Sept 10 – 16 2006, PWTC, Kuala Lumpur

SUBSURFACE DRIP IRRIGATION OF PASTURE FOR

AUSTRALIA’S DAIRY INDUSTRY

Ms Lucy Finger1 and Mr Mark L. Wood2

ABSTRACT

Dairying in Australia is based on grazed perennial pastures. The dairy industry is a major
user of irrigation water in Australia and under increasing pressure to improve water use
efficiency. Currently 90% of irrigated pasture uses border-check (surface) irrigation. Some
farmers are looking to alternative irrigation methods such as subsurface drip irrigation to
improve their water use efficiency. Few studies have investigated subsurface drip irrigation
of pasture. A field experiment was conducted between 2000 and 2002 at Tatura, Australia,
to evaluate the performance of four irrigation methods for the dairy industry, including
subsurface drip. Measurements included the volume of water applied, volume of runoff,
pasture production, pasture composition and soil moisture status. Subsurface drip used 200
mm/yr less irrigation water than border check and produced 0.9 to 1.0 t DM/ha/yr more
pasture. Visual striping of the pasture was apparent during summer. This indicates the subsurface
drip system design was not optimal, yet it still produced more pasture than border-check using
less irrigation water. Subsurface drip irrigation has great potential for use on Australian dairy
farms, but further investigation is required before the industry will be confident it is an
economically viable alternative to border-check irrigation. Priority issues include performance
under grazed conditions, optimising design for a range of soil types, and likely benefits in
terms of nutrient management, increased production, labour savings, and environmental
performance.

1
Hydrologist, Primary Industries Research Victoria, Dept of Primary Industries, Private Bag 1, Ferguson Road, Tatura,
Victoria 3616, AUSTRALIA.
Phone: +61 3 5833 5324 Fax: +61 3 5833 5299 Email lucy.finger@dpi.vic.gov.au
2
Dept of Sustainability & Environment, PO Box 500, East Melbourne, Victoria 3002, AUSTRALIA.

B-14
 7th International Micro Irrigation Congress

SUBSURFACE DRIP IRRIGATION OF PASTURE FOR AUSTRALIA’S DAIRY

INDUSTRY

Ms Lucy Finger1 and Mr Mark L. Wood2

ABSTRACT

Dairying in Australia is based on grazed perennial pastures. The dairy industry is a major
user of irrigation water in Australia and under increasing pressure to improve water use
efficiency. Currently 90% of irrigated pasture uses border-check (surface) irrigation. Some
farmers are looking to alternative irrigation methods such as subsurface drip irrigation to
improve their water use efficiency. Few studies have investigated subsurface drip irrigation
of pasture.

A field experiment was conducted between 2000 and 2002 at Tatura, Australia, to evaluate
the performance of four irrigation methods for the dairy industry, including subsurface drip.
Measurements included the volume of water applied, volume of runoff, pasture production,
pasture composition and soil moisture status.

Subsurface drip used 200 mm/yr less irrigation water than border check and produced 0.9
- 1.0 t DM/ha/yr more pasture. Visual striping of the pasture was apparent during summer.
This indicates the subsurface drip system design was not optimal, yet it still produced more
pasture than bordercheck using less irrigation water.

Subsurface drip irrigation has great potential for use on Australian dairy farms, but further
investigation is required before the industry will be confident it is an economically viable
alternative to border-check irrigation. Priority issues include performance under grazed
conditions, optimising design for a range of soil types, and likely benefits in terms of nutrient
management, increased production, labour savings, and environmental performance.

