AGREM LLC
|
|
|
|
Dryland vs Sub-Irrigation Spreadsheet Power Point Presentation about Sub Irrigation Click for full view
EC deep EC shallow Contour Map Sub-irrigation Tile Plow Excavator AGREM's software makes use of Dual Surface Electrical Conductivity Soil mapping, soil maps, and Contour Maps to analyze the feasibility of Sub-irrigation. If the field meets the criteria for sub-irrigation, the design of the sub-irrigation system is implemented. Upon completion of the design phase, AGREM LLC will then have a qualified contractor install the system. AGREM LLC will then train the operator of the farm in Agriculture Water Management and help with future programs. With this program you only have to work with AGREM for the implementation of the whole system and continued maintenance. A one stop solution. Common questions asked: Question: What are the benefits of Agriculture Water Management? Answer: There are two main benefits, higher yields, and the reduction of nitrate runoff into our rivers and lakes. Question: How much does this cost? Answer: The new methods of installing field tile have dropped the costs per foot dramatically. The pay back period is usually just a few years and better than current drainage systems because of the increased yields every year even if there is a drought or wet year. The operator is able in the spring to be in the field much earlier because the field is drained faster. At harvest the field is drained and if it's a wet harvest the operator will be able to harvest much earlier because of the improved drainage. This all results in an increased profit from a higher yield each year. With this sub-irrigation system the problems of wet and drought years are not a big a factor influencing yields, you have water management. AGREM will provide a full system cost analysis. Question: How do I go about getting sub-irrigation for my fields. Answer: The only thing you have to do is contact AGREM. We will handle all aspects of it and be with you in the future for training and maintenance of the system. We have contractors that have been trained and qualified to install our systems. The only thing you have to do is contact us, we do the rest.
Question: What about a Pivot Irrigation System, how does it differ. Answer: The costs of a Pivot Irrigation System can be comparable to a Sub-irrigation System, but there is no drainage and the irrigation is limited to the path of the pivot. The maintenance and pumping costs are also much higher. The illustration below explains both systems.
*Drawing courtesy of Advanced Drainage Systems Inc. Question: What about nitrates and yields, how will this type of system help? Answer: The following abstracts from studies in Canada, Ohio State University, and Michigan State University will explain.
Controlled drainage and sub-irrigation influences tile nitrate loss and corn yields in a sandy loam soil in Southwestern Ontario H. Y. F. Ng, C. S. Tan, C. F. Drury and J. D. Gaynor AbstractControlled drainage and sub-irrigation (CDS) are a recommended agricultural practice to improve agricultural water quality and crop productivity. An on-farm study was conducted to evaluate the influence of CDS on nitrate leaching and corn (Zea mays L.) yield in a sandy loam soil in Southwestern Ontario, Canada. A farm was divided into two 1.9 ha plots and planted with corn. One of the plots had a free tile drainage (FD) system, and the other plot was installed with a CDS system. Drainage water volumes and water quality were monitored from 1 May 1996 until 31 April 1997. The cumulative drainage water volume from the CDS treatment was 8% greater than the FD treatment over this period. The flow weighted mean nitrate concentration of the drainage water was reduced by 41% from 19.2 mg N l-1 for FD treatment to 11.3 mg N l-1 for the CDS treatment. Hence, the net effect of slightly increased drainage volumes and dramatically lower nitrate concentrations with the CDS treatment resulted in a cumulative nitrate loss of 36.8 kg N ha-1 compared to 57.9 kg N ha-1 for the FD treatment. The CDS treatment reduced total nitrate loss by 36% compared to the FD treatment. The soil moisture content (top 120 cm) in the CDS treatment was 21% greater than the FD treatment and the FD treatment had a water table depth that was 49 cm deeper (59%) than the CDS treatment. Therefore, it was not surprising that corn from the CDS treatment had 50% greater transpiration rates (47.4 mg m-2 s-1) than the FD treatment (31.7 mg m-2 s-1). Similarly, the stomatal conductance was 12% greater with the CDS treatment (0.73 cm s-1) when compared to the FD treatment (0.65 cm s-1). The average corn yields were 11.0 Mg ha-1 from the CDS treatment and 6.7 Mg ha-1 from the FD treatment which was a 64% yield increase. The CDS treatment also had higher (11%) water use efficiency than the FD treatment. Thus, the crops utilized N and water more efficiently in the CDS treatment which resulted in increased productivity and improved water quality. _________________________________________________________________________ Ohio State UniversityEditorsLeslie A. Zucker Larry C. Brown This publication was produced through the Department of Food, Agricultural, and Biological Engineering at The Ohio State University, in cooperation with the USDA-Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Soil Drainage Research Unit, Columbus, Ohio, and various USDA agencies and land grant universities in the North Central Region, including the Midwest Water Quality Initiative's Management Systems Evaluation Area (MSEA) projects in Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, and Ohio. Support for this publication was provided by these cooperating agencies and programs, and Ohio State University Extension, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Overholt Drainage Education and Research Program; and the Ohio MSEA project (USDA CSREES Grant No. 94-EWQI-1-9057). Zucker, L.A. and L.C. Brown (Eds.). 1998. Agricultural Drainage: Water Quality Impacts and Subsurface Drainage Studies in the Midwest. Ohio State University Extension Bulletin 871. The Ohio State University. Copyright 1998 The Ohio State University
