An irrigation upgrade that actually pays: prove you’ve maxed out your current system first

Most expensive irrigation mistakes start with a reasonable sentence: “The system is underperforming, so we need an upgrade.”

If the system is genuinely at end-of-life, that can be true. But on many commercial farms, the real problem is not hardware. It is management: unclear targets, inconsistent scheduling, unverified pressures and flows, and maintenance that only happens once the crop starts wilting.

Replace the whole system without fixing those basics and you will get a newer version of the same outcome, this time with a higher capex and more complexity to manage. Its a scary spiral.

The fastest way to waste millions: replacing hardware to solve a management problem

What an “upgrade” is supposed to achieve

An irrigation upgrade should do at least one of these things:

• Reduce energy cost per cubic meter pumped (or per hectare irrigated).
• Increase irrigation uniformity where the current design cannot deliver it.
• Improve reliability and reduce downtime risk during critical crop stages.
• Enable expansion, a crop change, or a solve new water supply constraint.

If you cannot point to one (or more) measurable outcomes, “upgrade” usually means “we are tired of dealing with symptoms.” That is not a design brief.

Why “new kit” doesn’t change the agronomy

At its heart, irrigation is pretty basic: apply the right amount of water, in the right place, at the right time.

Modern systems differ in energy consumption, irrigation uniformity, and water use efficiency. They do not differ in their ability to put a specified depth of water into the root zone, provided the system was designed for the correct application rate (how fast water is applied, typically mm/hour) and it is managed properly.

I.e. if you do not manage runtimes, pressures, flows, and maintenance, a new system will not manage them for you.

Irrigation is a management game (hardware just sets the limits)

Right amount, right place, right time: the only goal that matters

Hardware sets the boundaries: flow capacity, pressure range, and distribution pattern. Management decides whether those boundaries produce consistent soil moisture in the root zone.

When a farm says “we irrigated 6 hours,” that is not a target. It is a runtime. The target is an application depth (mm) and timing that matches crop stage and weather.

Application rate, uniformity, and efficiency: the variables you can control

Three terms matter, and none require hype:

• Application rate: how fast water is applied. Too high and you drive runoff or deep percolation; too low and you cannot keep up in peak demand.
• Irrigation uniformity: how evenly water is distributed over an area. Poor uniformity forces you to over-water some zones to keep the dry zones alive.
• Water use efficiency: how much of the pumped water ends up as useful water in the root zone, rather than lost to evaporation, drift, runoff, or deep percolation.

Notice what is missing: brand names, shiny dashboards, and “latest technology.” Those can help, but only after the basics are under control.

Energy consumption: where upgrades really can win

Energy is often the biggest operating cost lever. But even here, many “hardware upgrades” are covering for operational waste:

• Pumping at higher pressure than the field needs.
• Running during peak tariffs when scheduling flexibility exists.
• Operating with partially blocked filters or worn nozzles that force longer runtimes.
• Ignoring suction conditions, air ingress, and pump performance drift.

Sometimes the right move is a new pump or variable speed drive. Sometimes it is a pressure audit and a disciplined operating envelope.

The common failure pattern we see on farms

Here is the uncomfortable part: many “underperforming systems” are not underperforming because the pumps are old or the pipes are the wrong diameter.

They are underperforming because nobody can answer basic operational questions with measurements.

No agreed application targets

If each block has a different soil, crop, and rooting depth, each block needs an agreed target. That target must be visible to the people actually turning valves and setting runtimes.

No schedule that matches crop stage and weather

A fixed schedule that ignores weather and crop stage is not “simple.” It is lazy. Peak demand weeks are where most systems get exposed.

No pressure and flow checks

If you do not measure pressure and flow at the block level, you do not know what each block is receiving. You are guessing.

Pressure and flow are not academic. They are the difference between a design that works on paper and one that performs in the field.

No maintenance rhythm (until the crop complains)

Irrigation systems drift. Filters slowly block. Regulators fatigue. Nozzles wear. Small leaks become big ones. If maintenance is reactive, uniformity and application depth become reactive too.

Before you approve an irrigation upgrade: a practical performance squeeze plan

Before you replace anything, squeeze performance out of what you already own. The sequence below is deliberately practical: measure, compare, correct, and train.

Step 1: Set application targets by block (and write them down)

At minimum, define for each irrigation block:

• Target application depth per event (mm) in typical conditions.
• Maximum allowable application depth per event (to avoid losses).
• Peak-season frequency expectation (e.g., every 2 days under high ET).
• Any non-negotiables (e.g., avoid irrigating during flowering windows for certain crops).

This aligns the agronomy and the operations team. Without written targets, you cannot hold the system (or people) accountable.

Step 2: Validate what the system is actually delivering (pressure, flow, runtime)

Do not start with “it feels weak.” Start with numbers.

• Measure pressure at representative points in the block (near, mid, far).
• Measure block flow (from a calibrated meter, or a validated pump curve plus operating point).
• Confirm runtime and valve positions match the schedule.
• Record pump discharge pressure and suction conditions at the same time.

With this, you can calculate what depth you are actually applying. Often it is not what the schedule assumes.

Step 3: Check distribution uniformity (you can’t manage what you can’t measure)

Uniformity testing does not need to be complicated, but it does need to be done correctly for your system type (drip, micro, sprinkler, pivot).

Practical outcomes you are looking for:

• Identify whether poor areas are random (maintenance) or patterned (design constraint).
• Separate “not enough water overall” from “water is not distributed evenly.”

Uniformity problems often get misdiagnosed as “the pump is too small,” and then the farm buys pressure it does not need.

