OVERVIEW AND VERIFICATION. Trends in Arkansas Rice Production

Transcription

1 OVERVIEW AND VERIFICATION Trends in Arkansas Rice Production C.E. Wilson, Jr. and S.K. Runsick ABSTRACT Arkansas is the leading rice-producing state in the U.S., representing 49.5% of the total U.S. production and 49.6% of the total acres planted to rice. Rice cultural practices vary across the state and across the U.S. However, due to changing political, environmental, and economic times, these practices are dynamic. This survey was initiated in 2002 to monitor how the changing times influence the changes in the way Arkansas rice producers approach their livelihood. The survey was conducted by polling county extension agents in each of the counties in Arkansas that produce rice. Questions included topics such as tillage practices, water sources and irrigation methods, seeding methods, and precision leveling. Information from the University of Arkansas Rice DD50 Program was included to summarize variety acreage distribution across Arkansas. Other data were obtained from the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. INTRODUCTION Arkansas is the leading rice-producing state in the U.S., representing 49.5% of the total U.S. production and 49.6% of the total acres planted to rice. Rice cultural practices vary across the state and across the U.S. However, due to changing political, environmental, and economic times, the practices are dynamic. This survey was initiated in 2002 to monitor how the changing times influence the changes in the way Arkansas rice producers approach their livelihood. It also serves to provide information to researchers and extension personnel about the ever-changing challenges facing Arkansas rice producers. 13

2 AAES Research Series 550 MATERIALS AND METHODS A survey has been conducted annually in August since 2002 by polling county extension agents in each of the counties in Arkansas that produce rice. Questions were asked concerning topics such as tillage practices, water sources and irrigation methods, seeding methods, and precision leveling. Acreage, yield, and crop progress information was obtained from the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. Rice variety distribution information was obtained from summaries generated from the University of Arkansas Rice DD50 program enrollment. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Rice acreage by county is presented in Table 1 with acreage distribution of the most widely produced varieties. Wells was the most widely planted variety in 2006 at 31.0% of the acreage, followed by CL 131 (13.1 %), Francis (9.6%), Cheniere (10.6%), CL 161 (6.7%), and Bengal (4.9%). The acreage planted to Wells in 2006 decreased slightly from over 37% in 2005 while the acreage planted to CL 161 declined from more than 19% in 2005 to just under 7% in The biggest increase was by CL 131 which increased from less than 1% in 2005 to 13.1% in The adoption of the Clearfield rice system represents a significant factor that plays a significant role in the management of red rice. It provides an opportunity for red rice control that has never been available to rice farmers. Clearfield rice (all varieties combined) accounted for over 30% of the total rice acreage in Arkansas rice acreage represented 49.6% of the total 2006 U.S. rice crop (Table 2). The state-average yield of 6,850 lb/acre (152 bu/acre) was the fourth highest average in the U.S. behind California, Texas, and Mississippi. It represents a second-best yield for Arkansas, only 100 lb/acre less than the record established in 2004 of 6,980 lb/acre. The total rice produced in Arkansas was 95.9 million hundredweight (cwt). This represents 49.5% of the million cwt produced in the U.S. during Over the past three years, Arkansas has produced 47.8% of all rice produced in the U.S. The five largest rice-producing counties in 2006 included Poinsett, Arkansas, Lawrence, Cross, and Jackson, representing 37.2% of the state s total rice acreage (Table 1). Planting began in 2006 slightly ahead of the 5-year average due to dry weather during the end of March and beginning of April. Approximately 50% of the crop was planted by 15 April in 2006, compared to a 5-year average of 28% (Fig. 1). This is nearly a week earlier than normal. Compared to the 5-year average, harvest proceeded approximately one week ahead of normal (Fig. 2). Based on the survey conducted with the cooperation of our county extension agents, approximately 56% of the rice produced in Arkansas was planted using conventional tillage methods in 2006 (Table 3). This usually involves fall tillage when the weather cooperates, followed by spring tillage to prepare the seedbed. This is essentially equal to The most common conservation tillage system utilized by Arkansas rice farmers is stale seedbed planting following fall tillage, representing approximately 33% of the state s rice acreage. True no-till rice production is not common but is done in a 14

