Part 1: Should I enter the Awards?

Entries and nominations are now open for the 2021 Zimmatic™ Trailblazer Sustainable Irrigation Awards. The easy online entry and nomination process provides a chance to reflect and celebrate the efforts you or someone you know have made towards responsible irrigation, water management and environmental stewardship.

There has been strong enquiry following the success of the 2020 Awards, with farmers curious about what the judges are looking for across the four categories. To help, the judging panel have compiled a summary of the leading submissions from the 2020 entrants across Australia and New Zealand. We have split this into two parts, beginning with sustainable irrigation management. For part two click here.

Sustainable Irrigation Management

Design of the leading irrigation systems took into consideration soils, crops, climate and water source from the outset. For some these posed challenges, e.g. variable soils with areas of particularly light soils and low WHC’s, limited water supply and high salinity (Australia) were mentioned. Conscious design and having a thorough understanding of the issues allowed these challenges to be overcome.

Entry example: Efficiency of water transfer improved from a 30% conveyance loss to 0% loss by converting open channels to underground polyethylene pipes.

Soil types and typography within the irrigated area were integral to system design and decision-making. Any spatial variation in soil moisture characteristics was identified, and qualified, through EM mapping and ground-truthing. Different approaches were applied to deal with the variability including appropriate choices of irrigator type, technology such as variable rate irrigation (VRI), methods to monitor variable moisture deficits and ground contouring to name a few.

Entry example: Salinity and nutrient concentrations through the soil profile are monitored on one property as a measure of their management effectiveness. A reduction in EC levels of upwards of 30% was measured over 3 years, this level of amelioration equates to the equivalent of 1.6 tonnes of salt/ha leaving the crop effective root zone.

The installation of VRI technology was a game changer on many properties, not only used to vary the application depth according to the need but also to avoid tracks, unproductive areas, environmentally sensitive areas, reduce/eliminate water logging, reduce erosion, reduce sand blowing, improve sensitive cropping areas, reduce nutrient leaching and improve yields.

Evapotranspiration and the changes in water requirements during plant growth stages was clearly understood by farmers and how these factors influenced irrigation scheduling decisions.

Irrigation scheduling was guided by data from in-ground sensor networks or cloud-based modelling tools such as FieldNET™ Advisor. Best practise scheduling examples used a combination of current soil moisture measures and forecasting of climate and crop needs with buffers to ensure drainage and stress were avoided. Other data streams considered in irrigation scheduling included normalised difference vegetation index (NDVI) and enhanced vegetation index (EVI).

Visual observations using a shovel augmented the information provided through the various technology options and provided reassurance that there were no glitches in the system. Or if there were that adjustments could be made.

The irrigation system designs ensured environmentally sensitive areas were avoided and buffers were able to be used when needed, for instance if effluent or fertiliser was applied through an irrigator.

Systems were checked and maintained by a qualified person, some went as far as using remote alert systems to inform them or directly inform the service technician of system faults to ensure a timely fix. Irrigator performance testing (bucket testing) was carried out annually. The impact that distribution uniformity has on water use efficiency and crop yields was understood and provided a payback for the testing and analysis.

The judges were impressed by those that considered the wider social, cultural and ecological environment outside of the farm gate in their irrigation system design.

Improvements in the labour efficiency of some of the irrigation operations were achieved through upgrading systems and technology. For example, replacing a gun irrigation system over 80ha that required 500hrs of labour input due to pipe and gun shifts with a centre pivot saved approx. $15,000 in labour wage costs. Remote management technologies were credited for reducing labour and fuel costs on the larger properties, but also adding peace-of-mind.

Entry example: On one property time and motion analysis showed that more than 1,000km’s were travelled during the summer manually operating irrigation, which was a big toll on staff, vehicles and a heighted health and safety risk. Implementation of automated systems and remote irrigation management reduced the labour requirement by 60% which also greatly improved staff retention.

A limited number of entrants mentioned studies into the energy efficiency of their systems and for some significant savings were gained by improved pumping set-ups. There were a couple of system designs that stood out in terms of energy efficiency where the corresponding irrigation operating costs were extremely low.

Entry example: Energy audit recommendations resulted in the installation of solar tracking arrays to help offset the environmental impact of the energy used to convey water throughout the irrigation system.

We hope this provides you with some insight into why the leading entrants from the 2020 awards caught the eye of the judging panel! If these examples resonate with you and you are doing some great things on your farm, then consider entering the Awards. You not only get a chance to share your story, but you get the chance to win some great prizes. The entry process is easy to complete online, simply click here to get started.