Summary of Research
Volume 3, Number 1
Texas Alliance for Water Conservation
Box 42122, Lubbock, Texas 79409-2122
Phone: (806)834-7058 Fax: (806)742-0988
www.tawc.us
The TAWC Project was made possible through a grant from the Texas Water Development Board.
Overall Summary of 2005-2013 (Phase I)
The Texas Alliance for Water Conservation
relatively high acreages of cotton. Then, cotton acres
(TAWC) has organized a partnership whose
declined from 2,118 in 2005 to 891 in 2008. The decline
goal is to extend the life of the Ogallala Aquifer
in cotton acres can be attributed to other commodity
while maintaining the viability of local farms and
prices increasing relative to cotton and the high input
communities. Area producers cooperate with
cost of cotton production. Cotton acres recovered to
universities, industries, and government agencies to
about 1,200 acres in 2009 and 2010, and spiked in 2011
collect data and transfer technologies for improving
in response to high prices.
farm profitability and water use efficiency. On-farm
The decline in cotton acreage in 2006-2008 was
demonstrations of cropping and livestock systems and offset by increases in grain sorghum, forage/pasture,
comparisons of irrigation scheduling techniques help
and other crops. Acres devoted to corn production
producers decide how best to conserve water. These
(grain and silage)
TAWC field
increased from
demonstration
334 in 2009 to
sites are
1,029 in 2010.
provided and
This substantial
managed by
increase in may
more than 20
be attributed
producers in
to rising
the project.
corn prices,
The sites
particularly in
encompassed
relationship to
more than
the expected
4,000 acres
cotton price
in two Texas
and favorable
Figure 1. Acres of crops, forages, and pasture (cattle) grown on TAWC sites in 2005counties. The
2014. Commodities in the “Other” category include sunflowers and peanuts.
moisture and soil
project sites were
profile conditions
monitored for water use, soil moisture depletion, crop when planting decisions were made. Through 2010,
productivity, input costs and economic return.
acres devoted to perennial forages and cattle were
Throughout the project, the mix of acres among
mostly stable. Perennial forages include warm-season
crop types fluctuated (Figure 1). Producers in the
grasses for grazing and hay production with some
TAWC project made their own decisions regarding
acres devoted to grass seed production. In the project,
commodity selection and production practices.
all perennial forages serve production objectives
Commodity acres varied based on the producers’
with no acres in the Conservation Reserve Program.
decisions. The main factors in commodity selection
In 2011, perennial forage crops and acres devoted to
have been per-acre profitability and water availability cattle production declined strongly, largely as a result
for irrigation. Figure 1 shows the acreages devoted to
of severe drought and the sell-off of cattle. Recovery
cotton, corn, sorghum, perennial forages (including
in cattle operations since the 2011-2012 drought had
hay and seed crops), cattle grazing pasture, small
not yet occurred by 2014. Anticipated profitability
grains, and other crops within the producer systems
has been the primary driver of species choices in
from 2005 to 2014.
annual cropping systems, but cattle operations cannot
respond quickly to changing markets.
In 2005, producers in the TAWC started with
Summary of Research | 1
Crop selection influences crop water demand
and the potential to
conserve irrigation
water. For example,
corn requires more
water to achieve
an economic
yield than cotton.
Environmental
factors such as
precipitation,
temperature, and
humidity also
influence crop water
demand within a
given year. Over the
period 2006-2013,
137 cotton and 54
corn observations
were collected (data
from 2014 have not yet been analyzed). Figure 2
shows crop yield in relation to the percentage of crop
water demand (evapotranspiration, ET) provided by
irrigation, precipitation, and soil moisture for cotton
and corn.
Irrigation and precipitation (using 70% effective
precipitation during the growing season) were
supplied at greater than 100% of crop ET needs
in 45% of cotton and 26% of corn observations.
