Furrow irrigated rice (FIR) has spread in popularity across the Mississippi River Delta Region in recent years. Much of this popularity is driven by the attractive yield potential, reduced input usage (e.g., labor), and efficient use of water. In the Delta Region, much attention for alternative rice irrigation practices rests on the potential for reduced groundwater withdrawal. Furrow irrigated rice is expected to increase significantly across the Mid-South this spring given the increased focus on farming sustainability and the announcement of furrow irrigated rice being covered by crop insurance.

In order to estimate the cost of producing furrow irrigated rice in northeast Louisiana, economic information was obtained through demonstration fields within the LSU Agricultural Center’s Rice Research Verification Program in addition to conversations with grower cooperators and rice consultants. Rice enterprise budgets are presented in Tables 1-4 to provide a per-acre estimate of the direct and total cost of growing furrow irrigated rice. These direct cost estimates are projections and are not intended to be interpreted as a recommended average cost of production. It is, however, an attempt to estimate an initial per-acre cost for furrow irrigated rice in Northeast Louisiana as there are no official recommendations for this production practice.

Budget categories include chemical costs reflective of both a Clearfield and non-Clearfield hybrid rice production system, respectively. Common to each FIR production system, nitrogen (N) fertilizer was applied via four applications. Hauling and drying expenses are a function of actual field yield (cwt). It is assumed that rice will be dried down to a moisture level of 12% and that the field yield is 80 cwt per acre. Irrigation costs are based on six applications of three, three, five, five, five, and five acre-inches.

The total direct production costs for a Clearfield hybrid variety FIR system in Table 1 is estimated to be $712.76 per acre. This cost estimate does not include herbicide and herbicide application fees. Information presented in Table 2 attempts to reflect the expected weed control measures that a producer in northeastern Louisiana would need to plan for in a FIR system. These herbicide costs should be interpreted as a representative upper bound on what the realized weed control costs could be, their overall purpose is to serve as a conservative estimate for this particular expenditure in FIR. Individual producers’ herbicide costs will vary given weed pressure, environmental conditions present for a producer’s specific region/field(s), and cost structure/discounts available from their local chemical supplier.