SOMMAIRE ET CONCLUSION

L'industrie laitière en Australie est basée sur les pâturages broutés. Pour la plus grande part
de l’industrie laitière de l'Australie la production continuelle des pâturages dépend de
l'irrigation pendant les mois d'été quand l'évaporation plus que compense les précipitations.
L'industrie laitière est un utilisateur important de l'eau d'irrigation en Australie, en particulier
dans le bassin de MurrayDarling. L'industrie est fortement pressée à améliorer l'efficacité

1
Hydrologist, Primary Industries Research Victoria, Dept of Primary Industries, Private Bag 1,
Ferguson Road, Tatura, Victoria 3616, AUSTRALIA.
Phone: +61 3 5833 5324 Fax: +61 3 5833 5299 Email : lucy.finger@dpi.vic.gov.au
2
Dept of Sustainability & Environment, PO Box 500, East Melbourne, Victoria 3002, AUSTRALIA.

1
7th International Micro Irrigation Congress

dans l’utilisation de l'eau en réponse à une diminutions dans les disponibilité hydriques, au
coût croissant de l'eau et aux préoccupations concernant la dégradation de l'environnement.
Actuellement 90% des pâturages sont irrigués par irrigation de surface. L’irrigation de surface
permet un contrôle limité sur la profondeur de l'application et peut être inefficace une fois
utilisée sur des sols inadéquats. Quelques fermiers regardent aux méthodes alternatives
d'irrigation comprenant l'irrigation goutte à goutte pour améliorer leur efficacité d'utilisation
de l'eau. Il y a eu peu de recherche sur l'application de cette technologie dans l'irrigation
des pâturages.

Une expérience sur le terrain étudiant le potentiel pour améliorer l'efficacité d'utilisation de
l'eau en employant des méthodes alternatives d'irrigation a été conduite entre juillet 2000
et juillet 2002 à Tatura, Victoria, Australie. L'expérience a mesuré l'utilisation de l'eau, la
production de pâturage, sa composition et l'efficacité d'utilisation de l'eau résultant de
l'utilisation de l’irrigation en surface (par calants), par déversement, goutte à goutte (sous-
sol) et par aspersion.

Le type de sol à l'emplacement est un milieu duplex à la terre grasse lourde d'argile, considéré
approprié à l'irrigation de surface. Le traitement goutte à goutte dans le sous-sol a utilisé
de canaux espacés 1m, à une profondeur de 20 centimètres, avec des émetteurs tout les 40
centimètres. Ceci a été considéré comme l'espacement probablement le plus viable du point
de vue économique pour ce type de ferme. Chaque irrigation goutte à goutte est composée
des cycles pulsés de deux heures avec un interval inactif de deux heures, les émetteurs
fournissant approximativement 1.05 litre par heure. Les mesures ont fourni le volume de l'eau
appliquée, le volume de l'écoulement, la production de pâturage, sa composition et l'humidité
du sol.

L'irrigation goutte à goutte a eu une performance pareille à l'irrigation par aspersion, en

utilisant 200 millimètres par an moins d'eau que l’irrigation de surface et produisant 0.9 -
1.0 t DM/ha/an plus de pâturage. Le rayage du pâturage était évident pendant les mois
les plus chauds de l'été, se rapetissant seulement après des précipitations significatives. Ceci
prouve que l’irrigation goutte à goutte n’avait pas été conçue d’une façon optimale, mais
pourtant elle avait produit plus de pâturage que l’irrigation de surface, en utilisant moins
d'eau. L'irrigation goutte à goutte a un grand potentiel pour l'usage dans les exploitations
laitières australiennes, mais davantage de recherche est nécessaire avant que l'industrie soit
confiante que il s’agit d’une alternative économiquement viable par rapport a l'irrigation
de surface. Les issues prioritaires incluent l'application dans des conditions broutées,
l’optimisation pour une gamme des types de sol, et les avantages probables en termes de
gestion des substance nutritives, de production accrue, épargnperformance environnementale.