3 B.R. Wells Rice Research Studies 2006 few select regions of the state. According to the survey, this accounts for approximately 9% of the rice acreage in Arkansas. The majority of rice is still produced on silt loam soils (Table 3). However, an increasingly important factor is the amount of rice produced on clay or clay loam soils (22% and 16% of the acreage, respectively). This represents unique challenges in rice production issues, such as tillage, seeding rates, fertilizer management, and irrigation. The increase in rice acreage on clay soils has been observed in counties along the Mississippi River where historically non-irrigated soybeans have dominated. For example, rice production in Mississippi County has tripled over the last 20 years, increasing from approximately 15,000 acres each in 1984 to about 49,000 in 2005 (Arkansas Agricultural Statistics, 1984; Table 1). Other areas where rice production on clay soils have increased during this time frame include Crittenden County and the eastern half of Poinsett, Cross, and St. Francis counties. As expected, rice most commonly follows soybean in rotation, accounting for almost 80% of the rice acreage (Table 3). Approximately 14% of the acreage in 2006 was planted following rice, with the remaining 6% made up of rotation with other crops including com, grain sorghum, cotton, wheat, oats, and fallow. Rice following wheat declined dramatically during 2005 and 2006, which is a reflection of the significant drop in wheat acreage during the 2005 and 2006 growing seasons. The majority of the rice in Arkansas is produced in a dry-seeded, delayed-flood system with only approximately 5% using a water-seeded system. Approximately 75% of all the Arkansas rice acreage is drill-seeded, with an additional 20% broadcast-seeded in a delayed-flood system. Irrigation water is one of the most precious resources for rice farmers of Arkansas. Reports of diminishing supplies have prompted many producers to develop reservoir and/or tailwater recovery systems to reduce the waste by collecting all available water and re-using. Simultaneously, producers have tried to implement other conservation techniques to preserve the resource vital to continued production. Approximately 80% of the rice acreage in Arkansas is irrigated with groundwater, with the remaining 20% irrigated with surfacewater obtained from reservoirs or streams and bayous (Table 3). During the mid 1990 s, the University of Arkansas began educating producers on the use of multiple-inlet irrigation with poly-tubing as a means of irrigating rice to conserve water and labor. As of 2006, rice farmers have adopted this practice for almost 27% of the rice acreage (Table 3). This is down slightly from 2005 but is a reflection of the 14% decline in acreage across the state. However, the adoption of multiple-inlet irrigation using poly-tubing has increased from 17% in 2002, which constitutes an increase of approximately 166,000 acres irrigated using this technique. Approximately 72% of the rice is still irrigated with conventional levee and gate systems. A small percentage of rice acreage is produced in more upland conditions utilizing either sprinkler- or furrowirrigation systems. A number of producers have increased the amount of rice produced using a furrow-irrigated system where they have found it to be particularly efficient in fields that have steep slopes and often contain more area in levees than in paddies. This has increased from less than 1,000 acres in 2002 to more than 6,000 acres in An additional means of conserving water for rice irrigation is through precision leveling. This results in more efficient water management and typically less total water 15

