|
|
Cooperative Extension Service |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Agricultural
Experiment Station |
|
|
|
|
|
Aquaculture
Dale Bumpers College
|
Protecting Soil and Water Resources in the Delta
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
Several Southeast Arkansas rice producers are realizing the benefits of using irrigation tubing to provide multiple water inlets when irrigating rice fields. This is referred to as side inlet or multiple inlet irrigation. The difference with this method from conventional flooding is that tubing is either laid along the side of the field or through the middle of the field. The basic concept is to distribute the irrigation water evenly over the whole field at one time rather than putting all the water in the top of the field and pumping until it gets to the bottom of the field. The distribution is achieved by releasing water into each paddy at the same time through use of gates or holes in the irrigation tubing.
Multiple inlet irrigation can provide improved water management and conservation in the following ways:
This past growing season Chad Norton, Lincoln County Extension Agent - Staff Chairman, had a multiple inlet demonstration on John and Frank Freeman’s Farm. Chad said, "The use of multiple inlets allowed the Freeman’s to save 3 days in their initial flood on a 100-acre rice field and over 4.5 million gallons of water." "Also, the Freeman’s were very pleased and intended using multiple inlets on more of their fields in the future."
Information from other field demonstrations in the Bayou Bartholomew Watershed indicate that multiple inlet irrigation is a sound practice and can extend numerous benefits to rice producers. See savings analysis from demonstrations.
| Multiple Inlet Irrigation Savings Analysis | ||||||||
| Water Usage | Water Savings | Cost Savings | ||||||
| County | Field and Size | Gallon | acres/ inch |
gallons/ acres |
acres/ inch |
gallons/ acres |
per acre | total |
| Lincoln* | Conven-tional 31 acres |
49.2 million | 58 | 1.59 million | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Lincoln* | Multiple inlet 37 acres |
37.8 million | 37 | 1.02 million | 21 | 570,000 | $31.29 | $1,157.73** |
| Desha* | Conven-tional 37 acres |
22.3 million | 22*** | 602,703 | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Desha* | Multiple inlet 37 acres |
18.3 million | 18*** | 494,595 | 4 | 108,108 | $5.96 | $220.52** |
| * fields are side by side ** does not include cost of polypipe and gates (around $200) ***data is from two-thirds of the way through the season Cooperative Extension Service Rice Budgets estimate that it costs $1.49 per acre inch to flood irrigate. |
||||||||
Cattle and Cotton Can Work
By Bill Kinkaid
Cotton farmers who have cattle can make use of their cotton fields after the harvest with little more than an electric fence. For those who want to take the process a little further, like the Arkansas Department of Corrections (ADC) does at their Cummins Unit, they can plant wheat right after they defoliate their cotton. The ADC on an annual basis flies on about 3 bushels per acre of wheat on approximately 1,000 acres of cotton right after defoliant is sprayed. Then an electric fence is installed around the acreage that is intended to be grazed in order to keep cattle within that area. Keep in mind that the cotton stalks are still standing when the cattle are brought in to graze. One may ask what benefits are gained by doing this? Having talked with Dub Cook who works with the Department of Correction’s livestock operations and Charles Capps the Farm Manager, it is easy to see why this practice is incorporated into their program. (See chart.)
When early spring arrives the Department of Corrections stops grazing their cattle on the wheat and cotton, just in time for their livestock sale. After the cattle are taken off, the stalks are shredded before the deadline and normal farm operations are conducted. Also, a burndown herbicide is not used on the wheat.
Grazing cattle on cotton and wheat can:
1999 Farm Tour a Success
By Bill Kinkaid
 Praise from other "attendees" included: "Everything was well planned and coordinated. Good tour!" "Gave me a good overview of what’s happening in southeast Arkansas agriculture." |
A special thanks goes out to over 90 people who endured the 100 degree weather at this past year’s Southeast Arkansas Innovative Farming Tour on July 27, in Lincoln and Desha Counties. Believe it or not, the air conditioned buses were not the highlight of the tour. Producers, crop consultants, ag lenders, and ag industry people made up most of the attendance. The tour showcased production practices such as: multiple inlet irrigated rice, border irrigated soybeans, no-till cotton and aerial seeded soybeans. The producers and crop consultants were really interested in the multiple inlet rice at the Freeman Farm in Lincoln County and the no-till cotton at the Teeter Farm in Desha County, especially in a time with critical groundwater levels and low commodity prices.
Also, the presentation at lunch about the Boeuf-Tensas Irrigation Project by Ann Cash (project manager) and Todd Fugitt (Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission) was very informative and well received.
This tour would not have been successful without the work of the Lincoln and Desha County ag agents, their staff and specialists in the Southeast District.
