TRICKLE-L: 199702XX
is the compilation of discussion during Feb 97
via AB4EL Web Digests @ SunSITE
>From LISTSERV@crcvms.unl.edu Thu Feb 13 15:15:24 1997
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 00:00:36 -0600
Subject: TRICKLE-L Digest - 11 Feb 1997 to 12 Feb 1997
There are 8 messages totalling 321 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Dripline Under Mulch
2. Trickle Costs (2)
3. Emitters (4)
4. Filter selection
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 09:09:47 -0600
From: Gary Clark <gclark@FALCON.AGE.KSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Dripline Under Mulch
Wally,
Regarding using drip tapes or tubes under plastic mulch. The drip
lines could be planced on the surface, however, they may tend to
"snake" around as surface temperatures cause expansion/contraction.
I would typically bury the line in vegetables at least 3 - 5 cm (or
deeper depending on the soil and capillarity conditions).
Roots could enter the emitters within the first two months (and have in
some cases). My experience has shown that it is important to flush
lines of all fertilizer (with fresh water) and to drain all lines
after each irrigation. Emitters placed on the surface are not as
susceptible to root intrusion due to the air layer between the soil
surface and the emitter.
Long term use of buried drip lines will require proper off season
care and maintenance just like any other system.
My experience is not extensive in this area, but I have worked with
drip under mulch in the Florida vegetable industry for about 8 years.
Please e-mail or call if you would like to visit some more on this.
Gary.
******************************************
Gary A. Clark, P.E.
Associate Professor
Biological and Agricultural Engineering
147 Seaton Hall
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506-2906
Tel: 913-532-5580
Fax: 913-532-5825
******************************************
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 16:24:06 -0800
From: Keith Weatherhead <K.Weatherhead@CRANFIELD.AC.UK>
Subject: Trickle Costs
We are preparing comparative costs of trickle systems against other application methods
for irrigating potatoes in the UK.
1. Can anyone supply a reference giving a breakdown of trickle costs please?
2. How much does compensated tube eg Netafim RAM cost per metre in bulk?
Any other ideas, data etc welcome
Thanks
Keith Weatherhead
Cranfield University, School of Agriculture, Food and Environment,
Silsoe, Bedford, MK45 4DT, UK.
Telephone: +44 (0)1525 863336 (work)
Fax: +44 (0)1525 863300, or +44 (0)1525 863001
E-mail: k.weatherhead@cranfield.ac.uk
WWW: http://www.cranfield.ac.uk/safe/people/kweather.htm
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:24:22 -0800
From: Jerome Pier <jpier@MINDSPRING.COM>
Subject: Re: Emitters
Dear Thomas,
All crops grown in Israel use nothing but municipal wastewater for
irrigation. Netafim technology was designed to handle these situations.
In fact, when I was visiting there in the summer of '96, I was
priviledged to see sub-surface irrigation of crops using *untreated*
(except for some settling) municipal effluent through Netafim RAM which
is the pressure compensating, turbulent, self-flushing emitter
technology. With only 80 mesh filtration and no chorination, these
emitters were clog free. Truly astounding. I don't recommend getting
down-wind of the settling ponds however *Phew!*. The RAM technology has
been around for 15+ years now. With over 1 billion RAM emitters dripping
in the world today, RAM has a bullet proof track record.
Let me know if you would like more information and/or contact persons.
Sincerely,
Jerome Pier
Agronomist
Netafim Irrigation, Inc.
5470 E. Home Ave
Fresno CA 93727
Phone: (209) 322-1813
FAX: (209) 322-2183
Mobile: (209) 779-7508
email: jpier@mindspring.com
Thomas Glazener wrote:
>
> What are your respective opinions on the best emitters for dirty water
> situations. Specifically, I am interested in the use of tertiary
> treatment wastewater. Do you find types of turbulent flow, or types of
> diaphragm emitters to be more effective (assuming good fine-mesh screen
> filtration, not media filtration?
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Tom Glazener
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 08:43:39 -0500
From: David.Williams@SMTPGWY.AGRIC.NSW.GOV.AU
Subject: Filter selection
Hello all,
I have a simple request regarding filter selection.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of both media and screen
filters in a banked and auto-backflush setup ?
Any opinions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
David Williams
Irrigation Agronomist
NSW Agriculture
Yanco NSW 2703
AUSTRALIA
Ph +61 069 512707
fax +61 069 557780
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:09:06 -1000
From: "William L. Pyle" <willyp@ALOHA.NET>
Subject: Re: Emitters
Jerome Pier wrote:
>
> Dear Thomas,
>
> All crops grown in Israel use nothing but municipal wastewater for
> irrigation. Netafim technology was designed to handle these situations.
> In fact, when I was visiting there in the summer of '96, I was
> priviledged to see sub-surface irrigation of crops using *untreated*
> (except for some settling) municipal effluent through Netafim RAM which
> is the pressure compensating, turbulent, self-flushing emitter
> technology. With only 80 mesh filtration and no chorination, these
> emitters were clog free. Truly astounding. I don't recommend getting
> down-wind of the settling ponds however *Phew!*. The RAM technology has
> been around for 15+ years now. With over 1 billion RAM emitters dripping
> in the world today, RAM has a bullet proof track record.
>
> Let me know if you would like more information and/or contact persons.
>
> Sincerely,
> Jerome Pier
>
> Agronomist
> Netafim Irrigation, Inc.
> 5470 E. Home Ave
> Fresno CA 93727
>
> Phone: (209) 322-1813
> FAX: (209) 322-2183
> Mobile: (209) 779-7508
> email: jpier@mindspring.com
>
> Thomas Glazener wrote:
> >
> > What are your respective opinions on the best emitters for dirty water
> > situations. Specifically, I am interested in the use of tertiary
> > treatment wastewater. Do you find types of turbulent flow, or types of
> > diaphragm emitters to be more effective (assuming good fine-mesh screen
> > filtration, not media filtration?
> >
> > Many thanks,
> >
> > Tom Glazener
Tom, Jerome is right, the Ram tube is the cadillac for dirty water, but
it is awfully ex$pen$ive! Many waste water systems here in Hawaii use
regular drip tube, T-Tape and Typhoon being the most common, with no
problems at all! Try a few test plots on your particular water before
you go spenging a lot of money. Some waste water is clean enough that
it needs no additional filtration to prevent clogging.
W. Pyle,PE
Ag Engineer
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 18:30:58 -0800
From: Rodney Ruskin <geoflow1@SLIP.NET>
Subject: Re: Emitters
At 12:09 PM 2/12/97 -1000, William L. Pyle wrote:
>Jerome Pier wrote:
>>
>> Dear Thomas,
>>
>> All crops grown in Israel use nothing but municipal wastewater for
>> irrigation. Netafim technology was designed to handle these situations.
>> In fact, when I was visiting there in the summer of '96, I was
>> priviledged to see sub-surface irrigation of crops using *untreated*
>> (except for some settling) municipal effluent through Netafim RAM which
>> is the pressure compensating, turbulent, self-flushing emitter
>> technology. With only 80 mesh filtration and no chorination, these
>> emitters were clog free. Truly astounding. I don't recommend getting
>> down-wind of the settling ponds however *Phew!*. The RAM technology has
>> been around for 15+ years now. With over 1 billion RAM emitters dripping
>> in the world today, RAM has a bullet proof track record.
>>
>> Let me know if you would like more information and/or contact
persons.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Jerome Pier
>>
>> Agronomist
>> Netafim Irrigation, Inc.
>> 5470 E. Home Ave
>> Fresno CA 93727
>>
>> Phone: (209) 322-1813
>> FAX: (209) 322-2183
>> Mobile: (209) 779-7508
>> email: jpier@mindspring.com
>>
>
Arrogant exaggerated self advertising is not appropriate in this discussion
group.
I am only responding to put the record straight.
1) Independent tests by C.I.T. show that the DripIn PC is far superior to
Ram for clogging. These test results have been widely circulated in the USA.
2) Tests in Israel which have been widely circulated in Israel in Hebrew,
have shown the new Lego/Metzerplas PC superior to Ram for plugging with
effluent water - because I had no interest I have not got these tests
translated but I will request Metzerplas to send them to me and I will post
them to Trickle-l ASAP.
3) RAM is a good product but there are better. Experience in Georgia has
shown that the EPDM diaphragm builds up with slime with effluent. Netafim
responded by adding a bactericide into the dripper to protect the rubber for
their Bioline product, which is RAM in a purple tube. This precaution is not
a standard for RAM. I believe that even Netafim's 1975 model in-line
turbulent flow emitter at 1 gph is better than RAM for effluent.
Rodney Ruskin
rodney@geoflow.com
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:30:44 -0800
From: Thomas Glazener <tag@WELL.COM>
Subject: Re: Emitters
Many thanks to you all for your feedback.
Tom Glazener
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:25:12 -0800
From: Manrique Brenes <mjbrenes@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Trickle Costs
There is a good reference in the preceedings from the 5th Microirrigation Congress.
Subsurface Drip Irrigation (SDI) for field corn- an economic analysis
by: Dhuyvetter, F.R. et al
Manrique Brenes
----------
From: Keith Weatherhead[SMTP:K.Weatherhead@CRANFIELD.AC.UK]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 1997 4:24 PM
To: TRICKLE-L@crcvms.unl.edu
Subject: Trickle Costs
We are preparing comparative costs of trickle systems against other application methods
for irrigating potatoes in the UK.
1. Can anyone supply a reference giving a breakdown of trickle costs please?
2. How much does compensated tube eg Netafim RAM cost per metre in bulk?
Any other ideas, data etc welcome
Thanks
Keith Weatherhead
Cranfield University, School of Agriculture, Food and Environment,
Silsoe, Bedford, MK45 4DT, UK.
Telephone: +44 (0)1525 863336 (work)
Fax: +44 (0)1525 863300, or +44 (0)1525 863001
E-mail: k.weatherhead@cranfield.ac.uk
WWW: http://www.cranfield.ac.uk/safe/people/kweather.htm
End of TRICKLE-L Digest - 11 Feb 1997 to 12 Feb 1997
****************************************************
>From LISTSERV@crcvms.unl.edu Fri Feb 14 01:01:45 1997
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 00:00:40 -0600
Subject: TRICKLE-L Digest - 12 Feb 1997 to 13 Feb 1997
There are 4 messages totalling 128 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. environmental question (2)
2. Emitters
3. Filter selection
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:30:29 -0800
From: Matej Knapic <matej.knapic@UNI-LJ.SI>
Subject: environmental question
Greetings,
What is yours opinion and knowledge about how acidification,
chlorination and other chemical treatment impact on soil properties in
long term maintenance of drip irrigation system? Can we say that drip
irrigation is environment friendly technology?
I'm looking forward of yours comments.
Regards,
Matej Knapic
Institute of hop research
and brewing Zalec
Slovenia
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:20:01 -0500
From: "W. Bryan Smith" <wsmth@CLEMSON.EDU>
Subject: Re: Emitters
Tom,
Bowsmith Irrigation (Exeter, Ca, 209-592-9485) has manufactured a
"non-stop" emiiter for years - I used them first back in 1984. The
emitter was turbulent flow, featuring flexible diaphrams to allow
larger particles to squeeze through, thus providing a self-flushing
feature. These were punch-in emitters only back then - I don't know
if they have a comparable tape or in-line product out now. The
emitters specified an 80 mesh filtration requirement. I used this
and never had problems with them.