Agricultural DrainageBulletin 871-98
OhioSubirrigation and Ground-Water QualitySubirrigation is a form of water table management that provides both drainage and irrigation requirements for crops with one subsurface system. Nitrate-N and atrazine concentrations were measured in shallow ground water beneath conventional subsurface drainage and subirrigation/drainage systems for corn and soybean from 1991 to 1997 at the Northwest Branch Station of OARDC near Hoytville, Ohio. Corn and soybean grown in rotation were fall chisel-plowed followed by field cultivation in the spring. Nitrate-N concentrations in the shallow ground water at 3.3, 6.6, and 9.8 ft depths were lower when subirrigation was applied during the growing season compared to when no subirrigation was applied. This reduced concentration was seen during both the growing and non-growing seasons. There was a 76% reduction in nitrate-N concentrations in ground water at the 9.8 ft depth (lowest depth sampled) when subirrigation was used instead of conventional drainage. The lowest concentrations were reported for subirrigation with a constant water table under both corn and soybean. Water table levels maintained at a constant level beneath growing crops resulted in a 74% greater reduction in nitrate-N than a management regime of fluctuating water table levels. Atrazine was not detectable in most of the shallow ground-water samples. When detected, atrazine concentrations were less than 0.1 mg/L (1 mg/L equals 1 ppm). Water Table Management SchemeDrainage water quality beneath the following water table management schemes was tested for nitrate-N concentration: conventional subsurface drainage; subirrigation/drainage with a constant water table; and subirrigation/drainage with a fluctuating water table. Subirrigation consistently showed lower nitrate-N concentrations in drainage water compared to conventional drainage. Conventional subsurface drains were always open to allow free drainage. Subirrigation/drainage systems used to maintain a constant water table level were closed for approximately 100 days beginning in mid-June. Water was added to maintain the water table at 10 in. below the ground surface and the drains were opened as necessary to lower the water table following rainfall events. Subirrigation/drainage systems used to maintain a fluctuating water table were also closed for approximately 100 days beginning in mid-June. Again, water was initially added to raise the water table level to 10 in. below the ground surface. A fluctuating cycle was implemented where the water table level was not raised until the water table fell to 31.5 in. below the ground surface. This cycle was repeated over the growing season. Ohio Management Systems Evaluation AreaOhio MSEA activities occur on research sites, demonstration farms, and in watersheds. Research sites are used to evaluate different farming systems and their impacts on water quality. Demonstration farms show how agricultural management practices can be economically profitable to farmers. Results from site studies are used to model watershed processes and develop expert systems. Cooperation between the Ohio MSEA and the PREC water quality program in south-central Ohio was established in 1990 to monitor the impacts of agricultural management systems on productivity, profitability, and ground-water quality. Phase II of Ohio MSEA, initiated in 1994, had its scope broadened to include water table management and watershed research in northern Ohio, with more emphasis on development of decision aids and expert systems. New directions for the Ohio MSEA education component includes riparian ecosystems, agricultural water management, integration of wetlands into agricultural production systems, development of a comprehensive agricultural water management guide, and addressing the Gulf of Mexico hypoxia issue. The Ohio MSEA is a cooperative research and educational effort supported by: Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center and Ohio State University Extension, The Ohio State University; USDA-ARS Soil Drainage Research Unit, the USDA-Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service, USDA-NRCS, the U.S. Geological Survey, and U.S. EPA, in cooperation with other local, state and federal agencies. Wetland Reservoir Subirrigation SystemsThe Maumee River Watershed Demonstration Project will take five years to fully implement and evaluate. Construction began during the fall of 1994. System evaluation and monitoring will begin in 1998. The work conducted at the demonstration sites is coordinated through the Maumee Valley Resource Conservation and Development Area in Defiance County. However, there are over 50 cooperators and collaborators actively involved in the project. The project is primarily funded by USEPA/GLNPO, with support funding from the Lake Erie Protection Fund, OARDC, Ohio State University Extension, Ohio Sea Grant Program, North Central Region Water Resources Research Program, and numerous agencies and associations.
