Date post: | 15-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | viviana-tippit |
View: | 216 times |
Download: | 2 times |
Joe MasseyDepartment of Plant & Soil Sciences
Mississippi State University
Water-Conserving Irrigation Systems for Furrow Irrigated Soybean and Rice
Grown in the Mississippi Delta
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.)
• Tom Eubank(MSU DREC)
• MAFES
• MS Rice Promotion Board
• MS Water ResourcesResearch Institute
• MS Soybean Promotion Board
• YMD
Collaborators Support
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.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
Year
Har
vest
ed A
cres
(th
ou
san
ds)
Soybean Acres (Delta only)
Rice Acres
Crop Acres in MS DeltaUSDA NASS (2011)
Avg. Irrigation Water Use (A-ft/A)(YMD, 2010)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
Year
Ave
rag
e Ir
rig
atio
n W
ater
Use
(A
-ft/
A)
9-yr rice avg = ~3.07 A-ft/A
9-yr soybean avg = ~0.76 A-ft/A
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
2011 Soybean Phaucet-Optimzed
Furrow Irrigation ResultsTillman FarmHomeplace
Fields A and B
ConventionalDesign
(33.8 A)
Phaucet+ Timer
(40.6 A)
Savings(%)
Water Use(A-inches)
16.8 13.7 22.6
# of Irrigations 4 4 ---
Energy Use(gal/A) (est.)
11.8 9.6 20
Total PumpingTime (hrs)
NA NA NA
Soybean
Yield (bu/A)33.8 42.6 21
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
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.
Phaucet Comments:
Pump timers may be important to securing savings unless someone will be present to shut-off well when field waters out.
Murphy Switch Brand~$280 each
Grainger Brand Switch~$30 each
Potential Water & Energy Savings in Rice
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.
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
38
905
10152025303540455055
CoutourLevees
StraightLevee(SL)
SL + SideInlet
ZeroGrade
SeasonalRainfall
(A-i
n/A
)
44
38
31
20 9
Total H2O Requirements (ET + Soil Percolation) = ~14 to 25 A-in/A
YMD (2009)6-yr average water use in Mississippi rice production
Pringle (1994): Water Use Requirements for Rice in the MS Delta
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” 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.
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
Riser
Straight-Levee System
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-i
n/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-i
n/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
Estimated Irrigation Water Use (A-ft/A)
247,000 A rice x 0.45 = 112,500 A straight-levee rice
x ~ 1-ft/A water savings (38 A-in 25-A-in) = ~100,000 A-ft savings
saved by adoption of multiple-inlet irrigation on existing straight-levee fields
Phaucet-optimized savings in soy: Up to 100,000 A-ft
Multiple-inlet rice irrigation savings: Up to 100,000 A-ft
= ~ 2/3 of 300,000 A-ft annual overdraft (potential)
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
9-yr 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 average @ Kline Farms
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.
Flood Management within Each Paddy
Top of Levee
4-in Freeboard for Rain Capture
Top of Levee
Emergency Overflow
~12-inTop of Gate
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.
Multiple-Inlet Irrigationin Straight-Levee Systems
Tacker (2010): Approximate cost = $12/A (tubing + labor)
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-i
n/A
)
44
38
31
20
9
2011 Rice Irrigation TrialsKline 38-A field, clay soil
Depth Gauges Used to Aid in Flood Management
• Allows rapid determinationof flood status.
• Tillman constructed 200in an afternoon.
Flow Meters used as Management Tool
Permanently Installed Saddle-Type
Flow Meters used as Management Tool
Portable flow meter
Tools & Methods to Efficiently Lay Tubing
Tools & Methods to Efficiently Lay Tubing
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.
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.
Summary
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)
Summary
Phaucet-optimized savings in soy: Up to 100,000 A-ft
Multiple-inlet rice irrigation savings: Up to 100,000 A-ft
= ~ 2/3 of 300,000 A-ft annual overdraft (potential)
$Systematic Approach to Water and Energy
Conservation in Irrigation of Row Crops
Economics
AgronomicManagement
Crop Breeding
State/FederalRegul
ations
Irrigation Technology
Managing short- vs. longer-term risks