A Fort Thomas farmer decided to try a delivery system that promises to use less water with less labor while helping to prevent soil erosion as well.
Rick Motes grew up the son of a farmer and has worked in the fields his whole life. Now that he has his own 40-acre farm, he decided to find a way to better irrigate his crops.
 A subsurface irrigation technician for Arizona Drip Systems guides the irrigation tape into its correct place. Photo by Jon Johnson |
Motes sought help from the United States Dairy Association/National Resources Conservation Service, and one of its representatives, Eddie Foster, visited Motes’ farm, coordinated a resource assessment of his land and suggested he put in drip-system irrigation.
The NRCS agreed to finance 90 percent of the cost for the project through its Environmental Quality Program. The program is designed to assist with water conservation and reduce soil erosion.
Motes and Foster turned to Arizona Drip Systems of Coolidge to install the subsurface drip system.
Howard Wuertz, its chairman of the board, has experimented with drip systems since 1976 and has raised eyebrows from farmers in drought-stricken areas with his promise of low-water use, high yields and minimal labor. Wuertz said his first chance to demonstrate what a subsurface drip system could do was when he installed one for Sundance Farms, a 3,200-acre farm in Pinal County, in the mid-1980s.
He said a subsurface drip system has many advantages over other types of irrigation.
“We water underground with pressure and only add water that the plants need,” he said. “A lot of water that’s offered to the field in furrow or flood irrigation goes way beyond the root zone. We put the water where the plant’s roots are.”
Wuertz has four patents on machinery for burying and pulling out subsurface drip lines. His company uses polyethylene tape with zigzag emitters to direct the water where they want it to go. Arizona Drip Systems injects the tape about 1 foot into the soil with the emitter facing up. The water is then pressurized in the tape at 10 to 12 pounds per square inch (most household water line pressure is 50 to 90 psi) and leaves through the emitters at around 1 psi. Foster said the drip system uses one-third to one-half the water than furrow irrigation uses and is a 95-percent efficient system. That means if a farmer pumps 100 gallons of water, 95 gallons are being used by the plants. According to Foster, most flood or furrow irrigation can claim only 70- to 75-percent efficiency.
Motes sees his new drip system not only as a way to conserve water and help stop soil erosion, but also as an easier method to manage his farm.
“The whole thing is computerized,” he said. “I just type in how much water per acre, how much fertilizer and away it goes.”
The NRCS hopes Motes will serve as an example to other farmers in the area and that the success of his farm will encourage others to consider the benefits of subsurface irrigation.
Motes’ farm is split into four separate areas that have different water needs. He can program the water for each area and can even make it an automatic program and have the system run by itself.
While the initial startup cost is between $1,200 to $1,500 per acre, Wuertz said the system generally pays for itself within three years through increased crop yield and tillage and water savings.
“We’ve installed about 25,000 acres in Arizona alone,” Wuertz said. “We have also installed drip systems in California, New Mexico, Georgia and Texas. We even shipped our equipment to Australia, and they are using our design to install subsurface irrigation systems there.”
Motes said he was staking his farm on the new irrigation.
“This isn’t something that you want to put in if you’re going to end up developing houses on your farmland,” he said. “This is going to be in the ground for 25 to 30 years before I’ll have to replace the tape.”
Comments
13 comment(s)Tricia Wenzl wrote on Sep 20, 2008 4:32 PM:
ciara wrote on Jul 17, 2008 9:06 PM:
Warnar Moll Amsterdam The Netherlands wrote on Jul 14, 2008 11:20 AM:
In literature there are many scientific indications that the preparation of the sacred liquid (Haoma),could not contain a Hallucinogen-Entheogen drug (cf publications of Harry Falk, Jan Houben, Frits Staal and the late Mary Boyce).
As a plant-physiologist and toxicologian, I did some study about the preparation of Parahom (as described in Avesta). From the scientic point of view it is impossible that the sacred drink is hallucinogen.
I do not understand the arguments of the Pima's Church of Cognizance.
It is as stupid as the assert: Jesus used Marihuana. "
tom wrote on Apr 19, 2008 3:15 PM:
F THE SYSTEM!!! wrote on Feb 14, 2008 9:15 AM:
LaVae McClellan wrote on Feb 5, 2008 1:51 PM:
joe tapia wrote on Dec 9, 2007 8:05 PM:
JOE TAPIA wrote on Dec 9, 2007 12:11 AM:
Katelynn Nichols wrote on Dec 7, 2007 5:34 PM:
Stephen wrote on Nov 30, 2007 8:57 AM:
SMSmom wrote on Nov 9, 2007 12:11 PM:
Keisha wrote on Oct 27, 2007 8:03 PM:
linda wrote on Oct 26, 2007 11:59 AM: