Water harvesting for plant production

1990 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 359 ◽  
Author(s):  
H.J. Bruins
Keyword(s):  
Plant Production ◽  
Water Harvesting

Green Landscaping and Plant Production with Water Harvesting Solutions

2021 ◽  
pp. 373-384
Author(s):  
Saeid Eslamian ◽  
Saeideh Parvizi ◽  
Sayed Salman Ghaziaskar
Keyword(s):  
Plant Production ◽  
Water Harvesting

Water harvesting in India

Waterlines ◽  
1986 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 8-9
Author(s):  
Derek Ray
Keyword(s):  
Water Harvesting

Water harvesting in Jordan using earth ponds

Waterlines ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 19-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rafid Alkhaddar
Keyword(s):  
Water Harvesting

Design Speed Breaker For Road Rain Water Harvesting and Electricity Generation

2020 ◽  
Vol 06 (02) ◽  
pp. 28-32
Author(s):  
Dipak b pawar ◽  
Prashant narote ◽  
Ganesh pawar ◽  
Tushar narote ◽  
Tejas Mhaske ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Electricity Generation ◽  
Rain Water ◽  
Water Harvesting ◽  
Rain Water Harvesting ◽  
Design Speed

Irrigation Volume, Application, and Controlled-release Fertilizer II. Effect on Substrate Solution Nutrient Concentration and Water Efficiency in Containerized Plant Production

1998 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 182-188
Author(s):  
Kelly M. Groves ◽  
Stuart L. Warren ◽  
Ted E. Bilderback
Keyword(s):  
Controlled Release ◽  
Irrigation Efficiency ◽  
Plant Production ◽  
Water Efficiency ◽  
Solution Ph ◽  
Entire Study ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
Substrate Solution ◽  
Irrigation Volume ◽  
Controlled Release Fertilizers

Abstract Rooted cuttings of Cotoneaster dammeri Schneid ‘Skogholm’ and seedlings of Rudbeckia fulgida Ait. ‘Goldsturm’ were potted into 3.8 liter (4 qt) containers in a pine bark:sand (8:1 by vol) substrate incorporated with 3.5 g (0.12 oz) N per container provided by one of the following five controlled-release fertilizers (CRFs): Meister 21N–3.5P–11.1K (21–7–14), Osmocote 24N–2.0P–5.6K (24–4–7), Scotts 23N–2.0P–6.4K (23–4–8), Sustane 5N–0.9P–3.3K (5–2–4) or Woodace 21N–3.0P–9.5K (21–6–12). Two hundred ml (0.3 in), 400 ml (0.6 in), 800 ml (1.1 in) or 1200 ml (1.7 in) of water was applied once daily (single) or in two equal applications with a 2 hr interval between applications (cyclic). Substrate solutions were collected from containers of cotoneaster 15, 32, 45, 60, 74, 90, 105, and 119 days after initiation (DAI). Irrigation efficiency [(water applied − water leached) ÷ water applied] was determined on the same days. Cyclic application improved irrigation efficiency at 800 ml (1.1 in) and 1200 ml (1.7 in) ≈ 27% compared to a single application. Irrigation efficiencies averaged over the season were 95%, 84%, 62%, and 48% for cotoneaster and 100%, 90%, 72%, and 51% for rudbeckia at 200 ml (0.3 in), 400 ml (0.6 in), 800 ml (1.1 in) and 1200 ml (1.7 in), respectively. NH4-N and NO3-N and PO4-P concentrations in substrate solution decreased with increasing irrigation volume regardless of CRF. Substrate NH4-N concentration decreased throughout the season with most CRFs below 5 mg/liter by 90 DAI. CRFs mainly affected substrate NH4-N and NO3-N concentrations when irrigated with 200 ml (0.3 in) or 400 ml (0.6 in). Substrate NH4-N, NO3-N, and PO4-P solution concentrations were similar for all CRFs at irrigation volume of 1200 ml (1.7 in). Osmocote, Scotts, and Woodace maintained relatively constant substrate solution levels of PO4-P through 60 DAI. By 90 DAI, substrate PO4-P levels were similar regardless of irrigation volume or CRF. Substrate PO4-P concentrations were never in the recommended range of 5 to 10 mg/liter when irrigated with 800 ml (1.1 in) or 1200 ml (1.7 in) regardless of CRF. Solution pH remained in the recommended range of 5.0 to 6.0 for all irrigation volumes and CRFs throughout the entire study with the exception of Sustane.

Nitrogen gross balance in farms specialised in plant production in selected regions of Poland

2011 ◽  
Vol 66 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jerzy Kupiec ◽  
Agnieszka Zdanowska ◽  
Janina Zbierska ◽  
Aleksandra Woźniak
Keyword(s):  
Plant Production

Profitability of dairy farming in relation to the type of feeding system

2011 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Frelich ◽  
Martin Šlachta ◽  
František Střeleček ◽  
Jana Lososová
Keyword(s):  
Arable Land ◽  
Principal Component ◽  
Dairy Farming ◽  
Plant Production ◽  
Feeding Strategies ◽  
Feeding System ◽  
Financial Health ◽  
Profit Rate ◽  
Permanent Housing ◽  
Cow Performance

Profitability of dairy farming in relation to the type of feeding systemWe investigated the profitability of dairy farms in relation to the type of feeding system (seasonal pasture vs. permanent housing). An economic analysis was carried out of data on the structure and financial health of 50 farms in 2007 using questionnaires filled in by the farmers. The Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was applied to reveal causal relationships between a number of characteristics of the farms. The two axis of PCA explained 40.48% and 16.13% of the variability among the selected farm characteristics. Profitability related more to the number of subsidies, the area of arable land, the number of livestock and to the milk and plant production than to the area of meadows and pastures. Although a better cow performance was achieved on farms with confined herds, the profit per agricultural area and profit rate did not differ significantly between the two feeding strategies (P>0.05). The profit was 3,259 and 3,655 CZK/ha on average and the profit rate 7.9% and 5.6% on average on farms with pastured herds and on farms with confined herds, respectively. A lowering of input costs and a more effective utilisation of grasslands may further enhance profitability.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document