Bryan
=|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|=
W. Bryan Smith
Area Extension Agent - Irrigation / Water Quality
Clemson Extension Service
P.O. Box 160
Newberry, South Carolina 29108 USA
Office: 803 276-1091 FAX: 803 276-1095
Internet: wsmth@clemson.edu
=|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|=
All opinions are my own and not reflective of the
policies of Clemson University or the Cooperative
Extension Service.
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:41:36 -0500
From: "W. Bryan Smith" <wsmth@CLEMSON.EDU>
Subject: Re: Filter selection
David,
The advantage I found for media filters was a larger filtration
area, which meant less frequent flushing. The media filter setup
would be more expensive if sized on manufacturer's design flow
rate, but probably less if sized on filtration area (opinion - I
haven't investigated this). We would typically use media filters
on surface water and screen filters on well water.
There are some new screen filters out that work well with a small
continuous flushing water bypass draining back to the water source.
They seem to work well - the bypass seems to lessen cleaning
frequency considerably.
One note - almost all media filter manufacturers suggest the use of
a screen filter AFTER the media filter unit to catch any sand media
that may work its way through the underdrain assembly or be lost due
to a cracked underdrain after some years of use. I didn't have
problems with this in the orchard/nursery drip applications I
designed, but it was cheap insurance, especially when you consider
the value of a tomato or vegetable crop and potential losses if
something should go wrong.
Bryan
=|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|=
W. Bryan Smith
Area Extension Agent - Irrigation / Water Quality
Clemson Extension Service
P.O. Box 160
Newberry, South Carolina 29108 USA
Office: 803 276-1091 FAX: 803 276-1095
Internet: wsmth@clemson.edu
=|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|=
All opinions are my own and not reflective of the
policies of Clemson University or the Cooperative
Extension Service.
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 23:49:56 -0800
From: Matej Knapic <matej.knapic@UNI-LJ.SI>
Subject: environmental question
Greetings,
What is yours opinion and knowledge about how acidification,
chlorination and other chemical treatment impact on soil properties in
long term maintenance of drip irrigation system? Can we say that drip
irrigation is environmental friendly technology?
I'm looking forward of yours comments.
Regards,
Matej Knapic
Institute of hop research
and brewing Zalec
Slovenia
End of TRICKLE-L Digest - 12 Feb 1997 to 13 Feb 1997
****************************************************
>From LISTSERV@crcvms.unl.edu Tue Feb 18 02:37:44 1997
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 00:00:56 -0600
Subject: TRICKLE-L Digest - 13 Feb 1997 to 14 Feb 1997
There are 3 messages totalling 150 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Emitters (2)
2. Alt-Backspace
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 19:06:00 +0000
From: Marek Malujlo <marakesh@HARARE.IAFRICA.COM>
Subject: Re: Emitters
>Arrogant exaggerated self advertising is not appropriate in this discussion
>group.
>I am only responding to put the record straight.
>1) Independent tests by C.I.T. show that the DripIn PC is far superior to
>Ram for clogging. These test results have been widely circulated in the USA.
>2) Tests in Israel which have been widely circulated in Israel in Hebrew,
>have shown the new Lego/Metzerplas PC superior to Ram for plugging with
>effluent water - because I had no interest I have not got these tests
>translated but I will request Metzerplas to send them to me and I will post
>them to Trickle-l ASAP.
>3) RAM is a good product but there are better. Experience in Georgia has
>shown that the EPDM diaphragm builds up with slime with effluent. Netafim
>responded by adding a bactericide into the dripper to protect the rubber for
>their Bioline product, which is RAM in a purple tube. This precaution is not
>a standard for RAM. I believe that even Netafim's 1975 model in-line
>turbulent flow emitter at 1 gph is better than RAM for effluent.
>
>Rodney Ruskin
>rodney@geoflow.com
>
>
Rodney
I beg to differ on your comment that the " advertising by Netafim " are not appropriate on this dicussion group, because they resulted in your comments re DripIn and Lego which were interesting to me.
We in the trade get bombarded with facts and figures by the various suppliers stating why their product is the best. Netafim are the most aggresive marketers here in Zimbabwe, and as a result most of the trade and as a result farmers feel that Netafim product is the Rolls Royce (Cadillac) of drippers.
So some independant results are appreciated by the likes of myself.
It would also be good for the suppliers to "advertise" new products because trickle irrigation is not a static industry, and what better way to let the trade know whats new.
Obviously mud slinging must not be allowed, and perhaps this is a danger to this discussion group, but we wont know unless we try.
Marek Malujlo
marakesh@harare.iafrica.com
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 14:28:23 -0800
From: Jerome Pier <jpier@MINDSPRING.COM>
Subject: Alt-Backspace
Dear List,
Rick Goldberg, a list subscriber, privately asked me if it was true
that all crops grown in Israel where grown using municipal waste water,
as I had stated in my recent email. After a some reflection, I realized
this is not quite true. I am surprised the Israelis on the list didn't
grill me on this *smile*. As I remember being told, no potable water is
allowed for irrigation use. This of course does not equate to exclusive
use of municipal waste water. However, the government does provide
strong incentives for using treated wastewater for irrigation. The cost
of normal irrigation water in Israel I estimated to be in the $400 -
$600 per acre foot range with wastewater being much less expensive. The
infrastructure that has been constructed throughout Israel to supply
agricultural areas with municipal waste water is only rivaled by the
network of canals here in California. If anyone has better infomation
than this, please fire away.
Jerome Pier
Agronomist
Netafim USA (aka Netafim Irrigation, Inc.)
jpier@mindspring.com
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 16:02:24 -0700
From: "Stephen W. Smith" <swsmith@AQUAENGR.COM>
Subject: Re: Emitters
Rodney Ruskin wrote:
>
> >Arrogant exaggerated self advertising is not appropriate in this discussion
> >group.
> >I am only responding to put the record straight.
> >1) Independent tests by C.I.T. show that the DripIn PC is far superior to
> >Ram for clogging. These test results have been widely circulated in the USA.
> >2) Tests in Israel which have been widely circulated in Israel in Hebrew,
> >have shown the new Lego/Metzerplas PC superior to Ram for plugging with
> >effluent water - because I had no interest I have not got these tests
> >translated but I will request Metzerplas to send them to me and I will post
> >them to Trickle-l ASAP.
> >3) RAM is a good product but there are better. Experience in Georgia has
> >shown that the EPDM diaphragm builds up with slime with effluent. Netafim
> >responded by adding a bactericide into the dripper to protect the rubber for
> >their Bioline product, which is RAM in a purple tube. This precaution is not
> >a standard for RAM. I believe that even Netafim's 1975 model in-line
> >turbulent flow emitter at 1 gph is better than RAM for effluent.
> >
> >Rodney Ruskin
> >rodney@geoflow.com
> >
> >
> Rodney
Marek Malujlo wrote:
> I beg to differ on your comment that the " advertising by Netafim " are not appropriate on this dicussion group, because they resulted in your comments re Drip
>
> We in the trade get bombarded with facts and figures by the various suppliers stating why their product is the best. Netafim are the most aggresive marketers
> So some independant results are appreciated by the likes of myself.
> It would also be good for the suppliers to "advertise" new products because trickle irrigation is not a static industry, and what better way to let the trade k
> Obviously mud slinging must not be allowed, and perhaps this is a danger to this discussion group, but we wont know unless we try.
>
> Marek Malujlo
> marakesh@harare.iafrica.com
Stephen Smith's comment:
In our work as irrigation engineers, we are inundated with products, brochures, and
claims of superior performance by one product or another. We aren't interested in
aggressive sales and marketing on this forum.
I recently wrote an article making the following point.
"Sometimes, the most difficult job for an irrigation engineer, especially a
new designer, is picking equipment when the equipment is to be specifically called out
or "proprietary" to the project. The irrigation product distributors or manufacturer
sales staff can be unmerciful in their push to have their products accepted and
specified. The designer's primary role is to advocate the owner and make choices that
are in the owner's best interest. The irrigation designer may be called upon to
justify the equipment selected or offer expert opinion. Experience will guide one
toward a straight forward, honest discussion of pros and cons between alternatives.
Equipment manufacturers and distributors should appreciate, understand, and
acknowledge both the pluses and minuses of their equipment offerings. Sales people
who get too caught up in thinking that their product is superior in every way
generally need to stand back a few paces and look again."
The reason I subscribe to this forum is to hear less hype and more real world comments
from a broad base of people. I agree with Rodney that this is not the place for
aggressive product sales and marketing. However, I will concede and acknowledge that
the list owner(s) has the option of attempting to set the stage, given their own goals
and objectives.
Stephen Smith
Aqua Engineering, Inc.
e-mail: swsmith@aquaengr.com
End of TRICKLE-L Digest - 13 Feb 1997 to 14 Feb 1997
****************************************************
>From LISTSERV@crcvms.unl.edu Tue Feb 18 01:03:52 1997
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 00:01:13 -0600
Subject: TRICKLE-L Digest - 14 Feb 1997 to 17 Feb 1997
There are 11 messages totalling 455 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Filter selection
2. Dripline Under Mulch
3. Alt-Backspace
4. Emitters (5)
5. Tomatoes in salty soil (2)
6. Drip irrigation of tomatoes in salty soils
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 21:19:51 +1100
From: Wally Menke <wallym@OZEMAIL.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Filter selection
At 08:43 AM 13/02/97 -0500, you wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I have a simple request regarding filter selection.
>
> What are the advantages and disadvantages of both media and screen
> filters in a banked and auto-backflush setup ?
>
> Any opinions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
>
> David Williams
> Irrigation Agronomist
> NSW Agriculture
> Yanco NSW 2703
> AUSTRALIA
>
> Ph +61 069 512707
> fax +61 069 557780
>
Dear David
Your Question potentially could require a long - long answer. I'll try and
make it brief.
Media Filters
* Are percieved by many as offering better quality of filtration.
In data from the Platforma trials in Israel (from memory) they showed a
removal of 0.9% of suspended solids, (screen filters removed O.7%).
* Require huge amounts of water for backwashing.
* Take up large space.
* Require additional manifolding, concrete slab, & control.
* Require more maintenance to operate effeciently.
* More expensive.
* More often than not are not maintained adequately by the user.
Screen Filters
* Use considerable less water for backwashing.
* Take-up little space due to compact design, and requires little on-site
preperation.
* Do not require any special manifolding, and can usually be mounted
in the discharge line.
* Usually come with all controls mounted on the unit.
* Less expensive.
* Simple to maintain.
There may be a 100 and 1 other things that others will come up with, but for
many it's really a personal preference and sticking with what they know.
I must admit screen filters have failed on some occasions because they are
usually undersized with inadequate screen surface area
I have been involved with screen filters in drip irrigation for over 13
years, (possible why my answer is bias) to date we have'nt had any
spectacular system failures. (or litigation).
Regards
Wally Menke - Triangle Filtration, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 21:19:50 +1100
From: Wally Menke <wallym@OZEMAIL.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Dripline Under Mulch
At 09:09 AM 10/02/97 -0600, you wrote:
>Wally,
>
>Regarding using drip tapes or tubes under plastic mulch.......
Dear Gary and others.
Sorry for misinterpretation, it must have got mixed up on across the pacific.
