:42 EST 1996
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 02:33:14 -0600
Message-Id: <199603280833.AA27808@crcnis1.unl.edu>
Subject: TRICKLE-L digest 458
Contents:
Re: Phosphite fertilizer (sjordan@seldon.terminus.com (Steve Jordan))
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 21:05:50 -0800
From: sjordan@seldon.terminus.com (Steve Jordan)
Subject: Re: Phosphite fertilizer
>This may not stay right on target as far as trickle drip goes, but I have
>a question along the fertilization line. Has anyone out there heard of
>Phosphites, as a more potent form of phosphates. I hear they're very
>expensive, very effective and can reduce the overall need of all
>fertilizers. I hear they are available in California, but in limited
>amounts. Any knowledge on this out there?
Nutriphite is a brand name of a phosphite. It is sold as a nutrient, but
certain people are selling as "wink, wink - its the same as Aliette."
Aliette is an expensive chemical used for control of downey mildew. Bioag
claims _nothing_ about diseases. Now there is Impact and others which are
very similar to Nutriphite. Supposedly Nutriphite is patent pending and
licenced by the UC system. Enough (?) for controversy...
There are growers using phosphite for foliar applications. It is probably
way too expensive for soil applications.
My application - vegetables- there really is no late season shortage of
phoshate, no burning need for foliar (unless you have a downey mildew
problem ;-) )
Steve Jordan @ Second Foundation
End of Digest
>From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Fri Mar 29 03:43 EST 1996
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 02:34:05 -0600
Message-Id: <199603290834.AA28999@crcnis1.unl.edu>
Subject: TRICKLE-L digest 459
Contents:
Another new member response (Richard Mead <rmead@asrr.arsusda.gov>)
Re: Fertilizer injector (RobertK195@aol.com)
Re: Another new member response ("Peter D. Spyke" <pdspyke@gate.net>)
Re: Drip Irrigation Sales Pro... (Dripigate@aol.com)
Re: CHLORINE (Dripigate@aol.com)
Re: Olive Irrigation (Dave Goldhamer <dagoldhamer@ucdavis.edu>)
Re: Another new member response (rmead@CyberGate.COM (Richard Mead))
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 11:24:58 -0500
From: Richard Mead <rmead@asrr.arsusda.gov>
Subject: Another new member response
The following is from a new Trickle-L member, Graeme Byron:
------------------------------------------------------------------
I was introduced to your list bye an associate, Hugh Campbell, whom is a
member.
I am the proprietor of Sunray Irrigation Services, located in Mildura,
Victoria, Australia. This city is in the centre of the most intensive
horticultural farming area in Australia. We produce a variety of hort. crops
inc. wine, table and dried grapes, citrus, avocardos, vegetables, almonds,
pistachios and are currently trialling large areas of cotton and peanuts.
Our water source is the Murray and Darling river system.
Our company has been astablished since 1964 and is responsible for the
design, supply annd installation of irrigation systems, not only in the
immediate area but Australia wide. We have also been involved in the micro
irrigation of citrus in Hunan Prov. China. Our current turnover is around
$7M. We employ a staff of 15, and all the installation works are done by
contractors. We employ 4 engineers 3 of which are fully qualified Certified
Irrigation Designers (including myself) from the Irrigation Association
(USA). I attend the international expo each year held in the USA and was
recently at the expo in Phoenix.
The majority of our systems are drip and is used on wine and dried grapes.
Under vine and tree micro sprinkler systems are used on table grapes and
tree crops There is some drip on tree crops where the soil types are
suitable and where the availability of water is not restricted on a time
basis. Last year we irrigated some 3,500 acres under drip.We are currently
irrigation a new vineyard which will be 1600 acres, all to be planted this
year!.
Most drip systems are filtered by gravel filters. due to poor water quality
(suspended solids) and all systems are fully automated. Fertiliser injection
is mainly done from a 1000 gal fibreglass tank with agitation system and
injected into the system via a stainless steel injector pump and is sized to
apply some 5 gramms of urea per vine in a 1 hour period.
Water usage generally has resulted in a reduction of some 50% over flood and
up to 20% over sprinkler.
Rodent danmage is not an issue as all properties have installed fully rabbit
proof fences.
Most drip installations are either on the ground or suspended on a separate
wire some 16" above the ground (grapes)
Our systems are designed with a variation of 7.5% of flow (max) and to be
biased we believe our systems to be unparalled in design qualities.
