1 / 40

Joe Massey Department of Plant & Soil Sciences Mississippi State University

Water-Conserving Irrigation Systems for Furrow Irrigated Soybean and Rice Grown in the Mississippi Delta. Joe Massey Department of Plant & Soil Sciences Mississippi State University. Acknowledgements. Tim Walker (MS DREC) Shane Powers (YMD) Lyle Pringle (MSU DREC) Jim Thomas (MSU ABE ret.)

donaldnewman
Télécharger la présentation

Joe Massey Department of Plant & Soil Sciences Mississippi State University

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Water-Conserving Irrigation Systems for Furrow Irrigated Soybean and Rice Grown in the Mississippi Delta Joe MasseyDepartment of Plant & Soil Sciences Mississippi State University

  2. Acknowledgements • Tim Walker(MS DREC) • Shane Powers(YMD) • Lyle Pringle(MSU DREC) • Jim Thomas(MSU ABE ret.) • Tom Eubank(MSU DREC) • MAFES • MS Rice Promotion Board • MS Water ResourcesResearch Institute • MS Soybean Promotion Board • YMD Support Collaborators • Justin Dulaney(Coahoma Co.) • Earl Kline(Bolivar Co.) • Collier Tillman(Leflore Co.) • Buddy Allen(Tunica Co.) • Kirk Satterfield(Bolivar Co.)

  3. Soybean-Rice Rotation • Common rotations are 2:1 or 1:1 soybean:rice. • 2008 crop value: ~$430 million (soybean) and ~$208 million (rice) for the Mississippi Delta.

  4. Crop Acres in MS DeltaUSDA NASS (2011)

  5. Avg. Irrigation Water Use (A-ft/A)(YMD, 2010)

  6. Estimated Irrigation Water Use (A-ft/A) 247,000 A rice @ 100% flood irrigated x 3.07 A-ft/A =~758,000 A-ft water/yr (rice crop) 1,054,000 A soybean @ 65% irrigated x 0.76 A-ft/A = ~520,000 A-ft water/yr (soybean crop) Estimated combined rice-soy water use: ~1.3 million A-ft/yr YMD total water use in 2010: ~2.5 million A-ft/yr

  7. 2011 Soybean Phaucet-Optimzed Furrow Irrigation Results

  8. Potential Water Savings in Furrow-Irrigated Soybean (A-ft/A) 1,054,000 A soybean @ 65% irrigated x 0.76 A-ft/A = ~520,000 A-ft water/yr (soybean crop) @ 22% savings via Phaucet = up to ~100,000 A-ft YMD estimated average overdraft: ~300,000 A-ft/yr

  9. Soybean Phaucet-Optimzed Furrow Irrigation Results Comments: MSU Phaucet trials have been conducted on rectangular, relatively ‘uniform’ fields…savings could be greater than 22% on hard-to-water, irregularly-shaped fields, but such fields are hard to study.

  10. Phaucet Comments: Pump timers may be important to securing savings unless someone will be present to shut-off well when field waters out. Grainger Brand Switch~$30 each Murphy Switch Brand~$280 each

  11. Potential Water & Energy Savings in Rice

  12. Pringle (1994)How much water does rice actually need? Depending on soil and cultivar, rice needs ~14 to 25 inches water (1.1 to 2.1 A-ft/A) per 80-day flood in Mississippi. Avg. Evapo- Transpiration Losses Avg. Deep Percolation Losses 1991 rainfall was 66.5% of avg. 1993 rainfall was 97.9% of avg. ET was linearly-related to biomassproduction

  13. YMD (2009) 6-yr average water use in Mississippi rice production 44 38 38 31 Total H2O Requirements (ET + Soil Percolation) = ~14 to 25 A-in/A 9 20 9 Pringle (1994): Water Use Requirements for Rice in the MS Delta

  14. Estimated Adoption Rates for Rice Irrigation Systems in MS (2009) Sources: MSU Extension Service grower surveys; rice consultant surveys; YMD permitting data.

  15. Zero-Grade Rice IrrigationAgronomic Issues Limit Adoption • Drawbacks of Zero-Grade Systems: • Water-logging of rotational crops, leading to continuous rice systemswhich can result in • Pest management issues (weed resistance; herbicide carry-over) and • Loss of yield bump associated with Soy-Rice Rotation • Conversion of 0-Grade to “Ridge-Irrigation” in Tunica Co. • Farmers creating crest in center of 0-grade 40-acre 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.

  16. Estimated Adoption Rates for Rice Irrigation Systems in MS (2009) Sources: MSU Extension Service grower surveys; rice consultant surveys; YMD permitting data.

  17. Multiple-Inlet Irrigationin Straight-Levee Systems

  18. Riser Straight-Levee System

  19. 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) Multiple-Inlet Irrigationin Straight-Levee Systems Tacker (2010): Approximate cost = $12/A (tubing + labor)

  20. Estimated Energy Used By Groundwater-Based Irrigation Systems per A-in Water Delivered For every inch of water not pumped, at least 0.7 gallon/A diesel fuel saved.

  21. Approximate water and fuel savings for adoption of side-inlet in straight-levee system 38 - 31 in = 7-in water savings (22%) @ 0.7 gal diesel/in = 5 gal diesel/A @ $3/gal = ~ $15/A 38 Less ~$12/A cost of tubingand labor = ~ $2/A net savings 38 31 9 9

  22. Approximate water and fuel savings for adoption of side-inlet in straight-levee systemwith 25 A-in/A target 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) 38 38 31 Total H2O Requirements (ET + Soil Percolation) = ~14 to 25 A-in/A 9 9

  23. Estimated Irrigation Water Use (A-ft/A) 247,000 A rice x 0.45 = 112,500 A straight-levee ricex ~ 1-ft/A water savings (38 A-in  25-A-in) = ~100,000 A-ft savingssaved by adoption of multiple-inlet irrigation on existing straight-levee fields Phaucet-optimized savings in soy: Up to 100,000 A-ftMultiple-inlet rice irrigation savings: Up to 100,000 A-ft = ~ 2/3 of 300,000 A-ft annual overdraft (potential)

  24. 44 38 31 22 20 SL + Side Inlet + Intermittent Average Water Use by Different MS Rice Irrigation Systems 9-yr average @ Dulaney Seed

  25. 44 38 31 21 20 SL + Side Inlet + Intermittent Average Water Use by Different MS Rice Irrigation Systems 4-yr average @ Kline Farms

  26. Farmers Extend Savings of Multiple-Inlet Rice Irrigation by: • Managing flood to increase rainfall capture and to reduce over-pumping. • Very shallow flooding. • Managing each paddy as separate production unit.

  27. Flood Management within Each Paddy Top of Levee Top of Levee Emergency Overflow Top of Gate ~12-in 4-in Freeboard for Rain Capture 4-in Controlled Flood • Irrigate each paddy as needed, not on a schedule. • Prevent water movement from one paddy to next. • Keep levels low to capture rainfall.

  28. Multiple-Inlet Irrigationin Straight-Levee Systems Tacker (2010): Approximate cost = $12/A (tubing + labor)

  29. 44 38 38 31 20 9 9 2011 Rice Irrigation TrialsKline 38-A field, clay soil Total H2O Use = 7.6-in (rainfall) + 18-in (irrigation) = 25.6-in

  30. Depth Gauges Used to Aid in Flood Management • Allows rapid determinationof flood status. • Tillman constructed 200in an afternoon.

  31. Flow Meters used as Management Tool Permanently Installed Saddle-Type

  32. Flow Meters used as Management Tool Portable flow meter

  33. Tools & Methods to Efficiently Lay Tubing

  34. Tools & Methods to Efficiently Lay Tubing

  35. Tools & Methods to Efficiently Lay Tubing Takes a 3-person crew ~1 hour to lay one roll of 10 mil x 15-intubing, install gates, punch air holes, and begin initial flood.

  36. Summary Multiple (Side) Inlet Irrigation is: A 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. 2010 tubing + labor costs: ~$12/A(Tacker, 2010) Takes a 3-person crew ~1 hour toinstall one roll of tubing incl. gates(E. Kline; J. Dulaney, 2011)

  37. Summary Phaucet-optimized savings in soy: Up to 100,000 A-ftMultiple-inlet rice irrigation savings: Up to 100,000 A-ft = ~ 2/3 of 300,000 A-ft annual overdraft (potential)

  38. Systematic Approach to Water and Energy Conservation in Irrigation of Row Crops $ Crop Breeding AgronomicManagement Managing short- vs. longer-term risks Economics State/FederalRegulations Irrigation Technology

More Related