The Precision Irrigation Story | by Andy Smith

I recently had the privilege of attending and participating in the Water for Food global conference in Seattle. As an irrigation professional for most of my adult life, I listen to the dialogue in such conferences with a tainted opinion. I know we will have the solutions it will take to feed and clothe the world's population in 2050. We will even have the luxury of being able to produce excess biomass for energy and other bio-based products. The question is, will the marketplace, public policy and society allow us to execute and meet the challenge?

I make the above statement based sheerly upon science. However, advancing and sustaining the global agricultural system requires a balanced, three-pronged approach, with equal regard for social, environmental and economic considerations. An environmental system will not work without supporting social and economic systems. A social system will fail without a healthy economic and environmental system, while the best economic system can cripple social and environmental systems. Finding a balance is key.

It is also important to recognize the need for sustainability strategies to be locally adaptable. In an extreme example, it is clear that farming in Arizona looks much different than it does in my home state of Michigan, and it should. Social, economic and environmental systems vary by field, farm, locale, region and country. Too often, public policy is written in one-size-fits-all mode and it is ineffective because it is irrelevant when applied locally. While global, national and regional agricultural policies are important, such policies have to be adaptable to harmonize with field-level, social, environmental and economic needs.

So why is any of this important? The readers of this blog represent a local piece of the global agricultural system. There are many voices being heard about what agriculture should be doing, or not doing, to meet the needs of a growing global population. Unfortunately, agriculture has become so productive; we need fewer people to feed the world. Our voices are often drowned out by uninformed opinions, or worse, absent from the discussions that decide what agriculture should look like in the future. 

In this age of non-stop news and viral social media, it is more important now than ever to participate in the dialogue and tell The Precision Irrigation Story to those involved in rule making and governance at all levels impacting agriculture.

Tip O'Neill once said, "All politics is local." I think this is particularly true with agriculture. Especially precision irrigated agriculture.

Speaking up should be easy. The irrigation industry, particularly Valley_®, has a great story to tell. We have developed the means to surgically apply precise amounts of water where it is needed, when it is needed, with variable rate application technology. We are developing mechanisms to empower growers to share and consume information across a variety of farm management systems (BaseStation3™ and Irrigation Exchange™), leading to a more holistic approach to water management in harmony with telematics, sensors, biotechnology, software and supporting infrastructure. The tools are there now and they are continuing to expand and get better every day. And the good news, it’s working!

In the U.S., we are using less water than we did in 1970. Things like this don't happen by accident. Improving the way we irrigate has been a big contributing factor. Agricultural output continues to increase while inputs decrease. We are also proving that land can be farmed and made better at the same time. Farming is not linear, it is cyclical, as is water. Each time we place that seed in the soil represents renewed opportunity. So too, the practice of precision irrigation can represent a regenerative step in the hydrologic cycle.

Trends in total water withdrawals by water-use category, 1950–2010. (® U.S. Geological Survey)

At the Water for Food conference I kept hearing a term I have grown very fond of over the last several weeks: "sustainable intensification." It provides opportunities for optimizing crop production per unit area, taking into consideration the range of sustainability aspects including potential and/or real social, political, economic and environmental impacts.

Our commitment is to continue to develop more and better precision irrigation tools to help fulfill that goal. Be proud of what you do in precision irrigated agriculture and thank you for making Valley your partner in precision irrigation. 

---

Andrew Smith Director of Industry Relations Andy has spent more than 27 years involved in the irrigation industry as a farmer, contractor, designer, salesman, and trade representative. At Valley, he manages strategic relationships for mechanized irrigation technology across a broad range of applications. Andy lives in northern Michigan with his wife, Kim, and his daughter, Madison, and enjoys a variety of outdoor activities.

Pivot Irrigation, Not Furrows, Is Most Economical for Delta | by Bonnie A.Coblentz

Written by and reprinted with permission from Mississippi State University Ag Communications

STONEVILLE, Miss. - Pivot irrigation is no longer a common sight across the Delta, but experts say this equipment remains a viable and efficient way to water crops.

“I would like to see pivots in the Delta,” said Jason Krutz, irrigation specialist with the Mississippi State University Extension Service. “They deliver water more efficiently, so if we have an aquifer problem, which everything indicates we do, they would go a long way toward helping address it.”

In recent years, Delta producers have been removing pivot irrigation from their farmland and replacing it with furrow-irrigation systems after their fields were land-formed. Most pivot systems in the Delta were installed 25 to 30 years ago and were designed to conservatively meet the estimated daily water needs of cotton.

More recently, pivots have been designed to meet the maximum daily water requirements of all crops grown in the Delta under the most extreme weather conditions.

“Many producers have a pivot on one field and furrow irrigation in an adjacent field, and they have a higher yield in the field with furrow irrigation,” Krutz said. “They have higher yields because furrow irrigation can keep up with the water demands of cotton, but these older pivots were not set up to keep up with the maximum water demands of corn and soybeans.”

