California Irrigation Institute 2011

7/28/2019 California Irrigation Institute 2011

1/111

CONSERVATION TILLAGE AND IRRIGATION

SYSTEM MANAGEMENT OPTIONS

Jeff Mitchell, Dan Munk, Jon Wroble, Wes Wallender, Will Horwath,Brooks Landers, Purnendu SinghUniversity of California

John Diener and Scott SchmidtFive Points, CA

Anil ShresthaCalifornia State University, Fresno

Ray BattenValmont Irrigation, Inc.

February 1, 2011

California Irrigation Institute

49th Annual Conference

Sacramento, CA


2/111

Collaborators

Dan Munk John Diener John Beyer (retired)Kurt Hembree Scott Schmidt Rob RoyAnil Shrestha Dino Giacomazzi Bob FryTom Turini Michael Crowell Johnnie SiliznoffShannon Mueller Tom Barcellos Mike McElhineyKurt Hembree David Wheeler Rita Bickel

Nick Madden Frank Gwerder Tom GohlkeAlejandro Castillo Richie IestSteve Temple Shannon Iest Ron HarbenKaren Klonsky Danny PetersenJulie Baker Larry Soares Ray BattenGene Miyao Daniel Soares Wendell DorsettHoward Ferris Silas Roussow Pat Murray

Tom Lanini Andy Rollin John BlissAnil Shrestha Monte BottensWes Wallender Bill McCloskeyWilli Horwath Steve Husman Allen DuSaultJaime Solorio Paul Brown Joe ChoperenaEd Scott Ladi Asgill

Lyle Carter


3/111

OVERVIEW OF PRESENTATION- CT terminology and current status

- observations on water management with respectto CT

- overhead automated irrigation coupled withconservation tillage

- general summary of emerging systems


4/111


5/111


6/111

Possible benefits of conservation tillage- saves fuel- saves soil- saves time- saves labor- saves machinery- permits timely planting- reduces run-off- increases soil moisture- increases soil organic matter- sequesters carbon- improves habitat for beneficial organismsDr. Sharad Phatak, University of Georgia, 1997- dust (PM10 and PM2.5) emissions mitigation - surface water (sediment, nutrient and

pesticide) runoff reduction (?) - reducing GHG emissions (?) - enable greater forage production and nutrient removal (?)

Conservation Tillage: no-till, strip-till, ridge-till or

mulch-till systems that conserveat least 30% soil surface residue, or

systems that reduce overall tillagepasses by 40% or more


7/111

DocumentedbenefitsofCT

Cu#ngcostsCalAg2006,2008

Reducingdustemissions J.Env.Qual.2005,2009,Atmos.Env.2008

Cu#ngfueluse CalAg2006,2008

Increasingsoilcarbon Agron.J.Inpreparaon


8/111

2004,2006,2008TillageAcreageSurveys

ConservaonTillageandCroppingSystemsWorkgroup

hFp://groups.ucanr.org/ucct/


9/111

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

100000

Tomatoes Cotton Beans Corn Silage Corn Grain Small Grains-G Small Grains-H/S Melons

Acres

Commodity CT subtotals between2004-2008

2004

2006

2008


10/111

Conservation

Farming:

What ReallyMakes aDifference?

Tom BarcellosTipton

Andy ZylstraTurlock

Jim CoutoKerman

DinoGiacomazzi

Hanford


11/111

Tom Barcellos addressing over 140Tulare County dairymen

Tipton, CA

August 30, 2007


12/111


13/111

Dos & Donts for Success

in Con-Till / No-Till

Tom Barcellos

Barcellos Farms

Tipton, CA


14/111

IS THERE POTENTIAL?

41 ton Silage

No-Till 6 years

35 ton Field Avg.

YES THERE IS!