4 AAES Research Series 550 usage. Approximately 46% of the 2006 rice acreage in Arkansas has been precision leveled, with 5% utilizing zero-graded fields (Table 3). Approximately 54% of the rice still utilizes contour levees. Stubble management is important for preparing the fields for the next crop, particularly in rice following rice systems. Several approaches are utilized to manage the rice straw for the next crop, including tillage, burning, rolling, and winter flooding. Approximately 24.3% of the acreage was burned, 26.8% was tilled, 32.5% was rolled, and 21.5% was winter flooded (Table 3). Combinations of these systems are used in many cases. For example, a significant amount of the acreage that is flooded during the winter for waterfowl is also rolled. Some practices are inhibited by fall weather. For example, heavy rainfall in the fall may reduce the amount of stubble that can be burned and will also affect the amount of tillage that can be done. SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS During the past 20 years, the state average yields in Arkansas have increased approximately 2,300 lb/acre (about 51 bu/acre) or 2.6 bu/acre/year. This increase can be attributed to improved varieties and improved management, including such things as better herbicides, fungicides, and insecticides; improved water management through precision leveling and multiple inlet poly-pipe irrigation; improved fertilizer efficiency; and increased understanding of other practices such as seeding dates and tillage practices. Collecting this kind of information regarding rice production practices in Arkansas is important for researchers to understand the adoption of certain practices as well as to understand the challenges and limitations faced by producers in field situations. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to extend thanks to all of the county extension agents who participated in this study and the Arkansas Rice Research Board for funding. 16

5 B.R. Wells Rice Research Studies 2006 This page intentionally left blank to accommodate the following table. 17

6 AAES Research Series 550 Harvested acreage z Medium-grain Table 1. Arkansas harvested County Bengal Others y Cheniere CL131 Arkansas 121, ,876 2,020 1,210 13,551 11,568 Ashley 17,211 11, ,823 3,541 Chicot 37,011 25, ,399 4,995 Clay 86,295 79,826 2, ,244 13,311 Craighead 86,637 79,274 7, ,807 11,557 Crittenden 39,534 36, ,130 Cross 111,433 98,038 3, ,059 4,618 Desha 50,422 26, ,767 4,007 Drew 19,492 11, ,196 Faulkner 3,256 2, Greene 75,440 73,078 2, ,735 15,326 Independence 13,025 9, Jackson 99,990 89,945 10,536 5,117 7,032 6,000 Jefferson 69,308 56, ,652 11,493 Lafayette 4,280 3, Lawrence 109, ,712 1,958 5,307 11,703 34,572 Lee 30,891 21,449 1, , Lincoln 33,676 26, ,216 Lonoke 88,030 76,145 8, ,259 8,031 Miller 6,864 3, Mississippi 49,263 39, Monroe 58,581 47, ,024 6,518 Phillips 30,985 28, , Poinsett 133, ,389 32, ,402 4,280 Prairie 72,328 55,721 4, ,378 5,627 Pulaski 4,718 3, Randolph 34,789 33, ,490 5,202 St. Francis 54,835 39,126 4,389 1,062 2, White 15,618 13, , Woodruff 63,574 57,867 3, ,958 4,134 Others x 8,252 7, Unaccounted w 5,346 10, Total 1,400,000 87,160 17, , , Percent % 6.23% 1.28% 10.64% 13.05% 2005 Total 1,635,000 80,801 22, ,018 14, Percent % 4.94% 1.35% 7.22% 0.09% z Source: Arkansas Argicultural Statistics and FSA. y Other varieties: AB647, Ahrent, Banks, Clearfield 131, Cybonnet, Cypress, Della, Delmatti, Dellrose, Drew, Jupiter, Koshihikari, LaGrue, Medark, Newbonnet, Nortai, Pirogue, Presidio, Rice Tec XP 710, Rice Tec XP712, Rice Tec XP716, Rice Tec XP 723, Saber, Spring, and Trenasse. x Other counties: Clark, Conway, Crawford, Hot Spring, Little River, Perry, Pope, Scott, and Yell. w Unaccounted for acres is the total difference between USDA-NASS harvested acreage estimate and preliminary estimates obtained from each county FSA. 18

