Acknowledgements

1
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.)

• MAFES
• MS Rice Promotion Board
• MS Water ResourcesResearch Institute
• YMD

Support
Collaborators
2
2010-2012 On-Farm TrialsIntermittent Rice
Irrigation
Varietal Response

• 6 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 and pumping pattern.
• Rainfall

3
2010-2012 Rice On-Farm Variety x Intermittent
Irrigation Trials
Average Yield (lbs/A) Average Yield (lbs/A)
Entry Top of Paddy Bottom of Paddy p-value
(N12) (N12)
CL111 11,030 10,409 0.1152
CL131 9,974 8,995 0.0004
CL142 11,210 10,731 0.1147
CL151 11,482 10,577 0.0002
CL181 9,235 8,859 0.3179
CLXL745 12,112 11,887 0.4949
Global Comparison 10,769 10,156 0.0011
(N82) (N84)


4
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 gt F
Rice Yield (lb/A) dry 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
CL142 11,605 10,489 0.0643
CL151 11,428 10,852 0.2763
CL181 9,588 9,278 0.6637
CLX745 12,386 11,698 0.1889
Cheniere 10,576 10,124 0.1017
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
Rice yields were either unaffected (p gt 0.05) or
slightly higher (p lt 0.05) for the plots
subjected to intermittent flooding.
5
2010-2012 Rice On-Farm Variety x Intermittent
Irrigation Trials
Year Wet-Dry Cycles Irrigation Added (A-in) Rainfall(A-in) Total(A-in)
2010 5 23 10.6 33.6
2011 8 18 7.6 25.6
2012 6 18 3.1 21.1
Avg. 6 2 20 3 7 4 27 6
6
Pringle (1994) How much water does rice actually
need?
Depending on soil and cultivar, rice needs 14 to
25 A-in/A water per 80-day flood in Mississippi.
Avg. Evapo- Transpiration Losses

Avg. Deep Percolation Losses
Variety MeasuredET (inches)
Rosemont 12.8 3.0
Maybelle 13.6 1.7
Newbonnet 15.7 2.2
Lemont 16.7 2.1
Soil Inches per80-d Flood
Sharkey 1.2
Alligator 1.2
Forestdale 3.3
Brittain 3.6
1991 rainfall was 66.5 of avg. 1993 rainfall was
97.9 of avg.
ET was linearly-related to biomassproduction
7
Potential Water Savings
8
YMD (2009) 6-yr average water use in Mississippi
rice production
For Existing Straight-Levee Rice
44
60,000 A-ft savings if convert existing SL
to Side-Inlet using 31 A-in
38
38
31
9
20
9
Pringle (1994) Water Use Requirements for Rice
in the MS Delta
9
YMD (2009) 6-yr average water use in Mississippi
rice production
For Existing Straight-Levee Rice
44
109,000 A-ft savings if convert existing SL
to Side-Inlet using 25 A-in
38
38
31
25
9
20
9
Pringle (1994) Water Use Requirements for Rice
in the MS Delta
10
Conversion of All Straight LeveeAcres to
Optimized Side-Inlet
If Convert From To Acres(1000s) WaterUseDifference Potential H2OSavings(A-ft)
Straight Levee SL Side-Inletavg use (31 A-in/A) 99.9 0.5 A-ft 59,900
Avg. SL Side-Inlet(31 A-in/A) OptimizedSL Side Inlet(25- A-in/A) 144.3 0.5 A-ft 72,100
Total Potential Savings 132,000
11
Conversion of All Straight LeveeAcres to
Optimized Side-Inlet
If Convert From To Acres(1000s) WaterUseDifference Potential H2OSavings(A-ft)
Straight Levee SL Side-Inletavg use (31 A-in/A) 99.9 0.5 A-ft 59,900
Avg. SL Side-Inlet(31 A-in/A) OptimizedSL Side Inlet(25- A-in/A) 144.3 0.5 A-ft 72,100
Total Potential Savings 132,000
Value assumes pumping 25 A-in/A,not total that
would include rainfall capture.
12
Average Water Use by Different MS Rice Irrigation
Systems
10-yr pumped average _at_ Dulaney Seed

13
Average Water Use by Different MS Rice Irrigation
Systems
4-yr pumped average _at_ Kline Farms

14
How to Facilitate?
15
Introduction to Side-Inlet Irrigation Training
Video
Completed Nov 2012Free DVDs available
Side-Inlet Foundational Practice
16
Co-written and reviewed by farmers
It takes an experienced crew of three about one
hour to lay one roll of tubing, install gates,
punch air holes, and begin initial flood.
Justin DulaneyClarksdale, MS
17
Side-Inlet Video Available on DVD or On-Line
http//msucares.com/crops/rice/index.html
18
Info Sheet No. 1358 Now Available
http//msucares.com/pubs/infosheets_research/i1358
.pdf
19
http//msucares.com/pubs/infosheets_research/i1358
.pdf
242 depthgaugesbuilt anddistributed to
farmers in 2012
20
Gauges Help with Flood Management
Top of Levee
Top of Levee
Emergency Overflow
Top of Gate
12-in
4-in Freeboard for Rain Capture
4-in Controlled Flood

• Maintain freeboard to maximize rainfall capture
  and to reduce runoff.

21
Reward and Recognize Innovation Rice Harvest
Competition
Harvest Index Bushels Produced / A-in H2O
(pumped rainfall)
22
Estimated Energy Used By Groundwater-Based
Irrigation Systems per A-in Water Delivered
State Diesel (gallons) Electric(kWh)
per Acre-in water pumped 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
Remind farmers that For every inch of water not
pumped, 1 gallon/A diesel fuel is saved.
23
Remind Farmers thatFlow Meters are a valuable
Management Tool
Portable flow meter
24
Systematic Approach to Water and Energy
Conservation in Irrigation of Row Crops

AgronomicManagement
Crop Breeding
Economics
State/FederalRegulations
Irrigation Technology
25
Row Rice Trial (N1)
Runoff
Irrigation added 39 A-in/A Days less than
full-flood 88 Rainfall received 15 in
Water-use index 4.2 bu/A-in Yield 165 bu/A (dry)