University of California

Reducing drainwater: Furrow vs. subsurface drip irrigation


Allan E. Fulton
J. D. Oster
Blaine R. Hanson
Claude J. Phene
David A. Goldhamer

Authors Affiliations

Albn E. Fulton is Soils and Water Farm Advisor, Kings County; J. D. Oster is Soils and Wafer Extension Specialist, UC Riverside; Blaine R. Hanson is Irrigation and Drainage Extension Specialist, UC Davis; Claude J. Phene is Soils and Irrigation Scientist, USDA-ARS; David A. Goldhamer is Irrigation Extension Specialist, Kearney Agricultural Center.

Publication Information

Hilgardia 45(2):4-8. DOI:10.3733/ca.v045n02p4b. March 1991.

PDF of full article, Cite this article


Cotton was produced using conventional furrow irrigation, an upgraded continuous-flow furrow design, surge irrigation, and subsurface drlp lrrlgatlon in 1987 and 1988. We found that the most economical method of reducing potential drainage at this site was to reduce the furrow length by half and decrease the set time by more than one-half during preirrigation. A subsurface drip system reduced potential drainage most effectively and increased production, but caused an overall profit loss. Subsurface drip systems may be profitable if properly designed and managed; however, a substantial yield increase or reduction in drainage disposal costs must be achieved. Otherwise, profitability of subsurface drip would be less than that for furrow irrigation systems.

Fulton A, Oster J, Hanson B, Phene C, Goldhamer D. 1991. Reducing drainwater: Furrow vs. subsurface drip irrigation. Hilgardia 45(2):4-8. DOI:10.3733/ca.v045n02p4b
Webmaster Email: wsuckow@ucanr.edu