Irrigation Australia Limited Conference 2014

Improving Irrigation Efficiency in the Australian Cotton Industry

A Grower Led Approach

Background

• Limited and variable water availability• Growers looking to improve production per

mega litre• Furrow/siphon the most commonly utilised

system• No commercial comparisons of alternatives

Funding

• A grower led project to investigate irrigation efficiency alternatives– Initial funding from the National Water

Commission• Project to run from 2008-2012

– Additional funding through the Cotton Research and Development Corporation (CRDC)• Project to run from 2012-2015

The Grower Led Approach• Working with innovative irrigators in the Gwydir Valley• Quantify water efficient irrigation practices on a

commercial basis• Practical approach to irrigation• Commercial observations and information• Flexibility to allow the project to evolve overtime– Investigation of energy and labour requirements needed

for adoption.

Trial Program Components

Off-season Trials

2008:Telleraga Trial

2010:Redbank Trial

2014: Optimised Furrow Trial

Comparison Trial

2009: Keytah 1st season

2011: Keytah 2nd season replication

2013: Keytah 3rd season replication

Furrow/siphon Bankless Channel

Overhead Lateral Move Drip

Furrow/syphon85.69ha

Lateral (Lateral 3)122.99ha

Storage

N

Lateral (Lateral 1) 122.95ha

BanklessChannel 32.53ha

Drip 11.43ha

Keytah Trial Details• 4 systems– Drip– Bankless

Channel– Lateral

Move– Furrow /

Syphon

Furrow Lateral Drip Bankless0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.27 1.28 1.3

1.12

Yield, Seasonal Water Use and GPWUI 2009-2010

Yield bales/ha 2009-2010 Seasonal Water ML/Ha 2009-2010 GPWUI GPWUI 2009-2010

Furrow Lateral Drip Bankless0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.05

1.35

1.161.22

Yield, Seasonal Water Use and GPWUI 2011-2012

Yield bales/ha 2011-2012 Seasonal Water ML/Ha 2011-2012 GPWUI GPWUI 2011-2012

Furrow Lateral Drip Bankless0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

-2.22044604925031E-16

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.27 1.28

1.3

1.121.05

1.35

1.16

1.22

Yield, Seasonal Water Use and GPWUI comparison between 2009-2010 and 2011-2012

bales/ha 2009-2010 ML/Ha 2009-2010 bales/ha 2011-2012ML/Ha 2011-2012 GPWUI 2009-2010 GPWUI 2011-2012

Focus of the Current 2013/2014 Season

• Objective was to add to the grower information package.– Project expanded to capture management data and

practical information on resourcing the individual systems• Labour• Energy and • Water

• Further investment in tools to aid in water monitoring. • Seasonal challenges with hot, dry conditions and very

little in crop rainfall

Grower Considerations

• Soil type• Topography• Water reliability• Financial capital• Operation and maintenance commitments• Crop type

Initial Input Comparisons Operating Labour Time (hrs p.a.)

Furrow/Siphon

Bankless Channel

Lateral Move

Drip Tape

Initial Input Comparisons Operating Energy Cost

(fuel usage in L/meg/ha)

Furrow/Siphon

Bankless Channel

Lateral Move

Drip Tape

Initial Input Comparisons Total Operating Costs

($/ha/p.a.)

Furrow/Siphon

Bankless Channel

Lateral Move

Drip Tape

Grand Total Cost of Operating, Maintenance, Ownership

($/ha/p.a.)

Furrow/Siphon

Bankless Channel

Lateral Move

Drip Tape

Achievements• Demonstrated that the grower led approach is

– Practical – Realistic extension model for industry

because it can adapt to grower needs and address questions as they become apparent.

• Developed a case study which is relevant for growers.• Broad communication and extension activities continue to improve the

understanding of the alternative irrigation systems for growers• Irrigators in the cotton industry have started adopting to alternative

irrigation systems.• We are currently undergoing a strategic review to determine the most

practical way forward to address grower needs.

Thank You