I am interested in becoming an active member of your group.
kind regards
Graeme Byron
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 13:39:02 -0500
From: RobertK195@aol.com
Subject: Re: Fertilizer injector
I'm interested in your injector photo. Please send a GIF file. Thanks.
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 13:41:28 -0500
From: "Peter D. Spyke" <pdspyke@gate.net>
Subject: Re: Another new member response
Many thanks for the new member introduction.
What's Graeme's e-mail address?
Thanks.
Pete Spyke
At 10:16 AM 3/28/96 -0600, you wrote:
>The following is from a new Trickle-L member, Graeme Byron:
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>I was introduced to your list bye an associate, Hugh Campbell, whom is a
>member.
>I am the proprietor of Sunray Irrigation Services, located in Mildura,
>Victoria, Australia. This city is in the centre of the most intensive
>horticultural farming area in Australia. We produce a variety of hort. crops
>inc. wine, table and dried grapes, citrus, avocardos, vegetables, almonds,
>pistachios and are currently trialling large areas of cotton and peanuts.
>Our water source is the Murray and Darling river system.
>Our company has been astablished since 1964 and is responsible for the
>design, supply annd installation of irrigation systems, not only in the
>immediate area but Australia wide. We have also been involved in the micro
>irrigation of citrus in Hunan Prov. China. Our current turnover is around
>$7M. We employ a staff of 15, and all the installation works are done by
>contractors. We employ 4 engineers 3 of which are fully qualified Certified
>Irrigation Designers (including myself) from the Irrigation Association
>(USA). I attend the international expo each year held in the USA and was
>recently at the expo in Phoenix.
>The majority of our systems are drip and is used on wine and dried grapes.
>Under vine and tree micro sprinkler systems are used on table grapes and
>tree crops There is some drip on tree crops where the soil types are
>suitable and where the availability of water is not restricted on a time
>basis. Last year we irrigated some 3,500 acres under drip.We are currently
>irrigation a new vineyard which will be 1600 acres, all to be planted this
>year!.
>Most drip systems are filtered by gravel filters. due to poor water quality
>(suspended solids) and all systems are fully automated. Fertiliser injection
>is mainly done from a 1000 gal fibreglass tank with agitation system and
>injected into the system via a stainless steel injector pump and is sized to
>apply some 5 gramms of urea per vine in a 1 hour period.
>Water usage generally has resulted in a reduction of some 50% over flood and
>up to 20% over sprinkler.
>Rodent danmage is not an issue as all properties have installed fully rabbit
>proof fences.
>Most drip installations are either on the ground or suspended on a separate
>wire some 16" above the ground (grapes)
>Our systems are designed with a variation of 7.5% of flow (max) and to be
>biased we believe our systems to be unparalled in design qualities.
>I am interested in becoming an active member of your group.
>kind regards
>Graeme Byron
>
>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 16:08:35 -0500
From: Dripigate@aol.com
Subject: Re: Drip Irrigation Sales Pro...
Get a real job!!!! One that requires no mutilation of the stick out parts!!
Pour water on a TExan and you have INSTANT SHIT!!
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 16:08:59 -0500
From: Dripigate@aol.com
Subject: Re: CHLORINE
The most experienced man in the world of drip who possibly knows more about
root zones and root developement/reaction is Dr. Ben Ami Bravda.I do not have
his address available, probably the best way to contact him is through the
Israeli Ag attache at the embassy in Pretoria.
If you have no joy contact me and I will go through our head office at Kibbtz
Magal.
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 14:41:36 +0000
From: Dave Goldhamer <dagoldhamer@ucdavis.edu>
Subject: Re: Olive Irrigation
In response to Hugh Campbell's question about olive irrigation, I
offer the following obtained from a large scale trial in the San
Joaquin Valley of California.
Max. ETo (grass reference crop) = 7 mm/day
Yearly ETo = 1300 mm
Effective rainfall = 100 mm
Cultivar = Manzanillo (canning)
Using Kc's ranging from 0.16 to 0.85 in roughly 0.10 increments, we
found that predawn leaf water potential remained invariant with time
at Kc's of 0.65 (ETc = 840mm) and greater. However, maximum gross
revenue was obtained with a Kc's of 0.75 (ETc = 950 mm) and greater.
There was a linear relationship between yield (tons/ha) and applied
water from 230 to 840 mm applied water. There was roughly a 2 fold
increase in yield between these irrigation levels. Fruit value,
which is primarily tied to fruit size, also had about a 2 fold
increase between low and high irrigations. Thus, gross revenue was
about 4 fold different. Using two linear expressions to describe the
revenue vs. applied water, revenue per unit water applied was $US
0.585/m3 from 250 to 600 mm and $US 2.39/m3 from 600 to 950 mm.
