CONSERVATION TILLAGE AND IRRIGATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT OPTIONS

Jeff Mitchell, Dan Munk, Jon Wroble, Wes Wallender, Will Horwath, Brooks Landers, Purnendu Singh University of California John Diener and Scott Schmidt Five Points, CA Anil Shrestha California State University, Fresno Ray Batten Valmont Irrigation, Inc.
February 1, 2011 California Irrigation Institute 49th Annual Conference Sacramento, CA

Collaborators
Dan Munk Kurt Hembree Anil Shrestha Tom Turini Shannon Mueller Kurt Hembree Nick Madden Alejandro Castillo Steve Temple Karen Klonsky Julie Baker Gene Miyao Howard Ferris Tom Lanini Anil Shrestha Wes Wallender Willi Horwath Jaime Solorio Ed Scott John Diener Scott Schmidt Dino Giacomazzi Michael Crowell Tom Barcellos David Wheeler Frank Gwerder Richie Iest Shannon Iest Danny Petersen Larry Soares Daniel Soares Silas Roussow Andy Rollin Bill McCloskey Steve Husman Paul Brown John Beyer (retired) Rob Roy Bob Fry Johnnie Siliznoff Mike McElhiney Rita Bickel Tom Gohlke Ron Harben Ray Batten Wendell Dorsett Pat Murray John Bliss Monte Bottens

Allen DuSault Joe Choperena Ladi Asgill Lyle Carter

OVERVIEW OF PRESENTATION
- CT terminology and current status - observations on water management with respect to CT - overhead automated irrigation coupled with conservation tillage - general summary of emerging systems

Possible benefits of conservation tillage

Conservation Tillage: no-till, strip-till, ridge-till or saves fuel mulch-till systems that conserve saves soil at least 30% soil surface residue, or saves time systems that reduce overall tillage saves labor passes by 40% or more saves machinery permits timely planting reduces run-off increases soil moisture increases soil organic matter sequesters carbon improves habitat for beneficial organisms

Dr. 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 (?)

Documented benets of CT
Cu#ng costs
Cal Ag 2006, 2008

Reducing dust emissions

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

Cu#ng fuel use Cal Ag 2006, 2008 Increasing soil carbon Agron. J. In preparaDon

2004, 2006, 2008 Tillage Acreage Surveys ConservaAon Tillage and Cropping Systems Workgroup hFp://groups.ucanr.org/ucct/

Commodity CT subtotals between 2004-2008

100000 90000 80000 70000 Acres 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 Tomatoes Cotton Beans Corn Silage Corn Grain Small Grains- Small GrainsG H/S Melons
2008 2006 2004

Conservation Farming:

Dino Giacomazzi Hanford

Andy Zylstra Turlock

What Really Makes a Difference?

Jim Couto Kerman

Tom Barcellos Tipton

Tom Barcellos addressing over 140 Tulare County dairymen Tipton, CA August 30, 2007

Dos & Donts for Success in Con-Till / No-Till

Tom Barcellos Barcellos Farms Tipton, CA

IS THERE POTENTIAL?
YES THERE IS! 41 ton Silage No-Till 6 years 35 ton Field Avg.

No-till vs. Conventional

Double Cropped Corn following Wheat
per acre comparison

Seed Fertilizer Pesticide Herbicide Field Operation Disc 2X Landplane Rip List Disc Bedder Mulcher Roller Plant Cultivate Fertilizer App. Layby Herbicide App. Irrigation 2.5 a/f

No-till $50 $60 $12 $41 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $28 $0 $7 $0 $20 $150

Conventional $36 1 $60 $12 $18 2 $28 $14 $20 $12 $12 $15 $5 $16 $10 $10 $10 $10 $150

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

No-till seed is Round-up Ready Round-up used for weed control, multiple applications as needed No-till planter uses coulter openers and fertilizer attachment No-till= coulter, conventional=knife No-till is two applications vs. one application

3 4

Total Cost

$368

$438

Total savings $70 per acre!

