Download Arkansas Rice Research: Soil Test, Costs, and Returns for Rice Production 2021 and more Lecture notes Economic Analysis in PDF only on Docsity!
The Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service offers its programs to all eligible persons regardless of race, color, national origin, religion, gender, age, disability, marital or veteran status, or any other legally protected status, and is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer.
University of Arkansas
Rice Research Verification Program
The Rice Research Verification Program is funded by Arkansas rice producers through check-off monies administered by the Arkansas Rice Research and Promotion Board. University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service Agriculture Experiment Station U.S. Department of Agriculture And County Governments Cooperating
i Table of Contents Page Authors and Acknowledgments .................................................................................. ii Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1 Figure 1. County location of the 20 21 Rice Research Verification Fields .................. 2 Field Reviews ............................................................................................................. 3 Table 1. Agronomic information for fields enrolled in the 20 21 Rice Research Verification Program ........................................................................................ 7 Table 2. Soil test results, fertilization program, and soil classification for fields enrolled in the 20 20 Rice Research Verification Program ............................. 10 Table 3. Herbicide rates and timings for fields enrolled in the 20 21 Rice Research Verification Program ...................................................................................... 11 Table 4. Seed treatments and foliar fungicides and insecticides used on fields enrolled in the 2021 Rice Research Verification Program ............................. 12 Table 5. Rainfall and irrigation information for fields enrolled in the 20 21 Rice Research Verification Program ...................................................................... 13 Economic Analysis ................................................................................................... 14 Table 6. Operating Costs, Total Costs, and Returns for fields enrolled in the 2021 Rice Research Verification Program .............................................................. 15 Table 7. Summary of Revenue and Expenses per Acre for fields enrolled in the 2021 Rice Research Verification Program .............................................................. 16 Table 8. Selected Variable input costs per Acre for fields enrolled in the 20 21 Rice Research Verification Program ...................................................................... 17
iii Agricultural Experiment Station: Dr. Nathan Slaton, Professor and Interim Dept. Head – Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences Dr. Paul Counce, Professor – Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences Donna Frizzell, Program Associate – Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences Dr. Jason Norsworthy, Professor – Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences Dr. Xueyan Sha, Professor – Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences Dr. Trenton Roberts, Associate Professor – Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences Arkansas Rice Research and Promotion Board: Joe Christian (Chairman) David Petter Jim Whitaker (Vice Chairman) Roger Pohlner David Gairhan (Secretary/Treasurer) Jeff Rutledge Jay Coker Wayne Wiggins John King
INTRODUCTION
The 20 21 growing season was the thirty-eighth year for the Rice Research Verification Program (RRVP). The RRVP is an interdisciplinary effort between growers, county extension agents, extension specialists, and researchers. The RRVP is an on- farm demonstration of all the research-based recommendations developed by the University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture for the purpose of increasing the profitability of rice production in Arkansas. The specific objectives of the program are:
- To demonstrate and verify research-based recommendations for profitable rice production throughout the rice-producing areas of Arkansas.
- To develop a database for economic analysis of all aspects of rice production.
- To demonstrate the benefits of available technology and inputs for the economic production of consistently high rice yields.
- To identify specific problems and opportunities in Arkansas rice for further investigation.
- To promote timely implementation of management practices among rice growers.
- To provide training and assistance to county agents and growers with limited expertise in rice production. The RRVP fields and cooperators are selected prior to planting. Cooperators agreed to pay production expenses, provide crop expense data for economic analysis, and implement the recommended production practices in a timely manner from seedbed preparation to harvest. Nine fields were enrolled in the RRVP in 20 20. The fields were located on commercial farms ranging in size from 40 to 145 acres. The average field size was 73 acres. Counties participating in the program during 20 21 included Arkansas, Chicot, Desha, Drew, Jefferson, Lonoke, Mississippi, Monroe, (Figure 1). The eight rice fields totaled 462 acres enrolled in the program. Six different cultivars were seeded: DynaGro DG 263 L [ 1 field]; RiceTec [RT] 75 21 FP [ 2 fields]; RT 7321 FP [ 2 fields]; RT 73 01 [1 field]; RT Gemini 214 CL [1 field]; and Horizon Ag Provisia PVL02 [ 1 field]. University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture Cooperative Extension Service recommendations were used to manage the RRVP fields. Agronomic and pest management decisions were based on field history, soil test results, rice cultivar, observations, and data collected from individual fields during the growing season. An integrated pest management philosophy was utilized based on CES recommendations. Data collected included components such as stand density, weed populations, disease infestation levels, insect populations, rainfall, irrigation amounts, and dates for specific growth stages, grain yield, milling yield, and grain quality.