Spray nozzles on pivots can be checked and replaced, and the entire system can be revamped to provide a higher rate of water. Cost-share packages are available to help producers make this happen, but in the Delta, many choose to abandon this method of overhead irrigation.

Krutz would like to see this trend reversed.

“Furrow irrigation is about 55 percent efficient, which means for every inch of water I apply, only one-half reaches the target, which is below the soil surface but not deeper than 3 feet,” he said. “Pivots are about 85 to 90 percent efficient, so for every inch of water, almost nine-tenths of an inch reaches the rooting zone.”

Furrow irrigation uses a collapsible pipe with holes punched in it. A pipe placed in each row allows water to flow down the furrows. While polypipe is not expensive, and maintenance is simple, the ground may need to be sloped so that water flows across the entire field.This dirt work can make the cost of setting up furrow irrigation as expensive as the cost of installing a pivot-irrigation system.

Larry Falconer, Extension agricultural economist at the MSU Delta Research and Extension Center in Stoneville, has included these costs in planning budgets available to producers.

“In some cases, the dirt work can exceed the cost of the pivot equipment,” Falconer said. “We calculated that installing a half-mile pivot costs about $400 per irrigated acre. If you assume it will cost $1.35 per cubic yard for dirt work, installing furrow irrigation will be more expensive than installing pivot irrigation if you have to move more than 350-400 yards per acre.”

Falconer said installation costs for pivot irrigation is lowest on square fields, but furrow irrigation is better suited for irregularly shaped fields.

It also costs less to operate pivot irrigation than to furrow irrigate.

“If you start with a half-mile pivot-irrigation system, total costs to irrigate with 7.5 inches of water per acre are just under $99 an acre,” Falconer said. “A comparable rollout pipe system would use 13 inches of water per acre and have a total cost of $105 per acre. You’d be pumping about 60 percent more water because the furrow system is less efficient.”
Lyle Pringle, associate agricultural engineer and irrigation researcher with the Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station, explained the efficiency losses in both systems.

“You have to put on more water with furrow irrigation because it has to run from the upper end of the field to the bottom end of the field,” Pringle said. “To get a good irrigation on the bottom third of the field on a lot of our soils, you have to run some water off to give more time for water to soak in on the bottom. You don’t have that much runoff with a pivot.”

Pivot irrigation sprays water over the tops of the plants, and some is lost to evaporation. With furrow irrigation, some is lost into the soil as the water percolates deeper than the rooting zones. But furrow irrigation has some benefits.

“With furrow irrigation, you can water every acre,” Pringle said. “With a pivot, you generally have to leave out the corners. Since most systems are electrical, when pivot systems go down, they can be more difficult to fix and they can get stuck in the field. Downtime needs to be minimized with pivots, because they are not designed to play catch-up.”

Pringle would like to see existing, older pivots renozzled to more efficiently meet the needs of crops during the highest water demand. Wells should be designed and maintained to deliver the designed flow for the life of the system.

“I believe a well-managed, well-designed pivot can make just as much yield as a furrow,” he said. “Furrow irrigation efficiencies can be improved with better water management, but inherently will be less than a well-maintained pivot system. And as water continues to be pumped from the aquifer and we have less and less in reserve, pivots make good sense.”

By Bonnie A. Coblentz, MSU AgCommunications.

Save Energy and Money With Variable Frequency Drives | by Wade Sikkink

When growers look to invest in new products or technology for their farming operation, they generally expect to get one of two things out of the investment. It will either increase their output (yield) or it will reduce their operating costs. Either one is a good thing. When growers invest in irrigation equipment they tend to be focused on the yield side of the equation. Adding center pivot irrigation will give a grower higher, more reliable yields, and he can expect that equipment to pay for itself in a reasonable amount of time.

However, irrigation is not just about increasing yield. The equipment and pumping stations have operational costs, so growers also look for ways to reduce those costs. A great way to do that is by using Variable Frequency Drives on your electric pumps. A Variable Frequency Drive (VFD) is an electronic device that can change the frequency of the supplied power to a pump or other electric motor. This means that the pump doesn’t always have to operate at the same speed, but can operate at different speeds depending on demand. 

Let me use an example to illustrate. Corner machines are a great way to add additional irrigated acres to your investment in a center pivot. A typical corner machine on a quarter-mile pivot can pick up as much as 25 acres. However, corner machines can have a big effect on your pumping system. The difference in flow between when the corner machine is extended vs. retracted can be 35 percent or more. That’s significant! If your pump only operates at one speed, and is sized correctly to provide the right amount of water when the corner machine is extended, then it’s going too fast and providing more pressure and flow than necessary when the corner machine is retracted. The bottom line is the pump is using more energy than necessary, increasing your operating costs.