2
 7th International Micro Irrigation Congress

INTRODUCTION

Dairy production in Australia is based on cows grazing pasture, with some supplementary
feeding of hay and grains. The dairy industry uses a large proportion of Australia’s irrigation
water on pastures (Dunlop 2001; Linehan et al. 2004) and is under pressure to improve
water use efficiency due to reducing water availability, the rising cost of water and concern
about environmental degradation (Armstrong 2004; Murray Darling Basin Ministerial Council
1996; Murray Darling Basin Ministerial Council 2002). Currently 90% of irrigated pasture
is watered using border-check irrigation (Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and
Engineering 1999). Border-check irrigation offers limited control over application and can
be inefficient when used on inappropriate soils, or without laser grading and a runoff reuse
system (Douglass and Poulton 2000; Malano and Patto 1992; Patto 1989). Some dairy
farmers are looking to other irrigation technologies such as centre pivot or subsurface drip
irrigation to improve their water use efficiency.

Subsurface drip (SSD) irrigation shows great potential for dairy farming systems. SSD irrigation
has been successfully applied in fruit, vegetable and broadacre crop production, with increased
yields and reductions in water use reported (Alam et al. 2002; Ayars et al. 1999; Godoy-
Avila et al. 2003; Harris 2000; Hutmacher et al. 2001; Lamm and Trooien 2003; Schulz
2000a). SSD has several advantages over sprinkler irrigation, including reduced evaporation
losses (Alam et al. 2002), elimination of water impact damage to crops (Cetin and Bilgel
2002), reduced potential for soil erosion (Bosch et al. 1992), and lower energy requirements
(Bosch et al. 1992; Camp 1998; Schulz 2000b). Fertigation with SSD irrigation allows the
targeted supply of nutrients to a plant’s rootzone, potentially reducing the total amount of
fertiliser required (Lamm and Trooien 2003). SSD system design is flexible to match field
shapes and sizes and can be implemented in stages to match available funds (Lamm 2002;
Lamm et al. 2003b).

Most disadvantages of SSD irrigation relate to its capital cost. Water quality, filtration and
system flushing become critical in SSD irrigation, due to difficulties in repairing blocked
emitters or damaged drip tape, and increases system cost (Camp 1998; Schulz 2000b). Use
of SSD irrigation for crop germination without excessive water loss is sometimes difficult
(Charlesworth and Muirhead 2000; Schulz 2000b), so many irrigators use other technologies
or rely on rainfall during the crop establishment phase (Ayars et al. 1999; Camp 1998).
SSD irrigation can be economically competitive with centre pivot systems in situations where
field shape and size dictate the need for small or partial pivot systems, and becomes more
competitive if fertiliser/herbicide savings, increased yield and increased system longevity are
achieved (Bosch et al. 1992; Lamm et al. 2003a).

Few studies have investigated SSD for pastures, although desktop studies have suggested it
could be economically viable if pasture production increases of 10 – 20% were achieved
(Wood and Martin 2000). A field experiment was conducted between 2000 and 2002 at
Tatura, Australia, to evaluate the performance of four irrigation methods for the dairy industry.
This paper focuses on the performance of SSD relative to border-check irrigation.

3
7th International Micro Irrigation Congress

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Experimental site, treatments and irrigation management

The experiment was conducted between June 2000 and July 2002 at the Department of
Primary Industries, Tatura, Australia. The average annual rainfall (R) and Class A pan
evaporation (Ep) at the site are 491 mm and 1365 mm respectively. The soil was Lemnos
loam, a duplex soil characterised by brown to greyish brown loam to clay loam extending
to 0.12 metres. This top horizon is underlain by a 0.30 to 0.35 m layer of reddish brown
medium to heavy clay, turning to brown or yellowish brown medium clay from 0.45 to 0.60
metres (Skene and Poutsma 1962). The B horizon strongly influences irrigation performance
and has final infiltration rate of 1.8 mm/hr (Mehta and Wang 2004).

In early 2000, the site was sprayed to remove existing vegetation, ripped to 0.3 m and laser-
graded to a slope of 0.0013 (1 in 750). Twenty two border-check irrigation bays (each 8 x
240 m) were established and hydraulically isolated to a depth of 0.6 m to prevent subsurface
water flows. Sufficient phosphorus was applied to ensure it was non-limiting throughout the
experiment. The bays were sown to a mixture of perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne cv Xatsyn
Banks and Embassy Verdite) and white clover (Trifolium repens cv Kopu and Irrigation).

