SWRHL-63r
AGRONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE EXPERIMENTAL DAIRY FARM
January 1966 - December 1968
by
E. M. Daley and D. D. Smith
Radiological Research
Southwestern Radiological Health Laboratory
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
Public Health Service
Bureau of Radiological Health
Consumer Protection and Environmental Health Service
August 1969
This study performed under a Memorandum of
Understanding (No. SF 54 373)
for the
U. S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
-------
LEGAL NOTICE
This report was prepared as an account of Government sponsored
work. Neither the United States, nor the Atomic Energy Commission,
nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission:
A. Makes any warranty or representation, expressed or implied,
with respect to the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the in-
formation contained in this report, or that the use of any information,
apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report may not in-
fringe privately owned rights; or
B. Assumes any liabilities with respect to the use of, or for damages
resulting from the use of any information, apparatus, method, or pro-
cess disclosed in this report.
As used in the above, "person acting on behalf of the Commission" in-
cludes any employee or contractor of the Commission, or employee
of such contractor, to the extent that such employee or contractor of
the Commission, or employee of such contractor prepares, dissemin-
ates, or provides access to, any information pursuant to his employ-
ment or contract with the Commission, or his employment with such
contractor.
-------
SWRHL-63r
AGRONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE EXPERIMENTAL DAIRY FARM
JANUARY 1966 - DECEMBER 1968
by
E. M. Daley and D. D. Smith
Radiological Research
Southwestern Radiological Health Laboratory
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
Public Health Service
Bureau of Radiological Health
Consumer Protection and Environmental Health Service
August 1969
This study performed under a Memorandum of
Understanding (No. SF 54 373)
for the
U. S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
Copy No. 12
Library
SWRHL, Las Vegas, Nevada
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLE
INTRODUCTION
FERTILIZATION PROGRAM
IRRIGATION PROGRAM
AGRONOMIC SUMMARY - 1966
AGRONOMIC SUMMARY - 1967
AGRONOMIC SUMMARY - 1968
AGRONOMIC COMPARISONS WITH ADJACENT AREAS
FARM PARTICIPATION IN 131I EXPERIMENTS
REFERENCES
APPENDIX I.
APPENDIX II.
APPENDIX III.
APPENDIX IV.
APPENDIX V.
APPENDIX VI.
APPENDIX VII.
DISTRIBUTION
Tabulation of Fertilizer Applied to Each
Land (January 1966 - December 1968)
Tabulation of Monthly Irrigation per
Land (January 1966 - December 1968)
Control of Seepage from the Irrigation
Reservoir of the Area 15 Experimental Farm
Annual Forage Production
Monthly Forage Production Listed by Lands
Agricultural Equipment and Facilities
Iron Chelate Experiment
i
ii
1
3
6
7
11
12
13
14
18
23
27
32
33
37
39
-------
LIST OF FIGURES & TABLE
FIGURE Page
1. Location of U. S. Public Health Service Facilities 2
on the Nevada Test Site.
2. Diagrammatic Representation of the Facilities 4
3. Crop Lands and Buildings of the Experimental 5
Dairy Farm.
4. Gallons of Irrigation Water Applied. 8
5. Forage Production. 11
TABLE
131
1. Controlled I Release Experiments. 16
i-i
-------
INTRODUCTION:
The United States Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) on July 1, 1963,
awarded a contract to the Southwestern Radiological Health Laboratory
(SWRHL), U. S. Public Health Service (USPHS) to study the transport
of radioiodine through the environment to man. The problem was to
determine the passage of radioiodine through the air-forage-cow-milk-
man system. To initiate this program Bioenvironmental Research (BER)
was established within SWRHL for the purpose of developing a field
and laboratory research program to answer the questions posed by
the AEC.
An experimental farm facility was required to study radioiodine
passage through the food chain under field conditions. Criteria for
the farm site were detailed and the search for a specific location on
the Nevada Test Site (NTS) was begun in 1963. The criteria are covered
in SWRHL-36r "Status of the Nevada Test Site Experimental Farm" by
Richard L. Douglas. The site selected is located in Area 15 of the
NTS and is 110 miles north of SWRHL in Las Vegas. (See Figure 1.)
The farm site is a gently sloping alluvial fan in a high desert valley
surrounded by mountains opening to the south. The average elevation
is approximately 4500 feet and the average land slope is 2-4 percent
to the southeast. The soil is a gravelly, sandy loam with cobbles
and stones scattered throughout. It contains little organic matter
and has an average pH of 8.5.
Design and construction of the facility began in the spring of 1964.
The land was cleared, the reservoir constructed, and the first crop
was planted that fall. The facility was completed and the dairy cows
were moved to the new dairy barn during the spring of 1966. A
-------
EXPERIMENTAL FARM
WELL 3B FACILITY
30116
BUFFER ZONE
Nuclear Rocket Development
Station
MERCURY
Lathrop Wells
Figure 1. Location of U.S. Public Health Service facilities on
the Nevada Test Site.
-------
diagrammatic representation of the facilities as of December 31, 1968,
is shown in Figure 2.
The crop area consists of 16 acres which are divided into 17 plots
or lands by the irrigation laterals. Each of the two end lands has
an area of approximately one-half acre. The remaining 15 lands each
contain one acre. As of December 1968, the crop lands were planted
to 11-1/2 acres of alfalfa, 2 acres of mixed grasses, and 2-1/2 acres
of rye grain. (Figure 3 shows the crop locations.)
The agronomic procedures practiced on the experimental farm follow
recommended practices or duplicate the actual practices used by
commercial crop producers of the Southern Nevada, Southern Utah,
Western Arizona, and Southern California desert areas. Several
varieties of alfalfa, rye, oats, barley, wheat, and Sudangrass
have been planted to determine their adaptibility and yields. On
the basis of these crop trials, rye grain has been selected for
early green chop and either Lahontan or N.K.-1019 alfalfa for late
green chop and for hay production.
The Farm Support Section (FSS) of BER is charged with the responsibility
of maintaining the experimental dairy farm. The agronomic practices
from January 1, 1966 through December 31, 1968, are covered in this
report.
FERTILIZATION PROGRAM:
As is generally true under desert conditions, the soils of the
Area 15 Farm are alkaline (pH 8.5) and are deficient in two essential
plant nutrients -- nitrogen and phosphorous. The leaching effect
of irrigation water percolating through the coarse sandy loam soils
accentuates these deficiencies; therefore, a heavy fertilization
program is required.
-------
Concrete Encased
Water Valvei
Concrete Slab Over
Buried Tank
Figure 2. Diagrammatic representation of the facilities.
4
-------
n>
OO
O
1-1
o
T)
ET
3
a
cr
3
QTQ
cn
0)
W
3
fD
3
o
p
TRANSFORMER STATION
RESERVOIR
Rad Safe Trailer
BOUNDARY OF PH.S. USE AREA
1 LATERAL NO.'S
A
SCALE: i =200
^BOUNDARY OF FENCED AREA"
-------
In order to lower the pH of the soils, 1,000 pounds of flowers of
sulphur were applied to each land in March of 1967. Through the
judicious application of fertilizer and liberal irrigation we are
able to produce high quality crops with satisfactory yields.
