1 / 26

DRAINAGE WATER MANAGEMENT FOR MIDWESTERN ROW CROP AGRICULTURE

DRAINAGE WATER MANAGEMENT FOR MIDWESTERN ROW CROP AGRICULTURE. DWM PARTNER FORUM II JUNE 15, 2011 WAYNE HONEYCUTT USDA-NRCS. THE PROJECT. Conservation Innovation Grant Awarded FY-2006 Grantee: Agricultural Drainage Management Coalition

galia
Télécharger la présentation

DRAINAGE WATER MANAGEMENT FOR MIDWESTERN ROW CROP AGRICULTURE

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. DRAINAGE WATER MANAGEMENT FOR MIDWESTERN ROW CROP AGRICULTURE DWM PARTNER FORUM II JUNE 15, 2011 WAYNE HONEYCUTT USDA-NRCS

  2. THE PROJECT • Conservation Innovation Grant • Awarded FY-2006 • Grantee: Agricultural Drainage Management Coalition • Focus area: Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, & Minnesota

  3. Collaborators • Ohio State University • Purdue University • University of Illinois • Iowa State University • Minnesota Dept. of Agriculture • University of Minnesota • USDA-ARS (IA, OH)

  4. OBJECTIVE To demonstrate the benefits of DWM on water quality, soil quality, and farm economics

  5. Water Control Structure Installation

  6. Water Control Structurewith data transmission

  7. Subsurface Drains in the 48-States

  8. Five-State CIG Plot Locations

  9. METHODS • Twenty paired plots (four in each state) compared managed drainage with conventional drainage in fields with similar soils, subsurface drainage systems, yields, and management histories. • Most sites were on private farmland, with plots planted using the same corn or soybean varieties, and treated with the same fertilizers and cultural practices

  10. PAIRED PLOT EXAMPLE

  11. METHODS • All sites, except one, were retrofitted subsurface drainage systems, with manual water control structures • Managed drainage systems were controlled by the producers • Data was transmitted and monitored through the internet

  12. MEASUREMENTS • Water flow rates from subsurface drains • Nitrate in water from subsurface drains (at least weekly) • Precipitation • Crop yields • Timing of producer management • Production costs

  13. RESULTS - Yield • Crop yields were increased as high as 20 percent, and decreased as low as 12 percent • 60 percent of annual comparisons had increased yields, and 40 percent had decreased yields • Five-State average yield increase = 1.3 percent

  14. RESULTS • Drainage Water Management reduced drainage outflow and nitrate loads by up to 90 % (average = 35 %) • No significant differences in nitrate concentrations were observed

  15. RESULTS - Economics • DWM components add only 10 percent to total cost of redraining • Cost of Water Control Structures for CIG Subsurface Drainage System Retrofits Pipe Diameter Cost of Retrofit Cost for 20-acre Zone (in.) ($/each) ($/acre) 6 1,308 65 8 1,428 71 10 1,536 77 12 1,764 88

  16. RESULTS - Outreach • Field days (22) • Training sessions (21) • Workshops (43) • Technical conferences (67) • Periodicals/brochures (7) • Producer surveys (1) • Radio/TV interviews (2)

  17. Control Structure Installation at Field Day

  18. RECOMMENDATIONS • DWM retrofits feasible on field slopes of 0.5 percent or less (potential 10M acres in US) • DWM with contour redraining feasible on field slopes of 2.0 percent or less (potential 60M acres in US)

  19. CONCLUSIONS Negligible impacts on yield Very substantial environmental impacts

  20. Project Recommendations • More information on deep and lateral seepage, including denitrification potential • Further evaluation of economics

  21. Five-State CIG Impacts • NRCS Conservation Practice Standard “Drainage Water Management ” (554) was revised in 2008 to include timeframe for manage drainage water • NRCS Practice Payment Schedules were revised in 2011 to improve regional consistency for “Drainage Water Management Plan” (130) and “Drainage Water Management” (554)

  22. Continuing Efforts • Collaborators plan to publish State-specific CIG data and results, in peer-reviewed journal (2012) • NRCS will utilize soils and crop input files from CIG to start building DRAINMOD database in the Five States (2012)

  23. Further Information • ADMC website link to Five-State CIG report: http://www.admcoalition.com/stateresources.html • NRCS website link to CIG program: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/cig/index.html

  24. Five-State CIG Results Managed v. Conventional Drainage2007-2009 Drainage Nitrate Crop Outflow Reduction Load Reduction Yield Increase State (%) (%) (%) Ohio 60.9 53.4 4.9 Indiana 7.0 0.1 1.4 Illinois 58.3 68.0 1.3 Iowa 39.4 38.8 0.3 Minnesota 22.3 36.1 -0.5 All 34.9 34.4 1.3

  25. Five-State CIG ResultsRegional DWM Control Plans

More Related