U.S. Rice Federation (2010)Environmental Indicators Report

From 1982 to 2008, the volume of irrigation water required to produce a cwt. rice has declined by ~40%. Energy use has decreased by ~53%.

U.S. rice producers have worked hard to conserve water and energy.

U.S. Rice Federation (2010)Environmental Indicators Report

1980’s1990’s

2000’s

YMD (2010)Rice Irrigation Water Use

Averaged across all rice irrigation systems over the past 9 years, water use in MS has held steady at 36 ± 4 A-in/A.

y = 0.4x - 766.13R2 = 0.0958

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Year

Wat

er U

se (A

-in/A

)

Average Water Use in MS Rice

Joe MasseyDepartment of Plant & Soil Sciences

Mississippi State UniversityStarkville, MS

Water and Energy Conservation Practices for

Mississippi Rice Production

38

905

10152025303540455055

CoutourLevees

StraightLevee(SL)

SL + SideInlet

ZeroGrade

SeasonalRainfall

(A-in

/A)

4438

31

20 9

Total H2O Requirements (ET + Soil Percolation) = ~14 to 25 A-in/A

Pringle (1994)Water Use Requirements for Rice in the MS Delta

Irrigation Options forMississippi Rice Producers

• Increase zero-grade acres

Estimated Adoption Rates for Rice Irrigation Systems in MS (2009)

Sources: MSU Extension Service grower surveys; rice consultant surveys; YMD permitting data.

Zero-Grade Rice IrrigationAgronomic Issues Limit Adoption

Drawbacks of Zero-Grade Systems:

1. Water-logging of rotational crops, leading to continuous rice systemswhich can result in

2. Pest management issues (weed resistance; herbicide carry-over) and

3. Loss of yield bump associated with Soy-Rice Rotation

Conversion of 0-Grade to “Ridge-Irrigation”

Farmers creating crest in center of 0-grade fields to have 0.3-ft fall:

• Rice irrigated as normal for 0-grade.

•Soybean irrigated with tubing placed on ridge down center of field.

Irrigation Options forMississippi Rice Producers

• Increase zero-grade acres

• Sprinkler-irrigated rice

Sprinkler-Irrigated Rice

Photo credit: RiceTec

More stress-tolerant hybrids and improved herbicide programs may facilitate adoption.

Estimated Adoption Rates for Rice Irrigation Systems in MS (2009)

Sources: MSU Extension Service grower surveys; rice consultant surveys; YMD permitting data.

Irrigation Options forMississippi Rice Producers

• Increase zero-grade acres

• Sprinkler-irrigated rice

• Tailwater recovery systemsand on-farm reservoirs

On-Farm Reservoirs & Tailwater Recovery Systems

Typical Construction Costs in 2011 (Trinity Long, NRCS-Greenwood, MS)

• $1 million (NRCS) + $300 K (grower) per section (640 A) of land, or

~ $1,800 to 2,000 per A

White River Irrigation Diversion Project (Carmen, 2011)

• Project cost: ~$450 million to irrigate 250,000 A (~$1,500 per A)

• Est. cost to deliver water to farm: ~$30 per A-ft

• Completion date: ? (depends on ~65% federal funding; once full funding received, water delivered to Stuttgart in 3 yrs.)

• Still waiting on final $100 million dollars…

Irrigation Options forMississippi Rice Producers

• Increase zero-grade acres

• Sprinkler-irrigated rice

• Tailwater recovery systems andon-farm reservoirs

• Drought-tolerant rice

Drought-Tolerant RiceBangladesh Rice Research Institute (2010)

Source: http://www.brri.gov.bd/reports/Research_highlight2010-11.pdf

Drought-Tolerant RiceBangladesh Rice Research Institute (2010)

Source: http://www.brri.gov.bd/reports/Research_highlight2010-11.pdf

Most Readily-Available, Low- Cost Irrigation Option for the Majority of

Mississippi Rice Acres?

Most Readily-Available, Low- Cost Irrigation Option for the Majority of

Mississippi Rice Acres?

Multiple (side) Inlet Irrigation

Estimated Adoption Rates for Rice Irrigation Systems in MS (2009)

Sources: MSU Extension Service grower surveys; rice consultant surveys; YMD permitting data.

Multiple-Inlet Irrigationin Straight-Levee Systems

Advantages of Side-Inlets:• More rapid flood establishment. • Reduced nitrogen loss.

• Improved herbicide activation.

