1 / 40

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

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%.

zea
Télécharger la présentation

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

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. 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%.

  2. U.S. Rice Federation (2010)Environmental Indicators Report 1980’s 1990’s 2000’s

  3. 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.

  4. Water and Energy Conservation Practices for Mississippi Rice Production Joe Massey Department of Plant & Soil Sciences Mississippi State UniversityStarkville, MS

  5. Pringle (1994) Water Use Requirements for Rice in the MS Delta 44 38 38 31 Total H2O Requirements (ET + Soil Percolation) = ~14 to 25 A-in/A 9 20 9

  6. Irrigation Options forMississippi Rice Producers • Increase zero-grade acres

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

  8. 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” • 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.

  9. Irrigation Options forMississippi Rice Producers • Increase zero-grade acres • Sprinkler-irrigated rice

  10. Sprinkler-Irrigated Rice More stress-tolerant hybrids and improved herbicide programs may facilitate adoption. Photo credit: RiceTec

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

  12. Irrigation Options forMississippi Rice Producers • Increase zero-grade acres • Sprinkler-irrigated rice • Tailwater recovery systemsand on-farm reservoirs

  13. 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

  14. 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…

  15. Irrigation Options forMississippi Rice Producers • Increase zero-grade acres • Sprinkler-irrigated rice • Tailwater recovery systems andon-farm reservoirs • Drought-tolerant rice

  16. Drought-Tolerant RiceBangladesh Rice Research Institute (2010) Source: http://www.brri.gov.bd/reports/Research_highlight2010-11.pdf

  17. Drought-Tolerant RiceBangladesh Rice Research Institute (2010) Source: http://www.brri.gov.bd/reports/Research_highlight2010-11.pdf

  18. Most Readily-Available, Low- Cost Irrigation Option for the Majority ofMississippi Rice Acres?

  19. Most Readily-Available, Low- Cost Irrigation Option for the Majority ofMississippi Rice Acres? Multiple (side) Inlet Irrigation

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

  21. 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)

  22. 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.

  23. 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

  24. 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

  25. 44 38 31 22 20 SL + Side Inlet + Intermittent Average Water Use by Different MS Rice Irrigation Systems 9-yr average @ Dulaney Seed

  26. Intermittent Flood Managementto Increase Rainfall Capture & Reduce Over-Pumping Avg. In-season rainfall ~10 to 14 inches PumpingCycle:~ 5 to 8 d

  27. 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/AElectric 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

  28. 2011 On-Farm TrialsIntermittent Rice Irrigation Study 1: Varietal Response • 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.

  29. 2011 Intermittent Irrigation TrialsKline 38-A field, clay soil DryingCycle No. 1 = 7 d Water Pumped: 18 A-in/A Top of Paddy: 8 wet-dry cycles FloodTermination18 August Red Line = Mud Exposed in Upper Paddy FloodInitiation04 June Date

  30. 2011 Intermittent Irrigation TrialsKline 38-A field, clay soil 0.40” rain 0.35” rain 0.84” rain 1.05” rain Water Pumped: 18 A-in/A 7.6-in rainfall FloodTermination18 August Red Line = Mud Exposed in Upper Paddy FloodInitiation04 June Date

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

  32. 2011 Rice On-Farm Variety x Intermittent Irrigation Trials N-rate = 150 lbs/A

  33. 2011 Rice On-Farm Variety x Intermittent Irrigation Trials

  34. 2010 Variety x Intermittent Irrigation TrialClay soilw/ 5 wet-drying cycles using 23 A-in/A Testing across all 15 varieties, the top plots out-yielded the bottom plots 10888 to 10352 lbs/A (p = 0.00677).

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

  36. Low-Tech Ways to Help Manage Rice Flood Flood depth gauge Timer switch

  37. Summary 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. 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)

  38. Systematic Approach to Water Conservation $ Crop Breeding AgronomicManagement Tragedy of the Commons Managing short- vs. longer-term risks Economics State/FederalRegulations Irrigation Technology

  39. Acknowledgements • 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 Support Collaborators • Justin Dulaney(Coahoma Co.) • Earl Kline(Bolivar Co.) • Collier Tillman(Leflore Co.) • Buddy Allen(Tunica Co.) • Kirk Satterfield(Bolivar Co.)

  40. 2011 Rice On-Farm N-Rate x Intermittent Irrigation Trials Rice variety = CL162

More Related