Upload
zea
View
39
Download
3
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
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%. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
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