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

Strip-till corn stand establishment Iest Dairy, Chowchilla, CA 2007

No-till vs. Conventional

Double Cropped Corn following Wheat
per acre comparison

Seed Fertilizer Pesticide Herbicide Field Operation Disc 2X Landplane Rip List Disc Bedder Mulcher Roller Plant Cultivate Fertilizer App. Layby Herbicide App. Irrigation 2.5 a/f

No-till $50 $60 $12 $41 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $28 $0 $7 $0 $20 $150

Conventional $36 1 $60 $12 $18 2 $28 $14 $20 $12 $12 $15 $5 $16 $10 $10 $10 $10 $150

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

No-till seed is Round-up Ready Round-up used for weed control, multiple applications as needed No-till planter uses coulter openers and fertilizer attachment No-till= coulter, conventional=knife No-till is two applications vs. one application

3 4

Total Cost

$368

$438

Total savings $70 per acre!

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

Tillage system estimates of soil condition index, soil tillage intensity rating, and diesel fuel use for Kimberline fine sandy loam soil, Hanford, CA
Fuel cost for entire simulation ($) 52.52 11.69

Cropping System* Standard Tillage Strip-tillage/ no-till

Soil Conditioning Index -2.0 0.84

STIR Average Annual 703 12.7

Diesel Fuel use 18 3.9

* 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 organic matter levels are predicted to decline under that production system. If the index is a positive value, soil organic matter levels are predicted to increase under that system. The STIR value is the Soil Tillage Intensity Rating. It utilizes the speed, depth, surface disturbance percent and tillage type parameters to calculate a tillage intensity rating for the system used in growing a crop or a rotation. 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 shown in the management description.

% Residue Cover Hanford, CA Turlock, CA Chowchilla, CA 48% 55 % 18%

A Different Mindset
It takes a different mindset on timing of irrigation and fertilizer than conventional. Water must be anticipated earlier and more often. Ultimate use is the same. Starter fertilizer is essential to a good start. Planting window is smaller for no-till and more flexible with strip-till.
Tom Barcellos Tipton, CA 2006

Low spots in the field that cause ponding water and problems for crop growth and development and that result in lower yields, Turlock, CA 2010

Poor silage corn growth and weed infestations due to unsatisfactory flood irrigation advance and ponding when no tailwater recovery system is available, Hanford, CA 2010

Problems seeding into residues at bottoms of furrows Five Points, CA 2010

Strip-till corn stand establishment Iest Dairy, Chowchilla, CA 2007

Winter, rainfed triticale, rye and pea cover crop no-till seeded into cotton and tomato residues Five Points, CA 2008

Winter, rainfed triticale, rye and pea cover crop no-till seeded into cotton and tomato residues Five Points, CA 2008

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

Cropping System*

Erosion Estimates RUSLE2 (Mg ha-1)

Soil Conditioning index

STIR Average Annual

Diesel fuel use

Fuel cost for entire simulation ($)

STNO STCC CTNO CTCC

0.2 0.07 0.04 0.03

-0.71 -0.96 0.43 0.52

261 390 30.6 37.1

32 40 9.3 11

128.6 160.6 36.8 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.

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 Fertilizer Seed Herbicide Insecticide Water Labor (machine) Labor (irrigation) Labor (hand weed) Fuel Lube and repair Interest Total cultural ST 79 176 76 0 163 36 110 84 58 34 36 853 CT 79 176 70 0 163 19 110 84 21 16 31 770 Difference (ST-CT) 0 0 6 0 0 17 0 0 37 18 5 83

Scaling up conservaDon Dllage techniques at commercial processing tomato farm Firebaugh, CA 2008

Subsurface drip coupled with permanent beds and strip-till cover cropped fresh market tomato production Firebaugh, CA 2005

Long-term use of cover crops and conservation tillage Firebaugh, CA 2010

Yolo County locaDons (2) San Joaquin County locaDons (2) Merced County locaDons (2) San Benito County locaDons (1) Fresno County locaDons (3)

Quincy, FL

Bushland, TX

Scottsbluff, NE

Elfrida, AZ

Patos de Minos, BR

Pierre, SD

(67% of USA)

USA Center Pivot Systems Top 15

Millions of Acres

USDA NASS 2008

US Center Pivot Systems TOP 15*

#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

#1 Nebraskas 65,000 pivots systems on 6.5 Mil acres apply 0.8 foot/acre! #2 Texas 4.1m Kansas 2.4m Idaho1.8m Colorado 1.3m: TOTAL 22 Million (73%)

#3 KANSAS

`08 Farm & Ranch Irrigation Survey

Pfeiffer and Lin, 2009

Coupling overhead irrigation systems with conservation tillage: A means for optimizing cheap, efficient and resource-conserving production systems?

Over forty 160-acre center pivot systems installed in Western Fresno County in last 3 years

Pivots, pivots, pivots, everywhere Five Points, CA 2008 Achieving even greater eciencies by merging overhead irrigaAon with conservaAon Allage.?

