Talk:Center pivot irrigation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Geometry of planting

I came here to find this out and was surprised that it's not mentioned: Are center-pivot fields planted (and harvested) spirally or concentrically? It seems to me that a spiral pattern would make the job easier, but a fair amount of Googling has left me none the wiser. —HorsePunchKid→龜 15:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

In my experience in central Washington, seedbed prep normally eliminates the wheeltracks. Potatoes and corn are typically planted in an E/W direction must be harvested the same way. The CP wheel tracks run right over the planted rows.

An issue with CP is that the instantaneous application rate on the perimeter can be higher than the infiltration rate because it whips along so fast, even with our sandy soils. Concentric rows, where the exterior row always gets the highest instantaneous application, could concentrate runoff and exacerbate ponding and erosion problems.

In one grass sprayfield (doesn't have ridged planting rows) where the wheeltracks have been filled with gravel, it was planted concentrically. Before they filled in the tracks they harvested the most rutted portions concentically. I haven't seen a spiral harvest, but I expect different farmers try different approaches. The E/W row orientation might not be such a big deal at lower latitudes. Runoff might not be the issue at higher rainfall where supplemental irrigation is less of the total water balance. -- Paleorthid 16:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Strange question that got me thinking: the irrigation system produces circles, and yet they're still arranged on a square grid instead of a triangular or hexagonal one (imagine honeycomb and you'll see what I'm getting at). That leaves the corners of each square grid either left fallow or less-efficiently irrigated. Was any research ever done into stacking them this way for better yields? --The Centipede 17:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

If you follow to Irrigation in Saudi Arabia, you'll see a picture showing (some) honeycomb arrangement. It seems that in America, central pivot irrigation has been retrofitted onto traditional square fields, with no change in crop layout. Yet

the apparently more recently developed Saudi agriculture tends to have been laid out with consideration given to central pivot irrigation. I presume that has something to do with it; if your farm predates central pivot irrigation, you tend to go with square arrangement; otherwise you plan for maximal use of space. Refitting into square plots (without sub-plots) wastes 21% of space; fitting into hexagonal plots only 8.5%. Seems like it would be an interesting subject. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 20:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That should be mentioned in the Saudi article. Only some of them seem to be in honeycomb arrangement. 141.155.28.92 01:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Translation

Is it allowed to translate texts on wikipedia direct into another languages? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.47.140.108 (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

A.f.a.I.k. yes, but do not forget to credit the source, e.g. the english version of wikipedia. VanBurenen 13:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Measurements

Does someone know some data that quantify such an irrigation system? E.g. typical, average, even record length of array (how many yards or meters?). Quantity of water pumped. Speed of rotation, etc. VanBurenen 13:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)