•Greater control of flood.

• Facilitates adoption of otherwater-saving practices.

MAFES Publication No. 2338 Thomas et al. (2004)

Tacker (2010): Approximate cost = $12/A (tubing + labor)

Estimated Energy Used By Groundwater-Based Irrigation Systems per A-in Water Delivered

State Diesel (gallons)

Electric(kWh)

per Acre-in water pumped

AR(Tacker)

1 38

LA (Sheffield)

1.1 42

MO(Vories)

0.8 30

MS(Thomas)

0.7 27

Avg. 0.9 gal 34 kWh

For every inch of water not pumped, at least 0.7 gallon/A diesel fuel saved.

38

905

10152025303540455055

CoutourLevees

StraightLevee(SL)

SL + SideInlet

ZeroGrade

SeasonalRainfall

(A-in

/A) 38

31

9

38 - 31 in = 7-in water savings (22%) @ 0.7 gal diesel/in = 5 gal diesel/A @ $3/gal = ~ $15/A

Approximate water and fuel savings for adoption of side-inlet in straight-levee system

Less ~$12/A cost of tubingand labor = ~ $2/A net savings

38

905

10152025303540455055

CoutourLevees

StraightLevee(SL)

SL + SideInlet

ZeroGrade

SeasonalRainfall

(A-in

/A) 38

31

9

Total H2O Requirements (ET + Soil Percolation) = ~14 to 25 A-in/A

38 - 25-in = 13-in water savings (52%) @ 0.7 gal diesel/in = 9 gal diesel/A saved @ $3/gal diesel = ~$27/A less tubing + labor = $15/A (net)

Approximate water and fuel savings for adoption of side-inlet in straight-levee system

with 25 A-in/A target

Average Water Use by Different MS Rice Irrigation Systems

05

10152025303540455055

CoutourLevees

StraightLevee (SL)

SL + SideInlet

Intermittent(Dulaney)

ZeroGrade

SeasonalRainfall

(A-in

/A)

4438

31

22 20

SL + Side Inlet + Intermittent

9-yr average @ Dulaney Seed

Intermittent Flood Managementto Increase Rainfall Capture & Reduce Over-Pumping

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 20 40 60 80 100Days After Initial Flood

Flo

od H

eigh

t (cm

).

2-wk flood holdingperiod

DryingCycle

1

DryingCycle

2

DryingCycle

3

Continuous Flood

Less-than-FullFlood

PumpingCycle:

~ 5 to 8 d

Avg. In-season rainfall ~10 to 14 inches

Kline-2009 Field B 38 Acres, 8 paddies, Cocodrie, Sharkey

Clay

Rice Yield: 190 bu/A (dry)

Avg. Milling Quality: Not different top vs. bottom of paddies

Rainfall: 11 A-in/AWater Pumped: 15 A-in/ATotal: 26 A-in/A

Electric cost: $40/A

2009 MS Rice Water Use(YMD, 2010)

State avg. = 37 A-in/A

Pringle (1994):

~14 to 25 A-in/Arequired by rice

2011 On-Farm TrialsIntermittent Rice Irrigation

• 8 Clearfield rice varietiesusing 4 reps per variety.

• Planted at the top (alternatingwet-dry) and bottom(~continuous flood) of paddy.

• 150 lbs N per A applied.

• Yield and milling quality.

• Water use.

Study 1: Varietal Response

2011 Intermittent Irrigation TrialsKline 38-A field, clay soil

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

5/27/20110:00

6/6/20110:00

6/16/20110:00

6/26/20110:00

7/6/20110:00

7/16/20110:00

7/26/20110:00

8/5/20110:00

8/15/20110:00

8/25/20110:00

9/4/20110:00

Date/Time

Sens

or D

epth

(ft)

FloodInitiation04 June

FloodTermination18 August

Red Line = Mud Exposed in Upper Paddy

DryingCycle No. 1 = 7 d

Date

Top of Paddy: 8 wet-dry cycles

Water Pumped: 18 A-in/A

2011 Intermittent Irrigation TrialsKline 38-A field, clay soil

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

5/27/20110:00

6/6/20110:00

6/16/20110:00

6/26/20110:00

7/6/20110:00

7/16/20110:00

7/26/20110:00

8/5/20110:00

8/15/20110:00

8/25/20110:00

9/4/20110:00

Date/Time

Sens

or D

epth

(ft)