FIELD REVIEWS
Verification Coordinator – Ralph Mazzanti Arkansas County The Arkansas County furrow-irrigated rice (FIR) field was located just west of Hagler (Bayou Meto) on a Hebert silt loam soil. The field consisted of 4 0 acres and the previous crop grown was soybean. The cultivar chosen was DG263L treated with the company’s standard seed treatment. The field was drill-seeded at 65 lbs/acre planted April 6. Emergence was observed on April 26 with a stand count of 13. 2 plants/ft^2. No tillage practices were used for spring field preparation. According to the soil test fertilizer was applied at 0 - 0 - 60 - 0 lbs/acre (N-P 2 O 5 - K 2 O-Zn) in the spring. Glyphosate, Command, and League herbicides were applied at planting on April 6. Command and Facet were applied as post-emergence herbicides on May 6. Facet L and Permit Plus were applied May 28 for weed escapes. N-STaR (Nitrogen Soil Test for Rice) was taken on the field. Nitrogen in the form of urea plus an approved NBPT was applied at 100 lbs/acre on May 7 followed by 100 lbs/acre on June 14. Two more applications were made with 100 lbs/acre on June 21 followed by 100 lbs/acre on June 28. Using GreenSeeker, the N response levels remained adequate throughout the season. Intermittent flushing was utilized for irrigation. Sheath blight reached threshold level and the field was treated with Quadris on July 12. Rice stink bug numbers remained low and did not require treatment. The field was harvested on September 3 yielding 18 8 bu/acre and a milling yield of 58 /69. The average harvest moisture was 15.4%. Total irrigation was 18.7 acre-inches and total rainfall was 22.2 inches. Chicot County The Chicot County furrow-irrigated rice (FIR) field was located southwest of Halley on Sharkey clay soil. The field consisted of 49 acres and the previous crop grown was soybean. The cultivar chosen was RT 7 3 21 FP treated with the company’s standard seed treatment. The field was drill-seeded at 2 6 lbs/acre planted April 19. Emergence was observed on April 2 8 with a stand count of 6. 3 plants/ft^2. No tillage practices were used for spring field preparation. According to the soil test fertilizer was applied at 18 - 46 - 0 - 0 lbs/acre (N-P 2 O 5 - K 2 O-Zn) in the spring. Glyphosate, Command, and Sharpen herbicides were applied at planting on April 19. Facet L and Command were applied as post-emergence herbicides on May 15. Preface herbicide was applied on June 3. Postscript herbicide was applied June 24. N-STaR (Nitrogen Soil Test for Rice) was taken on the field. Nitrogen in the form of urea plus an approved NBPT was applied at 1 00 lbs/acre on May 18 followed by 1 00 lbs/acre on May 27. Two more applications were made with 1 0 0 lbs/acre on June 4 followed by 100 lbs/acre on June
- Using Trimble GreenSeeker, the N response levels remained adequate throughout the season. Late boot N application 65 lbs/acre was applied July 2. Intermittent flushing was utilized for irrigation. Propiconazole was applied July 3 due to smut history. Rice stink bug numbers reached threshold levels and Lambda cyhalothrin was applied July 23. The field was harvested on August 8 yielding 228 bu/acre and a milling
yield of 60 /69. The average harvest moisture was 19.8%. Total irrigation was 21. acre-inches and rainfall totaled 20.8 inches. Desha County The Desha County furrow-irrigated rice (FIR) field was located just east of Arkansas City on Sharkey and Desha clay soils. The field consisted of 110 acres and the previous crop grown was soybean. A pre-plant fertilizer blend of 18 - 46 - 0 - 0 lbs/acre (N-P 2 O 5 - K 2 O-Zn) was applied according to the soil sample analysis. The cultivar chosen was RT 7521 FP treated with the company’s standard seed treatment. The field was drill-seeded at 2 7 lbs/acre planted April 6. Emergence was observed on April 16 with a stand count of 7. 2 plants/ft^2. No tillage practices were used for spring field preparation. Command, Facet L, and Sharpen herbicides were applied after planting on April 7. Command and Prowl were applied as overlapping pre-emergence herbicides on May 5. Preface herbicide was applied May 29. N-STaR (Nitrogen Soil Test for Rice) was taken on the field. Nitrogen in the form of urea plus an approved NBPT was applied at 1 00 lbs/acre on April 7 followed by 100 lbs/acre on June 7. Two more applications were made with 100 lbs/acre on June 13 followed by 100 lbs/acre on June