15/111

No-till vs. Conventional Double Cropped Cornfollowing Wheat per acre comparison

No-till Conventional

Seed $50 $36 1 Fertilizer $60 $60

Pesticide $12 $12Herbicide $41 $18 2 Field Operation

Disc 2X $0 $28

Landplane $0 $14Rip $0 $20List $0 $12Disc Bedder $0 $12

Mulcher $0 $15Roller $0 $5

Plant $28 $16 3 Cultivate $0 $10Fertilizer App. $7 $10 4

Layby $0 $10

Herbicide App. $20 $10 5 Irrigation 2.5 a/f $150 $150

Total savingsTotal Cost $368 $438 $70 per acre!

Data compiled by Tom Barcellos, Dairyman, Tipton, CA, 2006

1. No-till seed is Round-upReady

2. Round-up used for weedcontrol, multipleapplications as needed

3. No-till planter uses coulteropeners and fertilizerattachment

4. No-till= coulter,conventional=knife

5. No-till is two applicationsvs. one application


16/111


17/111


18/111


19/111

Strip-till corn stand establishmentIest Dairy, Chowchilla, CA 2007


20/111

No-till vs. Conventional Double Cropped Cornfollowing Wheat per acre comparison

No-till Conventional

Seed $50 $36 1 Fertilizer $60 $60

Pesticide $12 $12Herbicide $41 $18 2 Field Operation

Disc 2X $0 $28

Landplane $0 $14Rip $0 $20List $0 $12Disc Bedder $0 $12

Mulcher $0 $15Roller $0 $5

Plant $28 $16 3 Cultivate $0 $10Fertilizer App. $7 $10 4

Layby $0 $10

Herbicide App. $20 $10 5 Irrigation 2.5 a/f $150 $150

Total savingsTotal Cost $368 $438 $70 per acre!

Data compiled by Tom Barcellos, Dairyman, Tipton, CA, 2006

1. No-till seed is Round-upReady

2. Round-up used for weedcontrol, multipleapplications as needed

3. No-till planter uses coulteropeners and fertilizerattachment

4. No-till= coulter,conventional=knife

5. No-till is two applicationsvs. one application


21/111

Tillage system estimates of soil condition index, soiltillage intensity rating, and diesel fuel use for

Kimberline fine sandy loam soil, Hanford, CA

* Corn silage and winter wheat with standard on strip=till/no-till.

The SCI is the Soil Conditioning Index rating. If the calculated index is a negative value, soil organicmatter levels are predicted to decline under that production system. If the index is a positive value, soil organicmatter levels are predicted to increase under that system.

The STIR value is the Soil Tillage Intensity Rating. It utilizes the speed, depth, surface disturbance percentand tillage type parameters to calculate a tillage intensity rating for the system used in growing a crop or arotation. STIR ratings tend to show the differences in the degree of soil disturbance between systems. The

kind, severity and number of ground disturbing passes are evaluated for the entire cropping rotation as shownin the management description.

Cropping

System*

SoilConditioning

Index

STIRAverage

Annual

Diesel

Fuel use

Fuel costfor entire

simulation

($)StandardTillage -2.0 703 18 52.52

Strip-tillage/no-till 0.84 12.7 3.9 11.69


22/111


23/111


24/111

%ResidueCover

Hanford,CA 48%

Turlock,CA 55%

Chowchilla,CA 18%


25/111


26/111


27/111


28/111


29/111

Poor silage corn growth and weed infestationsdue to unsatisfactory flood irrigation advanceand ponding when no tailwater recovery systemis available, Hanford, CA 2010


30/111

Problems seeding into residuesat bottoms of furrowsFive Points, CA 2010


31/111


32/111


33/111

Strip-till corn stand establishmentIest Dairy, Chowchilla, CA 2007


34/111


35/111

Winter, rainfed triticale, rye and pea cover crop no-till

seeded into cotton and tomato residuesFive Points, CA 2008


36/111

Winter, rainfed triticale, rye and peacover crop no-till seeded into cotton

and tomato residuesFive Points, CA 2008


37/111


38/111

Tillage and cover crop system erosion estimates, soil condition index sub-factors, soil tillage intensity rating and estimates of diesel fuel use.