Providing irrigation to meet 75% of total crop water
Lint yield, lb/acre
3000
2006-2010, 2012, 2013
2011 only
2500
A. Cotton
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
300
Grain yield, bu/acre
demand based on 100% ET needs resulted in yields
that were not
statistically
different from
those of crops
receiving water at
or above 100% of
ET. Observations
where water
received was
greater than 100%
ET often occurred
in years with
higher rainfall,
indicating that
producers who
lacked tools to
track crop water
demands tended
to over-irrigate
in wet years. Irrigating above 100% ET is a form of
risk management; however, precise tracking of crop
and soil water status is a water-conserving method of
managing risk.
Education at TAWC events stressed the
opportunities for producers to use soil moisture
monitoring and irrigation scheduling tools to reduce
irrigation to below 100% of ET while attaining high
crop yields. The red symbols in Figure 2 refer to data
from 2011. Their below-average yields indicate the
difficulty of providing adequate water during severe
drought. Note that no yield was harvested from some
fields.
Figure 3 provides evidence of progress among
producers in reducing excessive irrigation by
demonstrating cotton lint yield in response to
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
2006-2010, 2012, 2013
2011 only
250
B. Corn
200
150
100
50
0
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
Water received, % of crop water demand
Figure 2. Relaitonships between Cotton (A) or Corn (B) yield
and percentage crop water demand provided by irrigation and
precipitation for 2006 -2013. 100% equals accumulated growingseason potentioal evapotranspiration (ET). Black curved lines
describe fitted regressions. Red symbols indicated data from the
severe 2011 drought.
Figure 3 A comparison of the relationship between cotton yield
and percentage crop water demand provided by irrigation and
precipitation in two relatively high rainfall seasons, 2007to 2010.
Precipitation is calculated at 70% of that received in the growing
season.
Summary of Research | 2
on the irrigated sites was 13.6 inches, with a range
of 9.2 to 20.9 inches. When all sites including the
non-irrigated fields (Figure 4) are included in the
means, average irrigation applied declines from
13.6 to 12.6 inches, pointing out the importance
of inclusion of non-irrigated acres within a
producer’s overall enterprise in assessing water
use.
Patterns are emerging with respect to
profitability in relation to irrigation applied. Total
returns above all costs of production in 2013 ($318/
acre), including irrigated and dryland sites, was
Table 1. Comparison of crops for irrigation efficiency and economic
slightly decreased from 2012, which was the highest
returns, averaged over 2005 to 2013.
of all years of the project (Figure 5). Profitability
irrigation level relative to crop water demand in two
in 2005 and 2009 was negatively impacted by high
high-rainfall years (2007 and 2010). Virtually all
production costs in relation to values of crops
cotton fields in 2007 (early in the TAWC project)
and livestock. Low profitability in 2011 reflected
received a total supply of water equal to or exceeding
reduction
crop water
in livestock
demand; however,
numbers and
in 2010 most
yield losses
fields received
in crops, but
90% or less of
was buffered
crop ET demand.
by insurance
Table 1
payments. The
compares crops
relatively high
by water use
returns in 2012
efficiency (yield
and 2013 were
per acre-inch of
favored by high
irrigation), gross
commodity
margin ($ per
prices across
acre), and net
many crop types
return per acreand adequate
Figure 4. Average precipitation (inches), irrigation applied (inches), returns above all
inch of irrigation. costs ($/acre), and gross margin ($/per acre) for all sites, irrigated and dryland.
irrigation
Cotton had the
available to
highest net return at $30.90, which was 37% higher
attain profitable yields in cotton.
than corn for grain. Corn had nearly double the grain
As water availability declines, two basic strategies
yield of sorghum, and achieved a higher profit per
can be used alone or in combination to stretch water
acre. Grain sorghum used 46% less irrigation than
supplies: a) apply less water per acre to a level that
corn. The net result was that sorghum for grain had
still maintains profitable yields (70-80% of crop
10% more profit per acre-inch of water than corn for
grain.
Even though corn production was more profitable
per acre, the economic advantage of grain sorghum
per unit of water used may become more important
in producers’ future crop choices as water supply
diminishes and becomes more expensive.
Figure 4 shows annual changes in returns above
all costs and gross margins in relation to precipitation
and irrigation for both irrigated and dryland over all
sites. Gross margin equals total revenue less total
variable costs. Returns above all costs equals gross
margin less fixed costs and is the same as net returns.