Here’s where the VFD comes in. If there is a VFD controlling the pump, it can reduce the speed of the pump as the corner machine retracts and continue to provide only the needed pressure and flow. The pump is then running at a slower speed and using less energy; therefore, saving money!

The corner machine example I used above strongly illustrates the benefit of using a VFD for your pumping system, but there are many other applications that can benefit just as much from a VFD, including rolling terrain, Benders, VRI, multiple pivots on a single pump, etc.

Valley_® Water Management is focused on designing and building the best possible pumping solutions for growers. We have partnered with Yaskawa™ Electric America to make Yaskawa VFDs available on our custom-engineered pump stations, which are available to Valley dealers for all their pumping applications. Yaskawa is the leader in VFD technology for agriculture applications and its VFD software includes the most control and protection features available on the market today.

In a future post, I’ll tell you about another new product from Valley Water Management called Drive Connect.

To learn more about Valley Water Management VFDs, visit our website.

---

Wade Sikkink Director - Valley Water Management Wade joined Valley Irrigation in 2008 as a Product Manager. He has spent a lot of time in the field working with dealers and growers on developing new products. In 2012, Wade changed roles to lead a new division within Valley Irrigation focused on pumping systems for center pivots called Valley Water Management.  When he’s not working, Wade enjoys hunting, fishing, and spending time with his wife and three children on their acreage in rural Nebraska.

Investing in Agricultural Technology | by Andy Smith

It is hard to open any agricultural trade publication and not find reference to the topics of variable rate technology, positioning systems, and a multitude of software applications. For those of us who have been around awhile, it is amazing to see how technology has impacted every facet of our lives. In agriculture, this has certainly been the case. Imagine if 40 years ago, you told your dad that in the year 2014, we would be placing seed with sub-inch accuracy with no hands on the steering wheel? Times have certainly changed.

This rapid advancement has been very hard to keep up with, both mentally and financially. For every success story in precision ag, I hear an accompanying horror story. The path to adopting precision ag can be both frustrating and rewarding. Without a doubt, the tools are getting better, but it is still important to use caution when considering investments in ag technology. Here are a few things to consider:

1. What is the track record of the product? No matter what, it is important to ask how any product has performed during testing or deployment in the field. It is even better to get some references that can be consulted prior to purchase. With new products this can be tough, but there should be some proof available to suggest the product performs as promised.
2. What problem does the product solve? I have seen several technology offerings that are simply distractions. Let’s face it, there are a lot of neat things available and while the “cool factor” is indeed something to consider, technology is an investment. It has to improve yield, efficiency, and/or profit to be considered an investment.
3. Is the supplier/provider a good partner? Technology companies have come and gone. It seems like every day there is a new player entering the ag technology market. Trust and stability are still excellent qualities. Everyone has problems from time to time, but not everyone has solutions. Make sure you can get help when you need it.

Farming is one of the most challenging occupations. The insertion of technology in farming has created both opportunity and complexity. The challenge is turning complexity into opportunity. At Valley_® we are committed to the irrigation technology challenge and have been since 1954. The difference between then and now is the focus. The opportunities for improvement today are heavily influenced by data and electronics. But we haven’t forgotten that our core challenge is to use every available technology to deliver irrigation to the field where it is needed, when it is needed, as efficiently as possible.

---

Andrew Smith Director of Industry Relations Andy has spent more than 27 years involved in the irrigation industry as a farmer, contractor, designer, salesman, and trade representative. At Valley, he manages strategic relationships for mechanized irrigation technology across a broad range of applications. Andy lives in northern Michigan with his wife, Kim, and his daughter, Madison, and enjoys a variety of outdoor activities.

New Research Shows How Much Water VRI Can Save | by Travis Yeik

According to the U.S. Geological Survey, irrigation accounted for 62% of the total U.S. freshwater consumption in 2005. This water is used to irrigate approximately 17% of U.S. cropland acres; yet, these acres account for 55% of total U.S. crop sales, including animal forage and feed crops (USDA Economic Research Service). Thus, irrigation plays a major role in both food production and the U.S. economy.

Demand for freshwater supplies has rapidly increased over the past few decades, and the necessity for more efficient irrigation systems is becoming critically important. Half of irrigated croplands across the U.S. are irrigated with more efficient center pivot systems, yet it has become evident through variable rate technologies that there is still room to improve the water-use efficiency with these machines.

Variable rate irrigation (VRI) seeks to apply water site-specifically to the field, depending on soil water holding capacities, crop type, and topography. Water savings with use of VRI has been contrasted in past research, with very few actual field studies being conducted to demonstrate differences in seasonal water application between site-specific and uniform treatments.