The irrigation treatments examined were border-check, sprinkler, SSD and surge. Physical
constraints of the site limited the maximum number of irrigation bays to twenty two, so the
degree of replication differed for the treatments. The statistical design was an incomplete
randomised block with six blocks.

Irrigations were scheduled on cumulative pan evaporation minus rainfall (Ep – R) using climate
data collected 400 m from the site. The triggers adopted were 10 mm for the SSD and 50
mm for the border-check treatments. The schedule was verified using rootzone soil moisture
levels, measured with an Aquaflex (Streat Instruments) soil water content sensor located 120
m from the top of each bay at a depth of 0.1 – 0.3 m.

Irrigation water was pumped to each bay. The average flow rate for the border-check treatment
was approximately 0.7 litres per second per metre, with water shut off when the advance
front reached 180 m, and average irrigation duration of six hours. Irrigations were managed
so water reached the bottom of the bay.

SSD lines were installed in the designated bays prior to pasture sowing. The adopted design
was considered the most likely to maintain agronomic performance whilst approaching
economic viability for a pasture based system. Each bay had seven laterals spaced 1 m apart
at a depth of 0.2 m, with emitters at a 0.4 m spacing. The emitters selected released 1.05
litres per hour. Each irrigation consisted of pulsed cycles of water, with a cycle consisting of
120 minutes of on-time and 120 minutes of off-time. During summer (December to February)
four cycles were used per irrigation, decreasing to three cycles per irrigation during spring
(September to November) and autumn (March to May).

4
 7th International Micro Irrigation Congress

Water measurements
The applied water was measured with a propeller-type water meter. Water runoff was measured
through U-shaped flumes, with the flow depth recorded using optical shaft encoders. Runoff
volumes were calculated from hydrographs using a rating curve. The depth of irrigation water
applied to the bay at each irrigation, termed Infiltrated Depth, was calculated using a volume
balance (Equation 1). It was assumed that all irrigation runoff could be captured and reused,
therefore it was not included in the total water use figure.
Infiltrated Depth = (volume of irrigation water applied – volume of runoff)/bay area (1)

Pasture measurements
Pasture yield was measured when ryegrass reached the three-leaf stage of development. Six
pasture samples were taken per bay. Samples were taken by mowing diagonal strips (each
20 x 1.2 m) to a height of 50 mm. Dry matter (DM) production for each strip was determined
by drying a subsample of the harvested material at 100 oC for 48 hours. Following sampling,
each bay was mown to a height of 50 mm and the clippings removed, with an application
of nitrogen (urea) to replace that removed in harvested material. Urea was surface-spread
immediately before the next irrigation for the border-check treatment and dissolved in irrigation
water for the SSD treatment.

Botanical composition of the pasture was measured in October, January and April/May.
Three composition samples were taken per bay. Each sample consisted of eight 0.25 m square
quadrats cut to 50 mm height. The samples were sorted into perennial ryegrass, white clover
and weeds. The sorted samples were oven dried at 60 oC for 48 hours and reweighed, with
the pasture composition by weight determined.

In April 2002 the effect of distance from drip line on pasture production was investigated on
the SSD bays. To avoid interfering with the standard pasture harvest, measurements were
restricted to 6 locations per bay on the five SSD bays. Ten sampling locations were randomly
selected from the possible 30, with three spares. At each sampling point, two 12 m x 0.5 m
strips of pasture were cut parallel to the drip lines using a lawnmower, with the clippings
from each strip collected separately. One strip was cut with the machine centred above the
central drip line, and a second strip was taken with the machine centred at a point 0.5 m
from the central drip line. The wet weight of the collected clippings was measured, and the
dry weight calculated using the average “wet to dry weight” conversion for the SSD bays
observed during the standard harvest.

