Cool-season turfgrass: estimating water use

1996 ◽  
Vol 88 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-96 ◽  
Author(s):  
Greg Kerr ◽  
Larry Pochop ◽  
Travis Teegarden
Keyword(s):  
2013 ◽  
Vol 53 (4) ◽  
pp. 328 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Alvarez-Rodriguez ◽  
B. Hermida ◽  
J. Parera ◽  
H. Morazán ◽  
J. Balcells ◽  
...  

This study assessed the effect of drinker type on water use and slurry characteristics of growing-finishing pigs. A total of 124 crossbred pigs [20 kg of bodyweight (BW)] were allotted to 16 pens (3–4 pigs/pen) in two time periods during the cool season (length: 97 days each). Drinker devices were: (1) pig teat, (2) bite drinker, (3) nipple square bowl, and (4) nipple bowl. There were limited differences among drinker types concerning the growth pattern of pigs during the fattening period, but target BW (100 kg) was similar in all treatments (P > 0.05). Feed intake did not differ among drinker types (P > 0.05). Nipple bowl drinker showed the lowest water disappearance during the experiment, whereas bite drinker showed the greatest values during the late fattening period (P < 0.05). Slurry production did not differ among drinker devices (P > 0.05), but slurry volume increased linearly during the study (P < 0.05). Pigs raised using nipple square and nipple bowl drinkers produced slurry with greater DM content than teat drinkers (P < 0.05). Most of the slurry fertiliser value elements (N-P-K) were significantly affected by drinker type (P < 0.05). Slurry from pigs using teat and bite drinkers had lower N-NH4, total N and K content than that from nipple square and nipple bowl drinkers (P < 0.05). Total N content of slurry on a wet basis decreased during the fattening period (P < 0.05). Improved efficiency in water use by pigs led to greater slurry N and K content, mainly due to the increase in its DM content. A negative association between water use at pig facilities and its slurry fertiliser value was demonstrated.


2018 ◽  
Vol 196 ◽  
pp. 15-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas George ◽  
Sally E. Thompson ◽  
Joy Hollingsworth ◽  
Steven Orloff ◽  
Stephen Kaffka
Keyword(s):  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdül Halim Orta ◽  
Seray Kuyumcu

&lt;p&gt;The aim of this study is to determine the effects of deficit irrigation applications at different levels on the cool-season and warm-season turfgrass species irrigated by sprinkler irrigation. Field experiments were conducted in the Agricultural Production and Research Center (TURAM) of Silivri Municipality in G&amp;#252;m&amp;#252;&amp;#351;yaka District located between the boundaries of Tekirda&amp;#287; and Istanbul - TURKEY, at growing season 2019. In this research, two different turfgrass types (K: Cool season turfgrass and B: Warm season turfgrass), at three different irrigation threshold were examined in split-plots in randomized blocks design with three replications. Cool season turfgrass types lost its green colour completely after July due to the dry and hot summer season and the total amount of irrigation water applied in different irrigation strategies varied between 101.4 mm - 303.9 mm, seasonal evapotranspiration values varied between 217.7 mm - 391.5 mm, and daily evapotranspiration values varied between 2.4 mm/day - 4.3 mm/day. As for warm-season turfgrass types that managed to stay alive and kept its green colour throughout whole summer period; the same values varied between 203,6 mm - 591,6 mm; 328.4 mm - 593.9 mm; and 2,1 mm/day &amp;#8211; 3,9 mm/day, respectively. In the 3-month period (May-June-July) in which both types of grass could survive, the seasonal evapotranspiration values were 11% more in the cool season turfgrass than that of warm season turfgrass. When daily evapotranspiration values were compared, it was observed that it was 10-14% more in cool-season turfgrass than in warm-season turfgrass. Average CWSI values calculated for different irrigation treatments were 0,57-0,66 for cool-season turf, 0,52-0,66 for warm-season turf besides, average CWSI values before irrigation application were 0,68-0,79 for cool-season turf, 0,69-0,79 for warm-season turf. Changes in the vegetation height, fresh yield, dry yield, plant density, color, and quality properties were monitored depending on the irrigation levels. When factors such as the amount of irrigation water applied, water-use and irrigation water-use efficiency, and quality parameters are evaluated together; none of treatments were adequate to keep cool-seasons varieties green after July. In the warm season turfgrass variety, although all irrigation levels provide the desired level for plant growth and quality, S2 treatment has been suggested when all parameters mentioned above are taken into consideration. Besides, Jensen Haise method (JH) was chosen as the best equation when reference evapotranspiration estimation methods were compared for both types of turf and crop coefficient (kc) curves have been prepared for both turfgrass species.&lt;/p&gt;


EDIS ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (5) ◽  
pp. 5
Author(s):  
Hayk Khachatryan ◽  
Alicia Rihn ◽  
Dong Hee Suh ◽  
Michael Dukes

Drought conditions make landscape irrigation and reducing water use top-of-mind for many Floridians. Encouraging wise water use is of particular importance to the smart irrigation industry and water policy makers. This 5-page fact sheet written by Hayk Khachatryan, Alicia Rihn, Dong Hee Suh, and Michael Dukes and published by the UF/IFAS Food and Resource Economics Department pinpoints key attributes and barriers affecting consumers' irrigation purchases and their adoption of smart irrigation technologies. https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fe1080


EDIS ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jose C.B. Dubeux ◽  
Nicolas DiLorenzo ◽  
Kalyn Waters ◽  
Jane C. Griffin

Florida has 915,000 beef cows and 125,000 replacement heifers (USDA, 2016). Developing these heifers so that they can become productive females in the cow herd is a tremendous investment in a cow/calf operation, an investment that takes several years to make a return. The good news is that there are options to develop heifers on forage-based programs with the possibility of reducing costs while simultaneously meeting performance targets required by the beef industry. Mild winters in Florida allows utilization of cool-season forages that can significantly enhance the performance of grazing heifers. During the warm-season, integration of forage legumes into grazing systems will provide additional nutrients to meet the performance required to develop a replacement heifer to become pregnant and enter the mature cow herd. In this document, we will propose a model for replacement heifer development, based on forage research performed in trials at the NFREC Marianna.   


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document