Reducing drainwater: Furrow vs. subsurface drip irrigation
California Agriculture 45(2):4-8. DOI: 10.3733/ca.v045n02p4b.
Cotton was produced using conventional furrow irrigation, an upgraded continuous-flow furrow design, surge irrigation, and subsurface drlp lrrlgatlon in 1987 and 1988. We found that the most economical method of reducing potential drainage at this site was to reduce the furrow length by half and decrease the set time by more than one-half during preirrigation. A subsurface drip system reduced potential drainage most effectively and increased production, but caused an overall profit loss. Subsurface drip systems may be profitable if properly designed and managed; however, a substantial yield increase or reduction in drainage disposal costs must be achieved. Otherwise, profitability of subsurface drip would be less than that for furrow irrigation systems.
Albn E. Fulton is Soils and Water Farm Advisor, Kings County; J. D. Oster is Soils and Wafer Extension Specialist, UC Riverside; Blaine R. Hanson is Irrigation and Drainage Extension Specialist, UC Davis; Claude J. Phene is Soils and Irrigation Scientist, USDA-ARS; David A. Goldhamer is Irrigation Extension Specialist, Kearney Agricultural Center.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Charles McNeish, on-site demonstration manager, the Claude Lava1 Corporation, Netafim Irrigation Incorporated, Stone Land Company, and Westlands Water District.