CroppingSystem*

ErosionEstimates

RUSLE2(Mg ha-1)

SoilConditioning

index

STIRAverageAnnual

Dieselfuel use

Fuel cost forentire

simulation ($)

STNO 0.2 -0.71 261 32 128.6

STCC 0.07 -0.96 390 40 160.6

CTNO 0.04 0.43 30.6 9.3 36.8

CTCC 0.03 0.52 37.1 11 43.27

* STNO = Standard tillage no cover crop, STCC = Standard tillage with cover crop, CTNO =Conservation tillage no cover crop CTCC = Conservation tillage with cover crop.


39/111

Cultural costs for standard tillage (ST) versus conservation tillage(CT) for processing tomato, Westside Field Station, 2003

(operations expensed at 2007 input prices)

Cultural costs ST CTDifference

(ST-CT)

Fertilizer 79 79 0

Seed 176 176 0

Herbicide 76 70 6

Insecticide 0 0 0Water 163 163 0

Labor (machine) 36 19 17

Labor (irrigation) 110 110 0

Labor (hand weed) 84 84 0

Fuel 58 21 37

Lube and repair 34 16 18

Interest 36 31 5

Total cultural 853 770 83


40/111


41/111


42/111

Subsurface drip coupled with permanentbeds and strip-till cover cropped fresh

market tomato productionFirebaugh, CA

2005


43/111

Long-term use of cover cropsand conservation tillage

Firebaugh, CA 2010


44/111

YoloCountylocaons(2)

SanJoaquinCountylocaons(2)

MercedCountylocaons(2)

SanBenitoCountylocaons(1)

FresnoCountylocaons(3)


45/111


46/111

Quincy, FL


47/111


48/111

Scottsbluff, NE


49/111

Elfrida, AZ


50/111

Patos de Minos, BR


51/111


52/111

Pierre, SD


53/111


54/111

(67% of USA)


55/111

USA Center Pivot Systems Top 15

Millions of AcresUSDA NASS 2008

US C t Pi t S t TOP 15*


56/111

US Center Pivot Systems TOP 15*#1Nebraskas 65,000 pivots systems on 6.5 Mil acres apply 0.8 foot/acre!#2 Texas4.1m Kansas 2.4m Idaho1.8m Colorado 1.3m: TOTAL 22 Million (73%)

#The next 10~ 5.7 million Wash., .87m Georgia .82m Ark, .78m Montana .58 Min Oregon .53m, .47Missouri .46 Illinois 45 Miss, .38 Ind. .38

#3 KANSAS

`08 Farm & Ranch Irrigation Survey


57/111

Pfeiffer and Lin, 2009


58/111

Over forty 160-acre center pivotsystems installed in WesternFresno County in last 3 years

Coupling overhead irrigation systems withconservation tillage: A means for optimizing cheap,

efficient and resource-conserving production systems?


59/111


60/111

John DienerFive Points, CA


61/111

Darrell and Trevor CordovaDenair, CA


62/111


63/111

CURRENT STATUS

Source: Orang et al., 2008. Survey of IrrigationMethods in California in 2001. ASCE J. Irr. & Drain.

Source: Fangmeier & Biggs, 1987. Alternate IrrigationSystems. Ext. Rpt 8555. Univ. of Arizona.


64/111

Crops produced under overhead mechanized irrigation:alfalfa, wheat, corn, sugar beets, peas, tomatoes, cotton, rice, safflower


65/111

IMPORTANCE OF WATER MANAGEMENTCO2 For

PhotosynthesisH2O From

Transpiration

Within a given season or cutting cycle, yield is linearly related to ET.

Any reduction is ET generally produces water stress which reducedphotosynthesis and biomass production. Adapted from Brown, 2008

Linear RelationshipBetween Yield & ET


66/111

BORDER IRRIGATION

Application Efficiency: 60-85%

Deep Percolation

Runoff

Deep percolation in excess of leaching requirements and runoff represent

losses in border systems and lower application efficiency.

Adapted from Brown, 2008


67/111

CENTER PIVOTSApplication Efficiency: 80-90%

Limited Deep Percolation

Runoff

Limited losses due to deep percolation due to more uniform application.Much high application rates near outer towers can lead to problems withstanding water & runoff. The other major loss is due to spray evaporation

which is minimized by going to drop nozzles.