Depth of irrigation applied averaged over 9 years
Summary of Research | 3
ET demand); and b) apply available water to fewer
averaged over years.
acres. Both approaches have merit depending on the
Eight sites met the benchmarks of 10 or fewer
crop species and variety, how water is allocated over
inches of irrigation and $100 or more gross margin per
the cropland, and the distribution of precipitation
acre, when averaged over 2005-2013 (Figure 5, Table
within a year. Choices of crop species/variety and the 3). Sites 5 and 9 involved cattle in the system, either
land allocation of water are under the control of the
spatially as part of the
producer. Distribution
land-use mix within
of precipitation is not
years, or temporally
under their control and
as part of a rotation
therefore only involves
between pasture and
retrospective responses.
cropland. These sites
To assess
received 6 and 7 inches
opportunities for
per year, respectively,
achieving good
of irrigation and
profitability at
rendered around
relatively low water
$250 gross margin
use, we constructed
per acre annually. As
a graph of the
some producers face
Figure 5. Gross margin per acre in relation to inches of applied
distribution of gross
declining well outputs,
irrigation
averaged
over
2005
to
2013.
Each
point
represents
one
site.
margin per site-acre
converting at least some
The blue box brackets those sites which averaged 15 inches irrigation
vs. inches of irrigation, or less and $300 minimum gross margin per acre. The green box
of their cropland to high
including four dryland brackets 10 inches of irrigation or less and $100 gross margin per acres quality pastures for beef
sites (Figure 5). We
production is a viable
or more. Numbered sites are described in Tables 2 (blue box) and 4
(green
box).
arbitrarily defined two
option that can produce
sets of benchmarks:
more than $200 per acre.
Two
other
relatively
profitable,
low-irrigation sites
1) maximum of 15 inches of irrigation and
were
numbers
19
and
30,
which
both involved multiminimum of $300 gross margin per acre (blue box in
Figure 5) to represent high profitability at a currently
common level of water availability;
2) maximum of 10 inches of irrigation and
minimum of $100 gross margin per acre (green box in
Figure 5) to represent modest profitability at a low
level of water availability, which will be faced by more
growers in the future.
Please note that these levels were selected only to
identify whether certain sites and cropping systems
consistently performed within those arbitrary
benchmarks and not to relate system performance to
pumping restrictions nor to state a minimum amount
Table 2. Description of cropping system used in 2005-2013
of revenue required for economic viability.
and irrigation types used in 2013 for sites plotted in Figure 5
which met benchmarks of 15 or fewer inches of irrigation and
Twelve sites met the benchmarks of 15 or fewer
$300 or more gross margin per acre (black box Figure 5).
inches of irrigation and $300 or more gross margin
per acre, when averaged over 2005-2013 (Figure 5,
Table 2). Five sites that met the $300 gross margin
per acre benchmark but with average irrigation
over 18 inches (points located to the right of the
blue box in Figure 5) were cotton/corn rotations.
Inclusion of corn in multi-cropping systems can
produce high gross margins, but requires more
irrigation than cotton. Sites 2, 17, 21, 26, 28, and
34 all included corn in the rotations and met the
Table 3. Description of cropping system used in 2005-2013 and
double benchmarks of 15 inches and $300 per acre,
irrigation types used in 2013 for sites plotted in Figure 5 which met
indicating that inclusion of corn in the cropping
benchmarks of 10 or fewer inches of irrigation and $100 or more
system can result in high return at low water use,
gross margin per acre (dashed box Figure 5).
Summary of Research | 4
species cropping and monoculture cotton, depending
on the year. One dryland site (no. 29) had gross
margin of $120 per acre, but other dryland sites were
below $100 per acre.
Results in Figure 5 indicate that all but 6 sites
were at less than the 2015 regulatory pumping limit of
18 inches (1.5 acre-feet per contiguous acre per year).
Those irrigating at more than 18 inches have options
to reduce irrigation through a combination of precise
irrigation scheduling to not exceed 70-80% of crop
water demand and use of high-efficiency systems such
as LEPA and subsurface drip.
yielded the greatest net returns per acre in 8 out of
9 years. Since it is produced with limited contracts,
grass seed would not present a cropping option for
a large number of producers. Nevertheless, contract
seed crops provide opportunities for some producers
to diversify their income.