Fertilizers commonly used are: Ammonium sulfate (21-0-0) , treble
superphosphate (0-45-0)1, and potash (0-0-52) . Ammonium sulfate
was selected as the nitrogen source because the sulfate ion helps
to lower or maintain the pH of the soil and the compound breaks
down slowly so nitrogen is available to plants for a longer period.
The above listed fertilizers are granular in nature and are mechanically
applied to each land individually. Phosphorus is applied during the
growing season when indicated by crop needs or prior to planting.
(See Appendix I for dates and amounts applied.) Occasionally, crops
may suffer a deficiency of some of the micro-nutrients, i.e., iron,
zinc, etc. These are supplied to the crops by metering them into
(R~)
the irrigation water with the Dragon Fertilizer^ Injector.
IRRIGATION PROGRAM:
As the annual precipation is only 4.5 inches, supplemental water is
required for forage crop production. The irrigation well, reservoir,
and sprinkler system are described in SWRHL-36r and remain unchanged
except that laterals 10 through 16 were buried in the fall of 1966
in order to facilitate farming practices.
The type of crop grown, stage of development of the plant, amount of
soil moisture, and weather conditions are the determining factors in
the frequency and quantity of irrigation water required for each land.
The alfalfa has developed a deep root system and requires an extended
irrigation period in order that the water can penetrate to the lower
root zone, however, less frequent irrigations are necessary as the
This formula expresses the percentage by weight of nitrogen, phosphous,
and potassium, respectively, which are supplied by the fertilizer.
-------
plants are able to draw moisture from the greater depth. After crops
are planted, frequent and light irrigations are necessary to insure
seedling survival and growth of young plants. The grasses and small
grains require less frequent irrigations after they are established.
The small grains require more frequent irrigations than the alfalfa
or grasses.
The peak irrigation season extends from May through October (see
Figure 4). Approximately six acre feet* of water is applied
annually to each land. This varies somewhat with the type of crop
grown. Appendix II lists the monthly irrigation of each land.
As the flow rate of the irrigation well is not sufficient for direct
application to the crops, a million-gallon storage reservoir was con-
structed (described in SWRHL-36r). Initially this reservoir leaked
badly but after the application of bentonite in 1964, and grouting
in the spring of 1965, the loss rate decreased. During the fall of
1967, there was a substantial increase in the seepage rate. An
investigation was made to determine various ways of decreasing the
seepage loss. (See Appendix III.) A chemical soil sealant, Soil
Sealer 13 was chosen. One thousand gallons of this material was
applied to the reservoir on March 27, 1968, by Seepage Control, Inc.
of Phoenix, Arizona. A follow-up treatment of 400 gallons of
Soil Sealer 13 was applied by Farm Support Section personnel on
April 5, 1968. The Soil Sealer 13 has descreased our water loss from
46,000 gallons per day to approximately 22,000 gallons per day. A
significant portion of this continuing loss is due to evaporation.
AGRONOMIC SUMMARY - 1966:
During the winter of 1965, Lands 14-17 were disced and left fallow.
In June 1966, Lands 14 and 16 were planted with Piper Sudangrass,
(Sorghum vulgare var sudanense). Lands 15 and 17 were planted with
*Acre foot = 325,850 gallons.
-------
6,000,000- -
5,000,000- •
4,000,000
3,OOO,i
Sep.OctNov.Dec. Jan.Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug.Sep.Oct. Nov.Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug.Sep.Oct. Nov. Dec.
1966 -I967
1968
Figure 4. Gallons of irrigation water applied.
-------
Northrup King Trudan II (variety of hybrid Sudangrass). The
Sudangrasses received approximately 100 pounds of nitrogen during
the growing season. Despite the heavy fertilization, chlorosis
(yellowing) or stunted growth occurred. Investigation revealed that
this was caused by a deficiency of iron, which is fixed into a
biologically unavailable form by the action of the carbonates found
in the soil and irrigation water. (See Appendix VII.) Since
experience has shown that Sudangrass is extremely sensitive to iron
deficiency and that this deficiency becomes progressive with time,
it was decided to eliminate Sudan as a standard forage crop for the
experimental herd.
Harvesting of rye green chop began in May. Green chop was harvested
until October 14, when the first killing frost of the season occurred.
During this harvesting period 60 tons of rye grain, alfalfa, and
Sudangrass were utilized for green chop. (See Figure 5 and Appendix IV.)
Appendix V lists the total production of crop per land. Average
production was 4.67 ton rye/acre, 3.4 ton Sudan/acre, and 4.1 ton
alfalfa/acre.
No hay was harvested during 1965 or 1966 as haying equipment was
not purchased until the spring of 1967. (See Appendix VI.)
During September 1966, Lands 10 through 17 were subsoiled. Rocks
brought to the surface by the subsoiler were removed by BER personnel.
The rocks are a continuing problem as they are brought to the surface
during any tilling operation and must be removed by hand. This
problem will never be completely eliminated.
The same month, Lands 10 and 14 were planted with a mixture of alfalfa
(Medicago sativa) Lahontan variety, tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea)
Goar variety, Orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata), and smooth brome
(Bromus inermis). Land 15 was planted with barley (Hordeum vulgare)
Alpine variety, and Land 16 was planted with wheat (Triticum aestivum)
I " J -—^w«_
Moro variety.
-------
Lands 11 and 12 were planted to rye grain (Secale cereale) during October.
Lands 13 and 17 were left fallow during the fall, winter, and spring
of 1966 and 1967.
AGRONOMIC SUMMARY - 1967:
Green chop was harvested from April 6 through October 19, at which
time frost damage terminated harvesting. Alfalfa (May 30 - October 19)
and small grains (April 6 - May 30) were utilized for green chop with
alfalfa providing the larger tonnage of the green chop. A total of
80 ton of green chop was harvested during this period. (See Figure 5
and Appendices IV and V.) Average production of green chop was
6 ton per acre for the rye and 7.3 ton per acre for the alfalfa.
Wheat hay was baled on May 12. The first alfalfa hay was baled on
June 23, and was rated as Grade U. S. Number 1 Leafy. All the hay
produced has been Grade U. S. Number 1 Leafy or Extra Leafy Hay. Four
cuttings of hay were harvested, one per month in June, July, August,
and September. A total of 1,121 bales (60 pounds each) was produced.
This was about 33-1/2 ton (4.1 ton per acre) of alfalfa hay. (See
Figure 5 and Appendices IV and V.)
Land 11 was planted to alfalfa (Medicagjj sativa) Lahontan variety,
on August 2. Lands 12 and 13 were planted to alfalfa (Medicago
sativa) Northrup King 10-19 variety on the same date.
Lands 15, 16, and 17 were planted to rye grain (Secale cereale)
Oregon common variety on October 13, 1967. Prior to and after planting,
several ton of rocks were removed from the field.
