What Five Field Trials Show About IRRAMAX and Soil Moisture

Does a soil amendment’s moisture benefit hold up once it leaves one field, one soil, and one season? We put IRRAMAX to that test in five independent field trials, run across three states and three growing seasons from 2023 to 2026.

The answer was consistent. In every trial, IRRAMAX-treated soil held more water than grower standard practice, by +17% to +284% depending on crop, site, and sensor depth. Here’s what we tested, what we found, and what it could mean for your irrigation decisions.

Three states, four crops, one method

The trials covered very different growing conditions, from sandy Florida soils to semi-arid Texas cropland and Nebraska corn ground.

Every site followed the same four-step process so that the results can be compared side by side:

1. Paired plots. IRRAMAX-treated plots were paired with untreated check plots in the same soil and irrigation zone.
2. Uninterrupted monitoring. Soil moisture sensors logged readings at each plot throughout the trial.
3. Daily averages. We processed raw sensor data into average daily averages using the same standardized method at every site.
4. Comparison by depth. Each site’s data was compared as the IRRAMAX difference in vol% and the percent higher than the check plot, at each sensor depth.

The same sensor platform and factory calibration were used at every site and depth, so no conversion step separates one trial’s numbers from another’s.

The results: more moisture in every trial

IRRAMAX plots recorded higher volumetric moisture content (VMC) than the check plots in all five trials. The size of the gain varied with crop, site, and depth.

The effect showed up in the shortest trial (8 days in Nebraska corn) and the longest (83 days in Texas cotton), and at every site in all three states.

Moisture and salinity together: Florida citrus

In the second Florida citrus trial (May 2–22, 2026), sensors tracked moisture and salinity together at the 2″ depth. IRRAMAX averaged 6.76 vol% moisture vs. 5.62 vol% for the check, about 20% higher, while its salinity was lower: 1,614 µS/cm vs. 2,425 µS/cm.

The more telling result is how each plot behaved over time. Both sensors caught the May 3 rain or irrigation event, then responded differently:

• Check plot: moisture spiked and then fell quickly, while salinity climbed for the rest of the trial.
• IRRAMAX plot: both moisture and salinity stayed flatter.

That pattern is consistent with a buffering effect, not a one-time wetting response.

What it means for irrigation scheduling

These results point to three practical points for growers and advisors:

1. Scheduling intervals. Sustained moisture lift at depth may support longer irrigation intervals in root-restricted or water-limited systems. Evaluate it against your own ET and crop-stage data.
2. Deficit-irrigation systems. Semi-arid, deficit-managed operations may see the most decision-relevant difference, as in Texas cotton at +284% at the 10″ depth.
3. Sensor placement. Depth-by-depth results suggest placing sensors to match the crop’s active root zone, not a single fixed depth.

The bottom line

Across three states, four crops, and trials lasting 8 to 83 days, IRRAMAX-treated soil held more water than grower standard practice every time. Where salinity was tracked, it also stayed lower and steadier.

Want the full data? Download the complete IRRAMAX Research Report for trial-by-trial results, daily charts, and the lead researcher’s field notes, or talk to an IRRAMAX agronomist about how these results apply to your operation.