- The late boot N application was applied July 12 at 70 lbs/acre. Using GreenSeeker, the N response levels remained adequate throughout the season. Intermittent flushing was utilized for irrigation. The field did not require a fungicide treatment, nor did it require a treatment for stink bugs. The field was harvested on September 13 yielding 243 bu/acre and a milling yield of 58 /69. The average harvest moisture was 1 7 %. Total irrigation was 3 0 acre-inches and total rainfall was 28. inches. Drew County The Drew County furrow-irrigated rice (FIR) field was located just west of Tiller on a Portland clay soil. The field consisted of 35 acres and the previous crop grown was soybean. The cultivar chosen was RT 7521 FP treated with the company’s standard seed treatment. The field was drill-seeded at 2 5 lbs/acre planted April 20. Emergence was observed on April 29 with a stand count of 9.9 plants/ft^2. No tillage practices were used for spring field preparation. According to the soil test fertilizer was applied at 18 - 46 - 0 - 0 lbs/acre (N-P 2 O 5 - K 2 O-Zn) in the spring. Glyphosate, Command, and League herbicides were applied at planting on April 20. Command and Facet L were applied as post- emergence herbicides on May 3. Preface herbicide was May 28. N-STaR (Nitrogen Soil Test for Rice) was taken on the field. Nitrogen in the form of urea plus an approved NBPT was applied at 1 00 lbs/acre on May 4 followed by 165 lbs/acre on July 15, followed by 165 lbs/acre on June 18. Using GreenSeeker, the N response levels remained adequate throughout the season. Intermittent flushing was utilized for irrigation. Sheath blight disease exceeded threshold levels and Quadris fungicide was applied July 15. Rice stink bugs numbers remained low and did not require treatment. The field was harvested on September 2 yielding 210 bu/acre and a milling yield of 47/67. The average harvest moisture was 1 5 %. Total irrigation was 16.2 acre-inches and total rainfall was 1 8. 6 inches.
N-STaR recommendation. The late boot urea application of 70 lbs/acre was made on July 1 6. Stink bugs reached threshold levels and the field was sprayed with Mustang Maxx on August 18. The field was harvested September 16 yielding 2 36 bu/acre with a milling yield of 6 3 /7 3. The harvest moisture was 1 6 %. Total irrigation use was 18.9 acre- inches and rainfall totaled 11.1 inches. Monroe County The 29 - acre furrow irrigated (FIR) field was located east Clarendon. The soil classification is a Foley-Bonn complex soil. Spring conventional tillage practices were used for field preparation and based on soil analysis a fertilizer blend of 0 - 50 - 60 - 0 lbs/acre (N-P 2 O 5 - K 2 O-Zn) was applied April 4. The cultivar RT Gemini 214 CL treated with the company’s standard seed treatment was drill-seeded at 2 0 lbs/acre on April 6. Command and Sharpen were applied at planting as pre-emergence herbicides. Emergence was observed on April 27 with 7.3 plants/ft^2. Command and Prowl were applied May 14 as over-lapping pre-emergence herbicides. N-STaR (Nitrogen Soil Test for Rice) was taken on the field. N fertilizer in the form of urea was applied at 100 lbs/acre on May 15 followed by 100 lbs/acre on May 22. Another 100 lbs/acre was applied on June 5 followed by the late boot 70 lbs/acre on July 16. GreenSeeker was utilized during midseason growth stages to monitor the crop’s N level. Stink bugs reached threshold levels and lambda- cyhalothrin was applied on August 6. The field was harvested August 31 yielding 1 87 bu/acre. The milling yield was 64/69 and the average harvest moisture was 1 9 %. Total irrigation for the season was 3 0 acre-inches and total rainfall was 11.75 inches.
