U.S. Rice Federation (2010)
Environmental Indicators Report
U.S. rice producers have worked hard
to conserve water and energy.
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 Federation (2010)
Environmental Indicators Report
1980’s
1990’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.
50
Water Use (A-in/A)
Average Water Use in MS Rice
45
40
35
30
y = 0.4x - 766.13
25
R = 0.0958
2
20
2000
2002
2004
2006
Year
2008
2010
2012
Water and Energy Conservation
Practices for
Mississippi Rice Production
Joe Massey
Department of Plant & Soil Sciences
Mississippi State University
Starkville, MS
Pringle (1994)
(A-in/A)
Water Use Requirements for Rice in the MS Delta
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
44
38
38
31
Total H2O Requirements (ET + Soil Percolation) = ~14 to 25 A-in/A
20
9
9
Coutour
Levees
Straight SL + Side
Levee
Inlet
(SL)
Zero
Grade
Seasonal
Rainfall
Irrigation Options for
Mississippi 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 Irrigation
Agronomic Issues Limit Adoption
Drawbacks of Zero-Grade Systems:
1. Water-logging of rotational crops,
leading to continuous rice systems
Conversion of 0-Grade to “Ridge-Irrigation”
which can result in
Farmers creating crest in center of 0-grade fields to have 0.3-ft
2. Pest management issues
fall:
(weed resistance; herbicide carryover) and
• Rice irrigated as normal for 0-grade.
3. Loss of yield bump associated with
• Soybean irrigated with tubing placed on ridge down center
Soy-Rice Rotation
of field.
Irrigation Options for
Mississippi Rice Producers
• Increase zero-grade acres
• Sprinkler-irrigated rice
Sprinkler-Irrigated Rice
More stress-tolerant hybrids and improved
herbicide programs may facilitate adoption.
Photo credit: RiceTec
Estimated Adoption Rates for Rice
Irrigation Systems in MS (2009)
Sources: MSU Extension Service grower surveys; rice consultant surveys; YMD permitting data.
Irrigation Options for
Mississippi Rice Producers
• Increase zero-grade acres
• Sprinkler-irrigated rice
• Tailwater recovery systems
and 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 for
Mississippi Rice Producers
• Increase zero-grade acres
• Sprinkler-irrigated rice
• Tailwater recovery systems and
on-farm reservoirs
• Drought-tolerant rice
Drought-Tolerant Rice
Bangladesh Rice Research Institute (2010)
Source: http://www.brri.gov.bd/reports/Research_highlight2010-11.pdf
Drought-Tolerant Rice
Bangladesh 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 Irrigation
in Straight-Levee Systems
MAFES Publication No. 2338
Thomas et al. (2004)
Advantages of Side-Inlets:
• More rapid flood establishment.
• Reduced nitrogen loss.
• Improved herbicide activation.
•Greater control of flood.
• Facilitates adoption of other
water-saving practices.
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
1
38
(Tacker)
LA
(Sheffield)
MO
42 water not pumped,
For 1.1
every inch of
at least 0.7 gallon/A diesel fuel saved.
0.8
30
0.7
27
0.9 gal
34 kWh
(Vories)
MS
(Thomas)
Avg.
(A-in/A)
Approximate water and fuel savings
for adoption of side-inlet in straight-levee system
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
38
38
38 - 31 in = 7-in water savings (22%)
@ 0.7 gal diesel/in = 5 gal diesel/A
@ $3/gal = ~ $15/A
31
Less ~$12/A cost of tubing
and labor = ~ $2/A net savings
9
9
Coutour
Levees
Straight SL + Side
Levee
Inlet
(SL)
Zero
Grade
Seasonal
Rainfall
(A-in/A)
Approximate water and fuel savings
for adoption of side-inlet in straight-levee system
with 25 A-in/A target
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
38 - 25-in = 13-in water savings (52%)
@ 0.7 gal diesel/in = 9 gal diesel/A saved
@ $3/gal diesel = ~$27/A
38
less tubing + labor = $15/A (net)
38
31
Total H2O Requirements (ET + Soil Percolation) = ~14 to 25 A-in/A
9
9
Coutour
Levees
Straight SL + Side
Levee
Inlet
(SL)
Zero
Grade
Seasonal
Rainfall
(A-in/A)
Average Water Use by Different MS Rice Irrigation Systems
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
9-yr average @ Dulaney Seed
44
38
31
22
Coutour
Levees
20
+ Side Inlet Zero
Straight SL + Side SL
Intermittent
+(Dulaney)
Intermittent Grade
Levee (SL)
Inlet
Seasonal
Rainfall
Intermittent Flood Management
to Increase Rainfall Capture & Reduce Over-Pumping
Avg. In-season rainfall ~10 to 14 inches
10
Continuous Flood
9
8
Flood Height (cm).
Drying
Cycle
2
Drying
Cycle
1
7
Drying
Cycle
3
6
2-wk flood
holding
period
5
4
Less-than-Full
Flood
Pumping
Cycle:
~ 5 to 8 d
3
2
1
0
0
20
40
60
Days After Initial Flood
80
100
Kline-2009 Field B
38 Acres, 8 paddies, Cocodrie, Sharkey Clay
Rice Yield: 190 bu/A (dry)
Avg. Milling Quality:
2009 MS Rice Water Use
(YMD, 2010)
Not different top vs. bottom of
paddies
State avg. = 37 A-in/A
Pringle (1994):
~14 to 25 A-in/A
required by rice
Rainfall:
11 A-in/A
Water Pumped: 15 A-in/A
Total:
26 A-in/A
Electric cost: $40/A
2011 On-Farm Trials
Intermittent Rice Irrigation
Study 1: Varietal Response
• 8 Clearfield rice varieties
using 4 reps per variety.