As explained on page 9, Sudangrass was eliminated as a regular forage
crop because of severe chlorosis. However, it was decided to use
Land 17 as an experimental plot in order to determine the effectiveness
of the agent, Sequestern 138® (iron chelate). This compound was
applied with the seeds at the time of planting (June 27, 1967) and again
as a foliar spray after the first cutting (August 18, 1967). The
Agriculture Chemicals, Ardsley, New York.
10
-------
130- •
12O- -
11O- -
1OO- -
90- -
80- -
7O- -
6O- -
50- -
4O- -
30- -
20- -
1O- -
I
Hay
Green Chop
1966
1967
1968
Figure 5. Forage production.
11
-------
plants showed no response to either treatment and continued to be
chlorotic. (See Appendix VII .)
Another problem which required control measures during the season
was a large rodent population. Perhaps, because of the presence of
readily available feed and/or because of protection (fence) from
their natural predators, the resident population of gophers increased
during the fall and winter of 1966. The mounds at their burrow entrances
protruded several inches above the ground level and interfered with
green chop harvesting. Control methods were investigated and
Mr. Bill S. Meek of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ely, Nevada,
was contacted. He brought a rodent extermination machine into the
crop area of the farm on March 6. The torpedo shaped point penetrated
into the soil approximately 12 inches and as the machine moved a tunnel
was formed and poisoned grain (strychnine) was metered into the run.
Follow-up treatments with poisoned grain placed in the runs resulted
in a decreased gopher, population. A rodent control program is now
followed, so that when any activity is noted, poisoned grain is placed
in the runs.
AGRONOMIC SUMMARY - 1968:
A good stand of rye grain (Secale cereale) Oregon common variety planted
the previous fall was utilized for green chop during April and May.
The yield was heavy and regrowth rapid enough to allow three cuttings
of the rye. Harvesting of green chop began on April 9 and continued
until the killing freeze of November 15. The total production of
green chop was 117 ton with the majority of the green chop being alfalfa.
(See Figure 5 and Appendices V and VI.) Production of rye green chop
averaged 10.4 ton per acre and alfalfa green chop averaged 7.9 ton per
acre.
In the spring of 1968, a severe infestation of aphids was responsible
for the loss of one cutting of alfalfa. Each acre of alfalfa was
sprayed with 16 ounces of Malathion, applied in 25 gallons of water.
12
-------
A few days later the alfalfa was clipped and resprayed with malathion
at the same rate. This treatment was effective and there were no
other insect problems during the remainder of the season. The pro-
duction of alfalfa hay was 63 ton or 5.8 ton per acre. (See Figure 5
and Appendices V and VI.)
The east half of Land 13 was planted with Piper Sudangrass on July 31,
in preparation for a field study. The north half of Land 15 was
planted on July 29, with Trudan II Sudangrass for the feeding of the
cows prior to the project. On September 27, Land 13 was replanted to
alfalfa.
On October 11, 1968, Land 15 was planted with rye, (Secale cereale)
Balboa variety, Land 16 planted with rye (Secale cereale) Elbon
variety, and Land 17 with rye (Secale cereale) Oregon common variety.
Rye grain has been selected as the small grain. It has been observed
to be winter hardy, produces early green chop, and the regrowth is
rapid, which allows three harvests a season. By utilizing the rye
for early green chop most of the first cuttings of alfalfa can be
harvested as baled hay.
AGRONOMIC COMPARISONS WITH ADJACENT AREAS:
As stated previously, the procedures practiced on the experimental
farm follow recommended practices or duplicate actual practices used
by commercial farmers of this general geographic area. Direct com-
parisons of yield, fertilization needs, and water requirements are
difficult as the experimental farm is isolated and not part of a
specific farming area. Each area has its unique characteristics
that influence the agronomic practices and determine, to a great
extent, the yield. Some of these characteristics are fertility,
soil pH, soil type and depth, organic matter content, altitude and
length of growing season, amount of precipitation, and quality of
irrigation water, etc.
13
-------
A 1964 survey of the Pahrump, Nevada, farming community (70 miles
south of the farm) revealed that the average annual production of
alfalfa hay from established fields was eight ton per acre produced in
six cuttings. Area 15 production in 1968 was 5.8 ton per acre pro-
duced in four cuttings plus 7.9 ton of alfalfa green chop per acre.
The average alfalfa hay production in Maricopa County, Arizona,
(approximately 400 miles southeast) is 5 ton per acre with a range
of 3-12 ton from five cuttings a year. Average irrigation required
in Maricopa County was 6.2 acre feet per acre.
The University of Nevada Extension Service estimates that alfalfa
grown in Southern Nevada requires 7.5 acre feet of water per acre
per year. Irrigation at the experimental farm has averaged 6.3 acre
feet per acre per year on the alfalfa and 3.5 acre feet per acre per
year for the small grain.
The average production of rye green chop from 1956-1961 on the
University of Nevada Agricultural Experimental Station, Logandale,
Nevada,(100 miles southeast) was 4.4 ton per acre dry weight or
approximately 9 ton per acre wet weight. Area 15 production has
averaged 7 ton per acre and exceeded 10 ton per acre in 1968.
FARM PARTICIPATION IN 131I EXPERIMENTS:
131
There were five I controlled release experiments conducted
at the farm between January 1966 and December 1968. Three of these
experiments consisted of dry aerosols of diatomaceous earth tagged
with '31-1 which was generated over growing forages. One, Project
Rainout, was an I solution which was sprayed on a forage plot
and one, Project MICE, was a release of molecular I?.
Under proper meterological conditions, the aerosols or solutions are
released so that the selected forage plot is contaminated. The plot is
then harvested either as green chop or as baled hay and fed to the
14
-------
dairy cows in a prescribed manner. Table 1 lists the experiments
conducted thus far- Details and results of these experiments are
related in the following reports which have been published or are
now being prepared for publication:
Experiment SWRHL No. Title
Authors
Alfalfa
SWRHL-42r
Rainout
SIP
MICE
HARE
SWRHL-43r
SWRHL-39r
SWRHL-85r
SWRHL-61 r
Stanley, Black,
and Barth
Douglas, Black,
and Barth
131
I Dairy Cow Uptake Studies
Using a Two Micron Count
Median Diameter Synthetic
Dry Aerosol
131
I Transport Through the
Air-Forage-Cow-Milk System
Using an Aerosol Mist
131
I Dairy Cow Uptake Study Mason, Black,
Using a Submicrometer Synthetic and Barth
Dry Aerosol
Radioiodine Transport Through Douglas and Black
the Air-Forage-Cow-Milk System
Using a Gaseous 131i Contaminant
Cow Milk I Levels Following
Ingestion of Synthetically
Contaminated Alfalfa or Sudan
Black, Stanley,
and Barth
15
-------
1 O]
Table 1. Controlled I Release Experiments
Name
of
Experiment Date
Alfalfa
Rainout
SIP
MICE
HARE
21-29 Jun 66
29 Sep-
6 Oct 66
6-13 Jun 67
22-29 Sep 67
18-25 Sep 68
TWI°f
Release
Diatomaceous
earth aerosol
Hydrosol
Diatomaceous
earth aerosol
Gaseous
Diatomaceous
earth aerosol
Type of Forage Contaminated
Alfalfa-Oats mixture, for green
chop*
Alfalfa for
Alfalfa for
Alfalfa for
for hay
Alfalfa and
green chop
green chop**
green chop
green chop and
Sudangrass for
*Loosely stacked alfalfa hay and stacked green chop were utilized
on Project Alfalfa; after this project it was decided to discontinue
the stacked green chop as the feed heated rapidly, spoiled, and lost
its palatability so the cows refused to eat it after two or three days.