Water use efficiency

A water use efficiency index (WUE), with units kg of dry matter produced per cubic metre
of infiltrated irrigation water (kg/m 3), was calculated for each bay (Equation 2).
WUE = Total dry matter produced / Total infiltrated depth (2)

5
7th International Micro Irrigation Congress

Statistical analyses
The data were analysed using Genstat 6.1 (Lawes Agricultural Trust, Rothamsted Experimental
Station). Most analysis used REML (Residual maximum likelihood), with the significance of
fixed effects (treatments) determined using the Wald statistic. Individual means were compared
using Fisher's unprotected least significant difference test (P = 0.05). A two-sample paired
T-Test was used to analyse the significance of differences in pasture production above and
adjacent to the subsurface dripline. Means and significant treatment differences (95% confidence
level) are reported in this paper.

RESULTS

Water measurements
Rainfall (551 mm) and pan evaporation (1468 mm) were slightly above the average for the
period 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001. Thirteen border-check and 58 SSD irrigation events
occurred during 2000-01. Rainfall (393 mm) was well below the average and pan evaporation
(1550 mm) well above average between 1 July 2001 to 30 June 2002. Nineteen border-
check and 72 SSD irrigation events occurred during 2001-02.

Total infiltrated depth under border-check irrigation was 976 mm in 2000-01 and 1129 mm
in 200102 (Table 1). SSD used 15 – 20% less irrigation water than border-check in both
seasons. Bordercheck irrigation generated between 225 and 360 mm of tailwater runoff per
season (Table 1), with significantly less runoff produced from SSD irrigation.

Table 1. Mean totals for irrigation, pasture production and water use efficiency measurements for
the 2000-01 and 2001-02 seasons. (Valeurs moyennes pour l'irrigation, la production des pâturages
et l’efficacité dans l’utilisation de l’eau, pour les saisons 2000-01 et
2001-02.)

Significant differences (95%) between treatments are indicated using superscripts, such that treatments
with different letters are significantly different, while a shared letter indicates no significant difference
between treatments.

6
 7th International Micro Irrigation Congress

Pasture yield and composition

Mean pasture production for border-check irrigation was 12.3 t DM/ha in 2000-01 and
17.4 t DM/ha in 2001-02 (Table 1), with SSD irrigation producing 7% more pasture in both
seasons. Differences in production emerged from February. The yields are comparable with
reported pasture yields for the region (Blaikie and Martin 1987; Olsson et al. 2002; Stockdale
1983).

Visual inspection of SSD bays suggested more pasture were growing immediately above drip
lines than between drip lines from December in both seasons. This visual difference was
confirmed by detailed investigation of pasture production on SSD bays in April 2002. The
mean production above SSD lines was 1.53 t DM/ha, while the mean production at the point
between two drip lines was 0.79 t DM/ha, with this difference in means significant
(p < 0.001). The mean production measured using the diagonal cut at that harvest was 1.20
t DM/ha, still significantly higher than 1.09 t DM/ha measured for border-check irrigation.
Total dry matter production for SSD does not seem to have suffered significantly as a result
of the striping (Table 1). In 2000-01, the visual striping persisted until a 100 mm rain event.
In 2001-02 no significant rain fell during summer or autumn, so the striping persisted through
to June.

Observed changes in pasture composition followed patterns of botanical composition in

establishing perennial pastures reported in the literature. In October 2000 the pasture was
dominated by perennial ryegrass, with a mean clover content less than 10%. During 2000-
01, there was an increase in clover content at the expense of ryegrass (Figure 1). Over 2001-
02 clover content declined. The presence of weeds was negligible (<2%) throughout both
seasons.

Figure 1. Change in pasture composition, in terms of clover content, from July 2000 to July 2002 for
the irrigation treatments. (Changement dans la composition des pâturages, en termes de contenu de
trèfle, de Juillet 2000 à Juillet 2002 pour les traitements d’irrigation.)