Step 4: Fix the drift: filtration, leaks, nozzles, regulators, and valves

If the system was originally functional, many performance losses come from predictable drift points:

• Filtration that is undersized, poorly maintained, or bypassed during busy periods.
• Pressure regulators that are stuck, damaged, or incorrectly set.
• Nozzles and emitters that are worn, partially blocked, or mismatched.
• Control valves that do not fully open or that leak past seats.
• Hidden leaks and broken risers that only show up as “low pressure.”

Fix these first. Otherwise you will design around faults—and the new system will inherit the same habits.

Step 5: Train the people who run it every day

Management is not a memo. It is a routine.

Training should cover the minimum set of operational skills:

• How to read pressure gauges and what “normal” looks like for each block.
• How to verify flow and detect abnormal deviations early.
• How to execute a flushing and filter-cleaning rhythm without shortcuts.
• How to adjust scheduling based on weather and crop stage (with clear sign-off rules).

This is where many farms win back performance without spending capital.

Step 6: Track two numbers weekly: water applied and energy per cubic metre

If you want control, track simple leading indicators:

• Water applied per block: mm/week (or m³/week) versus the target.
• Energy intensity: kWh/m³ pumped (or kWh/ha) under comparable operating conditions.

These two numbers expose both agronomic risk and operating waste quickly.

When replacing hardware is the right call

Sometimes you should replace. The key is knowing why, and proving that management optimisation won’t solve it.

End-of-life assets that create unacceptable risk

If pump failures, electrical faults, or pipe bursts are frequent and risk a crop-stage disaster, replacement can be justified on reliability alone. But document downtime, repair cost, and risk exposure. Make it a business case, not a feeling.

Design constraints that management cannot overcome

Examples of hard constraints:

• Application rate is too high for the soil infiltration rate, causing runoff.
• Pipe sizing or layout creates unavoidable pressure variation across the block.
• Water source constraints prevent meeting peak demand even with perfect scheduling.

Expansion, crop change, or water supply changes

If you are expanding hectares, changing to a higher-value crop with tighter moisture requirements, or dealing with reduced allocations, the old system may simply not fit the new reality.

Energy costs that cannot be solved by operations alone

If the system fundamentally requires high pressure (and therefore high energy) to achieve its distribution pattern, then a redesign can reduce lifecycle cost. But verify the baseline first—many farms are pumping more pressure than the field actually needs.

How to build the business case for an irrigation upgrade (without self-deception)

Capex is not the cost: use lifecycle cost

Lifecycle cost is capex plus operating cost plus maintenance cost over the useful life, adjusted for risk and downtime. A “cheap” upgrade that increases complexity can cost more over 10 years than a clean, simple design.

Separate “must-fix reliability” from “nice-to-have performance”

Put reliability items in one column and performance improvements in another. It stops the project from turning into a shopping list.

Minimum viable upgrade: staged improvements beat full replacement

In many cases the best outcome is staged:

• Instrument and audit first (meters, gauges, baseline tests).
• Fix maintenance and operational routines.
• Upgrade only the constraint (pump, filtration, control, specific blocks).

This reduces risk and protects cash flow while still improving performance.

What independent engineering looks like in practice

Feasibility first: measure, model, then decide

At Ant Consult, we start with feasibility and diagnosis. That means field measurements, understanding the crop and operations constraints, and then engineering the simplest design that fits the situation.

Supplier-driven redesigns often start with a product. Independent engineering starts with constraints and targets.

Design integrity and accountability during implementation

Design is only half the job. Construction management and commissioning (proving the system performs) is where many projects leak value. If you cannot verify pressures, flows, and uniformity after installation, you do not have a finished project.

A simple rule: if you can’t verify performance, you can’t claim it

This applies to both existing systems and new ones. A clean performance baseline makes every future decision easier—whether you end up upgrading or not.

Next steps: get clarity before you buy anything

What to prepare for an on-farm assessment

If you want a decision you can defend to your finance team (and to yourself), gather:

• Block layout and system drawings (even if outdated).
• Recent electricity bills and pumping run hours.
• Current irrigation schedule assumptions per block.
• Known maintenance issues and repair history.

Then do the basic measurements: pressure and flow. That single step eliminates most guesswork.

A direct question to end with

Where is the biggest leak on your farm right now: hardware flaws, or irrigation management?

If you want an independent view before committing to capex, book a call with Ant Consult. We will help you decide whether to optimise what you have, upgrade a constraint, or redesign properly.

Frequently asked questions about irrigation upgrades

Will a new system automatically improve yield?

No. A new system can improve yield only if it fixes a constraint that was limiting the crop (uniformity, peak capacity, reliability) and the farm manages it to agreed targets. Otherwise it is a capital expense that buys hope.

What pressure and flow checks should we be doing?

At minimum: confirm pump discharge pressure, block inlet pressure, and representative in-field pressures, plus block flow. Do it at consistent operating conditions and record the results. Trends matter more than one-off readings.

How do I know if uniformity is the problem?

If parts of the block are consistently stressed while others are consistently wet (despite the same runtime), uniformity is a prime suspect. A proper uniformity test will show whether the pattern matches design constraints or maintenance faults.

Is drip always more efficient than pivots?

Not automatically. Drip can be highly efficient when designed, filtered, and maintained correctly. Pivots can also be efficient when properly managed and matched to wind conditions and application rate. The best choice depends on crop, water quality, labour availability, terrain, and lifecycle cost.

How do we reduce pumping electricity costs?

Start with a pressure and operating-point audit: many farms pump more pressure than needed, run inefficient duty points, or lose energy to friction from partially blocked components. After that, consider pump selection, variable speed drives, and network optimization, based on measured data.

‍