This past growing season, Valley conducted a field study with a VRI machine in central Illinois. The purpose of the research was to evaluate traditional uniform water application vs. site-specific irrigation treatments. Four main goals of this research were to: 1) understand how several factors, including soil type and slope, affect the variation of recommended watering rates in irrigation prescriptions; 2) identify how often irrigation prescriptions need to be updated throughout the growing season; 3) analyze water use under uniform and site-specific irrigation treatments; and 4) evaluate yield differences under uniform and site-specific irrigation treatments.

In this blog post, I’ll discuss some of the study results obtained from water-use efficiency between uniform and VRI treatments in a corn crop.

In general, the field where this study was conducted had significantly varying soils, ranging from sand on the hills (with 0-5% clay and 90-95% sand) and loam in the lower lying areas (0-5% sand). Thus, the available water holding capacity between these soils in the 3-foot root zone ranged from 3.75 inches in the sand to 7.2 inches in the loam. Twelve plots (three plots in sand and three plots loam soils for both VRI and uniform irrigation treatments) were identified in the field, each being approximately 1.5 acres in size. Three soil moisture probes (at 6-, 18-, and 30-inch depths) were placed in each of the plots.

Water application in the uniform treatment plots were based on irrigation scheduling recommended by the farmer, which was typically twice a week throughout the growing season. Application amounts were based on a “checkbook” method, determined by the soil water holding capacity and daily evapotranspiration rates. Thus, once it was determined that 50% of available moisture was present in the sand (which reached this level much sooner than the loam), a uniform treatment of water was applied to both the sand and clay soils to bring the available moisture back up to 85% of field capacity (which left additional room for rainfall).

Scheduling under VRI was based on reports from the soil moisture sensors. For example, in the sandy soils, water was applied once the moisture level reached 50% of field capacity. However, in the loamy soils, 50% of field capacity was a considerable 3.6 inches, which was too much to put back on at one time to bring the soil back up to near field capacity. Thus, the loamy soils were typically watered on days when the sandy soils were irrigated, but at nearly 50%-80% of the application depth.

The irrigation treatments between uniform and VRI were conducted from late June until early September. Throughout this time, 24 pivot passes were made over the study area. At the end of the season, irrigation treatments between the sand under VRI and the clay/sand under uniform treatment had similar total water applications of 14.4 and 14.5 inches respectively. However, the loam soil under the VRI treatment remained above 50% field capacity throughout the growing season even as it received a total of 8.9 inches.

Therefore, if this entire field were managed under VRI, there would be an estimated 31% reduction in water use. Although this study was conducted with two contrastingly different soils, it demonstrates how water saving can be achieved using variable rate irrigation.

---

Travis Yeik Variable Rate Irrigation Agronomist Travis joined Valley Irrigation in February 2013 after completing his graduate degree at the University of Nebraska - Lincoln. His work focuses on writing prescriptions for the Valley VRI products. As a native of Wyoming, Travis enjoys outdoor activities, including fly fishing and hiking. He also enjoys sports and is looking forward to baseball season.

Preseason Irrigation | by Travis Yeik

As the weather warms and the days grow longer here in the United States, you’re preparing for the planting season. But, before you rush out of the house and sow some seeds in the ground, you might want to consider preseason irrigation. Preseason irrigation, also known as preplant irrigation, is the application of water during fallow periods in order to help seed germination and early plant growth.

Studies investigating irrigation practices in the 1980s and 1990s generally concluded that in-season irrigation was more practical than preseason irrigation due to the fact that winter precipitation could replenish the soil water profile. However, due to recent drought conditions, winter precipitation has not provided the necessary moisture required for preparation of the planting season. A rootzone soil moisture map (below), created on April 8th by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, shows below-average conditions throughout the central and southwestern United States.

A recent study₁ in Kansas demonstrated that preseason irrigation amounts of 1.5 inches (applied separately in two passes several days apart with a sprinkler pivot) increased maize grain yields by an average of 16 bushels/acre. These returns were greatest when in-season irrigation amounts were limited to 0.7 inches/week and when planting densities were 27,500 plants/acre. Therefore, if water restrictions are tight this year, preseason irrigation may prove to be a successful strategy for you.

We want to hear from you! Do you have any questions on preseason or in-season irrigation? Click on the Comments link below to ask us your question!

1. Schlegel, A. J., Stone, L. R., Dumler, T. J., and Lamm, F. R. 2012. Managing diminished irrigation capacity with preseason irrigation and plant density for corn production. Transactions of the ASABE. 55(2): 525-531.

Travis Yeik Variable Rate Irrigation Agronomist Travis joined Valley Irrigation in February 2013 after completing his graduate degree at the University of Nebraska - Lincoln. His work focuses on writing prescriptions for the Valley VRI products. As a native of Wyoming, Travis enjoys outdoor activities, including fly fishing and hiking. He also enjoys sports and is looking forward to baseball season.