7
7th International Micro Irrigation Congress

Water Use Efficiency

Border-check irrigation had a water use efficiency of between 1.2 and 1.6 kg dry matter per
m 3 of infiltrated irrigation water (Table 1). SSD had a significantly greater water use efficiency
than border-check irrigation in both seasons.

DISCUSSION

Subsurface drip irrigation clearly shows promise for dairy situations, producing more pasture
than border-check using 200 mm/yr less irrigation water. Although the results for sprinkler
irrigation were not reported in this paper, little difference was observed between SSD and
sprinkler in water use, with sprinkler producing 5% more pasture than SSD in the 2001-02
season (Bethune et al. 2003). This indicates that both sprinkler and SSD irrigation could be
successful alternatives to bordercheck irrigation on dairy farms.

Detailed water balance modelling indicated that the additional 200mm/yr irrigation water
used by border-check irrigation was associated with higher evaporation and deep drainage.
Coupled with the reduced runoff generation, this indicates that conversion to SSD or sprinkler
irrigation may reduce farm discharge of water and nutrients to riverine and groundwater
systems. Increased adoption of either technology would thus have implications for catchment
scale management of surface and groundwater.

Increased pasture production under SSD irrigation is attributed to the frequent application
of small volumes of water, in contrast to less frequent application of large volumes of water
under bordercheck irrigation. Previous research suggests that increased frequency of irrigation
will improve ryegrass-clover production by eliminating water stress (Blaikie et al. 1988;
Blaikie and Martin 1987; Dunbabin et al. 1997). However, frequent border-check irrigation
can decrease pasture production due to waterlogging (Blaikie and Martin 1987; Dunbabin
et al. 1997). Increased frequency of irrigation without corresponding side effects of prolonged
ponding and waterlogging is possible using SSD irrigation. The yield advantage emerged
from February, the period of greatest evaporative demand. This suggests that SSD irrigation
is more effective than border-check irrigation in matching plant water requirements.

The design of the SSD system in this experiment resulted in stripes of high production above
drip lines and stripes of low production between drip lines. This was caused by uneven
distribution of irrigation water and nitrogen between drip lines in this soil. Perennial ryegrass
favoured the area immediately above drip lines with a good supply of water and nitrogen,
while nitrogen-fixing white clover grew more profusely between the drip lines. This suggests
that the selected design could be improved to deliver greater production benefits.

Subsurface drip is of interest to farmers redeveloping farms that are unsuitable for centre
piviot and linear move technology. Farmers are attracted by SSD’s low labour requirements,
but are reluctant to adopt SSD due to its cost and limited knowledge of the technology. Major
knowledge gaps include the capability to withstand grazing by dairy cattle, optimum design
for pasture, and economic and environmental costs and benefits. If the social, economic and
environmental benefits from SSD irrigation were clearly demonstrated, resource management
agencies may provide some support to assist in its adoption. These issues are being investigated
through a new research project that commenced in 2006.

8
 7th International Micro Irrigation Congress

CONCLUSION

This paper reports on an experiment comparing the performance of SSD irrigation of pasture
to conventional technologies. The experiment found that SSD used 200 mm/yr less water
than border check irrigation while producing 1.0 t DM/ha/yr more pasture, with a significantly
higher water use efficiency. Visual striping of the pasture was apparent during the summer
peak, only subsiding following significant rainfall events. This shows that the design for the
SSD system was not optimal, yet it still produced more pasture than border-check using less
irrigation water.

SSD irrigation has great potential for use on Australian dairy farms, but further investigation
is required before the dairy industry will be confident that it is an economically viable
alternative to border-check irrigation. Priority issues include performance under grazed
conditions, optimising design for a range of soil types, and likely benefits in terms of nutrient
management, increased production, labour savings, and environmental performance.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This experiment was funded by the Victorian Government (through the Department of Primary
Industries and the Department of Sustainability and Environment), Dairy Australia, and
Murray Dairy. Netafim Pty Ltd contributed the subsurface drip tape. Peter Clayton, Tony Cook
and Brian O'Meara provided excellent technical support through collection and capture of
data during the experiment. Matthew Bethune, QJ Wang, David Robertson and others at DPI
Tatura assisted with field work and the development of ideas. Dr Leigh Callinan and Dr Alvin
Milner, of the Department of Primary Industries, provided statistical support and guidance.