Agricultural DrainageBulletin 871-98
OhioWetland Reservoir Subirrigation SystemsWetland Reservoir Subirrigation Systems link a wetland and water supply reservoir to a network of subirrigation/subsurface drainage pipes that can be used to irrigate crops through the root zone. Proper linkage and management of these components has the following benefits:
 A properly designed system has the potential for zero-discharge to streams, with the option to release clean water at a later date, helping to reduce peak flows downstream. During and after a rain, runoff and subsurface drainage waters flow into the wetland. A water control structure in the wetland is used to maintain a ponded water depth of one to two feet. Vegetation that grows in the water, on the bank, and in the adjacent habitat area helps filter out sediment and nutrients from the flow. Water that flows from the wetland is pumped to the water supply reservoir for storage. Water in the reservoir can then be pumped to the subirrigation/subsurface drainage system to irrigate crops during the growing season. Subirrigation improves crop yields because crops receive a steady supply of water throughout the growing season. From the field, water drains back into the wetland, and the cycle starts again.   Two components of a wetland reservoir subirrigation system: (1) a Agricultural DrainageBulletin 871-98
MichiganResearch and DemonstrationResearch and field demonstration projects have been coordinated by Michigan State University at several sites located in the south central area of the lower peninsula of Michigan. A first project was installed in 1984 at the East Lansing Campus site to compare subirrigated yield to overhead irrigated yield. The effect of water table depth on plant physiology and nitrate-N and atrazine transport and distribution was also studied. Field demonstrations to examine the effects of drain pipe spacing on water table management system performance began in 1985 at Bannister on a poorly drained, fairly heavy clay loam, and in 1986 at St. Johns on a sandier and poorly drained soil series. In 1987, the Bannister site system was modified to allow for study of effects of subirrigation on nutrient and pesticide concentrations and loading in discharge water and the soil profile.  A view of the Subirrigation Rainshelter Project showing one of the In 1989, a research study was initiated near Unionville to comprehensively compare water table management by subirrigation to both conventional subsurface drainage and to the same soil without subsurface drains. Water Quality ResultsAt Bannister:
 Bannister and Unionville nitrate-N and orthophosphate-phosphorus At Unionville:
Yield and Economics Results Side by side comparison of subirrigated to conventional subsurface drained crop yields have been made at all of the above research sites plus other Michigan locations.