By Mulch I mean chewed-up or shreaded vegetable matter like pine tree bark,
wood chips or shreads. Not the plastic variety.
Regards
Wally Menke - Triangle, Australia.
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 13:33:37 -0800
From: Robert Carian <grapegrower@EARTHLINK.NET>
Subject: Re: Alt-Backspace
having been all over isreal 6 times, I can tell you that it is not true.
They still come to the Coachella Valley to see our canal irrigation
delivery system. some is served with recycled water true, but not even
close to 1/2 I'd say.
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 19:22:31 +0000
From: Bob Klimple <maverick@SAT.NET>
Subject: Re: Emitters
Stephen W. Smith wrote:
>
> Rodney Ruskin wrote:
>
> >
> > >Arrogant exaggerated self advertising is not appropriate in this discussion
> > >group.
> > >I am only responding to put the record straight.
> > >1) Independent tests by C.I.T. show that the DripIn PC is far superior to
> > >Ram for clogging. These test results have been widely circulated in the USA.
> > >2) Tests in Israel which have been widely circulated in Israel in Hebrew,
> > >have shown the new Lego/Metzerplas PC superior to Ram for plugging with
> > >effluent water - because I had no interest I have not got these tests
> > >translated but I will request Metzerplas to send them to me and I will post
> > >them to Trickle-l ASAP.
> > >3) RAM is a good product but there are better. Experience in Georgia has
> > >shown that the EPDM diaphragm builds up with slime with effluent. Netafim
> > >responded by adding a bactericide into the dripper to protect the rubber for
> > >their Bioline product, which is RAM in a purple tube. This precaution is not
> > >a standard for RAM. I believe that even Netafim's 1975 model in-line
> > >turbulent flow emitter at 1 gph is better than RAM for effluent.
> > >
> > >Rodney Ruskin
> > >rodney@geoflow.com
> > >
> > >
> > Rodney
>
> Marek Malujlo wrote:
>
> > I beg to differ on your comment that the " advertising by Netafim " are not appropriate on this dicussion group, because they resulted in
your comments re Dr
> >
> > We in the trade get bombarded with facts and figures by the various suppliers stating why their product is the best. Netafim are the most
aggresive marketer
> > So some independant results are appreciated by the likes of myself.
> > It would also be good for the suppliers to "advertise" new products because trickle irrigation is not a static industry, and what better way
to let the trade
> > Obviously mud slinging must not be allowed, and perhaps this is a danger to this discussion group, but we wont know unless we try.
> >
> > Marek Malujlo
> > marakesh@harare.iafrica.com
>
> Stephen Smith's comment:
>
> In our work as irrigation engineers, we are inundated with products, brochures, and
> claims of superior performance by one product or another. We aren't interested in
> aggressive sales and marketing on this forum.
>
> I recently wrote an article making the following point.
>
> "Sometimes, the most difficult job for an irrigation engineer, especially a
> new designer, is picking equipment when the equipment is to be specifically called out
> or "proprietary" to the project. The irrigation product distributors or manufacturer
> sales staff can be unmerciful in their push to have their products accepted and
> specified. The designer's primary role is to advocate the owner and make choices that
> are in the owner's best interest. The irrigation designer may be called upon to
> justify the equipment selected or offer expert opinion. Experience will guide one
> toward a straight forward, honest discussion of pros and cons between alternatives.
> Equipment manufacturers and distributors should appreciate, understand, and
> acknowledge both the pluses and minuses of their equipment offerings. Sales people
> who get too caught up in thinking that their product is superior in every way
> generally need to stand back a few paces and look again."
>
> The reason I subscribe to this forum is to hear less hype and more real world comments
> from a broad base of people. I agree with Rodney that this is not the place for
> aggressive product sales and marketing. However, I will concede and acknowledge that
> the list owner(s) has the option of attempting to set the stage, given their own goals
> and objectives.
>
> Stephen Smith
> Aqua Engineering, Inc.
> e-mail: swsmith@aquaengr.com
I agree with Mr. Smith, My only problem as a producer is that the
Subsurface Drip Companies do not have an agressive finance program
to back up their aggressive sales pitch. The Center Pivots
Companies will continue to rule the Agricultural Irrigation Application
until the Drip Companies start financing their equipment.
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 08:29:26 -0800
From: Graham Hutchinson <hutch@BMI.NET>
Subject: Tomatoes in salty soil
I have a friend in Argentina who would like information on growing tomatoes
in salty soil. Here are some soil specs. Any comments on varieties,
problems, key management factors etc, will be gratefully received.
Thank you
Graham Hutchinson
soil 1:
pHpaste: 7.9
pH 1: 2.5: 8.29
RAS: 2.35
EC: 1.578 uS
soil 2:
pHpaste: 8.27
pH 1: 2.5: 9.31
RAS: 25.9
EC: 4.636 uS
soil 3:
pHpaste: 9,24
pH 1: 2.5: 10,24
RAS: 76,4
EC: 4.810 uS
soil 4:
pHpaste: 9,40
pH 1: 2.5: 10,19
RAS: 173
EC: 16.880 uS
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 10:28:53 -0800
From: Jochen Eberhard <Jochen.Eberhard@T-ONLINE.DE>
Subject: Re: Emitters
Hi,
as the emotions are high about Jerome Pierīs "commercial", I want to add
my comment: As long as the people sign their mails with "sales manager"
I do not have any problem with such comments. If I ask five farmers
about the best trickle irrigation system I might get five different
answers, but every one of them believes his system is the best.
I think this is what this group is all about: to talk about, as long as
it is related to trickle irrigation and not classifying the comments in
good ones and bad ones.
If Jerome stated that his product is the best, everybody is free to tell
us some examples where the RAM failed with waste water and Jerome will
be the looser :-)) (please do not that the "looser" to serious, my
english vocabulary is very limited)
By the way I did not know that the RAM can be run with waste water.
Because I had problems with the Thyphoon from Netafim to keep it from
clogging with the recommended 120 mesh screen filter. ;-)
>Arrogant exaggerated self advertising is not appropriate in this
>discussion group.
If believing to be right means to be arrogant, scientist are the most
arrogant people I know (including myself)
I would recommend to get back to normallity again
Best wishes
--
_____________________________________________________________
| Jochen Eberhard * * |
| SLFA Versuchsbetriebe ( \ / ) |
| Queckbrunnerhof \ / |
| Dannstadter Str. 91 --- |
| 67105 Schifferstadt (°|°) |
| Germany ( ~~~ ) |
| ( ) |
| Tel: 0049 - 6235 - 2672 ( ) |
| Fax: - - 82741 ( ====== ) |
| email: Jochen.Eberhard@t-online.de |
|_____________________________________________________________|
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 12:47:00 -0500
From: "KEVIN B. BRONSON" <103644.2426@COMPUSERVE.COM>
Subject: Re: Emitters
Contact Phil Lubars with Drip - In in Fresno, CA for a copy of testing done at
Fresno State - Center for Irrigation Technology on various emitters and their
plug resistance.
Kevin Bronson
103644.2426@Compuserve.com
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 14:48:07 -0800
From: Graham Hutchinson <hutch@BMI.NET>
Subject: Drip irrigation of tomatoes in salty soils
I have a friend in Argentina who would like information on drip irrigating
tomatoes
in salty soil. Here are some soil specs. Any comments on varieties,
problems, key management factors etc, will be gratefully received.
Thank you
Graham Hutchinson
soil 1:
pHpaste: 7.9
pH 1: 2.5: 8.29
RAS: 2.35
EC: 1.578 uS
soil 2:
pHpaste: 8.27
pH 1: 2.5: 9.31
RAS: 25.9
EC: 4.636 uS
soil 3:
pHpaste: 9,24
pH 1: 2.5: 10,24
RAS: 76,4
EC: 4.810 uS
soil 4:
pHpaste: 9,40
pH 1: 2.5: 10,19
RAS: 173
EC: 16.880 uS
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 17:53:07 -0500
From: Gro Max <GROMAXaz@AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Emitters
Bob Kimple makes a good point about finance which is definely true from the
grower prospective. In my opinion the micro-irrigation industry will never
meet the Potential Demand until manufacturers can offer a branded package
(like pivots) with warranty, technical support and low-interest finance.
Currently you have manufacturers promoting components to the end user, PVC
manufacturers selling direct, dealers cutting prices and using poor
engineering, engineers with 10 different "philosophies" to drip water, poor
customer knowledge, and 15% financing. Is it any wonder growers are hesitant
about the use of micro-irrigation systems.
Pivot manufacturers do see the potential for micro-irrigation, however they
are sitting back and laughing at the marketing seen that exists today. It
seems logical that they would move into micro-irrigation at some point, but,
they would have to compare the new systems to pivots which would cut into
their existing business. I'm sure there will be some major players offering
package systems with finance in the future, it's just a matter of time.
Ben Cloud
GROMAXaz@aol.com
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 19:51:20 -0500
From: al shields <shieldsa@ANDREWS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Emitters
Let us remember that with pivots there is machinery that can be
repossessed and sold. What is the market for used Ram, Drip-In, etc? On
most leases the underground is limited to a percentage of the total
package to cut losses, and the steel is still there to reclaim and sell.
Al Shields
Shields Irrigation.
On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Gro Max wrote:
> Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 17:53:07 -0500
> From: Gro Max <GROMAXaz@AOL.COM>
> To: TRICKLE-L@crcvms.unl.edu
> Subject: Re: Emitters
>
> Bob Kimple makes a good point about finance which is definely true from the
> grower prospective. In my opinion the micro-irrigation industry will never
> meet the Potential Demand until manufacturers can offer a branded package
> (like pivots) with warranty, technical support and low-interest finance.
>
> Currently you have manufacturers promoting components to the end user, PVC
> manufacturers selling direct, dealers cutting prices and using poor
> engineering, engineers with 10 different "philosophies" to drip water, poor
> customer knowledge, and 15% financing. Is it any wonder growers are hesitant
> about the use of micro-irrigation systems.
>
> Pivot manufacturers do see the potential for micro-irrigation, however they
> are sitting back and laughing at the marketing seen that exists today. It
> seems logical that they would move into micro-irrigation at some point, but,
> they would have to compare the new systems to pivots which would cut into
> their existing business. I'm sure there will be some major players offering
> package systems with finance in the future, it's just a matter of time.
>
> Ben Cloud
> GROMAXaz@aol.com
>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 19:13:00 -0600
From: oster@MAIL.UCR.EDU
Subject: Re: Tomatoes in salty soil
My comments are based on the following assumptions: 1. The EC numbers in
your message represent the rootzone salinity -- for mature tomatoes that
would mean the the average salinity for a soil depth from 0 to 90 cm below
the soil surface. 2. The decimal in the EC number is the same as a comma;
i.e. 1.578 uS represents 1,578 uS/cm. 3. The threshold salinity, the
salinity at which yields would be expected to decline, for tomatoes is 2.5
dS/m (2.500 uS/cm) and the yield declines at a rate of 9.9 % per dS/m above
the threshold salinity level. At 08:29 AM 2/17/97 -0800, you wrote:
>I have a friend in Argentina who would like information on growing tomatoes
>in salty soil. Here are some soil specs. Any comments on varieties,
>problems, key management factors etc, will be gratefully received.
