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

Collaborators Support

2010-2012 On-Farm TrialsIntermittent Rice Irrigation

• 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

Varietal Response

2010-2012 Rice On-Farm Variety x Intermittent Irrigation Trials

Average Yield (lbs/A)

Entry Top of Paddy Bottom of Paddy p-value

(N=12) (N=12)

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

(N=82) (N=84)

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 0.0326

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 > 0.05) or slightly higher (p < 0.05) for the plots subjected

to intermittent flooding.

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

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.

Soil Inches per80-d Flood

Sharkey 1.2

Alligator 1.2

Forestdale 3.3

Brittain 3.6

Avg. Deep Percolation Losses Variety Measured

ET (inches)

Rosemont 12.8 ± 3.0

Maybelle 13.6 ± 1.7

Newbonnet 15.7 ± 2.2

Lemont 16.7 ± 2.1

Avg. Evapo-Transpiration Losses

1991 rainfall was 66.5% of avg.1993 rainfall was 97.9% of avg.

ET was linearly-related to biomassproduction

Potential Water Savings

38

905

10152025303540455055

CoutourLevees

StraightLevee(SL)

SL + SideInlet

ZeroGrade

SeasonalRainfall

(A-i

n/A

)

44

38

31

20 9

YMD (2009)6-yr average water use in Mississippi rice production

Pringle (1994): Water Use Requirements for Rice in the MS Delta

~60,000 A-ft savings if convert existing SL to Side-Inlet using 31 A-in

For Existing Straight-Levee Rice

38

905

10152025303540455055

CoutourLevees

StraightLevee(SL)

SL + SideInlet

ZeroGrade

SeasonalRainfall

(A-i

n/A

)

44

38

31

20 9

YMD (2009)6-yr average water use in Mississippi rice production

Pringle (1994): Water Use Requirements for Rice in the MS Delta

~109,000 A-ft savings if convert existing SL to Side-Inlet using 25 A-in

For Existing Straight-Levee Rice

25

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

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

132,000Value assumes pumping 25 A-in/A,not total that would include rainfall capture.

Average Water Use by Different MS Rice Irrigation Systems

05

10152025303540455055

CoutourLevees

StraightLevee (SL)

SL + SideInlet

Intermittent(Dulaney)

ZeroGrade

SeasonalRainfall

(A-i

n/A

)

44

38

31

22 20

SL + Side Inlet + Intermittent

10-yr pumped average @ Dulaney Seed

Average Water Use by Different MS Rice Irrigation Systems

05

10152025303540455055

CoutourLevees

StraightLevee (SL)

SL + SideInlet

Intermittent(Dulaney)

ZeroGrade

SeasonalRainfall

(A-i

n/A

)

44

38

31

21 20

SL + Side Inlet + Intermittent

4-yr pumped average @ Kline Farms

How to Facilitate?

Introduction to Side-Inlet Irrigation Training Video

Completed Nov 2012Free DVDs available

Side-Inlet = Foundational Practice

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

Side-Inlet Video Available on DVD or On-Line

http://msucares.com/crops/rice/index.html

Info SheetNo. 1358Now Available

http://msucares.com/pubs/infosheets_research/i1358.pdf

242 depthgaugesbuilt anddistributedto farmersin 2012

http://msucares.com/pubs/infosheets_research/i1358.pdf

Gauges Help with Flood Management

Top of Levee

4-in Freeboard for Rain Capture

Top of Levee

Emergency Overflow

~12-inTop of Gate

4-in Controlled Flood

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

21st Century Bin Busters

Rice Harvest Competition

Reward and Recognize InnovationRice Harvest Competition

Harvest Index: Bushels Produced / A-in H2O (pumped + rainfall)

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

Remind farmers that:

For every inch of water not pumped, ~ 1 gallon/A diesel fuel is saved.

Remind Farmers that:Flow Meters are a valuable

Management Tool

Portable flow meter

$Systematic Approach to Water and Energy

Conservation in Irrigation of Row Crops

Economics

AgronomicManagement

Crop Breeding

State/FederalRegul

ations

Irrigation Technology

Row Rice Trial (N=1)

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

41040 41050 41060 41070 41080 41090 41100 41110 41120 41130 41140 41150 41160

Date/Time

Se

ns

or

De

pth

(ft

)

Green Line:One-Half Field= Mud

Red Line:Entire Field = Mud

FloodInitiation5/23/12

FloodTermination

Blue Line: Paddy Full

Irrigation added: 39 A-in/A Days less than full-flood: 88Rainfall received: 15 in Water-use index: 4.2 bu/A-inYield: 165 bu/A (dry)

Runoff