Spray Evaporation



68/111

WATER REQUIREMENT

Impact of Application Efficiency

Higher App. Efficiency Reduces Water

Requirements

AE Increase From 65-85% Lowers WR 24% or ~26/Yr

AE Increase From 75-85% Lowers WR 13% or ~12/Yr

Less Drainage/Runoff

Higher AE of Pivots Should Reduce Water Use By 10-30%



69/111

ECONOMICSPivots Reduce Labor Costs

Can Approach 90% Modern PivotsAutomation Equip.

Higher Skill Levels Repair Maintenance Operation

Future Labor Shortages

Source: Kranz & Martin, 2005



70/111

ChrisansenUniformity

Coefficientormulas

CU= (1D/M)*100

D= |XiM|/N,whereNisthenumberofcatch-can

observaons

M= Xi/N

DistribuonUniformityforconnuousmoveLEPAsystemsis70-90%

Uniformityincreaseswithclosernozzlespacingandfurrowdiking


71/111

CharacterizesdegreeofuniformityUniformitymeasurementsweremadebyCatchCans(spaced2mapart)

ChrisansenUniformity

CoefficientD= AverageAbsoluteDeviaonFromtheMean

M= MeanApplicaon

Xi= IndividualApplicaonAmounts

n= NumberofIndividualApplicaon

Amounts


72/111


73/111


74/111


75/111


76/111


77/111


78/111


79/111


80/111


81/111


82/111


83/111


84/111

Measured CUCsTomatoes 87.62 85.47 83.74 83.41

Corn80.83


85/111

Wheat under overhead irrigationFive Points, CA 2008


86/111

Overhead no-till studyFive Points, CA

2007


87/111


88/111


89/111

Catch-Can Captured Depths - August 21, 2009


90/111

Row 1

Row 3

Row 5

Row 7Row 9

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

1 2 34 5

67

89

1011

1213

1415

1617

Catch Can Captured Depths August 21, 2009

Catch-can Number (North to South)

CapturedDepth

perunitlength(in/

yrd)

CU = 93.27DU = 88.74


91/111

Grain Corn Yields (2009)(lbs / plot)

(Preliminary)

Furrow / Standard Tillage 2093 + 107Furrow / No-tillage 2257 + 114

Overhead / Standard Tillage 1490 + 127Overhead / No-tillage 2256 + 100


92/111


93/111


94/111


95/111


96/111


97/111


98/111

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5/9

5/18

5/23

5/27

5/31

6/7

6/16

6/20

6/26

7/3

7/10

7/15

7/21

7/25

8/1

8/13

Overhead

Drip

PercentCan

opyCover

2010WSRECDrip/OverheadSprinklerTrial


99/111


100/111

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1 2

TomatoY

ields

(t/ac)

IRRIGATION SYSTEM

OVERHEAD

DRIP


101/111

LocalTVnewsdocumentarycrewinterviewingfarmers

andoverheadequipmentcompanyrepresentaves

inivePoints,CA,July2010


102/111

Take the E out of ET.

Dwayne BeckSouth Dakota State University

(South Dakota Hall of Fame 2008)

Components of


103/111

Componentsof

Evapotranspiraon

TranspiraonEssenalforplants

EvaporaonfromSoilMinimalcontribuontoplants


104/111


105/111

Value of Crop Residue for


106/111

ValueofCropResiduefor

ReducingEvaporaon

requentsurfacewe#ngwithcenter

pivots Cropresidueinsulates

surface

Howmuchresidueisneeded?


107/111


108/111


109/111

Soil evaporation study under residue mulch and bare conditionsFive Points, CASeptember 2009


110/111

The Conservation Tillage Workgroup:

http://ucanr.org/sites/ct/

Jeff Mitchell(559) 303-9689

World Ag Expo M-52

Other sources of information:


111/111

Thankyouverymuch.hp://ucanr.org/sites/ct/

Documents

California Irrigation Institute 2011