**Loosely stacked alfalfa hay was also utilized on Project Rainout.
16
-------
REFERENCES
1. Douglas, R. L. Status of the Nevada Test Site experimental farm
summary report - July 1964 - December 1965. SWRHL-36r. January 1967.
2. Alfalfa for forage production in Arizona. The University of Arizona.
Bulletin A-16. Tucson, Arizona. August 1961.
3. Fogel, M. M. and G. A. Myles. Pumping from irrigation wells.
Max C. Fleischmann College of Agriculture. University of Nevada.
Bulletin 110. Reno, Nevada. July 1962.
4. Daley, E. M. Pahrump Valley Report. Unpublished. 1964.
5. Carter, J. R. Alfalfa in Maricopa County Cooperative Extension
Service. Phoenix, Arizona. November 1960.
6. Robinson, G. D., E. H. Jensen, and H. P. Cords. Cereals for
forage in Southern Nevada Agricultural Experimental Station.
Max C. Fleischmann College of Agriculture. University of Nevada.
Bulletin 231. July 1963.
7. Hughes, H. D., M. E. Heath, and D. S. Metcalfe. Forages - The
Science of Grassland Agriculture. The Iowa State University Press.
Ames, Iowa. 1966.
17
-------
APPENDIX I. Tabulation of Fertilizer applied to each land (January 1966 -
December 1968)
Fertilizer is expressed in pounds of actual nutrients applied, i.e., N represents
nitrogen, P205 represents phosphorus, ICO represents potassium and S represents sulfur.
Date Lands
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
10 Feb 66
21 Apr 66 50#N 50#N
ioo#P2o5 ioo#P2o5
19 Jul 66 90#P205 90#P205 90#P205 90#P205
45#N 45#N 45#N 45#N
25 Jul 66 90#P205 90#P205
45#N 45#N 45#N 45#N 45#N
10 Mar 67 27#P,0, 54#P90, 54#P90, 54#P90, 54#P90 54#P90, 54#P90[; 54#P 0- 54#P90
£3 £3 £ 0 CO ^5 ^ b £ 0 2 •> ^-
16#N 16#N 16#N 16#N 16#N
24 Mar 67 500#S 1000#S 1000#S 1000#S 1000#S 1000#S 1000#S 1000#S 1000#S
-------
APPENDIX I. Tabulation of Fertilizer applied to each land (January 1966 -
December 1968 cont'd)
Date Lands
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9~
11 Mar 68 72#P205
14 Mar 68 162#P0Ot. 162#P00, 162#P00, 162#P00C 162#P00,. 162#P00C 162#P0Of- 162#P?0[
£b c. b tb ^b tb tb <:b ^
21 Jun 68 16#N
108#P 0
2 5
12 Jul 68 78#K20
-------
APPENDIX I. Tabulation of Fertilizer applied to each land (January 1966
December 1968 cont'd )
Date
12 Feb 66
20 Jul 66
18 Sep 66
27 Oct 66
22 Feb- 67
^ 10 Mar 67
0
25 Mar 67
3 May 67
25 Jun 67
26 Jun 67
18 Jul 67
26 Jul 67
1 Aug 67
Lands
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
60#N 60#N 60#N 60#N 100#N 100#N 100#N 100#N
27#N 27#N
72#N 72#N 72#N 72#N
36#P<,0C 36#P~Or- 36#P00C 36#P00C
25 25 25 25
50#N 50#N 50#N 50#N 50#N 50#N
25#N
1000#S 1000#S 1000#S 1000#S 1000#S 1000#S 1000#S 500#S
48#N 48#N 48#N
32#N
10# Iron Chelate
64#N
144#P205
32#N 32#N 32#N
-------
APPENDIX I. Tabulation of Fertilizer applied to each land (January 1966 -
December 1968 cont'd)
Date Lands
10 TlT2 13 14 T5 16 V7
11 Oct 67 48#N 48#N 32#N
3 Nov 67 42#N 42#N
5 Jan 68 108#N 108#N 108#N
27 Feb 68 64#N 64#N 64#N 64#N 32#N
11 Mar 68 72#P205 72#P2°5 72#P2°5 72#P2°5 72#P2°5
14 Mar 68 45#P205
162#P00C 162#P 0, 162#P,0K
c. b 2 *> ^ *
19 Apr 68 42#N 42#N
5 May 68 50#N 50#N 32#N
18 Jun 68 42#N 42#N
36#P205 36#P205
7 Jul 68 78#K20 78#K20
29 Jul 68 32#N
72#P205
31 Jul 68 32#N
72#P205
-------
APPENDIX I. Tabulation of Fertilizer applied to each land (January 1966 -
December 1968 cont'd)
Date Lands
TO TT 12 T3 1415 16 17
6 Aug 68 10#Iron 10#Iron 10#Iron
Chelate Chelate Chelate
29 Aug 68 32#N 32#N
11 Oct 68 32#N 32#N 21 #N
^ 52#K?0 52#K?0 26#K?0
l\s €.£.£.
-------
APPENDIX II. Tabulation of Monthly Irrigation per
Land (January 1966 - December 1968).
The amount of irrigation water applied per land per month was
determined by dividing the total amount of water applied by
27,154 (number of gallons in an acre inch). The acre inches
per land were totaled and divided by 12 to determine feet per
year. There are 325,850 gallons per acre foot.