REFERENCES

Alam,M., T.P.Trooien, T.J.Dumler and D.H.Rogers. 2002. Using subsurface drip irrigation for
alfalfa. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 38(6): 1715 - 1721.

Armstrong ,D.P. 2004. Water use efficiency and profitability on an irrigated dairy farm in
northern Victoria:a case study. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture. 44(2):
137 - 144.

Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering. 1999. Water and the
Australian economy. Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering: Parkville.

Ayars,J.E., C.J.Phene, R.B.Hutmacher, K.R.Davis, R.A.Schoneman et al. 1999. Subsurface

drip irrigation of row crops: a review of 15 years of research at the Water Management
Research Laboratory. Agricultural Water Management. 42: 1 - 27.

Bethune,M.G., M.L.Wood, L.Finger and Q.J.Wang. 2003. Sprinkler, subsurface drip and
surge irrigation experiment (DAV1163 - extension of DAV422): Final report. Department of
Primary Industries: Tatura.

9
7th International Micro Irrigation Congress

Blaikie,S.J. and F.M.Martin. 1987. Limits to the productivity of irrigated pastures in south-east
Australia. in J.L.Wheeler et al. (Eds). Temperate Pastures: Their production, use and management.
CSIRO: East Melbourne. pp. 119 - 122.

Blaikie,S.J., F.M.Martin, W.K.Mason and D.J.Connor. 1988. A basis for improved soil and
water management for irrigated pastures in northern Victoria. Australian Journal of Experimental
Agriculture. 28(3): 315 - 319.

Bosch,D.J., N.L.Powell and F.S.Wright. 1992. An economic comparison of subsurface

microirrigation with centre pivot sprinkler irrigation. Journal of Production Agriculture. 5(4):
431 - 437.

Camp,C.R. 1998. Subsurface drip irrigation: a review. Transactions of the American Society
of Agricultural Engineers. 41(5): 1353 - 1367.

Cetin,O. and L.Bilgel. 2002. Effects of different irrigation methods on shedding and yield of
cotton. Agricultural Water Management. 54: 1 - 15.

Charlesworth, P. B. and W. Muirhead. 2000. Facing the SDI crop establishment problem. in
G. J. Connellan (Ed). Irrigation Australia 2000 National Conference and Exhibition: Water
- essential for life. Proceedings, 23 - 25 May 2000, Melbourne. Irrigation Association of
Australia: Melbourne. pp. 276 - 286.

Douglass,W. and D.C.Poulton. 2000. Living with limited water - towards efficient water use
on irrigated dairy pastures. ICID Journal. 49(2): 29 - 40.

Dunbabin,J.S., I.H.Hume and M.E.Ireson. 1997. Effects of irrigation frequency and transient
waterlogging on the production of a perennial ryegrass-white clover pasture. Australian
Journal of Experimental Agriculture. 37(2): 165 - 171.

Dunlop, M. 2001. Australian Water Use Statistics. Report II of IV in a series on Australian

Water Futures. CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems: Canberra.

Godoy-Avila,C., A.Perez-Gutierrez, C.A.Torres-E, L.J.Hermosillo and I.Reyes-J. 2003. Water

use, forage production and water relations in alfalfa with subsurface drip irrigation.
Agrociencia. 37(2): 107 - 115.

Harris, G. 2000. The economics of subsurface drip irrigation. in G. J. Connellan (Ed).

Proceedings of the Irrigation Association of Australia National Conference and Exhibition:
Water - essential for life. Irrigation Association of Australia: Melbourne. pp. 287 - 297.