Table 1. Agronomic information for fields enrolled in the 20 21 Rice Research Verification Program. Field Location by County Cultivar Field size (acres) Previous crop Seeding rate (lbs/acre) Stand density (plants/ft^2 ) Planting date Emergence date Harvest date Yield (bu/A) Milling yield ͣ Harvest Moisture Arkansas DG263L 40 Soybean 65 13 6 - April 26 - April 3 - Sept 188 58/69 15% Chicot RT 7321 FP 49 Soybean 26 6 19 - April 28 - April 28 - Aug 228 60/69 20% Desha RT 7521 FP 110 Soybean 27 7 6 - April 16 - April 9 - Sept 243 49/69 17% Drew RT 7521 FP 35 Soybean 25 10 4 - April 29 - April 2 - Sept 210 47/67 15% Jefferson PVL02 77 Rice 55 19 16 - May 24 - May 27 - Sept 172 62/71 17% Lonoke RT 7521 FP 81 Soybean 22 8 8 - May 19 - May 24 - Sept 180 47/69 14% Mississippi RT 7321 FP 35 Soybean 23 7 18 - April 29 - April 16 - Sept 236 50/71 16% Monroe RT Gemini 214 CL 29 Soybean 20 7 6 - April 27 - April 31 - Sept 187 47/68 19% Average ------ 57 ------ 33 b^10 c^11 - May 24 - May 14 - Sep 206 53 / 69 17 % a (^) Milling yield: % Head rice (whole kernel) / % Total white rice (whole kernel + broken kernels). b (^) Seeding rates averaged 78 lbs/acre for conventional cultivars and 24 lbs/acre for hybrid cultivars. c (^) Stand density averaged 18 plants/ft (^2) for conventional cultivars and 7 plants/ft (^2) for hybrid cultivars.
Table 3. Herbicide rates and timings for fields enrolled in the 20 21 Rice Research Verification Program. Field Location by County Burndown/Pre-emergence Herbicide Applications (Trade name & product rate/acre)a Post-emergence Herbicide Applications (Trade name & product rate/acre)a Arkansas Glyphosate (32 oz) + Command ( 16 oz) + League (6.4 oz) Command ( 16 oz) + Facet L ( 28 oz) FB Facet L ( 15 oz) + Permit Plus ( 0 .75 oz) Chicot Select (12.8 oz) + Valor (2 oz) + Dicamba (8 oz) Command ( 16 oz) + Glyphosate ( 21 oz) + Sharpen (2 oz) Command ( 16 oz) + Facet L (32 oz) FB Preface (6 oz) FB Postscript (5 oz) Desha Command (24 oz) + Facet L (32 oz) + Sharpen (3 oz) Command (8 oz) + Prowl H₂O (2.1 pts) Drew Command (16 oz) + Glyphosate ( 32 oz) + League (6.4 oz) Command (12 oz) + Facet L ( 32 oz) Jefferson Command (1 9 oz) + Glyphosate ( 40 oz) Provisia (15.5 oz) Lonoke Command (16 oz) + Glyphosate ( 32 oz) Preface (6 oz) Preface (4 oz) + Facet L (32 oz) Mississippi Command ( 16 oz) + Glyphosate (32 oz) + League (6.4 oz) Facet L (32 oz) + Preface (4 oz) Monroe Command (12.8 oz) + (Sharpen (2 oz) Command (12 oz) + Prowl (2.1 pts) a (^) ‘FB’ = ‘followed by’ and is used to separate herbicide application events.