• Planted at the top (alternating
wet-dry) and bottom
(~continuous flood) of paddy.
• 150 lbs N per A applied.
• Yield and milling quality.
• Water use.
2011 Intermittent Irrigation Trials
Kline 38-A field, clay soil
Water Pumped: 18 A-in/A
Sensor Depth (ft)
0.7
0.6
Drying
Cycle
No. 1 = 7 d
Top of Paddy: 8 wet-dry cycles
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
Flood
Initiation
04 June
Red Line = Mud Exposed in Upper Paddy
Flood
Termination
18 August
0.1
0
5/27/2011
0:00
6/6/2011
0:00
6/16/2011
0:00
6/26/2011
0:00
7/6/2011
0:00
7/16/2011 7/26/2011
0:00
0:00
Date
Date/Time
8/5/2011
0:00
8/15/2011 8/25/2011
0:00
0:00
9/4/2011
0:00
2011 Intermittent Irrigation Trials
Kline 38-A field, clay soil
Water Pumped: 18 A-in/A
Sensor Depth (ft)
0.7
0.40”
rain
0.6
0.35”
rain
0.84”
rain
7.6-in rainfall
1.05”
rain
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
Flood
Initiation
04 June
Red Line = Mud Exposed in Upper Paddy
Flood
Termination
18 August
0.1
0
5/27/2011
0:00
6/6/2011
0:00
6/16/2011
0:00
6/26/2011
0:00
7/6/2011
0:00
7/16/2011 7/26/2011
0:00
0:00
Date
Date/Time
8/5/2011
0:00
8/15/2011 8/25/2011
0:00
0:00
9/4/2011
0:00
2011 Intermittent Irrigation Trials
Kline 38-A field, clay soil
(A-in/A)
Total H2O Use = 7.6-in (rainfall) + 18-in (irrigation) = 25.6-in
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
44
38
31
20
9
Coutour
Levees
Straight SL + Side
Levee
Inlet
(SL)
Zero
Grade
Seasonal
Rainfall
2011 Rice On-Farm
Variety x Intermittent Irrigation Trials
16000
Top of Paddy
14000
12000
Bottom of Paddy
10000
8000
6000
4000
C
LX
L7
45
L1
81
C
L1
62
C
L1
52
C
L1
51
C
L1
42
C
L1
31
C
L1
11
2000
0
C
Avg. Rice Yield (lbs/A)
N-rate = 150 lbs/A
Rice Variety
2011 Rice On-Farm
Variety x Intermittent Irrigation Trials
2011 Average Yield (bu/A)
Entry
Top of Paddy
Bottom of Paddy
(8 wet-dry cycles)
(1 wet-dry cycle)
p-value
CL111
11086
10490
0.0855
CL131
10189
9594
0.0107
CL142
10819
11486
0.2517
CL151
11276
10672
0.0801
CL152
10001
9056
0.0453
CL162
10072
10218
0.5115
CL181
8141
8452
0.5492
CLXL745
11314
12246
0.1284
Combined
10350
10277
0.8102
2010 Variety x Intermittent Irrigation Trial
Clay 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
0.0326
Bowman
9,838
9,905
0.9004
CL111
10,850
11,380
0.5048
CL131
9,142
9,762
0.2304
Cocodrie
10,796
10,528
0.2154
Neptune
10,396
9,452
0.0756
Rex
10,481
9,899
0.1846
Taggart
11,486
10,961
0.3535
Templeton
11,083
9,933
0.0618
XL723
12,809
12,808
0.9986
Testing
all 15 varieties,
the0.0643
top plots
CL142 across 11,605
10,489
CL151 out-yielded
11,428 the bottom
10,852
0.2763
plots
CL181
9,588
9,278
0.6637
10888
to 10352
lbs/A 0.1889
CLX745
12,386
11,698
Cheniere
10,576
10,124
0.1017
(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
Summary
Multiple (Side) Inlet
Irrigation is:
The most proven, costeffective 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 rainfall
and reduce over-pumping.
2010 tubing + labor costs: ~$12/A
(Tacker, 2010)
Takes a 3-person crew ~1 hour to
install one roll of tubing incl. gates
(J. Dulaney, 2011)
Systematic Approach to Water Conservation
Crop
Breeding
Agronomic
Management
Tragedy
of the Commons
Economics
Managing short- vs. longer-term risks
State/Federal
Regulations
Irrigation
Technology
Acknowledgements
Collaborators
• Justin Dulaney
(Coahoma Co.)
• Earl Kline
(Bolivar Co.)
• Collier Tillman
(Leflore Co.)
• Tim Walker
(MS DREC)
• Shane Powers
(YMD)
• Lyle Pringle
(MSU DREC)
• Buddy Allen
(Tunica Co.)
• Jim Thomas
(MSU ABE ret.)
• Kirk Satterfield
(Bolivar Co.)
• Filip To
(MSU ABE)
Support
• MAFES
• MS Rice Promotion
Board
• MS Water Resources
Research Institute
• YMD
2011 Rice On-Farm
N-Rate x Intermittent Irrigation Trials
Rice variety = CL162
Avg. Rice Yield (lb/A)
12000
Top of Paddy
11500
Bottom of Paddy
11000
10500
10000
9500
lb N/A
0
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
9000
pvalue
0.8256
0.7226
0.4784
0.4336
0.9887
0.6491
0.5171
0.6246
8500
8000
0
60
90
120
150
Nitrogen Rate (lb/A)
180
210
240