23
-------
APPENDIX II. Tabulation of Monthly Irrigation per Land - 1966
ro
-pa
LANDS 1
Jan .5
Feb 0
Mar 3.8
Apr 3.5
May 8.7
Jun 8.8
Jul 13.9
Aug 15.2
Sep 13.7
Oct 3.8
Nov 2.1
Dec 1.8
Total
Acre 75.8
Inches/
Year
Lands 1
Acre 6.3
Feet/
Year
2
.5
0
3.8
3.5
8.2
9.5
12.3
14.1
15.8
3.8
2.1
1.8
75.4
2
6.2
3
.5
0
3.8
3.5
8.2
9.8
11.0
10.0
14.5
1.4
2.1
1.8
66.6
3
5.5
4
.5
0
3.8
3.5
7.6
9.3
11.3
15.3
14.5
1.4
2.1
1.8
71.0
4
5.9
5
.5
0
3.8
3.8
8.7
12.0
12.5
15.1
13.2
.8
2.3
.3
85.8
5
7.1
6
.5
0
3.8
3.8
8.4
11.9
13.5
15.0
16.6
4.1
3.0
.3
80.9
6
6.7
7
.5
0
3.8
3.8
8.4
12.6
14.0
12.9
15.5
3.7
3.0
.3
78.5
7
6.5
8
.5
0
3.8
3.8
7.9
12.7
14.0
10.2
15.5
3.7
3.0
.3
75.1
8
6.2
9
0
0
3.3
6.5
8.1
4.4
13.6
15.0
6.2
3.2
.7
0
61.0
9
5.0
10
0
0
3.3
6.5
7.9
3.9
10.5
11.1
4.8
1.4
.7
0
50.1
10
4.1
11
0
0
3.3
6.5
8.0
3.9
4.2
4.0
5.2
.5
.7
0
36.3
11
3.0
12
0
0
3.3
6.5
8.3
3.9
4.2
4.0
5.2
.5
1.3
0
37.2
12
3.1
13
0
0
2.2
2.6
5.4
4.5
7.0
'4.5
6.4
2.3
.5
0
35.4
13
2.9
14
0
0
2.2
2.6
3.9
4.5
6.0
5.1
7.3
2.3
1.1
0
35.0
14
2.9
15
0
0
2.2
2.6
2.8
4.5
6.0
5.1
2.4
3.1
1.1
0
29.8
15
2.4
16
0
0
2.2
2.6
2.2
4.5
6.0
5.1
2.4
1.2
.5
0
26.7
16
2.2
-------
APPENDIX II. Tabulation of Monthly Irrigation per Land - 1967
ro
en
LANDS
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jim
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
1
0
1
9.8
1
11.6
8.5
15.0
18.0
11.0
8.0
3.0
0
2
0
1
8.2
1
9.4
11.9
12.0
14.0
9.0
4.0
4.0
0
3
0
1
8.2
1
9.4
12.9
10.0
18.0
9.0
9.0
4.0
0
4
0
1
8.2
1
10.7
9.9
11.0
16.0
11.0
8.0
4.0
0
5
0
2.0
6
1.6
8.2
9.5
11.0
16.0
6.0
11.0
4.0
0
6
0
2.0
6.2
1.6
8.2
10.6
14.0
15.0
4.0
11.0
3.0
0
7
0
2.0
6.2
1.6
7.1
10.2
14.0
13.0
8.0
8.0
3.0
0
8
0
2.0
6.2
1.6
7.4
12.8
18.0
9.0
10.0
8.0
3.0
0
9
0
1.4
3.8
3.1
9.0
12.6
16.0
11.0
12.0
9.0
3.0
0
10
0
1.5
1.6
2.2
5.5
10.0
8.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
3.0
0
11
0
1.5
1.6
2.2
7.5
4.9
4.0
11.0
7.0
11.0
2.0
0
12
0
1.5
1.6
2.2
7.0
5.7
1.0
9.0
8.0
9.0
3.0
0
13
0
1.5
1.5
5.8
8.0
8.1
10.0
8.0
9.0
9.0
3.0
0
14
"0
1.4
1.5
5.8
8.5
10.0
15.0
5.0
4.0
8.0
4.0
0
15
0
1.4
1.5
5.8
8.5
4.4
4.0
3.0
0
7.0
3.0
0
16
0
1.4
1.1
5.8
7.4
9.1
12.0
21.0
7.0
12.0
3.0
0
Total
Acre 86.9 74.5 82.5 80.8 75.3 75.6 73.1 78.0 80.9 64.8 52.7 48.0 63.9 63.2 39.1 80.2
Inches/
Year
Lands 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Acre 7.2 6.2 6.8 6.7 6.2 6.3 6.0 6.5 6.7 5.4 4.3 4.0 5.3 5.2 3.2 6.6
Feet/
Year
-------
APPENDIX II. Tabulation of Monthly Irrigation per Land - 1968
INJ
CTl
LANDS
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
1
0
0
2.0
11.0
14.0
8.9
14.2
15.1
14.0
6.0
0
0
2
0
0
2.0
7.0
9.0
14.9
13.0
13.0
9.0
8.0
0
0
3
0
0
3.0
6.0
5.0
16.2
17.2
9.0
11.0
8.0
1.0
0
4
0
0
3.0
5.0
17.0
15.0
15.4
12.0
10.0
3.0
0
0
5
0
0
3.0
6.0
10.0
13.1
3.1
15.0
10.0
6.0
1.0
0
6
0
0
2.0
6.0
10.0
13.0
12.8
14.0
11.0
5.0
1.0
0
7
0
0
.5
8.0
15.0
13.9
12.1
13.2
15.0
7.0
1.0
0
8
0
0
2.0
4.0
14.0
9.7
13.2
11.0
20.0
6.0
1.0
0
9
0
1
2.0
6.0
12.0
14.8
12.0
11.0
14.0
6.0
1.0
0
10
0
0
1.0
6.0
12.0
14.3
10.7
12.0
13.0
5.0
.5
0
11
0
0
1.0
7.0
15.0
17.1
11.6
10.0
10.0
8.0
.5
0
12
0
0
3.0
6.0
13.0
15.6
11.1
10.0
14.0
2.0
3.0
0
13
0
1
1.0
10.0
11.0
14.5
11.1
10.0
12.0
6.0
2.0
0
14
0
1
3.0
5.0
8.0
10.2
9.8
8.0
5.0
7.0
2.0
0
15
0
1
3.0
8.0
11.0
6.0
0
0
4.0
7.0
2.0
0
16
0
1
3.0
8.0
8.0
1.5
0
0
0
6.0
1.0
0
Total
Acre 85.2 75.9 76.4 66.9 67.2 74.9 85.7 80.9 79.8 74.5 80.8 77.7 78.6 59.0 42.0 28.5
Inches/
Year
Lands 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Acre 7.1 6.3 6.3 5.5 5.6 6.2 7.1 6.7 6.6 6.2 6.7 6.4 6.5 4.9 3.5 2.3
Feet/
Year
-------
APPENDIX III. Control of Seepage from the Irrigation Reservoir
of the Area 15 Experimental Farm
BACKGROUND:
The Area 15 irrigation reservoir was designed to hold approximately
one million gallons of water. Construction was completed in the
summer of 1964. The reservoir is of trapezoidal cross section, with
an approximate surface area of 12,100 square feet (1101 X 110')
when filled to its normal depth of 13 feet. The porosity of the
soil required sealing of the sides and bottom of the reservoir.
Bentonite clay was the initial sealant selected by the REECo engineers.
The reservoir was filled in the fall of 1964. After filling, it was
apparent that the reservoir leaked badly, and it was doubtful if an
adequate water supply for crop irrigation could be maintained during
the summer months. In the spring of 1965, the water in the reservoir
was pumped out, and the sides were coated with cement grout applied
over a 2-inch mesh screen. The bottom of the reservoir was not
grouted because the REECo engineers felt that the thick layer of
bentonite on the bottom (which had washed off the sides) had sealed it.
However, the leakage losses were still apparent after the grouting.
These losses gradually decreased over the next two years, but during
the fall and winter of 1967 they showed a marked increase.
The water level dropped 32 inches in 15 days during December. The
water level was again measured in January, and the same loss of
approximately two inches per day was noted. During this period the
reservoir was frozen over most of the day, and temperatures were
quite low. Therefore, it is assumed that losses due to evaporation
were negligible.