Paper published as:
Goldhamer, D.A., J. Dunai, and L. Ferguson. 1993. Irrigation
Requirements of Olive Trees and Responses to Sustained Deficit
Irrigation. Acta Horticulturae 356: 172-175.
If you want a copy, e-mail me directly.
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 06:01:59 GMT
From: rmead@CyberGate.COM (Richard Mead)
Subject: Re: Another new member response
His address is:
sis@apollo.ruralnet.net.au
-----------------------------
>Many thanks for the new member introduction.
>
>What's Graeme's e-mail address?
>
>Thanks.
>
>Pete Spyke
>
End of Digest
>From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Sat Mar 30 03:43 EST 1996
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 02:34:57 -0600
Message-Id: <199603300834.AA28283@crcnis1.unl.edu>
Subject: TRICKLE-L digest 460
Contents:
hello (Jochen.Eberhard@t-online.de (Jochen Eberhard))
Re: TRICKLE-L digest 459 (tahowell@ag.gov)
Re: TRICKLE-L digest 459 (Dripigate@aol.com)
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 96 12:50 +0100
From: Jochen.Eberhard@t-online.de (Jochen Eberhard)
Subject: hello
Hi Leslie,
I tried to send you a message, but your email address confuses me. Can you help
me.
Jochen Eberhard
email: Jochen.Eberhard@t-online.de
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 96 09:30:57 MST
From: tahowell@ag.gov
Subject: Re: TRICKLE-L digest 459
Trickle-L and Dripgate:
If postings like that of 28 March from dripgate@aol.com continue in that vain,
then I will unsubcribe and recommend that trickle-l move to a moderated forum.
We need this forum to learn and share without tearing people down. As a TEXAN,
I take great offense to those comments!
Terry Howell
p.s. Richard, I suggest you report dripgate@aol.com to his service provider if
this continues.
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 19:34:18 -0500
From: Dripigate@aol.com
Subject: Re: TRICKLE-L digest 459
Thankyou for bringing to my attention the fact that a note to a friend of
mine found its way onto the general network. Please accept my sincere
apologies. No offense was intended.
End of Digest
>From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Sun Mar 31 03:43 EST 1996
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 02:35:08 -0600
Message-Id: <199603310835.AA18203@crcnis1.unl.edu>
Subject: TRICKLE-L digest 461
Contents:
Trickle-L update (rmead@CyberGate.COM (Richard Mead))
Microirrigation in China (Merriott@aol.com)
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 15:57:13 GMT
From: rmead@CyberGate.COM (Richard Mead)
Subject: Trickle-L update
First of all, there seemed to be another Trickle-L flame war last week, yet
I assure you that this was an honest mistake. An individual had
accidentally sent a personal message (a tongue-in-cheek joking one at that)
to a friend that was referenced on Trickle-L days before. The person (whom
I personally know) that did this boo boo has personally called me to
apologize. Mistakes like this can happen to anyone.
In the "old days" of Trickle-L, I don't know how many times I sent the "rev
trickle-L" command to Trickle-L and NOT the listserver. Be careful out
there, but don't let this deter your involvement in Trickle-L.
Anyway, all is forgiven, life's too short, let's move on.
I received very little comment about the Microirrigation Forum web site*
last week, yet the MIF web pages received more than 1500 hits. This is good
news! However, I want to convey to everyone that this is "our" web page and
if you want to see something presented, please feel free to express your
needs and I'll do my best to accommodate. As a side note, it is possible
that Trickle-L and the MIF web page will be mentioned in an upcoming
edition of the "Irrigation Journal". Stay tuned.
The number of Trickle-L subscribers went over 400 by mid March. There have
been several attempts from India to subscribe, but infrastructure problems
seem to a problem.
Finally, without sounding like a ruthless promoter, I am willing to send
anyone Trickle-L flyers for distribution at your local irrigation-type
meetings. Send me your request to my personal e-mail address.
Richard Mead
Trickle-L owner/manager
* http://www.cybergate.com/~rmead
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 13:13:39 -0500
From: Merriott@aol.com
Subject: Microirrigation in China
Graeme, please tell us more about your experiences with microirrigation in
Hunan province.
Randall Merriott
Abernathy, Texas
(where it is currently too dry to make instant anything)
End of Digest
Prepared by Steve Modena, AB4EL
Suggestions and comments to: modena@SunSITE.unc.edu