Table 4. Seed treatments used and foliar fungicide and insecticide applications made on fields enrolled in the 20 21 Rice Research Verification Program. Field Location by County Seed treatments (trade name and product rate/cwt seed) Foliar fungicide and insecticide applications (trade name and product rate/acre) Fungicide and/or Insecticide Seed Treatment for Control of Diseases and Insects of Seedling Ricez Fungicide Applications for Control of Sheath Blight/Kernel Smut/False Smut Fungicide Applications for Control of Rice Blast Insecticide Applications for Control of Rice Water Weevil Insecticide Applications for Control of Rice Stink Bug/Chinch Bug/Armyworms Arkansas DGST Quadris (10 oz) ------ ------ -------- Chicot RTST ------- ------ ------ Lambda-Cyhalothrin (2.5 oz) Desha RTST ------- ------ ------ ------ Drew RTST Quadris (10 oz) ------ ------ ------ Jefferson CruiserMaxx Rice/Zinc Propiconazole (6 oz) ------ ------ Lambda-Cyhalothrin (1.8 oz)
- Dimilin (3 oz) Endigo (5 oz) Lonoke RTST ------- ------ ------ (^) ------ Mississippi RTST ------- ------ ------ Mustang Maxx (2 oz) Monroe RTST -------- ------ ------ Lambda-Cyhalothrin (2. 5 oz) z (^) RTST = ‘RiceTec Seed Treatment’ and DGST – ‘DynaGro Seed Treatment’. These abbreviations define those fields with seed treated by RiceTec, Inc. or DynaGro prior to seed purchase.
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS This section provides information on production costs and returns for the 2021 Rice Research Verification Program (RRVP). Records of field operations on each field provided the basis for estimating production costs. The field records were compiled by the RRVP coordinator, county Extension agents, and cooperators. Production data from the 8 fields were applied to determine costs and returns above operating costs, as well as total specified costs. Operating costs and total costs per bushel indicate the commodity price needed to meet each cost type. Operating costs are those expenditures that would generally require annual cash outlays and would be included on an annual operating loan application. Actual quantities of all operating inputs as reported by the cooperators are used in this analysis. Input prices are determined by data from the 2021 Crop Enterprise Budgets published by the Cooperative Extension Service and information provided by the cooperating producers. Fuel and repair costs for machinery are calculated using a budget calculator based on parameters and standards established by the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers. Machinery repair costs should be regarded as estimated values for full-service repairs, and actual cash outlays could differ as producers provide unpaid labor for equipment maintenance. Fixed costs of machinery are determined by a capital recovery method which determines the amount of money that should be set aside each year to replace the value of equipment used in production. Machinery costs are estimated by applying engineering formulas to representative prices of new equipment. This measure differs from typical depreciation methods, as well as actual annual cash expenses for machinery. Operating costs, fixed costs, costs per bushel, and returns above operating and total specified costs are presented in Table 6. Costs in this report do not include land costs, management, or other expenses and fees not associated with production. Operating costs ranged from $517.67/acre for Jefferson County to $748.57 for Desha County, while operating costs per bushel ranged from $2.76/bushel for Mississippi County to $3.27/bushel for Chicot County. Total costs per acre (operating plus fixed) ranged from $611.38/acre for Jefferson County to $837.89/acre for Chicot County, and total costs per bushel ranged from $3.06/bushel for Mississippi County to $3.67/bushel for Chicot County. Returns above operating costs ranged from $468.12/acre for Lonoke County to $725.13/acre for Mississippi County and returns above total costs ranged from $369.31/acre for Lonoke County to $654.52/acre for Mississippi County. A summary of yield, rice price, revenues, and expenses by expense type for each RRVP field is presented in Table 7. The average rice yield for the 2021 RRVP was 206 bu/acre but ranged from 172 bu/acre for Jefferson County to 243 bu/acre for Desha County. An Arkansas average long-grain cash price of $5.90/bu was estimated using USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) US long grain price data for the months of August through October. The RRVP had all fields planted to long grain rice. A premium or discount was given to each field based on the milling yield observed for each field, a standard milling yield of 55/70 for long-grain rice, and 2021 loan values for whole kernels ($11.06/cwt; $4.98/bu) and broken kernels ($6.76/cwt; $3.04/bu). Estimated long-grain prices adjusted for milling yield varied from $5.65/bu in Drew County to $6.06/bushel in Jefferson County (Table 7). The average operating expense for the 8 RRVP fields was $629.81/acre (Table 7). Seed expenses accounted for the largest share of operating expenses on average (23.6%) followed by post-harvest expenses (19.7%), fertilizers & nutrients (16.1%), and chemicals (13.5%). Although seed’s share of operating expenses was 23.6% across the 8 fields, it’s average cost and share of operating expenses varied depending on whether a herbicide tolerant cultivar was used ($71.50/acre; 13.8% of operating expenses), a proprietary non-herbicide tolerant pure-line cultivar was used
($97.50/acre; 16.34% of operating expenses), or a herbicide-tolerant hybrid was used ($169.65/acre; 25.9% of operating expenses). The average return above operating expenses for the 8 fields was $565.64/acre and ranged from $468.12/acre for Lonoke County to $725.13/acre for Mississippi County. The average return above total specified expenses for the 8 fields was $481.94/acre and ranged from $369.31/acre for Lonoke County to $654.52/acre for Mississippi County. Table 8 provides select variable input costs for each field and includes a further breakdown of chemical costs into herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides. Table 8 also lists the specific rice cultivars grown on each RRVP field.