>
>Thank you
>Graham Hutchinson
>
>soil 1:
> pHpaste: 7.9
> pH 1: 2.5: 8.29
> RAS: 2.35
> EC: 1.578 uS
>NO PROBLEM IF THIS IS THE AVERAGE SALINITY OF THE ROOTZONE (0-90 CM DEPTH
INTERVAL.
>soil 2:
>
> pHpaste: 8.27
> pH 1: 2.5: 9.31
> RAS: 25.9
> EC: 4.636 uS
>20 PERCENT YIELD DECLINE IF THIS IS THE AVERAGE ROOTZONE SALINITY.
>soil 3:
> pHpaste: 9,24
> pH 1: 2.5: 10,24
> RAS: 76,4
> EC: 4.810 uS
>23 PERCENT YIELD DECLINE IF --- ETC.
>soil 4:
> pHpaste: 9,40
> pH 1: 2.5: 10,19
> RAS: 173
> EC: 16.880 uS
>140 PERCENT YIELD DECLINE!! NOT GOOD.
End of TRICKLE-L Digest - 14 Feb 1997 to 17 Feb 1997
****************************************************
>From LISTSERV@crcvms.unl.edu Wed Feb 19 01:02:14 1997
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 00:00:38 -0600
Subject: TRICKLE-L Digest - 17 Feb 1997 to 18 Feb 1997
There are 5 messages totalling 207 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Emitters
2. Tomatoes in salty soil (4)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 02:48:19 -0500
From: HOPSRME@AOL.COM
Subject: Re: Emitters
There has been much discussion in the group concerning Jerome Pier's posting.
I would like to throw in my two-cents worth real quick. I am an end-user of
drip irrigation products, I am a grower. I personally have no problem with
manufacturer's talking about their products. In fact, it is one of the
primary reasons that I am a part of this discussion group. There are so many
drip irrigation products available and I use this discussion group to try and
"wade" through them all. I think it is appropriate for manufacturer's to
post information and success stories about their products, so long as they
acknowledge the company they work for and their position within that company.
I do not think this is the forum for manufacturer's to start comparing
their products with one another or badmouthing their competitors products.
The more products I know about, the better the likelihood of me finding the
one that best fits my situation. Jerome simply provided a scenario in which
one of his company's products had success with this persons needs. As a
grower, this is exactly what I am looking for, solutions to my specific
problems. I would hope other manufacturer's would also post similar
examples. I think Jerome's post was fine.
Eric Desmarais
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 13:47:46 -0500
From: rbrito@CNPMS.EMBRAPA.BR
Subject: Re: Tomatoes in salty soil
--- Begin Included Message ---
>From LISTSERV@crcvms.unl.edu Thu Feb 20 01:02:35 1997
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 00:00:56 -0600
Subject: TRICKLE-L Digest - 18 Feb 1997 to 19 Feb 1997
There are 10 messages totalling 250 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Tomatoes in salty soil (2)
2. EC of irrigation water (2)
3. environmental question
4. EC of irrigation water -Reply
5. EC of irrigation water - unknown
6. Financing (2)
7. Irrigro
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 08:58:55 -0600
From: Gary Clark <gclark@FALCON.AGE.KSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Tomatoes in salty soil
Dear Mr. Hutchinson,
What are the properties and availability of the irrigation water (pH,
EC, Na, Ca, Mg, Fe, S, hardness). Also, is rainfall a factor? What
is the source of the salts in the soil? What is the depth to
groundwater? If a shallow water table is present, what are the
chemical properties of that source of water (and salts).
Answers to these questions would be helpful in assessing your
situation and suggesting some remedies.
Gary Clark.
******************************************
Gary A. Clark, P.E.
Associate Professor
Biological and Agricultural Engineering
147 Seaton Hall
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506-2906
Tel: 913-532-5580
Fax: 913-532-5825
******************************************
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:10:04 -0500
From: rbrito@CNPMS.EMBRAPA.BR
Subject: Re: EC of irrigation water
Don Pitts asked what is "EC" of irrigation water:
EC means electrical conductivity, and is an indirect measurement of
the amount of salts (soluble) contained in water. The more soluble salts are
in the water, the higher its electrical conductivity. It is ussually measured
in dS/m (deciSiemens per meter) at 25 C, in the SI unit system, but is also
commonly seen in mmho/cm (mili-mhos/cm) which is equivalent to the latter
unit.
Ricardo Brito, EMBRAPA
Sete Lagoas-MG, Brazil
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:00:36 -0500
From: rbrito@CNPMS.EMBRAPA.BR
Subject: Re: EC of irrigation water
--- Begin Included Message ---
From rbrito@leao.cnpms.embrapa.br Wed Feb 19 09:10:05 1997
From: rbrito@leao.cnpms.embrapa.br
To: Trickle-L Discussion List <TRICKLE-L@crcvms.unl.edu>
Subject: Re: EC of irrigation water
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 97 09:10: 4 EST
Message-Id: <9702191410.043854@piau.cnpms.embrapa.br>
X-Mailer: SelectMAIL 1.0
Content-Length: 480
Status: RO
X-Status:
Don Pitts asked what is "EC" of irrigation water:
EC means electrical conductivity, and is an indirect measurement of
the amount of salts (soluble) contained in water. The more soluble salts are
in the water, the higher its electrical conductivity. It is ussually measured
in dS/m (deciSiemens per meter) at 25 C, in the SI unit system, but is also
commonly seen in mmho/cm (mili-mhos/cm) which is equivalent to the latter
unit.
Ricardo Brito, EMBRAPA
Sete Lagoas-MG, Brazil
--- End Included Message ---
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 14:08:28 -0800
From: Matej Knapic <matej.knapic@UNI-LJ.SI>
Subject: Re: environmental question
I'd like to thank both of you, David and Jochen, for your response.
Regards
Matej
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:26:04 -0600
From: Paul Reynolds <PREYNOLD@TNRCC.STATE.TX.US>
Subject: Re: EC of irrigation water -Reply
How many times have you posted this message?? I recieved two at
8:10 and then another 2 at 9:00. Is there a problem with the server or is
the problem on my end??
Thanks
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:03:15 -0500
From: Don Pitts <djp@ICON.IMOK.UFL.EDU>
Subject: Re: Tomatoes in salty soil
Graham,
What is the EC of the irrigation water?? This is the key managment
factor.
Regards,
Don Pitts
At 08:29 AM 2/17/97 -0800, you wrote:
>I have a friend in Argentina who would like information on growing tomatoes
>in salty soil. Here are some soil specs. Any comments on varieties,
>problems, key management factors etc, will be gratefully received.
>
>Thank you
>Graham Hutchinson
>
>soil 1:
> pHpaste: 7.9
> pH 1: 2.5: 8.29
> RAS: 2.35
> EC: 1.578 uS
>
>soil 2:
>
> pHpaste: 8.27
> pH 1: 2.5: 9.31
> RAS: 25.9
> EC: 4.636 uS
>
>soil 3:
> pHpaste: 9,24
> pH 1: 2.5: 10,24
> RAS: 76,4
> EC: 4.810 uS
>
>soil 4:
> pHpaste: 9,40
> pH 1: 2.5: 10,19
> RAS: 173
> EC: 16.880 uS
>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:18:48 -0800
From: Graham Hutchinson <hutch@BMI.NET>
Subject: EC of irrigation water - unknown
Thank you for all your help. Unfortunately my contact in Argentina is
unavailable for a week so I cannot answer the water EC question. I suspect
it is low.
Graham Hutchinson
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 18:14:42 -0500
From: Merriott@AOL.COM
Subject: Re: Financing
I agree with Ben. Until the industry gets its act together, financing will
be hard to find. I was recently at the farm show in Abilene, Texas and
talked to a rep for one of the major ag financing companies in the nation. I
asked if they were financing any drip and he looked at me like I was crazy.
The main concern was the lack of ability to repossess the equipment. On the
other hand, farmers also get loans for inputs that can't be repossessed. I
think the bigger issue is that drip is still seen as experimental and
unproven. As SDI gets more mainstream and successful, financing should be
easier to arrange. Of course a large part of that is up to the industry.
Randall Merriott
AquaMizer Irrigation
Abernathy, Texas
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 20:01:28 -0500
From: Gro Max <GROMAXaz@AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Financing
Thanks for the thoughts Randall. I'll make the a few more points then I
won't bore the group any further with non-technical issues.
The abiltiy to reposses micro-irrigation equipment is way down the list for a
lender's criteria to make loans. His decision is made on the enterprise cash
flow and credit worthiness. The good old days of asset financing are long
gone, except from a few manufacturer owned credit facilities who are willing
to consider such issues. This is why the micro-irrigation industry needs the
manufacturers to step up to the plate. The manufacturer can offer
low-interest incentives that are attractive to growers.
Looking at the experimental issue, I don't believe any other agricultural
irrigation technology has been researched more than micro-irrigation. The
manufacturers certainly recognize the performance capabilities and
limitations of their products, but they need a consistent package approach so
they can justify support.
I'm reminded of 1976 when I was first introduced to drip with a group of
growers in California. They listened to the success stories and then one by
one stood up to say it works fine in this area, but, it won't work in my area
because we have coarse soils or salt or clay, or bugs or tractor blight and
so on. One other grower responded, "tell me, where does drip quit working,
the boundary of the farm, the county line, state line, where?" The truth is
micro-irrigation will work anywhere, it is simple design evaluation and
consideration of capital cost.
Best regards,
Ben Cloud
GROMAXaz@aol.com
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 19:11:54 -0800
From: Jeffery Brian Choate <choate@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU>
Subject: Irrigro
Does anyone have any experience with or opinions about International
Irrigation System, Inc.'s Irrigro Microporous drip tubing? Your input
would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
Jeffery B. Choate
Paradise Bar Lodge
P.O. Box 456
Gold Beach, OR 97444
-------------------------
choate@oregon.uoregon.edu
End of TRICKLE-L Digest - 18 Feb 1997 to 19 Feb 1997
****************************************************
>From LISTSERV@crcvms.unl.edu Fri Feb 21 01:01:43 1997
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 00:00:19 -0600
Subject: TRICKLE-L Digest - 19 Feb 1997 to 20 Feb 1997
There are 2 messages totalling 30 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Filter selection
2. product success stories
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 02:10:43 -0500
From: WGOSNELL@AOL.COM
Subject: Re: Filter selection
On our trickle system we have only screen filters. They seem to work quite
well.
Do not have experience with back flush types. Not wure they would work with
our water as we have to take a brush and a strong stream of water to clean
the filters. Our water has lots of irom and manganese in it. Using a stream
of water just will not blow all of the junk out of the screen.
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 07:55:27 -0800
From: TERRY SNYDER <TERRYS@WRFS2.SWRCB.CA.GOV>
Subject: product success stories
I agree with the discussion by Eric Desmarais on why dealers should
relate the success (not self hype) of their products in improving one's irrigation
productivity so that the end user may benefit from those discussions.