Tips for No-Till Cotton
Production
By Dr. Bill Robertson, Extension Agronomist-Cotton
 |
Field Section
Vegetative Cover
Planting Equipment
Planting
Weed Control
Fertilizer and Lime
Winter Ricefield Management
Can Non-point Source Pollution in Southeast Arkansas
By Dr. Scott Manley, Ducks Unlimited, Inc., and Bill Kinkaid
 |
Non-point source pollution, defined as movement of sediments, nutrients and organic chemicals from diffuse sources to points of concentrations, degrades water quality in the United States.
Approximately 35 percent of our rivers, lakes and estuaries were designated as degraded in a 1994-1995 water quality inventory. Sediments and nutrients derived from agricultural sources were of major concern as they affected as much as 25 percent of these water resources. The Southeast Arkansas Delta, which is a part of one of the largest and most productive agriculture regions in North America, shares in non-point source pollution challenges.
Fortunately, agricultural non-point source pollution has decreased significantly over the past decade. Improved conservation efforts on quality production lands, and habitat restoration on highly erodible lands, are responsible for these decreases. The abilities of Southeast Arkansas water resources to meet agricultural, municipal and industrial needs, while supporting fish and wildlife, continues to depend on our abilities to reduce non-point source pollution in concert with agricultural production.
Conservationists advocate the provision of shallow (less than 30 centimeters) water on ricefields in Southeast Arkansas as foraging and resting areas for migrating and wintering waterbirds. An average of 640,000 hectares of rice was harvested in Arkansas and Mississippi from 1993-1995. Only 66,000 hectares (10 percent) of this harvested acreage was managed to hold winter rainfall and runoff.
Agriculturalists and other natural resources stewards agree that an increase in winter management of ricefields would be justified if there were positive effects on soil conservation, water quality, agricultural production, and wildlife habitat. During the winters of 1995 through 1997, the potential of winter flooding to provide these mutual benefits was investigated. Study results indicated that winter flooding, especially when combined with stubble left standing after harvest (stubble/flooded), greatly reduced soil loss. Fields that were conventionally disked in fall and left open (disked/ open) to drain freely after winter rains lost 1,120 kilograms/hectare of soil, while stubble/ flooded fields lost only 35 kilograms/hectare—32 times less! Winter flooding reduced soil loss by 70 percent in fields that were disked in the fall (disked/flooded).
Reductions in non-point source discharge, promoted by winter flooding and fall no-till practices, are likely the result of treatment mechanisms such as reduced rainfall impact and overland runoff energies, plus additional time for flooded fields to act as settling basins. Also, impounded waters evaporate and likely seep into subsoils, therefore reducing total runoff volume.
Winter ricefield management can reduce non-point source pollution in Southeast Arkansas and help protect water resources for recreational, municipal, industrial and wildlife habitat needs. These techniques should be used by conservation partnerships where rice culture prevails.
Transgenic Technology Can Complement
No-Till Soybean Production
By Bill Kinkaid
With commodity prices at historical lows, more and more producers are looking at various options to help cut production costs. No-till is one option that is increasingly gaining support, especially in soybeans and rice. Not only does no-till help cut costs, but it also aids in the reduction of soil erosion, reduction of nutrient loss and improves water infiltration – all of which help to improve water quality. Transgenic technology (Roundup Ready) for soybeans appears to be a good fit with no-till production due to its ability to aid in weed suppression. The yields of Roundup Ready soybeans are also improving to levels that are comparable to conventional varieties.
This past growing season Dr. Lanny Ashlock, Soybean Specialist, and Brady Harmon, Jefferson County Ag Agent, were able to conduct a no-till Roundup Ready soybean variety trial with Jefferson County producer Mike Bryant. The trial consisted of eight group V varieties that were replicated four times. The table below has the results of the average of all four replications.
| Jefferson County Roundup Ready Soybean Variety Trial (1999) | |
| Variety | Average Yield Overall Reps |
| NKS59-V6 (RR) | 56.5 |
| P95B53 (RR) | 53.5 |
| H5999 (RR) | 52.6 |
| DP5806RR (RR) | 50.9* |
| AG5901 (RR) | 48.7* |
| P95B41 (RR) | 46.9* |
| TV5666RR (RR) | 45.0* |
| AG5602 (RR) | 44.5* |
| * Represents varieties that yielded significantly less (LSD=5.0) than the top performer. | |
Tips for No-Till
Doublecrop Soybean Production
By Dr. Lanny Ashlock, Extension Agronomist- Soybeans, and Bill Kinkaid
 |
Dealing With Wheat Residue
Using The Right Planter
Controlling Weeds
Other Management Considerations
Web Sites with Conservation Information
This newsletter was developed as part of a 319(h) grant and partially funded by the Environmental Protection Agency.
|
© 2006 |
|
|
University of Arkansas • Division of Agriculture |
Mission
•
Disclaimer
•
EEO
•
|