In General For a substantial percentage of Michigan cropland, water table management by subirrigation is feasible and often provides both water quality and economic benefit. Fields that are suitable have:
Water Table Management System Operation The field studies, coupled with information from farmers with water table management experience, has confirmed that water table management systems must be properly operated to achieve the benefits possible. Water table management systems that are not properly operated result in wasted water, increased discharge of nutrients and pesticides, wasted consumed energy, and reduced yields.  The average yields for plots that are subirrigated (SI) compared to the
AGRINEWS Wednesday, Oct 26, 2005 Sub-irrigation system reduces nitrate loss, conserves water Wednesday, October 26, 2005 TOM C. DORAN. COLFAX, Ill. � Sub-irrigation systems, once thought to be limited to installation on flat land, are now available for rolling terrain, thanks to a recently patented technology. Bob Meiners of Anchor, owner of AGREM LLC, created the patented software program that works hand-in-hand with other technology to develop a self-contained sub-irrigation system. The end result is a water management system that will improve yields, reduces nitrate loss and not require water from sources other than an on-site holding pond, according to Meiners. He explained that the software program uses global positioning technology to map the field. Meiners estimates field mapping takes about 45 minutes for 80 acres. �It�s all computer designed before the tiling begins. It tells us where to put the tile and gates,� he said. Tiling installation technology, combined with the GPS mapping, is now available for laying an accurate one-tenth grade tile 15 feet apart and two feet deep. The accuracy is maintained throughout the installation, despite the terrain. Meiners said the problem with sub-irrigation in past is that conventional tiling systems were limited to holding grade on flat ground. �This is the sort of problem that held back sub-irrigation. That�s why technology had to come together to make it economical.� As part of the design, a reservoir is installed as a collections system. The reservoir size is about two percent of the total field size. �All of the runoff goes into the reservoir which serves as a water source for irrigation. It does not go into the ditches,� Meiners said. An adjacent wetland reservoir collects any excess water that may be generated from heavy rains. This system is linked to the water supply reservoir for reuse later or the water can be discharged into a stream. The interconnected system includes a 35- to 40-horsepower motor to pump water throughout the tile when needed. Connectors are also placed strategically for adding nitrogen directing into the tile if necessary. AGREM LLC also provides training to the farmer for proper management of the system. Meiners, who has spent several years designing computer system software for drainage contractors, came up with the idea after attending a conference in southern Illinois presented by Larry Brown of Ohio State University. Contractors noted at the time about the terrain limitations for its installation. Brown has done extensive research on sub-irrigation systems and gave Meiners about a 4-inch-thick book on the subject. �If we could retain the nitrates from going into the river, it would solve some problems,� Meiners said of the information he took from the conference. That is when he decided to study the thick book and develop the program �to find a means of putting a lot of tile in fast and economically.� The new system has been found to be more effective than traditional tiling, Meiners said. Generally, it said that tile can remove three-eighths of an inch of rain in 24 hours. �This system can remove three-fourths of an inch of rain in 24 hours.� �We�re also going to drain the field sooner then others. The benefits are immeasurable, added John Feit of Normal, a member of the AGREM Marketing LLC group. The closed loop system that collects and recycles runoff and reduces sediment and plant nutrient loss has also caught the interest of environmental groups. �The Nature Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited and the NRCS are all excited about it because of the zero nitrogen release,� Meiners said. Regarding the irrigation process itself, nutrient rich water can be pumped back into the tiles when needed, therefore encouraging deep rooting. Just where the water goes into the field can also be controlled. �You can fill or not fill each zone (in the field), so we can really manage our water. If you want to pump extra nitrogen, you can put it directly into the system, not in the reservoir.� An Internet site, www.agremmarketing.com, has a spreadsheet available to show the savings and return on investing in the system, explained AGREM Marketing LLC partner Mark Miller of Colfax. The interactive spreadsheet compares past and future costs and returns from a field, taking into consideration the reservoir size (land taken out of production), average grain prices, subsidies, seed cost, planting and harvest expenses, per bushel transportation, drying, fertilizer costs, labor and other expenses. It provides analysis for a farmer who cash rents the farm, as well as for an owner-operator to determine the economic benefits of the system. Content � 2006 AgriNews Software � 1998-2006 1up! Software, All Rights Reserved Page 2 of 2 AGRINews | Sub-irrigation system reduces nitrate loss, conserves water 1/4/2006 http://www.agrinews-pubs.com/print.asp?ArticleID=9267&SectionID=1&SubSectionID=60
Contact AGREM Marketing LLC. Phone: (866) 782 4774 email: agrem@agrem.com
|
|
Send mail to agrem@agrem.com with
questions or comments about this web site.
|
![[New!]](images/smallnew.gif){kind=small}
NEW!!! 
Th
%20of%20rugged%20computers%20044.jpg)
%20of%20rugged%20computers%20043.jpg)