Terry Snyder
Division of Water Rights
P.O. Box 2000
Sacramento, CA 95812-2000
(916) 657-2061 Fax 657-1485
email terrys@wrfs2.swrcb.ca.gov
End of TRICKLE-L Digest - 19 Feb 1997 to 20 Feb 1997
****************************************************
>From LISTSERV@crcvms.unl.edu Sat Feb 22 01:03:00 1997
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 00:01:21 -0600
Subject: TRICKLE-L Digest - 20 Feb 1997 to 21 Feb 1997
There are 8 messages totalling 256 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Lateral Length Calculation (2)
2. High pH under trickle (4)
3. Drip Controller with individual station fertilizer control.
4. Drip controller with individual station fertilizer control
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 11:56:55 +0000
From: Eran Eckstein <eran@FDBS.COM>
Subject: Lateral Length Calculation
Hi,
When using an inline dripper, such as RAM or DRIPIN, there is a
head-loss on each dripper. This head-loss will determine the
maximum lateral length, among other factors such as the ID of the
pipe. I am looking for the formula that will give me the maximum
lateral length when the dripper head-loss, the operating pressure,
and the pipe's ID are known.
Any help is appriciated.
Thanks
eran@fdbs.com
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 06:16:54 +0800
From: Growers Rural Pty Ltd <growers@GROWERS.NET.AU>
Subject: High pH under trickle
Several of my clients have a problem with steadily increasing pH in the soil
under trickle/plastic mulch situations. Does anyone have experience with
correcting pH downwards?
A bit of background. Soil type is straight sand with organic matter commonly
less than 0.5%. Waters around pH 7.2, hard with high magnesium and calcium.
Crops (mainly ornamentals) are in for 18 months to 2 years and all
fertiliser added via the drip. Soil pH (H2O) climbs from around 6.5 to 8.0
over this time, giving problems with manganese and zinc deficiencies in the
plants. Main fertilisers used are Urea, Potassium nitrate, MAP, MKP, Calcium
nitrate, Magnesium sulphate. (plus TE's). Perhaps I should swap to more
sulphates? Is there a "quick fix" chemical I can put through from time to time?
Thanks for your help.
Julian Baker
julian@growers.net.au
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 16:32:16 -0600
From: Freddie Lamm <FLamm@OZNET.KSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Lateral Length Calculation
eran@fdbs.com wrote:
When using an inline dripper, such as RAM or DRIPIN, there is a
head-loss on each dripper. This head-loss will determine the
maximum lateral length, among other factors such as the ID of the
pipe. I am looking for the formula that will give me the maximum
lateral length when the dripper head-loss, the operating pressure,
and the pipe's ID are known.
Freddie replied:
According to the literature, often a Hazen-Williams type and/or
Blasius equation is used for such calculations, although they are
often extensively modified. I would suggest you
look at most any irrigation engineering book for the Hazen-Williams
equation. The Darcy-Weisbach equation is also used.
You might also look to the journal article.
"Design of Drip Irrigation Lateral Length on Uniform Slopes"
Wu, Saruwatari, and Gitlin. 1983.
Irrigation Science 4:117-135.
There's a relatively large body of literature out there in this
regard, but that paper might not be too bad a start.
You should also consider contacting the manufacturer. They may
suggest equations for their particular product. I was surprised by
your comment that you know the headloss across the emitter itself.
That number if experimentally obtained usually (always???) requires a
emitter flow equation to get it, so I would think you are already
part way down the road.
Freddie
*
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Freddie Lamm *
Research Agricultural Engineer *** o
KSU Northwest Research-Extension Center ***** /|\
105 Experiment Farm Road *******\\
Colby, Kansas 67701-1697 *********
Ph. 913-462-6281 ***********
FAX 913-462-2315 *************
Email:flamm@oznet.ksu.edu It's all downhill from here.
------ THERE'S NO DOMAIN LIKE OZ, THERE'S NO DOMAIN LIKE OZ. ------
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 07:21:52 +0800
From: Growers Rural Pty Ltd <growers@GROWERS.NET.AU>
Subject: High pH under trickle
Apologies if you have already received this - an error message came back to
me that the message was originally rejected.
Several of my clients have a problem with steadily increasing pH in the soil
under trickle/plastic mulch situations. Does anyone have experience with
correcting pH downwards?
A bit of background. Soil type is straight sand with organic matter commonly
less than 0.5%. Waters around pH 7.2, hard with high magnesium and calcium.
Crops (mainly ornamentals) are in for 18 months to 2 years and all
fertiliser added via the drip. Soil pH (H2O) climbs from around 6.5 to 8.0
over this time, giving problems with manganese and zinc deficiencies in the
plants. Main fertilisers used are Urea, Potassium nitrate, MAP, MKP, Calcium
nitrate, Magnesium sulphate. (plus TE's). Perhaps I should swap to more
sulphates? Is there a "quick fix" chemical I can put through from time to time?
Thanks for your help.
Julian Baker
julian@growers.net.au
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 17:36:24 -0600
From: "J.D. Oster" <oster@MAIL.UCR.EDU>
Subject: Re: High pH under trickle
I suspect the calcium and bicarbonate content of the irrigation water is
resulting in the precipitation of calcite in the sand as it is concentrated
by evapotranpiration. The pH of a soil which contains calcite can range from
7.2 to 8.5 provided the exchangeable sodium level doesn't exceed about 20
percent. If it does, the pH can be higher.
Lowering the bicarbonate concentration by adding sulfuric acid to the water
would be simplist way to reduce the pH. Adjusting the pH of the water to
about 6.5 by adding sulfuric acid would remove most of the bicarbonate:
adding about 130 lbs of sulfuric acid to an acre foot of water would reduce
the bicarbonate ion concentration about 1 meq/l.
Another option would be to increase the fraction of nitrogen fertilizer
applied as urea. Its hydrolysis generates acid.
Using N-pHuric would be another option: it is a blend of urea and sulfuric
acid (the table I am reading from has N-pHuric as 10 % N and 18 % S).
Whether either of these fertilizer options will work depends on the amount
of bicarbonate in the irrigation water relative to the amount of N
fertilizer the plants need.
At 06:16 AM 2/22/97 +0800, you wrote:
>Several of my clients have a problem with steadily increasing pH in the soil
>under trickle/plastic mulch situations. Does anyone have experience with
>correcting pH downwards?
>A bit of background. Soil type is straight sand with organic matter commonly
>less than 0.5%. Waters around pH 7.2, hard with high magnesium and calcium.
>Crops (mainly ornamentals) are in for 18 months to 2 years and all
>fertiliser added via the drip. Soil pH (H2O) climbs from around 6.5 to 8.0
>over this time, giving problems with manganese and zinc deficiencies in the
>plants. Main fertilisers used are Urea, Potassium nitrate, MAP, MKP, Calcium
>nitrate, Magnesium sulphate. (plus TE's). Perhaps I should swap to more
>sulphates? Is there a "quick fix" chemical I can put through from time to time?
>
>Thanks for your help.
>
>Julian Baker
>julian@growers.net.au
>
J.D.(Jim) Oster
Dept. of Soil & Env. Sciences
University of California
Riverside, CA 92521
Phone (909)787-5100
FAX (909)787-5522
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 16:48:50 -0800
From: "Alan S. Wicks" <awicks@TELEVAR.COM>
Subject: Re: High pH under trickle
Greetings,
The easiest way I know is to inject Sulphuric Acid. My recommendation
would be to start at about 38ml/m^3 of water. You don't want much less
than about pH 6.2 or so. Remember that if there are any carbonate
deposits on the inside of your lines that these will have to be disolved
first before the pH of the water at the emitters will change.
Also, on drip, that you will be creating a pH gradient in your soil. If
you are having problems with a particular micronutrient because of high
pH, the roots nearest the emitter will be able to take in the
micronutients as soon as the pH of the soil solution allows for the
material to be in an absorbable form.
Good luck
Alan S. Wicks
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 21:54:32 -0600
From: Mike Buxkemper <mike@HOME.NTS-ONLINE.NET>
Subject: Drip Controller with individual station fertilizer control.
I am looking for a multistation (up to twelve station) drip irrigation =
controller which will have individual station fertilizer injection =
control. The customer wants to be able to adjust the fertilizer =
injection time setting on each individual station. He wants the =
flexibility of being able to not inject fertilizer on a particular =
station or to have the injector to shut off at a certain time period =
before the section shuts off. If anyone is aware of anything that might =
be applicable, please contact me at the following.
Mike Buxkemper
Watermaster Irrigation Supply
P. O. Box 64208
Lubbock, Texas 79464
806-797-9044
mike@nts-online.net
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 22:07:38 -0600
From: Mike Buxkemper <mike@HOME.NTS-ONLINE.NET>
Subject: Drip controller with individual station fertilizer control
I am looking for a multistation (up to twelve station) drip irrigation =
controller which will have individual station fertilizer injection =
control. The customer wants to be able to adjust the fertilizer =
injection time setting on each individual station. He wants the =
flexibility of being able to not inject fertilizer on a particular =
station or to have the injector to shut off at a certain time period =
before the section shuts off. If anyone is aware of anything that might =
be applicable, please contact me at the following.
Mike Buxkemper
Watermaster Irrigation Supply
P. O. Box 64208
Lubbock, Texas 79464
806-797-9044
mike@nts-online.net
End of TRICKLE-L Digest - 20 Feb 1997 to 21 Feb 1997
****************************************************
>From LISTSERV@crcvms.unl.edu Sun Feb 23 01:02:14 1997
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 00:00:19 -0600
Subject: TRICKLE-L Digest - 21 Feb 1997 to 22 Feb 1997
There are 11 messages totalling 483 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Emitters (2)
2. Vendors Welcome
3. ALPHALPHA/LUCERN AND SDI (2)
4. Drip controller with individual station fertilizer control
5. High pH under trickle
6. ALPHALPHA/LUCERN AND SDI -Reply
7. Re[2]: Drip controller with individual station fertilizer co
8. Trickle set up
9. Lateral Length Calculation -Reply
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 02:09:18 -0400
From: Leonard Ornstein <lenornst@PIPELINE.COM>
Subject: Re: Emitters
I'm somewhat troubled by the criticism of mild "hyping" of products by
manufacturers or their reps as "Arrogant exaggerated self advertising":
If a manufacturer tells us something like, "when used with processed
effluent, our emitters never clog" , when the truth is that "never" really
means "rarely", so long as they've identified themselves as biased
reporters, we should have no problem with such enthusiastic overstatement.
Outright lying about products, as is too common in paid commercial
advertisements is another thing entirely.
But as a response to a question from a list member soliciting information,
it seems to me it's perfectly reasonable for manufactures to respond here
with slightly biased information about their products. And when the bias IS
somewhat excessive, we probably can count on some list member who knows the
"truth" to let us all knowabout it (as below).
Len Ornstein
Irristat International Inc.
>Rodney Ruskin wrote:
>
>>
>> >Arrogant exaggerated self advertising is not appropriate in this discussion
>> >group.
>> >I am only responding to put the record straight.
>> >1) Independent tests by C.I.T. show that the DripIn PC is far superior to
>> >Ram for clogging. These test results have been widely circulated in the
>>USA.
>> >2) Tests in Israel which have been widely circulated in Israel in Hebrew,
>> >have shown the new Lego/Metzerplas PC superior to Ram for plugging with
>> >effluent water - because I had no interest I have not got these tests
>> >translated but I will request Metzerplas to send them to me and I will post
>> >them to Trickle-l ASAP.
>> >3) RAM is a good product but there are better. Experience in Georgia has
>> >shown that the EPDM diaphragm builds up with slime with effluent. Netafim
>> >responded by adding a bactericide into the dripper to protect the
>>rubber for
>> >their Bioline product, which is RAM in a purple tube. This precaution
>>is not
>> >a standard for RAM. I believe that even Netafim's 1975 model in-line
>> >turbulent flow emitter at 1 gph is better than RAM for effluent.