FloodInitiation04 June

FloodTermination18 August

Red Line = Mud Exposed in Upper Paddy

0.84” rain 1.05”

rain

0.40” rain

0.35” rain

7.6-in rainfall

Date

Water Pumped: 18 A-in/A

Total H2O Use = 7.6-in (rainfall) + 18-in (irrigation) = 25.6-in

38

9

05

10152025303540455055

CoutourLevees

StraightLevee(SL)

SL + SideInlet

ZeroGrade

SeasonalRainfall

(A-in

/A)

4438

31

20

9

2011 Intermittent Irrigation TrialsKline 38-A field, clay soil

2011 Rice On-Farm Variety x Intermittent Irrigation Trials

02000400060008000

10000120001400016000

CL111

CL131

CL142

CL151

CL152

CL162

CL181

CLXL7

45

Rice Variety

Avg

. Ric

e Yi

eld

(lbs/

A)

Top of Paddy Bottom of Paddy

N-rate = 150 lbs/A

2011 Rice On-Farm Variety x Intermittent Irrigation Trials

2011 Average Yield (bu/A)Entry Top of Paddy Bottom of Paddy p-value

(8 wet-dry cycles) (1 wet-dry cycle)CL111 11086 10490 0.0855CL131 10189 9594 0.0107CL142 10819 11486 0.2517CL151 11276 10672 0.0801CL152 10001 9056 0.0453CL162 10072 10218 0.5115CL181 8141 8452 0.5492CLXL745 11314 12246 0.1284

Combined 10350 10277 0.8102

2010 Variety x Intermittent Irrigation TrialClay soil w/ 5 wet-drying cycles using 23 A-in/A

Variety Top of Paddy(int flood)

Bottom of Paddy(cont flood)

Type III Pr > F

Rice Yield (lb/A) dry 6004 10,548 9,067 0.0326Bowman 9,838 9,905 0.9004CL111 10,850 11,380 0.5048CL131 9,142 9,762 0.2304CL142 11,605 10,489 0.0643CL151 11,428 10,852 0.2763CL181 9,588 9,278 0.6637CLX745 12,386 11,698 0.1889Cheniere 10,576 10,124 0.1017Cocodrie 10,796 10,528 0.2154Neptune 10,396 9,452 0.0756Rex 10,481 9,899 0.1846Taggart 11,486 10,961 0.3535Templeton 11,083 9,933 0.0618XL723 12,809 12,808 0.9986

Testing across all 15 varieties, the top plots out-yielded the bottom plots

10888 to 10352 lbs/A (p = 0.00677).

Zhang et al. (2008)Agron. J. 100:726–734.

Low-Tech Ways to Help Manage Rice Flood

Flood depth gauge Timer switch

Multiple (Side) Inlet Irrigation is:

The most proven, cost-effective flood management tool currently available to MS growers.

Serves as a ‘foundation’ on which greater water and energy savings can be achieved by managing flood to capture rainfalland reduce over-pumping.

Summary

2010 tubing + labor costs: ~$12/A(Tacker, 2010)

Takes a 3-person crew ~1 hour toinstall one roll of tubing incl. gates

(J. Dulaney, 2011)

$Systematic Approach to Water Conservation

Economics

AgronomicManagement

Crop Breeding

State/FederalRegul

ations

Irrigation Technology

Tragedy of the Commons

Managing short- vs. longer-term risks

Acknowledgements

• Justin Dulaney(Coahoma Co.)

• Earl Kline(Bolivar Co.)

• Collier Tillman(Leflore Co.)

• Buddy Allen(Tunica Co.)

• Kirk Satterfield(Bolivar Co.)

• Tim Walker(MS DREC)

• Shane Powers(YMD)

• Lyle Pringle(MSU DREC)

• Jim Thomas(MSU ABE ret.)

• Filip To(MSU ABE)

• MAFES

• MS Rice Promotion Board

• MS Water ResourcesResearch Institute

• YMD

Collaborators Support

2011 Rice On-Farm N-Rate x Intermittent Irrigation Trials

8000

8500

9000

9500

10000

10500

11000

11500

12000

0 60 90 120 150 180 210 240

Nitrogen Rate (lb/A)

Avg

. Ric

e Yi

eld

(lb/A

)

Top of Paddy Bottom of Paddy

Rice variety = CL162

lb N/A 0 60 90 120 150 180 210 240

p-value

0.8256 0.7226 0.4784 0.4336 0.9887 0.6491 0.5171 0.6246