It is an interesting topic.

For the purpose of effluent application, the regional council has defined high and low risk soils, and different consent conditions apply. And of course, there are variations on conditions depending on when consents were issued, the location of the site and so on. And some consent conditions apply to nutrient loadings, including both 24 hour and annual time frames. Yet others relate to soil moisture status, and others to applied depths.

We discussed a lot of things:

• soil water physics; including application depths, rates, and uniformity 
• surface ponding and over-land flow or run-off
• the Farm Dairy Effluent System Design Code of Practice and Design Standards,
• the Irrigation Evaluation Code of Practice,
• current approaches for assessing dairy effluent irrigators
• results from system evaluations
• accuracy and confidence of monitoring results

Then we went out to a farm and physically measured travelling effluent irrigator performance. And we debriefed.

And so to a protocol: what elements are required?

A protocol needs to be:

• recognised – look for existing procedures and processes that are suitable
• defensible – ensure sufficient sampling and fair statistics
• cost-effective – be efficient, not overly time consuming 
• meaningful – so everyone can understand the process and the outcomes

Most, if not all, of these are available. The Irrigation Evaluation Code of Practice and the Farm Dairy Effluent System Design Code of Practice and Design Standards, cover field sampling, statistics and standards reasonably well.

But they were not developed as tools to audit performance of Farm Dairy Effluent irrigation performance (equipment and management) against the full range of regional plan rules and individual resource consent conditions that are found within one region, let alone across the country.

And as a country, we still have not agreed on how to assess surface ponding, or interpret our findings. What is acceptable in what environments, and over what time frames?

Workshops were presented in Hamilton, Rotorua, Palmerston North, Ashburton, Invercargill and Whangarei. Others are to follow.

This is only one part of a comprehensive programme that Dairy New Zealand and milk companies have underway. There are initiatives to upskill system providers, farmers and operators through workshops, field days and formal training.

The Code and Standards were developed over the last couple of years in conjunction with Aqualinc Research, DairyNZ, Fonterra, MPTA and IrrigationNZ. The documents (and more) are available on the DairyNZ website. Click here>to go to the Effluent Code page.

Development of the Code and Standards was stimulated by an Environment Waikato initiative to raise the standard of efffluent systems. Development was overseen by a steering group and technical advisory group.

Steering Group

• AgVice
• Effluent and Irrigation Design
• Environment Waikato
• Federated Farmers
• Farming Supplies New Zealand
• Fonterra
• Hi-Tech Enviro Solutions
• Irrigation NZ
• New Zealand Milk Pumping and Trades Association
• Numedic
• Page Bloomer Associates
• RX Plastics
• Stuart Reid

Technical Advisory Group

• AgResearch
• Aqualinc Research
• DairyNZ effluent specialists
• Fonterra
• Hi-Tech Enviro Solutions
• Page Bloomer Associates

Any comments can be posted here, or directed to DairyNZ

The updated protocol can be downloaded from: http://www.pagebloomer.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/COP%204-7%20Centre%20Pivot.pdf

The Circular Uniformity test was adopted on recommendation from the Irrigation Association publication, “Center Pivot Design” 2000, pp179 – 181.

Our experience found the test to be problematic; much variability noted during such tests has been due to the radial variation (differences as you move along the length of the machine) rather than elevation difference or hysteresis effects.

The Evaluation Code Centre Pivot Evaluation protocol retains the Radial Uniformity test, and recommends multiple radial tests with and without any end gun, corner arm or other major variable operating. Repeating radial tests in up-slope and down-slope positions would also appear more useful than a circular uniformity test.

The most common failings we have identified to date are associated with incorrect nozzle selection and or insufficient system pressure.

Nozzle package selection should provide a machine with high performance. Unfortunately, too often this is not the case. The ‘blame’ is usually identifiable and there is no one answer.

In some cases, system purchasers (farmers) provide water / well flow rate information that is optimistic. Perhaps the information originates with well drillers, perhaps it is simple misunderstanding or forgetfulness. Regardless, once built and the true flow measured, it becomes obvious that the possible flow will never match the demand of the nozzle package supplied.

In other cases the specifications for the machine length have changed but the nozzle selection not redone. And in a couple, the package was just wrong!