>> >
>> >Rodney Ruskin
>> >rodney@geoflow.com
>> >
>> >
>> Rodney
>
>Marek Malujlo wrote:
>
>> I beg to differ on your comment that the " advertising by Netafim " are
>>not appropriate on this dicussion group, because they resulted in your
>>comments re Drip
>>
>> We in the trade get bombarded with facts and figures by the various
>>suppliers stating why their product is the best. Netafim are the most
>>aggresive marketers
>> So some independant results are appreciated by the likes of myself.
>> It would also be good for the suppliers to "advertise" new products
>>because trickle irrigation is not a static industry, and what better way
>>to let the trade k
>> Obviously mud slinging must not be allowed, and perhaps this is a danger
>>to this discussion group, but we wont know unless we try.
>>
>> Marek Malujlo
>> marakesh@harare.iafrica.com
>
>
>Stephen Smith's comment:
>
>In our work as irrigation engineers, we are inundated with products,
>brochures, and
>claims of superior performance by one product or another. We aren't
>interested in
>aggressive sales and marketing on this forum.
>
>I recently wrote an article making the following point.
>
> "Sometimes, the most difficult job for an irrigation engineer,
>especially a
>new designer, is picking equipment when the equipment is to be
>specifically called out
>or "proprietary" to the project. The irrigation product distributors or
>manufacturer
>sales staff can be unmerciful in their push to have their products
>accepted and
>specified. The designer's primary role is to advocate the owner and make
>choices that
>are in the owner's best interest. The irrigation designer may be called
>upon to
>justify the equipment selected or offer expert opinion. Experience will
>guide one
>toward a straight forward, honest discussion of pros and cons between
>alternatives.
>Equipment manufacturers and distributors should appreciate, understand, and
>acknowledge both the pluses and minuses of their equipment offerings.
>Sales people
>who get too caught up in thinking that their product is superior in every way
>generally need to stand back a few paces and look again."
>
>The reason I subscribe to this forum is to hear less hype and more real
>world comments
>from a broad base of people. I agree with Rodney that this is not the
>place for
>aggressive product sales and marketing. However, I will concede and
>acknowledge that
>the list owner(s) has the option of attempting to set the stage, given
>their own goals
>and objectives.
>
>Stephen Smith
>Aqua Engineering, Inc.
>e-mail: swsmith@aquaengr.com
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 06:49:16 -0600
From: Rick Simpson <bcsl@POBOX.COM>
Subject: Vendors Welcome
I am a citrus grower who has discovered that 125 inches of rainfall
a year does not compensate for a three month dry season. Therefore,
I am considering some type of irrigation and drip irrigation seems
the best alternative.
I joined this list to hopefully learn more about drip irrigation
and become a target for anyone wishing to expose their products to me
via personal mail.
List server users that live in developed nations. with substantial
commercial infrastructures. sometimes do not understand how hard it
is for those of us living "in the bush" to obtain information,
commercial or otherwise. We could spend hours on the telephone,
(at $3.68 per minute) wading through voice mail and computers in an
attempt to find sources and expertise and never succeed. A list
server provides an opportunity for a much faster and certainly less
expensive alternative. Commercial exposure of products does
provide value for some of us not otherwise connected. So, vendors
interested in providing product in Belize, send a description of your
wares - by personal email of course.
Rick Simpson
BANANA BANK GROVES
at Banana Bank Ranch
Rick Simpson
Box 180 - 2 Unity Blvd.
Belmopan, BELIZE
Central America
Tel-Fax: 501-82-3505
EMail: bcsl@pobox.box
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 08:45:24 -0800
From: Rodney Ruskin <geoflow1@SLIP.NET>
Subject: Re: Emitters
At 02:09 AM 2/15/97 -0400, Leonard Ornstein wrote:
>I'm somewhat troubled by the criticism of mild "hyping" of products by
>manufacturers or their reps as "Arrogant exaggerated self advertising":
>
"With over 1 billion RAM emitters dripping
in the world today, RAM has a bullet proof track record."
Nu! What would you call it?
Rodney.
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 18:31:24 +0200
From: Rod Ennor <rodennor@PARKER.INTER.NET.IL>
Subject: ALPHALPHA/LUCERN AND SDI
CAN ANYONE GIVE ME SOME INFORMATION REGARDING THE USE, OR NOT, OF SDI FOR
THE CULTIVATION OF LUCERN/ALPHALPHA.
I SEEM TO RECALL READING SOMEWHERE THAT THERE IS A GROWER IN THE U.S. WITH
7000 ACRES WITH SDI?
MY MAIN QUESTIONS ARE:
1. WHAT IS THE NORMAL AVERAGE YIELD PER ACRE PER YEAR WITHOUT IRRIGATION?
2. WHAT IS THE INCREASE IN PRODUCTION PER ACRE WHEN USING SDI (OR ANY
OTHER IRRIGATION SYSTEM)?
3. HAS ANY SERIOUS WORK BEEN CARRIED OUT ON THE ADVANTAGES/COST BENEFITS/
QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS ETC OF SDI ON LUCERN, AND IF SO, WHERE CAN I FIND THIS
INFORMATION.
4. FEEDBACK FROM FARMERS WOULD BE MOST APPRECIATED.
REGARDS
ROD ENNOR
rodennor@mail.inter.net.il.
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 18:46:33 +0200
From: Rod Ennor <rodennor@PARKER.INTER.NET.IL>
Subject: ALPHALPHA/LUCERN AND SDI
>Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 20:07:42
>To: TRICKLE-L@UNL.EDU
>From: Rod Ennor <rodennor@mail.inter.net.il>
>Subject: ALPHALPHA/LUCERN AND SDI
>
>CAN ANYONE GIVE ME SOME INFORMATION REGARDING THE USE, OR NOT, OF SDI FOR
THE CULTIVATION OF LUCERN/ALPHALPHA.
>
>I SEEM TO RECALL READING SOMEWHERE THAT THERE IS A GROWER IN THE U.S. WITH
7000 ACRES WITH SDI?
>
>MY MAIN QUESTIONS ARE:
>
>1. WHAT IS THE NORMAL AVERAGE YIELD PER ACRE PER YEAR WITHOUT IRRIGATION?
>
>2. WHAT IS THE INCREASE IN PRODUCTION PER ACRE WHEN USING SDI (OR ANY
OTHER IRRIGATION SYSTEM)?
>
>3. HAS ANY SERIOUS WORK BEEN CARRIED OUT ON THE ADVANTAGES/COST BENEFITS/
QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS ETC OF SDI ON LUCERN, AND IF SO, WHERE CAN I FIND THIS
INFORMATION.
>
>4. FEEDBACK FROM FARMERS WOULD BE MOST APPRECIATED.
>
>REGARDS
>
>
>ROD ENNOR
>
>rodennor@mail.inter.net.il.
>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 08:45:01 -0500
From: Al Shields <shieldsa@ANDREWS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Drip controller with individual station fertilizer control
Mike Buxkemper wrote:
>
> I am looking for a multistation (up to twelve station) drip irrigation controller which will have individual station fertilizer injection control. The customer wants to be able to adjust the fertilizer injection time setting on each individual station. He wants the flexibility of being able to not inject fertilizer on a particular station or to have the injector to shut off at a certain time period before the section shuts off. If anyone is aware of anything that might be applicable, please c
>
> Mike Buxkemper
> Watermaster Irrigation Supply
> P. O. Box 64208
> Lubbock, Texas 79464
> 806-797-9044
> mike@nts-online.net
Contact Alextronix, Fresno CA. 209-276-2888 is the phone number. THey
make a controller that controls irrigation time, fertilizer time, and
chlorination or flush time on each zone.
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 16:02:50 -0500
From: "Fedro S. Zazueta" <fsz@GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU>
Subject: Re: High pH under trickle
At 04:48 PM 2/21/97 -0800, you wrote:
>Greetings,
>
>The easiest way I know is to inject Sulphuric Acid. My recommendation
>would be to start at about 38ml/m^3 of water. You don't want much less
>than about pH 6.2 or so.
There is a small program available from Univeristy of Florida that
calculates the injection rate required to neutralize bicarbonates as well
as the cost of the treatment. Check http://hammock.ifas.ufl.edu/it/
The name of the program is ACID. A windows version has been developed and
will soon be available.
Fedro S. Zazueta
IFAS Information Technologies Office
Bldg. 162, University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
Tel: 352 392 3196
FAX: 352 392 3920
SunCom: 622 3196
Email: fsz@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
www.agen.ufl.edu/~fzazueta
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 17:50:23 -0600
From: "Joseph C. Henggeler" <j-henggeler@TAMU.EDU>
Subject: ALPHALPHA/LUCERN AND SDI -Reply
Rod,
Regarding your questions on SDI lucern (alfalfa):
1) NORMAL YIELD WITHOUT IRRIGATION?
This depends where you are at. In West Texas it would be ZERO.
Potential yield is based on growing season lenght/intensity.
2) YIELD INCREASE WITH SDI?
Excellent research on this topic by USDA/ARS in Brawley, CA and
Gideon Oron and others in Israel. CA data showe 25-30% yield increase
over a pampered furrow system when tubes were placed deep. Israeli
data showed 15% increase over sprinkler.
3) IS THERE ECONOMIC DATA AVAILABLE?
The Israeli data (Oron, G. et al. 1996. Ecological & economic aspects of
effluent reuse for field crop irrigation. In Proc. International Conf. on
Ecological Engineering. Beijing, Oct 7-11) includes economic analysis. I
have worked up data for West Texas. Under limited water SDI's
economics look better than most other systems, especially on sizes less
than 80 acres.
The most serious concerns are control of rodents and germination of
seed. After these are taken care of, the overall picture looks good.
4) FARMER FEEDBACK.
There are approximately 24 growers using SDI on alfalfa or other forages
in West Texas. I am not aware of any person with 7,000 acres in the US.
I have heard of some large fields in Mexico.
The last issue of the Irrigation Association's magazine had an article on
the subject.
Joe Henggeler
Ft. Stockton, TX
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 18:46:00 -0600
From: Dave Megeath-CIRR03 <Dave_Megeath-CIRR03@EMAIL.MOT.COM>
Subject: Re[2]: Drip controller with individual station fertilizer co
Message authorized by:
: shieldsa@ANDREWS.EDU@INTERNET at EMAIL
Another source, for whom I work, is Motorola. We have a
complete family of computerized irrigation controllers, from
"Scorpio", a small 8 station (with 2 sensor inputs) controller,
in either 24 VAC output or 24 VDC latching outputs (solar powered
app's), to complete centralized data-radio systems that tie all
the controllers together to a PC.
Also, don't miss our "IMPACT" FM radio valve actuator that can be
used to hydraulically switch on/off any valve. The unit is
powered by 3 AA-alkaline batteries and requires one of our
IRRInet controllers (a step up from the Scorpio). NO MORE VALVE
WIRES!!!!
Any questions, please contact me via the Trickle-L forum or
directly by email to my Motorola address:
cirr03@email.mot.com
Thanks for the opportunity to contribute.
Dave Megeath, Field Engineering Manager
MOTOROLA INC.
