Water Conservation at the Woodvale Farm

Water Conservation at the Woodvale Farm

Summary

Summary
Woodvale Farm, located at the University of Rhode Island, is an educational farm committed to practicing and teaching sustainable methods. However, it has been hampered by a chronic annual water shortage. Some years the crisis became so bad that the farm implemented a “no water usage” rule for its classroom and two staff houses that rely on the farm’s well water. Because the health of livestock was a priority, the gardens frequently were underwatered and crop yields suffered. This project allowed Woodvale to explore ways to protect and conserve its water supply, and helped improve the resource management component of the farm’s educational curriculum.

Objectives
* Implement new methods to conserve water at Woodvale Farm.

* Educate children about the importance of water conservation and its methods.

Key Findings
Several automatic waterers for livestock, two drip irrigation systems, and a roof water rain catchment system have been installed on the farm. These water saving devices have resulted in a substantial reduction in labor costs, improved crop yields, and a marked difference in water consumption levels for the farm.

This water conservation system is now a part of the regular Woodvale Farm educational curriculum. Staff is trained to operate the drip systems, teach about water conservation, and lead groups on a tour of the farm’s water system, including the surrounding wetlands.

The new water system at Woodvale Farm is especially suitable for small-scale growers and home gardeners. The impracticality of automatic waterers and drip irrigation for large-scale growers lies primarily in the high initial costs. The use of a drip system, however, can also be incompatible with mechanical cultivation.

Results
One of the difficulties in quantifying water usage on the farm is the number of variables involved -- rainfall, temperatures, livestock and crops with different needs, and varying water conservation habits among the staff. Visitors also affect water usage: there are two public restrooms, a drinking fountain, and a kitchen with a dishwasher for program use. Program-related consumption was measured along with livestock and garden use.

While our statistics concerning water consumption do not definitively indicate a substantial savings, the benefits in labor and time savings are clear. Averages taken in the months of May and June record the hours spent each week watering the gardens and livestock before and after implementing the water conservation system. In 1995, this average was 25 hours a week; in 1997 it dropped to 15 hours a week; in 1998 this task consumed only two hours a week. This gradual reduction in labor parallels the installation of the various components of the water system -- automatic waterers for livestock were installed in 1997, and drip irrigation systems were installed in 1998.

These visible, accessible devices are suited to a resource conservation curriculum, and are a valuable teaching tool for any educational institution that intends to teach about sustainable agriculture or water conservation.

Economic Analysis
The methods chosen for the project were relatively expensive to purchase and install. The automatic waterers and drip irrigation system required a high initial investment, but the benefits in labor and water savings outweigh the initial costs. The labor and materials for this project totaled $4,276.

Before installation of these devices, approximately 25 hours a week were required to irrigate crops and water livestock, at an estimated cost of $175 at $7 an hour. At present, the same tasks require an hour a week, at a cost of $7 a week. This represents an annual savings of $4,844 for a 28-week growing season.

The data compiled for water usage was less conclusive, but a comparison of gallons used in the month of April between the years 1995 and 1998 show that less water is being used. The economic benefits of reduced water consumption result from less wear on the equipment, which means less money spent on repairs, replacement parts, and operating costs.
Depending upon the scale of the operation, these methods may or may not be economically advantageous.

Reported June 1998. 1999 Northeast Region SARE/ACE Report.