Low (unsatisfactory) end pressure is also relatively common. Often there is insufficient flow available to fill the system, as noted above. Other times we find incorrect settings in variable speed drive controllers. It is good to set systems to minimise energy consumption, but excessively low pressure is false economy. Make sure the pumps are working to design specs so the system does the job for which you bought it.

We like to see a pressure test point or pressure gauge mounted above the regulator on the last dropper on the main machine. If the pressure there is less than 40kPa higher than the regulator setting, we expect to find low performance.

I’d love to get some agreement on this.

In the last year or so:

• I’ve heard that ponding only applies to durations lasting 4 hours or more, and I’ve heard it applies to anything from a few minutes duration.
• I’ve heard it has to be at least a pretty big area and I’ve heard anything at all counts.
• I’ve been told the Environment Court determined any duration mattered. A regional council had applied a four hour minimum when assessing ponding, but the court said the consent said ‘no surface ponding’ and that meant no surface ponding.
• I’ve seen lots of it and I’ve seen evidence that excessive application rates are problematic – both for irrigation and for land applied effluent.

There will almost always be some surface ponding; even drip systems micro-pond. So applying a concept of excessive surface ponding seems better. But what is excessive surface ponding?

Excessive surface ponding – defined

In the interests of sparking debate, I propose a definition of excessive surface ponding:

“Excessive surface ponding means the presence of surface water pooled in contiguous areas of greater than 0.04m2 found, one hour after application starts,  at more than four of forty sample points selected at random over at least 25% of the application area, with each point being more than two metres apart.”

• Surface water pooled may need definition, but I’d say means clearly visible puddling – i.e. not just wet soil
• contiguous areas means connected
• 0.04m2 (about 20x20cm) is bigger than a hoof print (my first intent) but is maybe too small – the auction starts now, your bids please . . .  .
• one hour after the start of application covers both travellers and stationary nozzles but is the time right?
• Four of forty sample points means 10% and hopefully is a big enough sample that is not too onerous to take
• Random is random – let’s specify a method e.g. tossing a 0.25 m2 quadrat or ring backwards over your head with your eyes shut having spun twice clockwise
• 25% of the application area means you have to look around a bit
• More than 2 m apart spreads it out a bit and avoids sampling landing in the same contiguous, but relatively small, pond. Pick a number (and justify it!)

I don’t know that I agree with my proposed definition.

For a start, I’ve watched high application rate water (and effluent too) disappear very rapidly, and upon digging significant holes, couldn’t find sign of it in the rootzone. So maybe, if you can’t see ponding for more than 10 minutes, that’s when you should get worried!?

Please, have a think, then post a comment below. Let’s try to have a reasoned and enlightening debate!

Regards

Dan

These guidelines and worksheets were funded by the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, EECA.

There are two separate guidelines, one for the pumping plant (pump and motor) and one for the delivery system (headworks and mainline). Ideally you’ll do both – they are designed to work together.

Why check pump performance?

Profitability – Incorrectly sized or physically deteriorated pumps will waste energy and money. A good pumping system saves money!

Sustainability – efficient pumping minimises energy use and carbon emissions. A good pumping system saves the environment!

Pump and motor selection are important system design considerations. Incorrectly sized pumps and/or motors will not operate at their most efficient points. So they will waste energy.

Low pressure is a common cause of poor irrigation uniformity which reduces overall system effectiveness and efficiency. The pump must provide adequate pressure and flow to ensure the system operates as designed.

Excessive pressure affects performance and wastes energy. Pump selection will usually allow about 5% extra pressure capacity to allow for slippage with time. But excessively oversized pumps are major energy wasters.

Why check delivery system performance?

Profitability – Incorrectly sized or physically deteriorated components can waste energy and money. A good system saves money!

Sustainability – energy efficient irrigation minimises energy use and carbon emissions. A good system saves the environment!

Pipe and component selection are important system design considerations. Selecting smaller options may reduce up front capital cost, but increases ongoing energy costs as bigger pumps are required. The correct selections optimise the necessary trade-offs.

Soil Moisture-Density Gauges are commonly used in construction and roading to monitor soil density. This enables engineers to determine that sufficient compaction has been achieved to ensure foundation stability.

This article summarises results from a Sustainable Farming Fund project co-funded by the Foundation for Arable Research and LandWISE.

LandWISE cropping trials have often found yield limitations where legacy compaction is not removed prior to establishing a new crop. A study was undertaken to see if a soil moisture – density gauge can give a valid measure of soil density in cropping fields, whether soil density is altered by cultivation practices and if it affects yield.