World Wide Data Solutions Division
4525 Wawona Circle
Fair Oaks, CA 95628 USA
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 19:32:28 -0800
From: Dennis Sauer <samal@TOGETHER.NET>
Subject: Trickle set up
I want to set up a trickle irrigation system for peppers, cucumbers, and squash.
Previously we have used overhead sprinklers, but we have leased some very sandy soil and
are often unable to keep up with the limited amount of pipe available. We farm in
Vermont so we are not completely without rainfall.
The plan is to overhead irrigate until the last cultivation and hoeing, then put down
drip tape to get us through the remainder of the season. Our row lengths are 600+ feet
and we need to water at least 5 acres at a time. Our water source is the Connecticut
River so I assume we will need filters. Are screen filters adequate? Can I use the
same pump as for the overhead? Rows on the bed are 15 inches apart. Will water reach
the plants if there is one line per bed.
Can anyone recommend a good publication for a beginner that covers these and more
topics. Any evil salespeople can contact me by e-mail, so as not to further contaminate
this group.
Thanks,
Dennis Sauer
samal@together.net
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 21:58:53 -0600
From: "Joseph C. Henggeler" <j-henggeler@TAMU.EDU>
Subject: Lateral Length Calculation -Reply
Eran,
One can develop an equation for "maximum lateral length", but it must be
based on an additional parameter such as (1) a target uniformity or (2)
economic optimization. The former is much easier to do; it, however,
requires that some data is already available. Here is an example:
From manufacturers' data (or from a spreadsheet) you have:
CASE 1: H=9.0 psi; q=2.28 gpm; L=550'; DU=88.8; Slope = 0
CASE 2: H=9.0 psi; q=2.57 gpm; L=750'; DU=78.1; Slope = 0
Then: Length=J DU^w
w = ln(550/750) / ln(88.8/78.1) = -2.4156
J = 550/88.8^-2.4156 = 27,986,645
To solve for the maximum L for a DU of 95%, then:
L = 27,986,645 X 95^-2.4156 = 467 feet
The answer applies only to similar condition (i.e., H = 9.0 psi, S = 0, etc).
You may recognize this as the same procedure to solve for the K and x
values in an emitter head-discharge relationship. The same caveats
apply to this numeric method--it is a curve fitting device that should have
fair agreement for points close to those used in the equation, but possibly
not as well for those further away. As an example an L = 467 feet
actually has a DU of 93%. Using DU = 60% gave an L of 1,418 feet; this
length would have had a DU of 42%.
Joe Henggeler
>>> Eran Eckstein <eran@FDBS.COM> 02/20/97 05:56am >>>
Hi,
When using an inline dripper, such as RAM or DRIPIN, there is a
head-loss on each dripper. This head-loss will determine the
maximum lateral length, among other factors such as the ID of the
pipe. I am looking for the formula that will give me the maximum
lateral length when the dripper head-loss, the operating pressure,
and the pipe's ID are known.
Any help is appriciated.
Thanks
eran@fdbs.com
End of TRICKLE-L Digest - 21 Feb 1997 to 22 Feb 1997
****************************************************
>From LISTSERV@crcvms.unl.edu Mon Feb 24 01:02:38 1997
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 00:01:05 -0600
Subject: TRICKLE-L Digest - 22 Feb 1997 to 23 Feb 1997
There is one message totalling 23 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Emitters
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 06:00:54 -0800
From: Thomas Glazener <tag@WELL.COM>
Subject: Re: Emitters
When I asked my question regarding emitters and effluent some time back, I
did not intend this sort of by-product in the discussions of this group.
I found the debate, even the hype if you will, to be useful in learning
about the products from an historical perspective. I got more information
from the reps than from anyone else on this save for Bryon at Clemson.
Before we all get to much on our purist horses here remember that we are all
pretty glad to see the product rep when we need him. Commerce is what gets
the stuff to develop and stay in production. I want to be informed from all
sources and then sort through the information for myself. In short (if it's
not too late) I value the academic perspective that you researchers bring,
the practical experience that the growers bring, and the important link that
the manufacturers provide between the research and the field. They risk the
capital to make theory practical and hopefully economical.
Tom Glazener
End of TRICKLE-L Digest - 22 Feb 1997 to 23 Feb 1997
****************************************************
>From LISTSERV@crcvms.unl.edu Tue Feb 25 10:26:15 1997
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 00:00:32 -0600
Subject: TRICKLE-L Digest - 23 Feb 1997 to 24 Feb 1997
There are 2 messages totalling 145 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. 11 general introductory questions
2. Lateral Length Calculation
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 20:37:10 +0500
From: Samar Gupta <samar@GIASBM01.VSNL.NET.IN>
Subject: 11 general introductory questions
>1) Briefly, what is your affiliation with trickle/drip irrigation?
We grow what are considered exotic vegetables in India. For example: snow
peas, broccoli, zucchini, yellow squash, Swiss chard, baby corn, pak choy,
red cabbage, iceberg lettuce, celery, parsley and various herbs. At the
moment I have 60 acres under cultivation out of which 32 acres are under
drip irrigation.
>2) What crops or plants do you use drip irrigation on?
In order of priority: lettuce, broccoli, snow peas, celery/parsley, Chinese
cabbage, others, including some herbs and leafy crops.
>3) If using subsurface drip irrigation, what is the average depth of
>placement of the drip lateral?
I use the raised bed method with organic mulching. Organic mulching is
about 3" think. The drip laterals are placed on the surface of the raised
beds and then covered with organic mulch.
>4) What problems have you encountered with drip irrigation?
The entire system is comparatively new and hence per se there has not been
a major problem. However, we had a problem of too much of pressure at some
point which used to cause bursting. Somewhere along the way in the design
the back pressure valves were not incorporated. At the moment it seems to
be functioning fine.
>5) Fertigation is a real advantage of drip irrigation. What form of N, P and
>K have you been trying and to what success?
Due to lack of availability of liquid fertilizers we mix the powders and
then feed it through the drip. Fertigation has been a great success.
>6) Have you experienced a reduction in fertilizer and/or water use?
Certainly. The fertilizer cost has come down by half and the water usage
to 25%.
>7) Do you have water quality problems? If so, how do you tackle the
situation?
So far we have not really addressed this.
>8) How frequent do you irrigate? Many times a day, one long session per day,
>or once every several days?
During the summer season one long session per day and during the winter
once in two days.
>9) Do you have rodent damage? If so, how do you control the problem?
So far we have not faced this.
>10) Are you pleased with the uniformity of your system or systems? Were they
>designed correctly?
The system was not designed by us but by the supplier and yet I am afraid
they have goofed. Few changes could be made but it certainly could have
been designed better.
>11) How did you find out about the Trickle-L mailing list?
Read about it somewhere on the web.
Thanks,
Samar
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 20:19:59 +0000
From: Blake Sanden <blsanden@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Lateral Length Calculation
DRIPPER LINE HEADLOSS
Many of the manufacturring companies (Netafim, Rainbird, T-Tape for sure)
have itterative computer programs to accurately calculate headloss and
subsequent emission uniformity. They will give you stats suited to your
specifications. Many of the local irrigation companies have these programs
in house. You don't want to do this by hand!!!!
Blake Sanden
Irrigation Management & Agronomy Farm Advisor, Kern County
1031 S Mt Vernon Ave
Bakersfield, CA 92307
805-868-6218
blsanden@ucdavis.edu
>eran@fdbs.com wrote:
>When using an inline dripper, such as RAM or DRIPIN, there is a
>head-loss on each dripper. This head-loss will determine the
>maximum lateral length, among other factors such as the ID of the
>pipe. I am looking for the formula that will give me the maximum
>lateral length when the dripper head-loss, the operating pressure,
>and the pipe's ID are known.
>
>Freddie replied:
>According to the literature, often a Hazen-Williams type and/or
>Blasius equation is used for such calculations, although they are
>often extensively modified. I would suggest you
>look at most any irrigation engineering book for the Hazen-Williams
>equation. The Darcy-Weisbach equation is also used.
>
>You might also look to the journal article.
>"Design of Drip Irrigation Lateral Length on Uniform Slopes"
>Wu, Saruwatari, and Gitlin. 1983.
>Irrigation Science 4:117-135.
>
>There's a relatively large body of literature out there in this
>regard, but that paper might not be too bad a start.
>
>You should also consider contacting the manufacturer. They may
>suggest equations for their particular product. I was surprised by
>your comment that you know the headloss across the emitter itself.
>That number if experimentally obtained usually (always???) requires a
>emitter flow equation to get it, so I would think you are already
>part way down the road.
>
>Freddie
>*
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>Freddie Lamm *
>Research Agricultural Engineer *** o
>KSU Northwest Research-Extension Center ***** /|\
>105 Experiment Farm Road *******\\
>Colby, Kansas 67701-1697 *********
>Ph. 913-462-6281 ***********
>FAX 913-462-2315 *************
>Email:flamm@oznet.ksu.edu It's all downhill from here.
>
>------ THERE'S NO DOMAIN LIKE OZ, THERE'S NO DOMAIN LIKE OZ. ------
End of TRICKLE-L Digest - 23 Feb 1997 to 24 Feb 1997
****************************************************
>From LISTSERV@crcvms.unl.edu Wed Feb 26 01:01:49 1997
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 00:00:03 -0600
Subject: TRICKLE-L Digest - 24 Feb 1997 to 25 Feb 1997
There are 2 messages totalling 78 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Lateral Length Calculation
2. Drip Controller with individual station fertilizer control.
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 08:52:07 -0500
From: "W. Bryan Smith" <wsmth@CLEMSON.EDU>
Subject: Re: Lateral Length Calculation
Eran,
Most drip manufacturers supply head loss curves (or maximum length
of lateral curves) for their products. These curves are based on emitter
flow, emitter spacing, and drip tubing size. There have even been some
published (Hardie Irrigation comes to mind) for a manufacturer's blank
tubing, with curves provided for various flows in the form of gallons per
hour / foot of tubing (take the total flow in gallons per hour for say, a 20
foot section of the proposed lateral, and divide by 20 feet).
These curves might help you - unless, of course, you are attempting
to make a software package or spreadsheet to do some calculations.
If they could be of use get in touch with your manufacturer - the
curves should be readily available.
Bryan
=|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|=
W. Bryan Smith
Area Extension Agent - Irrigation / Water Quality
Clemson Extension Service
P.O. Box 160
Newberry, South Carolina 29108 USA
Office: 803 276-1091 FAX: 803 276-1095
Internet: wsmth@clemson.edu
=|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|=
All opinions are my own and not reflective of the
policies of Clemson University or the Cooperative
Extension Service.
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 09:12:12 -0500
From: "W. Bryan Smith" <wsmth@CLEMSON.EDU>
Subject: Re: Drip Controller with individual station fertilizer control.
Mike,
It looks like a PLC (programmable language controller) would be
suitable for your situation. There has been some discussion on this
in the past - you might check the list archives.
PLCs come from the factory "dumb" - you use a computer to program
them in the configuration you want, including stations, multiple pump
starts, etc. I saw one the other week that was set up to maintain
pressure on an irrigation line using 4 pumps of differing capacities
and pressures. The system turned them on and off in whatever
combination required, using a pressure sensing transducer to determine
the need. Pretty impressive - if a PLC can do this I am sure it would
be applicable in your situation.