REECo charges $1.70 for every 1,000 gallons of water pumped at
the well head. Every inch of water lost in the reservoir equals
approximately 7,500 gallons and costs us $12.75. This means that
water lost from seepage is doubly costly, as we have already paid
for it but have not had the use of it.
The seepage loss in winter was costing us at least $25 a day. In
view of these expenses, it was felt that the various seepage control
methods should be investigated in order to select one that would
most nearly answer our needs.
27
-------
METHOD OF SEEPAGE CONTROL:
The Bureau of Reclamation engineers believe that an ideal sealant
should have the following characteristics:
1. It must be nontoxic to humans, animals, and crops.
2. It must reduce leakage to 0.1 to 0.3 cubic foot of water
per square foot of wetted soil area per day.
3. It must be capable of nonrestrictive application during
any time of the year, under a broad range of water pH and
salt content, under a broad range of soil composition,
and under static or dynamic flow conditions.
4. It must resist damage by animals, equipment, erosion, and
hydraulic pressures.
5. It must be durable; not deteriorated by climatic conditions,
such as freezing and thawing, sunlight, wetting, and/or
drying; not deteriorated by microorganisms; not deteriorated
by reemulsification or chemical changes; and not deteriorated
by reverse hydraulic flow; and it should be capable of
resealing.
6. It must be efficient in use of material (low cost).
The Bureau knows of no material that will fill all of these require-
ments, at the present time. There are a number of products that
will meet the majority of these characteristics.
Concrete and asphalt linings have been used for many years, but the
construction costs are high. Plastic and rubber materials are
slightly cheaper but have a high upkeep cost.
Bentonite clay is used as a sealer by incorporation into the soil;
and as it becomes wet, it expands causing the area to seal. The
clay, however, is subject to reactions with calcium and magnesium
salts in the water with the result that the clay lining deteriorates
with time. This apparently occurred in our reservoir.
The previously mentioned methods of seepage control require prepara-
tion of the reservoir before the materials can be applied. The
reservoir would have to be emptied, cleaned, and allowed to dry
before work could commence. It would be impractical to use the
plastic or rubber, as these linings must be secured by use of
aggregates and the walls of the reservoir are too steep to allow
this to be feasible. Also, the rough surface of the walls of the
reservoir might puncture the linings after a period of time, thus
making the linings ineffective as seepage control devices.
28
-------
Chemical sealants are applied to the subgrades where they react
chemically to form solid or semisolid gels, or deposit precipitation
in the soil voids, or otherwise render the subgrade impervious to
water by predominantly physical action. These chemicals can be
applied directly to the water and do not require costly preapplica-
tion preparations.
A chemical sealant has to meet the following criteria to be an
economical sealing agent. The sealant must be conveyed to the
loss areas by the water, must be stable in the presence of the
calcium and magnesium salts normally present in irrigation water,
and must be easily applied.
Of all chemical sealants investigated, the one that seemed to meet
these requirements best was "Soil Sealer-13 (SS-13)" distributed
by Seepage Control, Inc., of Phoenix, Arizona.
SELECTION OF SOIL SEALER-13 (SS-13):
SS-13 consists of a mixture of oil-soluble resinous polymers in
a carrier of common diesel fuel. When applied to soil in diluted
emulsion form, these polymers by virture of their surface active
properties with respect to both soil and water, increase the resistance
to water flow through the soil.
A sample of 10 pounds of soil, a water sample, and copies of soil
analysis reports were sent to the Seepage Contorl, Inc., laboratory
in Phoenix, Arizona. There, they checked the compatibility of their
product with our soil and water.
The following is the laboratory finding and recommendation.
"The soil, water, and Soil Sealer-13 are all compatible.
The permeability coefficient of the soil at 118 PCF was
approximately 0.25 feet per day under unit gradient, and
this was reduced by approximately 60 percent to less than
0.1 with a 3-day exposure to a 1:1,000 Soil Sealer-13
suspension. We would expect similar results in the field."
"We would recommend two treatments with Soil Sealer-13 to
achieve optimum results. The first treatment of the million-
gallon reservoir with 1,000 gallons of Soil Sealer-13
should be followed a week to 10 days later by a second
treatment with 400 gallons of Soil Sealer-13. Each treatment
should remain in contact with the soil a minimum of 48 hours,
and preferrably 72 hours."
•29
-------
APPLICATION OF SOIL SEALER-13:
On March 27, 1*400 gallons of Soil Sealer-13 was delivered in a
tank truck by Seepage Control, Inc. Four hundred gallons was.
pumped into a tank trailer for storage until the material was re-
quired for the followup treatment.
A centrifugal pump mounted on the tank truck was used in the appli-
cation of the material. The centrifugal pump breaks up any solidifi-
cation of the material and also permits a rapid application of it.
The pumping action gives a uniform mixture of SS-13 and water which
flowed into the reservoir at the well discharge outlet. The
turbulence created by the incoming water and the miscibility of the
SS-13 resulted in rapid dispersion of the soil sealant throughout
the reservoir.
The application of SS-13 was begun at 10:40 a.m. and was completed
at 11:20 !a.m.
During the first 24 hours following the application, the water level
dropped three inches. During the following four days, there was a
loss of approximately two inches each day. No water was removed from
the reservoir for 120 hours following the application.
The followup application of Soil Sealer-13 was made on April 5.
The 400 gallons of material were added to the reservoir by gravity
flow from the tank trailer. It took approximately 2-1/2 hours
to empty the tank. This solution was allowed to remain undisturbed
for 75 hours before any water was pumped from the reservoir.
RESULTS OF THE CONTROL TREATMENT:
The water loss was measured over a 72-hour period between 26 and
29 April. An evaporation pan was also used so that the true seepage
loss would be known. The reservoir dropped 6 inches, and the evapora-
tion pan .lost 1.75 inches. Actual seepage loss was calculated to
be 4.25 inches or 1.41 inches per day. This represents a seepage
reduction of approximately 30 percent. While this does not approach
the Seepage Control, Inc., estimate of 60 percent reduction, it
still represents a sizeable decrease in seepage loss. The company
states that there is usually a gradual reduction of an additional
10 to 15,percent in the seepage rate during the first three years
following application.
30
-------
ECONOMICS OF THE SEEPAGE CONTROL METHOD:
The total cost of treatment was $2,450. This charge included the
cost of the material, transportation, application, labor and
supervision. The moneys for this service were supplied from the
fees paid REECo for water pumped at the wellhead.
As stated previously, the reservoir has a surface area of 12,100
square feet (1101 X 110'). Our original rate of seepage loss was
in excess of two inches per day. Every six days, we lost approximately
90,000 gallons of water. This cost us at least $150 every six days
($1.70 per 1,000 gallons). Our monthly expense due to seepage
was approximately $600.
SS-13 produced a 30 percent reduction in seepage loss and reduced
our expenses by $180 each month. The total cost of application
should be gained through savings on decreased water losses in
approximately 13 months.
REFERENCES
1. Rollins, M. B., A. S. Dylla, and 6. A. Myles. Experimental
bentonite sealing, Agricultural Experiment Station.
Max C. Fleischmann College of Agriculture. University of Nevada.