Fig.1 Top view of Troxler Moisture-Density Meter

A Troxler 3440 soil moisture density gauge was used to assess soil at sites in Gisborne, Manawatu and Hawke’s Bay. One key advantage of the gauge is that measurements are completed quickly (a couple of minutes) in the field. Conventional sampling requires large samples to be taken, dried for several days in a lab, and then weighed to determine density and moisture.

Results showed the Troxler can give valid measures of soil density but must be calibrated for each soil type and depth. Some physical cores must be taken and processed to allow this.

The calibration curves for two Hawke’s Bay soils are shown in Figure 2. These show the relationship between gauge soil density ‘estimates’ and soil density measured by removing, drying and weighing soil cores.

Figure 2. Relationship between estimated soil density obtained using individually calibrated Troxler measurements and soil core measured density for Twyford and Mangateretere soils.

Once calibrated, the Troxler offers the advantage of quickly collecting a large number of soil compaction measurements at different depths, without the cost of laborious soil sampling.  A draft protocol was prepared for calibration purposes.

Project details here>

Subscribe via RSS

RSS feeds set a favourites link in your web browser. The RSS feed collects our updates for you. When you look at your feeds, it contains items put on our website. You get the information, but you have to remember to look regularly yourself.

How do you subscribe to RSS feeds?

1. Look for this icon  

It tells you the website offers feeds. On the PageBloomer site, you’ll find it on the right, just below the Search the Site box

2. Click on Subscribe via RSS

 • A special PageBloomer page will come up showing all the latest content.

At the top of the page is a box in which you’ll find a link to set up the subscription.

3. Click on Subscribe to this feed

• A pop-up Subscribe to this feed asks if you want to subscribe to LandWISE

4. Click Subscribe and a Feed called PageBloomer will be added to your favorites

5. Check your favorite feed regularly for Page Bloomer Associates updates or to quickly search our postings. You can search here by categories too.

Additions to the IRRIG8Quick series, two options are offered for effluent systems. Both are for travelling irrigators; one for irrigators with less than, and one for those with more than, 15% overlap between adjacent run-to-run passes. (It is likely that most people will find the under 15% overlap is ok. And there may not be very much difference between them for most systems.)

We are aware that farmers are using a range of effluent application irrigation systems, but by far the most common are small travelling irrigators with rotating booms. You can download the guidelines and worksheets here>

What is involved?

The guidelines show how to lay out catch cans (buckets) to catch applied effluent, and how to perform calculations to determine the amount (rainfall depth equivalent) of effluent applied and its uniformity (evenness). There are interpretations to guide assessment of your results. The worksheets are designed to make recording and analysing your measurements easy.

What is different to normal irrigation calibrations?

A series of methods for calibrating other irrigation types is available on the irrigation calibration page. They are designed to help you calibrate normal, clean water irrigation systems.

Normal irrigation is used to avoid drought stress, and there is a focus on potential under-application. It is used when the available soil moisture is getting used up. The standard uniformity measure looks at the lowest collected volumes and compares them to the overall average applied. 

Effluent is nutrient and biology rich with a need to focus on potential over-application. And it might be applied when the soil is already pretty wet. So the uniformity measure compares the highest collected volumes with the average.

The normal irrigation guidelines do not have nutrient application built into the templates. But with a little thought and a look at the effluent guidelines, you can work out what to do! 

Results from surveys

Page Bloomer Associates completed a national survey of farm dairy effluent applicators (SFF 07-016 Canterbury Dairy Effluent Efficiency Application) and results are now available on the site under “Projects”. Click here for more>

We also ran a workshop for dairy farmers in the Toenepi Catchment study area where we trialed the IRRIG8Quick methods. Thanks to those farmers, we have a better set of guidelines and worksheets for you to use! The results can be viewed here>

As always, let us know of glitches or other problems.

The calibration uses buckets (collectors) arranged in series on adjacent rows to measure the application rate and the uniformity of application along the cordon. In essence; set out the buckets, run the system for a set time, measure what’s collected and do some sums. Shouldn’t be too hard?

Please do let us know how you get on though. We’ve had a quick try, but it is only when lots of people try to follow our guidelines, and gain experience, that any niggles show up.

See: /resources/overhead-frost-protection-calibration