Sorry, I don't have any figures on the cost. The programs can also be
modified via radio with the proper equipment. The gentlemen I know
that are using PLCs actually program a schedule in a laptop, then
download it in the PLC. Sounds very flexible.
Bryan
=|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|=
W. Bryan Smith
Area Extension Agent - Irrigation / Water Quality
Clemson Extension Service
P.O. Box 160
Newberry, South Carolina 29108 USA
Office: 803 276-1091 FAX: 803 276-1095
Internet: wsmth@clemson.edu
=|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|=
All opinions are my own and not reflective of the
policies of Clemson University or the Cooperative
Extension Service.
End of TRICKLE-L Digest - 24 Feb 1997 to 25 Feb 1997
****************************************************
>From LISTSERV@crcvms.unl.edu Thu Feb 27 01:01:46 1997
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 00:00:20 -0600
Subject: TRICKLE-L Digest - 25 Feb 1997 to 26 Feb 1997
There are 3 messages totalling 117 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Emitters
2. Peach crop coefficient (2)
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 12:23:12 -0800
From: Jochen Eberhard <Jochen.Eberhard@T-ONLINE.DE>
Subject: Re: Emitters
Hi,
what about if we cool down a little bit :-)
I agree with Leonard, as long as this people like Jerome are signing
their comments with: sales manager of... it is all right
And I think 1 billion emitters irrigate about 100,000 acres which is
nothing in the world of irrigation.
It is like saying I have 8 million plants of corn out in the field which
sound great. But this are, if I get it right, some 250 acres, which is
not worth to mention.
I think that is what this discussion group is establish for about, to
get things straight.
Best wishes
Jochen Eberhard
This is like
Rodney Ruskin wrote:
>
> At 02:09 AM 2/15/97 -0400, Leonard Ornstein wrote:
> >I'm somewhat troubled by the criticism of mild "hyping" of products by
> >manufacturers or their reps as "Arrogant exaggerated self advertising":
> >
>
> "With over 1 billion RAM emitters dripping
> in the world today, RAM has a bullet proof track record."
>
> Nu! What would you call it?
>
> Rodney.
--
_____________________________________________________________
| Jochen Eberhard * * |
| SLFA Versuchsbetriebe ( \ / ) |
| Queckbrunnerhof \ / |
| Dannstadter Str. 91 --- |
| 67105 Schifferstadt (o|o) |
| Germany ( ~~~ ) |
| ( ) |
| Tel: 0049 - 6235 - 2672 ( ) |
| Fax: - - 82741 ( @@ @@ ) |
| email: Jochen.Eberhard@t-online.de |
|_____________________________________________________________|
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 08:19:31 -0500
From: "W. Bryan Smith" <wsmth@CLEMSON.EDU>
Subject: Peach crop coefficient
I have a client in search of a crop coefficient for peach trees.
If you know of a good source for this (or crop coefficients in
general - they seem to be the one item that's VERY hard to find on
the web) please drop me a line and let me know.
Many thanks in advance!
Bryan
=|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|=
W. Bryan Smith
Area Extension Agent - Irrigation / Water Quality
Clemson Extension Service
P.O. Box 160
Newberry, South Carolina 29108 USA
Office: 803 276-1091 FAX: 803 276-1095
Internet: wsmth@clemson.edu
=|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|=
All opinions are my own and not reflective of the
policies of Clemson University or the Cooperative
Extension Service.
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 18:19:17 +0100
From: "Thomas-M. Stein" <stein@WIZ.UNI-KASSEL.DE>
Subject: Re: Peach crop coefficient
Bryan,
> I have a client in search of a crop coefficient for peach trees.
>If you know of a good source for this (or crop coefficients in
>general - they seem to be the one item that's VERY hard to find on
>the web) please drop me a line and let me know.
Some crops are on the Web unfortunately no peach trees:
http://www.valmont.com/irr/uswwc/wcindex.html
If you havn't got the kc values from the FAO Irrigation and Drainage
Paper No. 24 on peach trees let me know.
Regards
Thomas
______________________________________________________________________________
Thomas-M. Stein
University of Kassel (FB11) Phone : (+49)-5542-98-1632
Dep. of Rural Engineering and Fax : (+49)-5542-98-1588
Natural Resource Protection Email : stein@wiz.uni-kassel.de
Nordbahnhofstr. 1a WWW : http://www.wiz.uni-kassel.de/kww/
D-37213 Witzenhausen, GERMANY List owner: IRRIGATION-L@listserv.gmd.de
______________________________________________________________________________
End of TRICKLE-L Digest - 25 Feb 1997 to 26 Feb 1997
****************************************************
>From LISTSERV@crcvms.unl.edu Fri Feb 28 13:56:17 1997
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 05:03:07 -0600
Subject: TRICKLE-L Digest - 26 Feb 1997 to 27 Feb 1997
There are 4 messages totalling 203 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Water requirements comparisons
2. Peach crop coefficient (2)
3. Poplar tree crop coefficient
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 21:25:58 +1100
From: Wally Menke <wallym@OZEMAIL.COM.AU>
Subject: Water requirements comparisons
Does anyone have any data on water usage comparisons between undertree mini
sprinkler/jets, surface drip and subsurface drip types of irrigation in a
stone fruit orchid. I have a grower who has asked me this question, and I
don't seem to have any relevant papers or data that (I can recall) in my
files on this subject.
Regards
Wally Menke
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 10:15:30 +0000
From: "M. Meron" <MERON@MIGAL.CO.IL>
Subject: Re: Peach crop coefficient
The Soil and Irrigation Extension Service in Israel has developed an
extensive set of Class "A" pan coefficients for Pome and Stone fruits. We
converted this set to coefficients to use with daylight time computed
Penman formula. It differs fron the FAO computation but can be used as a
first approximation.
M. Meron
=========================================================================
MIGAL Galilee Technology Center Crop Ecology Laboratory
Kiryat Shmona PO Box 90 000 Rosh Pina 12 100 ISRAEL
Phone +972-6-6953559 Fax: +972-6-6944980 Email: MERON@migal.co.il
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 08:05:18 -0700
From: "OSU Malheur Exp. Station" <mesosu@PRIMENET.COM>
Subject: Poplar tree crop coefficient
Friends, We are going to conduct research on poplar tree growth, wter
use, and cropping systems. Does anyone have information related to
poplar tree evapotranspiration demand. Clint
--
Dr. Clinton C. Shock, Malheur Experiment Station, Oregon State
University, 595 Onion Ave. Ontario, Oregon 97914
telephone (541) 889-2174
Fax (541) 889-7831
http://www.primenet.com/~mesosu/index.html
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 16:52:32 +0100
From: "Thomas-M. Stein" <stein@WIZ.UNI-KASSEL.DE>
Subject: Re: Peach crop coefficient
Bryan,
Enclosed find the kc values for peaches, apricots, pears, plums ,
(in addition inl. almonds, pecans in Table 3 and 4).
They are available on the web as well under:
http://www.wiz.uni-kassel.de/kww/projekte/irrig/dif/kcpeach.html
Switch the type style of your mailer to COURIER to get the tables right.
I have slightly modified the layout and divided the original table into
four tables and have only included the sections on "Peaches, apricots, pears,
plums".
Reference:
==========
Dorenbos, J. and W.O. Pruitt, 1984:
Crop Water Requirements - Guidelines for Predicting Crop Water
Requirements. -
FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 24, FAO, Rome.
ISBN 92-5-100279-7
=========================================================
Values for Full Grown Deciduous Fruit and Nut Trees
=========================================================
Peaches, apricots, pears, plums
=========================================================
_________________________________________________________
Table 1:
WITH ground cover crop (*1)
_________________________________________________________
COLD WINTER WITH KILLING FROST: GROUNDC.STARTING IN APRIL
_________________________________________________________
(Climate s.b.) Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov
_________________________________________________________
Climate 1 - 0.50 0.70 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.75 -
Climate 2 - 0.50 0.70 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.00 0.80 -
Climate 3 - 0.45 0.80 1.05 1.15 1.15 1.10 0.85 -
Climate 4 - 0.45 0.80 1.10 1.20 1.20 1.15 0.90 -
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
Table 2:
WITHOUT ground cover crop (*2)
(clean cultivated, weed free)
________________________________________________________
COLD WINTER WITH KILLING FROST: GROUNDC.STARTING IN APRIL
_________________________________________________________
(Climate s.b.) Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov
_________________________________________________________
Climate 1 - 0.45 0.50 0.65 0.75 0.75 0.70 0.55 -
Climate 2 - 0.45 0.55 0.70 0.80 0.80 0.75 0.60 -
Climate 3 - 0.40 0.55 0.75 0.90 0.90 0.70 0.65 -
Climate 4 - 0.40 0.60 0.80 0.95 0.95 0.90 0.65 -
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
Table 3:
WITH ground cover crop (*1)
_________________________________________________________
COLD WINTER WITH LIGHT FROST: NO DORMANCY IN CRASS COVER
CROPS.
_________________________________________________________
(Climate s.b.) Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov
_________________________________________________________
Climate 1 0.80 0.85 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.80 0.80
Climate 2 0.80 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.00 0.85 0.80
Climate 3 0.85 0.95 1.05 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.10 0.90 0.85
Climate 4 0.85 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.15 0.95 0.85
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
Table 4:
WITHOUT ground cover crop (*2)
(clean cultivated, weed free)
________________________________________________________
COLD WINTER WITH LIGHT FROST: NO DORMANCY IN CRASS COVER
CROPS.
_________________________________________________________
(Climate s.b.) Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov
_________________________________________________________
Climate 1 0.55 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.80 0.70 0.70 0.65 0.55
Climate 2 0.55 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.75 0.70 0.60
Climate 3 0.50 0.70 0.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.80 0.75 0.65
Climate 4 0.50 0.75 0.90 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.80 0.70
_________________________________________________________
Climate description:
===================
Climate 1: humid, light to mod. wind
Climate 2: humid, strong wind
Climate 3: dry , light to mod. wind
Climate 4: dry , strong wind
Additional explanations:
======================
(*1)
Kc values need to be increased if frequently rain occurs (see Fig 6 in
original paper);. For young orchards with tree ground cover of 20 and 50
%, reduce mid-season kc values by 10 to 15% and 5 to 10 % respectively.
(*2)
Kc values assume infrequent wetting by irrigation or rain (every 2 to 4
weeks). In the case of frequent irrigation for March, April and November
adjust using Fig 6 (s. original paper); for May to October use kc values
of table "with ground cover". For young orchards with tree ground cover
of 20 and 50 % reduce mid-season kc values by 25 to 35 % and 10 to 15
respectively.
Regards
Thomas
______________________________________________________________________________
Thomas-M. Stein
University of Kassel (FB11) Phone : (+49)-5542-98-1632
Dep. of Rural Engineering and Fax : (+49)-5542-98-1588
Natural Resource Protection Email : stein@wiz.uni-kassel.de
Nordbahnhofstr. 1a WWW : http://www.wiz.uni-kassel.de/kww/
D-37213 Witzenhausen, GERMANY List owner: IRRIGATION-L@listserv.gmd.de
______________________________________________________________________________
End of TRICKLE-L Digest - 26 Feb 1997 to 27 Feb 1997
****************************************************
Prepared by Steve Modena, AB4EL
Suggestions and comments to: modena@SunSITE.unc.edu