While multi-cropping and cotton monoculture
yielded similar average net returns per acre (around
$230/acre), integrated crop-livestock was at $193 and
corn monoculture was around $157/acre (Figure 6).
Irrigation applied was greatest for corn
monoculture, followed by multi-cropping (Figure 7),
blue bars). Irrigated cotton monoculture used about
Cropping System Summaries
the same amount of irrigation as grass seed and the
integrated crop-livestock system. Net returns per
Average net returns per acre averaged over
acre-inch of irrigation applied were highest for grass
2005-2013 indicate that grass seed monoculture was
seed, followed by cow-calf/pasture (Figure 7, green
the most profitable system at $462/acre, double that
bars); the latter owing to the low irrigation. With
of cotton monoculture and multi-cropping systems
fairly high net returns per acre-inch of irrigation
(Figure 6).
and low water usage, cattle production on perennial
The grass seed system also had the highest net
return per acre-inch of irrigation applied (green bars), forages may offer a sustainable option as groundwater
becomes more depleted. Net returns for irrigated
and used the same amount of irrigation as cotton
monoculture (Figure 7, blue bars). Grass seed (mostly cotton monoculture were ranked third.
Corn monocultures were not present in some of
sideoats grama) is a high-value specialty crop, which
the earlier years of this project and thus their means
reflect fewer years. The
droughts of 2011 and 2012
hit corn yields particularly
hard, therefore with fewer
years in the mean, the
effects of drought have
a proportionally greater
effect on this crop’s
performance.
Sunflowers represent a
specialty crop in this region
and required less irrigation
water than any system type
Figure 6. Net returns per system acre, average of 2005-2013, or for thsoe years which those
systems occurred. Data for cow-calf includes 2005-2010 only .
with the exception of the
cow-calf/pasture; however,
returns per unit of water
applied were also relatively
low. Dryland systems have
always had the lowest
average net returns in this
project.
Figure 7. Net Returns per acre-inch of irrigation water (green bars), and inches of irrigation
applied (blue bars), average of 2005-2013. Data for cow-calf/ pasture includes 2005-2010 only.
Summary of Research | 5
Discussion
Over the 9 years of the project we have been able
to create a comprehensive data set from a wide range
of observations and field records covering wet and dry
years. These observations include crop choices, crop
yields, soil moisture changes, irrigation application,
fertilizer applications, and cultivation practices. This
information has allowed the TAWC to identify and
evaluate best management practices. The TAWC has
found that shifting
to more-efficient
irrigation methods,
scheduling of
irrgation based on
evapotranspiration,
and diversification
of crop species
have resulted
in more applied
water reaching
the root zone, less
evaporation losses,
and higher crop
yields. The TAWC
has also determined
that water savings
are most effictively
achieved by
irrigating at levels of
70-80% of potential
evapotranspiration,
a level which
can allow near
maximum
crop yield and
high economic
efficiency. These
best management
practices are
essential to
producers because effective management is the key
to how cropping systems behave under the extreme
year to year differences in environmental conditions
experienced in this region. These discoveries would
not be possible without the TAWC’s field-based
testing of emerging technologies.
New irrigation and crop management technologies
have been demonstrated on project sites. These
technologies include soil moisture sensors, crop
stress sensors, and irrigation system management
equipment. For example, we have used SmartCrop®,
AquaSpy®, and NetIrrigate®. The TAWC provides an
unbiased evaluation of these tools within overall crop
management systems. The results have illustrated the
effectiveness and compatibility of each technology,
thereby assisting producers across the region in their
decisions regarding potential adoption. Feedback
from the producers that have used these technologies
has also been invaluable and helped us formulate tools
to address the short-term and long-term irrigation
management challenges facing the region. Two management tools were developed and
made available to producers in the region through
the TAWC Solutions web site (http://www.
tawcsolutions.
org) in early 2011.
