by Jose Fontela, Senninger Irrigation
In
the mid 80's Senninger worked with researchers at the Texas A&M AgriLife
Research &
Extension Center to release the first Low Energy Precision
Application (LEPA) sprinkler. This
technology was developed for center pivot irrigators in the western high plains
of the United States who were affected by high energy costs and declining water
availability due to dropping water tables or dwindling surface supplies.
Close spacing combines bubbler sprinklers with conservation tillage. |
LEPA
systems use low-pressure bubbler heads to deposit water directly into furrows
just 8 to 18 inches above the ground. With the heads closer to the ground, the
water avoids the hitting leaves, so it does not come in contact with plants and
fruit susceptible to water borne diseases and nearly all of it is absorbed by
the soil. In fact, researchers and growers have found that with these low
pressure heads, at least 20 percent more water reaches the soil compared with
conventional spray nozzles.
What
began 30 years ago as LEPA has evolved into one of the most effective
irrigation methods known today for center pivot systems ‒ close spacing. Close
spacing has been a proven success in many dry regions across the US. It is an irrigation method based off LEPA
that is gaining ground in areas where water is regulated and people are
increasingly concerned about diminishing natural resources. The reason why
close spacing irrigation is gaining popularity among growers in America is
simple ‒ growers are saving water, saving energy, and seeing increased
yields.
Furthermore,
this high-performance technology works at low pressures, which makes it ideal
for reducing energy and pumping costs, as well.
A Closer Look
Close
spacing combines the use of the same water-efficient LEPA bubbler heads with
conservation tillage. Just as in those LEPA applications, close spacing heads
are mounted 8 to 18 inches above the soil to combat wind-drift and prevent
evaporation losses. Both methods require
nearly identical management practices and provide similar benefits.
The close spacing method, with 30 inches between heads. |
Making It Work
Success
with close spacing depends on three key factors: the right irrigation
equipment, the right farming practices and the right field conditions.
Senninger
bubblers made for LEPA have proven to be the ideal sprinklers for getting the
most out of close spacing irrigation.
They operate at low pressures ranging from 6 to 20 PSI, using less
energy than conventional low-pressure sprinklers, and operate using fewer
gallons per minute than conventional spray nozzles ‒ approximately 0.27 to 21.18
gpm.
Bubbler sprinklers deposit water directly into furrows, which avoids wetting the foliage. |
Because
close spacing sprinklers are mounted 8 to 18 inches above the ground, this
method works better on relatively flat farms. The maximum recommended slope for
fields considering close spacing is one percent. Circle planting allows
bubblers to be centered in furrows, which is ideal for further controlling
run-off. It is used by growers who also
want to prevent wetting the crop canopy when taking advantage of close spacing
applications.
The
versatility of bubbler sprinklers provides the opportunity to combine various
components to suit different crop and soil needs. Some growers, for example, combine
conventional spray heads with bubble applications at various crop stages.
Others alter the spacing on the first few spans, vary the sprinkler height off
the ground, and even alter the application rate by irrigation cycle.
For
more information about close spacing and LEPA sprinklers, visit
www.senninger.com.
Sources:
__________
About the Author: Jose Fontela is a Copywriter and Digital Marketing Coordinator for Senninger Irrigation, a Hunter Industries Company based in Clermont, Florida. He can be reached at jfontela@senninger.biz.
The views expressed in this blog are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the view of The Groundwater Foundation, its board of directors, or individual members.
The views expressed in this blog are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the view of The Groundwater Foundation, its board of directors, or individual members.
No comments:
Post a Comment