Agriculture Research Service USDA Bulletin 229. Reno, Nevada.
June 1963.
2. Blackburn, W. C. A review of the use of chemical sealants for
reduction of canal seepage losses. Analytical Laboratory Report
No. CH-102. Bureau of Reclamation. February 1960.
3. Soil Sealer 13 for water conservation. Seepage Control, Inc.
Phoenix, Arizona. December 1963.
4. SEELO-W for water conservation, Seepage Control, Inc.
Phoenix, Arizona. December 1963.
5. Staff Industries, Inc. Vinyl liners for seepage prevention.
Detroit, Michigan. January 1965.
6. Ruff, P. F. An investigation to determine the effectiveness of
a chemical additive for reducing seepage in the south canal.
Arizona State University School of Engineering. Tempe, Arizona.
April 1961.
31
-------
APPENDIX IV. Annual Forage Production
Type of Forage
Hay Baled
Green Chop
1966
None
A
60 tonH
1967
33-1/2 ton2
c
80 ton0
1968
63 ton3
6
117 tonb
Hay rake and baler were not purchased until 1967.
2
Produced in four cuttings on 8-1/2 acres for an average of 4 ton
per acre.
3
Produced in four cuttings on 11-1/2 acres or 5.8 ton per acre.
4
During 1966 there were 34 ton of alfalfa green chop produced on
8-1/2 acres for an average of 4.1 ton per acre; 12 ton of sudan
green chop on 3-1/2 acres or 3.4 ton per acre; and 14 ton of rye
green chop on 3 acres or 4.7 ton per acre.
5
During 1967 there were 62 ton of alfalfa green chop from 8-1/2
acres or 7.3 ton per acre and 18 ton of rye green chop from
3 acres or 6 ton per acre.
26 ton of rye green chop on 2-1/2 acres or 10.4 ton per acre
and 91 ton of alfalfa green chop on 11-1/2 acres or 7.9 ton per
acre.
32
-------
APPENDIX V. Monthly Forage Production Listed by Lands
(Green Chop expressed in pounds. Hay expressed in ton.)
Month &
Year
Sep 1966
Oct 1966
Nov 1966
Forage
Green Chop
Green Chop
-Grseen Chop
Land
1
1800
Land
2
4700
750
3000
Land Land Land
345
0 1000 0
1080
Land Land Land Land
6789
0 0 1800 0
4850
May 1967 Greoi Ciiop 1900
Jun 1967 Green Chop 330 6300 2400 1200 1250
Hay 2t 2t 2-l/4t l-l/4t 2t 2-l/4t
00 Jul 1967 Green Chop 4200 9900 7200
Hay 2t l-3/4t
Aug 1967 Green Chop 600 6300 7200 6300 7200
Hay l-l/4t 3/4t 3/4t l/4t
Sep 1967 Green Chop 5600 5400 5400 300 2100 600
flay 3/4t
Oct 1967 ?men Chop 4200 10,300
Hay
Apr 1968 Green Chop 2000
-------
APPENDIX V. Monthly Forage Production Listed by Lands cont'd
Month &. Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land land
Year Forage 1 23456789
May 1968 Green Chop 5700 13,600 1600 1600
Hay l-l/4t l-l/4t It
Jun 1968 Green Chop 7800 8000
Hay l-l/2t l-l/2t l-3/4t 2-l/2t l-l/4t l/4t 2t 2-l/4t
Jul 1968 Green Chop 9000 1000 1000 3000 1000
Hay 2-l/4t 2t l-l/4t l-l/4t l-l/2t l-3/4t
Aug 1968 Green Chop 8400 3600 1500 500 500 1000
w Hay l-l/4t l-l/2t l-l/2t l-3/4t l-3/4t 2-l/4t l-l/2t l-l/2t
Sep 1968 Green Chop 2000 6450 4150 2000 3000
Hay l-l/4t It
Oct 1968 Green Chop 4000 8000 1000 10,000 1000 6000
l/2t 3/4t 1-
Nov 1968 Green Chop 2000 4000 1000
-------
APPENDIX V. Monthly Forage Production Listed by Lands cont'd
co
Month &
Year
Sep 1966
Apr 1967
May 1967
Jun 1967
Sep 1967
Oct 1967
Forage
Green Chop
Green Chop
Green Chop
Hay
Green Chop
Hay
Land Land Land Land
10 11 12 13
000
6600 9600
2400 7200 4900 1100
It
loose
Land Land
14 15
4500
750 1900
l-l/2t
900
Land Land
16 17
6000
Apr 1968 Green Chop 11,100 16,000 4400
May 1968 Green Chop 1100 800 12,800 4000 5200
Hay l-l/2t
Jun 1968 Green Chop 4000
Hay 2-l/4t 2t 2-3/4t 2-l/2t It
Jul 1968 Green Chop 13,000 1000 2000
Hay l
Aim 1968 Green Chop 5100 10,000
Hay l-l/2t l-l/2t 3/4t
-------
APPENDIX V. Monthly Forage Production Listed by Lands cont'd
Month & Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land
Year Forage 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Sep 1968 Green Chop 2000 2000 2000 4800 500
Hay l-l/4t l-l/4t
Oct 1968 Green Chop 3000
Nov 1968 Green Chop 1000 3000 6000 1000 3000
CO
-------
APPENDIX VI. Agricultural Equipment and Facilities
Equipment
Tractor
Plow
Mower
Subsoil er
Harrow Spike Tooth
Tool Bar and Shanks
Fertilizer Distributor
Rear Blade
Rake Side Delivery
Baler P.T.O.
Make
John Deere
John Deere
John Deere
John Deere
John Deere
John Deere
John Deere
John Deere
John Deere
J. I. Case
Model
2510
F225
39
22A
L.F.
80A
350A
220
Twine Tie
Month and Year
Acquired
April 1966
April 1966
April 1966
September 1966
September 1966
September 1966
October 1966
March 1967
March 1967
March 1967
Fertilizer Injector*
Tilt Trailer (Equipment)
Quonset Huts (2)
Surplus
Dragon Injector
Zieman Products TT181
May 1967
December 1967
April 1968
*Fertilizer Injector is built into the irrigation system and is a
permanent part of the system.
A "boom type" sprayer for the application of insecticides and herbicides
was fabricated by Farm Support Section personnel.
A drag for leveling the lands after tilling operations was built by
REECo and modified by FSS personnel.
37
-------
APPENDIX VI. Agricultural Equipment and Facilities cont'd
Farm Support personnel and REECo modified the two Quonsets during
the summer of 1968.
A concrete slab and ramp was added to the farm shop and supply
room Quonset.
The other Quonset is used for storage of fertilizer, farm chemicals,
tools, and less frequently used equipment.
38
-------
APPENDIX VII. Iron Chelate Experiment
.INTRODUCTION
High carbonate levels in soils and irrigation water are a problem
throughout the arid regions of the Western United States. The
carbonate and bicarbonate anions are known to complex iron and
prevent its utilization by the plant. One of the most readily
applicable chelates for use in the correction of bicarbonate-
induced iron chlorosis is ethylenediamine di (o-hydroxyphenylacatic
acid) (EDDHA). This chelate is known as Sequestrene 138 and is
produced by Geigy Agricultural Chemicals of Ardsley, New York.