7 B.R. Wells Rice Research Studies 2006 rice acreage 2006 summary. Long-grain CL 161 CLXL8 CLXL730 Cocodrie Francis Wells Others y 3,085 2, ,737 27,763 35,915 7, , ,434 1,791 1, , ,736 1,741 1,694 5,002 4,760 1,936 9,197 17,264 18,313 9,894 6,402 3, ,663 22,865 3, , ,685 2, ,347 10,198 48,970 2, ,937 3,901 3, , , ,228 9,024 12,963 2,650 3,939 9,525 4, , ,126 6,657 3,844 1, ,847 2, , , , ,760 8,482 8,697 5,476 3,006 9,448 6,225 1,577 1,645 2, ,341 6, ,998 1, ,821 2, ,986 4,470 3,334 1,591 8,940 18,790 2, , , ,056 28,178 5, ,778 2,469 3,901 10,369 13,283 1, ,460 1,432 6,149 4,998 2, ,582 6,604 2, ,125 46,958 2,935 1,350 2,138 2,588 3,488 7,708 11,197 4, ,774 3,918 3, ,383 3,885 5, ,518 21,795 3,012 2,207 1,186 1, ,207 3,489 2,189 4,195 3,526 1,581 12,341 17,752 2, ,378 1,560 93,345 77,426 67,638 61, , ,643 84, % 5.57% 4.83% 4.39% 9.60% 30.97% 6.03% 311,491 39,473 4, , , , , % 2.41% 0.24% 9.38% 10.06% 37.28% 7.98% 19

8 AAES Research Series 550 Table 2. Acreage, grain yield, and production of rice in the United States from 2004 to 2006 z. Area planted Area harvested Yield Production State (1,000 acres) (lb/acre) (1,000 cwt y ) AR 1,561 1,643 1,406 1,555 1,635 1,400 6,980 6,650 6, , ,792 95,917 CA ,600 7,380 7,660 50,759 38,836 40,040 LA ,390 5,900 5,820 28,730 30,983 20,093 MS ,900 6,400 7,000 16,146 16,832 13,230 MO ,800 6,600 6,400 13,261 14,124 13,696 TX ,840 6,800 7,170 14,906 13,668 10,760 US 3,347 3,347 2,838 3,325 3,325 2,821 3,942 3,942 3, , , ,736 z Source: USDA-NASS, y cwt = hundredweight. Table 3. Acreage distribution of selected cultural practices for Arkansas rice production Cultural practice Acreage % of total Acreage % of total Acreage % of total Arkansas rice acreage 1,555, ,635, ,400, Soil texture Clay 332, , , Clay loam 222, , , Silt loam 860, , , Sandy loam 114, , , Sand 47, , , Tillage practices Conventional 944, , , Stale seedbed 488, , , No-till 150, , , Crop rotations Soybean 1,207, ,287, ,116, Rice 228, , , continued 20

9 B.R. Wells Rice Research Studies 2006 Table 3. Continued Cultural practice Acreage % of total Acreage % of total Acreage % of total Crop rotations - continued Cotton 23, , , Com 44, , , Grain Sorghum 17, , , Wheat 19, , , Fallow 13, , , Oats 165 < < <0.1 Seeding methods Drill seeded 1,175, ,233, ,057, Broadcast seeded 308, , , Water seeded 87, , , Irrigation water sources Groundwater 1,273, ,315, ,121, Stream, rivers, etc. 133, , , Reservoirs 147, ,223 loa 139, Irrigation methods Flood, levees 1,122, ,121, ,014, Flood, multiple inlet 428, , , Furrow 4, , , Sprinkler 537 < < Precision-leveled soils Contour levees 945, , , Precision leveled 609, , , Zero grade 75, , , Stubble management Burned 256, , , Tilled 402, , , Rolled 641, , , Winter flooded 339, , ,

10 AAES Research Series 550 Fig. 1. Arkansas rice planting progress during 2006 compared to the five-year average. [Data obtained from the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), 2006]. Fig. 2. Rice harvest progress during 2005 compared to the five-year average. [Data obtained from the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), 2006]. 22