John Diener Five Points, CA

Darrell and Trevor Cordova Denair, CA

CURRENT STATUS

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

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

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

IMPORTANCE OF WATER MANAGEMENT

CO2 For Photosynthesis H2O From Transpiration

Linear Relationship Between Yield & ET

Within a given season or cutting cycle, yield is linearly related to ET. Any reduction is ET generally produces water stress which reduced Adapted from Brown, 2008 photosynthesis and biomass production.

BORDER IRRIGATION
Application Efciency: 60-85%

Runoff

Deep Percolation

Deep percolation in excess of leaching requirements and runoff represent losses in border systems and lower application efficiency.

Adapted from Brown, 2008

CENTER PIVOTS
Application Efciency: 80-90%
Spray Evaporation Runoff

Limited Deep Percolation

Limited losses due to deep percolation due to more uniform application. Much high application rates near outer towers can lead to problems with standing water & runoff. The other major loss is due to spray evaporation which is minimized by going to drop nozzles.
Adapted from Brown, 2008

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%

Adapted from Brown, 2008

ECONOMICS
Pivots Reduce Labor Costs
Can Approach 90%
Modern Pivots Automation Equip.

Higher Skill Levels

Repair Maintenance Operation

Source: Kranz & Martin, 2005

Future Labor Shortages

Adapted from Brown, 2008

ChrisDansen Uniformity Coecient

Formulas
CU = (1D/M)*100 D = |Xi M| / N, where N is the number of catch-can observaDons

M = Xi / N
DistribuDon Uniformity for conDnuous move LEPA systems is 70-90% Uniformity increases with closer nozzle spacing and furrow diking

ChrisAansen Uniformity Coecient

D = Average Absolute DeviaDon From the Mean M = Mean ApplicaDon Xi = Individual ApplicaDon Amounts n = Number of Individual ApplicaDon Amounts

Characterizes degree of uniformity Uniformity measurements were made by Catch Cans (spaced 2m apart)

Measured CUCs
Tomatoes 87.62 85.47 83.74 83.41

Corn 80.83

Wheat under overhead irrigation Five Points, CA 2008

Overhead no-till study Five Points, CA 2007

Catch-Can Captured Depths - August 21, 2009

2.5

Captured Depth per unit length (in/ yrd)

1.5

0.5

0 1 Row 9 2 3 4 5 Row 7 6 7 8 Row 5 9 10 11 12 Row 3 13 14 15 Row 1 16 17

CU = 93.27 DU = 88.74

Catch-can Number (North to South)

Grain Corn Yields (2009) (lbs / plot) (Preliminary)

Furrow / Standard Tillage 2093 Furrow / No-tillage 2257 + Overhead / Standard Tillage 1490 Overhead / No-tillage 2256 + 107 114 + 127 + 100

Percent Canopy Cover

100 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
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

Drip

Overhead

2010 WSREC Drip/Overhead Sprinkler Trial

5/6

6/3

7/1

7/8

4/29

5/13

5/20

6/10

7/15

7/22

7/29

8/5

8/12

8/19

5/27

6/17

6/24

8/26

28.0 26.0 24.0 22.0 20.0 18.0 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0

2010 WSREC Drip/Overhead Sprinkler Trial

2010 ETc Overhead Drip

Applied Water and ETc (Inches)

Total Inches Applied Drip = 23.8 Overhead = 22.7

45

40

DRIP

35

Tomato Yields (t/ac)

30

OVERHEAD

25

20

15

10

0 1 2

IRRIGATION SYSTEM

Local TV news documentary crew interviewing farmers and overhead equipment company representaAves in Five Points, CA, July 2010

Take the E out of ET. Dwayne Beck South Dakota State University (South Dakota Hall of Fame 2008)

Components of EvapotranspiraAon
TranspiraAon EssenAal for plants EvaporaAon from Soil Minimal contribuAon to plants

Value of Crop Residue for Reducing EvaporaAon

Frequent surface we#ng with center pivots Crop residue insulates surface How much residue is needed?

Soil evaporation study under residue mulch and bare conditions Five Points, CA September 2009

Other sources of information:

The Conservation Tillage Workgroup: http://ucanr.org/sites/ct/ Jeff Mitchell (559) 303-9689 World Ag Expo M-52

Thank you very much.

hkp://ucanr.org/sites/ct/