The Cross Section, Volume 26, Number 6, June 1980 Page: 4
This periodical is part of the collection entitled: Texas State Publications and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Page 4 THE CROSS SECTION June, 1980
RESEARCH . . . continued from page 3
to determine the application efficien-
cies of high and low pressure systems.
One high pressure and one low pres-
sure sprinkler each are located at the
Bushland Lab and at the Texas A&M
North Plains Research field at Etter,
Texas. The two sets of pivots will be
compared at each site and at exactly
the same speeds with the same quan-
tities of water pumped through the
lines, for how much water is absorbed
into the soil profile under each system,
and for yield.
The research will look at effects of
losses to surface runoff, evaporation
and wind, and the effects of practices
such as furrow dikes and residue man-
agement for reducing losses. Under-
sander and colleagues hope to deter-
mine optimum management practices
associated with each system and the
difference in physiological responses of
plants grown under each system.
"We know low pressure is cheaper
to operate," says Undersander, "but
for the same water pumped at both
high and low pressures, we don't know
which system under what management
will net the best yields."
The next phase of sprinkler research
planned is a probe of how fast to run
the pivot around the field. Further
down the road researchers will analyze
the application efficiencies and plant
response processes of same pressure,
variable speed data.
"The industry has been putting out
these systems now for 15 years," says
Marek, and we still don't have any data
on the trade offs involved in varying
the application rate and s y s t e m
pressure for the best application
efficiencies."
Another thing many farmers still
don't have is a reading on the poten-
tial for increasing the efficiency of
their pumping plants. Dr. ArlandSchneider is working with Leon New,
a Texas Agricultural Extension Service
ua La... 11N
- /TUNISIA'S Ahmed Khouadja, Director of
Soil and Water Resources (center), ex-
changes solutions to common water prob-
lems of semi arid lands with Don Smith
through Mohamed Zaier.ARLAND SCHNEIDER deplores poor well
efficiencies
engineer, on a new set of measure-
ments for existing irrigation pump
plant efficiencies to see if they have
changed appreciably since the last
study done by the Texas Tech Univer-
sity Agricultural Engineering Depart-
ment in 1968. Results are showing
that average efficiencies on natural gas
and electric motors have changed very
little since then. Schneider expects to
have 40 to 50 pump test results by the
end of this irrigation season and to
begin an economic analysis of the data.
But the findings to date leave little
doubt that there is room for substan-
tial improvement. For e x a m p e,
Schneider cites TTU's 1968 study of
existing versus attainable efficiencies
as follows:
Existing and attainable efficiencies for
irrigation pumping equipment in the
Texas High Plains.
Existing Attainable
Equipment efficiency efficiency
Electrically-Powered
Pumping Systems* 48.6 67
Natural Gas-Powered
Pumping Systems** 10.8 17
Vertical Turbine Pumps 52.2 75
Natural Gas Engines
(Thermal Efficiency) 19.8 24*Estimated electric motor efficiency is 89%.
**Estimated right angle gear drive efficiency
is 95%.
"But the determining factor is still
cost," says Schneider. "Farmers are
not in the business of saving energy,
they're in it to make a cash crop. They
have to be able to determine whether
the energy savings will cover the cost
of repairs." Schneider has a rule of
thumb formula to gauge energy sav-
ings, but to plug in the factors a
farmer must know his current efficien-
cy. Schneider doesn't expect farmers
to be eager to compute all the figures
themselves, but he is encouraged that
power suppliers and private industry
are beginning to offer the service of
conducting these tests.Watch your rear
PUMP PLANTS ... continued from page 1
21 to 23 percent for natural gas
engines, and 27 to 29 percent for
diesel.
While overall pumping plant effi-
ciency equals the efficiency of the
pumping unit times the power unit, thebiggest dollar payoffs are coming from
pump overhauls. Even major pump
adjustments are costing less in many
cases, than the extra energy needed to
irrigate with inefficient equipment.
And the payback on the cost of repairs
is often recouped in one season.
Chances are about even, according
to A. D. Halderman, a University of
Arizon extension engineer, that your
pump needs repair. He says in the
1978 fall issue of Furrow magazine that
a new pump, properly adjusted should
use roughly 150 kilowatt hours of elec-
tricity to lift one acre-foot of water 100
feet. If it takes around 200 or more
kilowatt hours, it's probably time to
repair the pump.
Low pump efficiency not only begins
to eat your profits in pumping costs, it
can make less water available when
needed and cause crop damage. It
wastes energy and increases the invest-
ment for your power unit. It inflates
the power supplier's capacity require-
ments and investment. And if your
farming operation is marginal, it can
make or break you.- ..I '# 7-.'
I WOULD YOU BELIEVE: It may be possible to cut ground water use
I in half and still maintain the same production level in the High Plains
I of Texas? Research points in this direction with use of FURROW
I DIKES for optimum precipitation use and for maximizing the
I efficiency of irrigation application with low pressure sprinklers.
iI
4-a
ii.
ar
Vas- -
- 1
t -r r t -
CASE IN POINT: In 1980 furrow blocking research at the Etter Station, a heavy
$rainfall (5.7 inches) on May 27 - 28th and another 2.2 inches on June 10th, the
open furrows recorded runoff of 5.1 inches while the diked furrows metered only
12.4 inches of runoff. Considerable settling and flattening of the beds was notedI
but overtopping of the furrow blocks did not erode the dams in the gently sloping
clay loam soil.4w - - -
OV6L SVX31 ')3088f1
b 3 nN3AV 0E6Z
I 'ON 13HISIG NOI1VAH3SNO3
I31VM GNnOUH93GNf SNIVId HDIH
(O6-V9 SdSl) NO133S SSOS3 3H1lIlNH3d SSV-1 GNO33S
Page 4
T HE CR O SS S EC T IO N
June, 1980
}
,3
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Periodical.
High Plains Underground Water Conservation District No. 1 (Tex.). The Cross Section, Volume 26, Number 6, June 1980, periodical, June 1980; Lubbock, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth1533063/m1/4/?rotate=90: accessed August 15, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.