Sorghum vulgare var sudanense (Sudangrass) is extremely sensitive to
bicarbonate in both soils and irrigation water.
Experience at the U.S.P.H.S. Area 15 Experimental Farm has indicated
that carbonate-induced chlorosis is a problem in the production of
Sudangrass, especially if the crop is grown consecutively without
a rotation. Chlorosis was not observed in the 1965 Sudangrass crop.
The chlorosis was observed after the first cutting in 1966 and
became progressively more severe through the season.
Experimental Procedure. An experiment to study the response of
budangrass to an application of iron chelate, was conducted during the
summer of 1967 at the Area 15 Farm. Piper Sudan, an adapted and
previously used variety was selected, and planted with a grain drill
at the rate of 36 pounds per acre. The land had been winter fallowed
and received liquid manure and an application of 500 pounds of flowers
of sulphur. An application of 160 pounds of double superphosphate
0-45-0 (72 pounds of P205) and 160 pounds of ammonium sulfate 21-0-0
(32 pounds of N) were made two days prior to planting.
The study area was a half acre divided into six treated and five control
plots with a border at each end. The size of the plots was 18 meters
long and 6 meters wide.
The plots were randomized and replicated. The seed lot was divided
into two lots of nine pounds each. The control lot of seed was planted
first. The treated lot received 1-1/4 pounds of Geigy Sequestrene 138
Iron Chelate applied dry and worked thoroughly through the seed so
that it would adhere to the seed. The seed was then placed in the
seed box of the grain drill and planted. (Figure 1 shows the seeding
scheme.) After planting, the crop was irrigated. Germination was good
and a satisfactory stand was obtained.
Foliar Application. After the first cutting, a foliar application was
applied to the plots to evaluate the use of a foliar application of
chelate agents to reduce or eliminate iron chlorosis in Sudangrass.
The plots were split longitudinal, one side being treated and the
39
-------
opposite side left as control. The plots were randomized and replicated.
(Figure 2 shows the spraying scheme.) The foliar application was made
with a tractor-mounted boom sprayer. A solution was made with a wetting
agent and 1-1/4 pounds of Sequestrene 138 Iron Chelate in 25 gallons of
water. The solution was agitated to mix it thoroughly then applied.
This rate of application is equal to five pounds of iron chelate per
acre.
During the growing period one to three plant samples were taken weekly
from each plot. At harvest time three samples were taken from the
center of each plot using the 0.15 square meter circle thrown at
random into the center of the plots.
At time of the second harvest, samples were taken from the split
plots. One sample was taken from the center of the plot using the
0.15 square meter circle thrown at random into the center of the plots.
The samples were brought to the laboratory in Las Vegas for analysis
for Fe by X-ray spectroscopy.
i
The data on the iron content are not available pending analysis by X-ray
spectroscopy of the samples.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION. No significant differences in the coloration
in either the treated or control plots were noted. Iron chlorosis
was observed in all of the plots to some degree. It could not be deter-
mined by observation whether the chlorosis was any more severe in the
control plots than it was in the treated plots. It was observed that
the chlorosis was most severe where the plants received the highest
concentration of irrigation water. These higher concentrations of
water could account for the severe chlorosis in two ways; either by
leaching of the plant nutrients or by the increasing of the carbonates
from the irrigation waters. It may also be a combination of the two.
Iron chlorosis has been observed in other fields in Southern Nevada.
It has been observed to be more severe in Sudangrass fields that have
been in production for two or three years without a rotation. Iron
chelate should have a beneficial effect on other crops that show
chlorotic signs but are not as sensitive to the bicarbonates as
Sorghum vulgare and Zea mays. Trials will be conducted on alfalfa,
Medicago sativa to oSserve the effects of an iron chelate agent to
control chlorosis in this crop.
40
-------
Figure 1. Plot Plans for Iron Chelate Experiment
Application to Seed
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 6m
18m
Plot No.
1 .
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Treatment
Border
Treated
Control
Control
Treated
Control
Treated
Treated
Control
Treated
Control
Treated
Border
Total: 6 treated, 5 control, 2 borders.
Figure 2.
1 234567
8
10 11 12
13
: ' ' ..!
". ' f.
'• 1
,' . • --;|
I.]
3m
3m
Split plot design. Shaded area indicated sprayed portion.
-------
DISTRIBUTION
1-20 SWRHL, Las Vegas, Nevada
21 Robert E. Miller, Manager, NVOO/AEC, Las Vegas, Nevada
22 R. H. Thalgott, Test Manager, NVOO/AEC, Las Vegas, Nevada
23 Henry G. Vermillion, NVOO/AEC, Las Vegas, Nevada
24 Chief, NOB/DASA, NVOO/AEC, Las Vegas, Nevada
25 Robert R. Loux, AEC/NVOO, Las Vegas, Nevada
26 D. W. Hendricks, NVOO/AEC, Las Vegas, Nevada
27 Mail & Records, NVOO/AEC, Las Vegas, Nevada
28 DOS, USAEC, Washington, D. C.
29 Director, DMA, USAEC, Washington, D. C.
30 John S. Kelly, DPNE, USAEC, Washington, D. S.
31 P. Allen, ARL/ESSA, NVOO/AEC, Las Vegas, Nevada
32 Gilbert J. Ferber, ARL/ESSA, Silver Spring, Maryland
33-37 Charles L. Weaver, NCRH, PHS, Rockville, Maryland
38 Regional Representative, NCRH, PHS, Region IX, San Francisco, Calif.
39 Bernd Kahn, NCRH, RATSEC, Cincinnati, Ohio
40 Northeastern Radiological Health Lab., Winchester, Mass.
41 Southeastern Radiological Health Lab., Montgomery, Ala.
42 W. C. King, LRL, Mercury, Nevada
43 John W. Gofman, LRL, Livermore, Calif.
44 H. L. Reynolds, LRL, Livermore, Calif.
45 Roger Batzel, LRL, Livermore, Calif.
46 Ed Fleming, LRL, Livermore, Calif.
47 Wm. E. Ogle, LASL, Los Alamos, N. Mex.
48 Harry S. Jordan, LASL, Los Alamos, N. Mex.
49 Victor M. Milligan, REECo, Mercury, Nevada
50 Clinton S. Maupin, REECo, Mercury, Nevada
51 Byron Murphey, Sandia Corporation, Albuquerque, N. Mex.
52 R. H. Wilson, University of Rochester, Rochester, N. Y.
53 - 54 DTIE, Oak Ridge, Tennessee
-------
55 D. S. Barth, National Air Pollution Control Admin., Chapel Hill,
North Carolina
56 Ferren Bunker, Clark County Cooperative Extension Service,
Las Vegas, Nevada
57 B. B. Taylor, Extension Agronomist, University of Nevada Reno,
Reno, Nevada
58 Gayland Robison, Supertindent, Logandale Experiment Station,
University of Nevada, Logandale, Nevada
------- |