The Resource
Allocation
Analyzer is an
economic-based
decision aid which
utilizes economic
variables provided
by individual
producers to
compare options
for cropping
systems which
maximize per
acre profits. This
tool can be used
by producers to
make strategic
cropping decisions
that consider
enterprise market
conditions and
limitations
they may have
regarding water
availability,
whether from
structural
limitations due
to the aquifer or irrigation systems, or from policy
limitations imposed by regulatory agencies. The
Irrigation Scheduler is intended as an in-season aid
to assist producers in determining a more refined
irrigation schedule utilizing weather information,
rainfall, irrigation applications, irrigation efficiency,
and evapotranspiration estimates based on weather
data from the Texas Tech Mesonet, a network of 90
weather stations throughout West Texas This tool
assists producers in making decisions on timing and
amount of irrigation.
These tools are free of charge to the producer and
are currently available on the TAWC website. We
offer links to all the TAWC reports at www.tawc.us.
Summary of Research | 6
The dissemination of results and information from
the project through various outreach efforts is an
important part of the project. We strive to connect
with producers, crop consultants, extension agents,
commercial technical representatives, agricultural
Expanded Area
2014-2019
TAWC Original
Project Area
2005-2013
Figure 8. Phase 2 of the project allows the TAWC to establish
demonstration sites to include multiple counties.
From the creation of its unique data set and online
irrigation management tools to the establishment of
best management practices, the TAWC has achieved
major accomplishments through the combined
efforts of its collaborators. Still, there is more to be
researched, and the TAWC’s initial success has led
to additional grants for Phase 2 of the project. Phase
2 expands the technoloites tested, outreach efforts
conducted, and field sites studied from 29 to 35
across more counties. While the project began in Hale
and Floyd Counties, Figure 8 illustrates TAWC’s
expansion to incorporate additional field sites in
seven more counties.
The long term ability of this project to observe
and monitor a variety of crop and integrated crop/
livestock systems under various environmental
conditions allows us to provide valuable information
on irrigation management and water conservation
techniques to producers. The management of our
water resource is critical to the continued economic
success of agriculture in the region. Producers face
many challenges, whether they are from “mother
nature” or regulatory policy. The information we
are deriving from this project will assist producers
in meeting these challenges and allow the region to
continue to be a leader in agricultural production.
finance officers, and other stakeholders interested in
safeguarding the water supply for agriculture. The
TAWC hosts field days and field walks which allow
attendees to visit several project sites and observe
the technologies that are
currently being tested.
Field days also include
demonstrations of the
TAWC Solution Tools and
opportunities to engage
in in-depth discussion of
results and analysis from
the project. We also use
online platforms including
our website, Facebook,
Twitter, and YouTube.
We host a weekly radio
program, “Field Talk,”
on KFLP 900AM on
Wednesdays at 12:20 and
3:20 p.m. and maintain a
presence at various events
such as the Amarillo Farm
and Ranch Show and Texas
Cotton Ginner’s Association
Annual Meeting and Trade
Show.
Summary of Research | 7
The research described in this summary would not be possible without cooperation from
TAWC producer partners, the High Plains Underground Water Conservation District,Texas
A&M Agrilife Extenison Service, Texas Tech University and the USDA’s Agricultural Research
Service, Natural Resource Conservation Service, and Sustainable Agriculture Research and
Education. A special thanks is also due to our commercial industry partners.
It is a team effort that fuels our cause.
This summary of research was authored by Chuck West, Philip Brown, Rick Kellison, and
Phil Johnson with previous contributions from Vivien Allen and David Doerfert.
A special thanks to Samantha Borgstedt and Libby Durst, who assisted in preparing this
research summary.
The TAWC project utilizes on-farm demonstration sites, including cropping and livestock systems,
to identify the various production practices, technologies and systems that help maintain individual farm
profitability while improving water usage efficiency. One of the main goals of this project is to extend the life
of the Ogallala Aquifer, while maintaining the viability of local farms and communities.
The Texas Alliance for Water Conservation is a unique partnership of producers, data collection
technologies, and collaborating partners that include: individual industries, Texas Tech University, Texas
A&M Agrilife Extension, and government agencies. The TAWC project was made possible through a grant
from the Texas Water Development Board.
www.tawc.us