Table 7. Summary of Revenue and Expenses per Acre for fields enrolled in the 202 1 Rice Research Verification
Program.
Table 7. Summary of Revenue and Expenses per Acre for fields enrolled in the 2021 Rice Research Verification Program (Continued).
- Yield (bushels) Receipts Arkansas Chicot Desha Drew
- Price Received ($/bushel) 5.92 5.96 5.75 5.
- Total Crop Revenue 1113.45 1359.18 1396.88 1186.
- Seed 97.50 186.16 193.32 179. Operating Expenses
- Fertilizers & Nutrients 111.71 116.40 130.93 107.
- Chemicals 110.77 120.99 93.27 102.
- Custom Applications 60.00 69.00 58.00 54.
- Diesel Fuel 5.54 8.81 6.35 6.
- Repairs & Maintenance 18.98 19.72 21.02 17.
- Irrigation Energy Costs 24.63 28.06 42.15 21.
- Labor, Field Activities 43.56 44.74 43.79 44.
- Other Inputs & Fees, Pre-harvest 10.52 13.21 13.10 11.
- Post-harvest Expenses 113.46 137.60 146.65 126.
- Total Operating Expenses 596.67 744.68 748.57 672.
- Returns to Operating Expenses 516.79 614.50 648.31 513.
- Capital Recovery & Fixed Costs 64.85 93.21 78.69 70.
- Total Specified Expenses z 661.51 837.89 827.26 743.
- Returns to Specified Expenses 451.94 521.29 569.62 443.
- Operating Expenses/Yield Unit 3.17 3.27 3.08 3.
- Total Expenses/Yield Unit 3.52 3.67 3.40 3.
- Yield (bushels) Receipts Jefferson Lonoke Mississippi Monroe Average
- Price Received ($/bushel) 6.06 5.71 5.83 5.68 5.
- Total Crop Revenue 1042.47 1027.76 1375.57 1062.04 1195.
- Seed 71.50 157.52 167.67 134.20 148. Operating Expenses
- Fertilizers & Nutrients 90.38 81.20 81.62 89.70 101.
- Chemicals 52.17 68.61 82.45 50.48 85.
- Custom Applications 69.75 45.25 63.50 37.50 57.
- Diesel Fuel 12.44 10.76 9.54 9.53 8.
- Repairs & Maintenance 20.76 22.56 18.12 19.27 19.
- Irrigation Energy Costs 39.52 7.81 24.90 39.52 28.
- Labor, Field Activities 47.64 46.79 48.45 45.66 45.
- Other Inputs & Fees, Pre-harvest 9.71 10.52 11.76 9.48 11.
- Post-harvest Expenses 103.80 108.63 142.43 112.85 124.
- Total Operating Expenses 517.67 559.64 650.44 548.20 629.
- Returns to Operating Expenses 524.80 468.12 725.13 513.84 565.
- Capital Recovery & Fixed Costs 93.70 98.81 70.60 99.15 83.
- Total Specified Expenses z 611.38 658.45 721.04 647.34 713.
- Returns to Specified Expenses 431.09 369.31 654.52 414.70 481.
- Operating Expenses/Yield Unit 3.01 3.11 2.76 2.93 3.
- Total Expenses/Yield Unit 3.55 3.66 3.06 3.46 3.