Hutmacher, R. B., C. J. Phene, R. M. Mead, P. Shouse, D. Clark et al. 2001. Subsurface drip
and furrow irrigation comparison with alfalfa in the Imperial Valley.2001 California Alfalfa
and Forage Symposium, Modesto, 11 - 13 December 2001. Proceedings. University of
California: Davis. pp. 75 - 85. Available at
http://ucanr.org/alf_symp/2001/01-075.pdf.

10
 7th International Micro Irrigation Congress

Lamm, F. R. 2002. Advantages and disadvantages of subsurface drip irrigation.International

Meeting on Advances in Drip/Micro Irrigation, Puerto de La Cruz, Tenerife, Canary Islands,
December 2 - 5 2002. Proceedings. Available at
http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/sdi/Reports/2002/ADofSDI.pdf.

Lamm, F. R., D. M. O'Brien, D. H. Rogers and T. J. Dumler. 2003a. Center pivot sprinkler and
SDI economic considerations. Kansas State University: online. Available at
www.oznet.ksu.edu/sdi/Reports/2003/CPSDI03.pdf.

Lamm, F. R., D. H. Rogers, M. Alam and G. A. Clark. 2003b. Design considerations for
subsurface drip irrigation (SDI) systems. Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment
Station and Cooperative Extension Service: Manhattan, Kansas. Available at
www.oznet.ksu.edu/sdi/Reports/2003/mf2578.pdf.

Lamm,F. R. and T.P.Trooien. 2003. Subsurface drip irrigation for corn production: a review
of 10 years research in Kansas. Irrigation Science. 22: 195 - 200.

Linehan,C.J., D.P.Armstrong, P.T.Doyle and F.Johnson. 2004. A survey of water use efficiency
on irrigated dairy farms in northern Victoria. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture.
44(2): 131 - 136.

Malano,H.M. and P.M.Patto. 1992. Automation of border irrigation in South-East Australia:

an overview. Irrigation and Drainage Systems. 6: 9 - 26.

Mehta, B. and Q. J. Wang. 2004. Irrigation in a variable landscape: matching irrigation

systems and enterprises to soil hydraulic characteristics - final report. Department of Primary
Industries: Tatura.

Murray Darling Basin Ministerial Council. 1996. Setting the Cap: report of the Independent
Audit Group, November 1996. Murray Darling Basin Ministerial Council: Canberra.

Murray Darling Basin Ministerial Council. 2002. The Living Murray: a discussion paper on
restoring the health of the River Murray. Stage 1: Informing and engaging the community.
Murray Darling Basin Commission: Canberra.

Olsson,K.A., K.E.Dellow, J.R.Hirth, K.B.Kelly, K.L.Greenwood et al. 2002. Soil properties,

root responses and production of irrigated pasture on a red-brown earth following subsoil
modification. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture. 42(4): 453 - 463.

Patto,P.M. 1989. Laser Landforming/Grading and Salinity. Irrigation Services Branch of the
Rural Water Commission of Victoria: Tatura.

11
7th International Micro Irrigation Congress

Schulz, M. 2000a. Microirrigation of maize. in G. J. Connellan (Ed). Proceedings of the

Irrigation Association of Australia National Conference and Exhibition: Water - essential for
life. Irrigation Association of Australia: Melbourne. pp. 398 - 405.

Schulz, M. 2000b. Subsurface drip irrigation for broadacre crops. Department of Natural
Resources and Environment: Tatura.

Skene, J. K. M. and T. J. Poutsma. 1962. Soils and land use in part of the Goulburn Valley,
Victoria. Department of Agriculture, Victoria: Melbourne.

Stockdale,C.R. 1983. Irrigated pasture productivity and its variability in the Shepparton Region
of northern Victoria. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry.
23: 131 - 139.

Wood, M. L. and M. Martin. 2000. Improved Irrigation Practices for Forage Production:
Module 2. Alternative irrigation technology desktop analysis: Final Report. Department of
Natural Resources and Environment: Tatura.

12