Grazing Winter Rye Cover Crop in a Cotton No-Till System: Yield and Economics

被引:29
作者
Schomberg, H. H. [1 ]
Fisher, D. S. [2 ]
Reeves, D. W. [3 ]
Endale, D. M. [4 ]
Raper, R. L. [5 ,6 ]
Jayaratne, K. S. U. [7 ]
Gamble, G. R. [8 ]
Jenkins, M. B. [9 ]
机构
[1] USDA ARS, Sustainable Agr Syst Lab, Beltsville, MD 20705 USA
[2] Syngenta Crop Protect, Res Triangle Pk, NC 27703 USA
[3] USDA ARS, J Phil Campbell Sr Nat Resource Conservat Ctr, Watkinsville, GA 30677 USA
[4] USDA ARS, SE Watershed Res Lab, Tifton, GA 31793 USA
[5] Oklahoma Agr Exptl Stn, Field Serv Unit, Stillwater, OK 74078 USA
[6] Oklahoma Agr Exptl Stn, Res Serv Unit, Stillwater, OK 74078 USA
[7] N Carolina State Univ, Dep Agr & Extens Educ, Raleigh, NC 27695 USA
[8] USDA ARS, Qual & Safety Assessment Res Unit, Athens, GA 30605 USA
[9] USDA ARS, Water Qual & Ecol Res Unit, Oxford, MS 38655 USA
关键词
DOMAIN REFLECTOMETRY MEASUREMENTS; TACQ COMPUTER-PROGRAM; CONSERVATION TILLAGE; SOUTHERN PIEDMONT; SOIL COMPACTION; RESPONSES; LIVESTOCK; PEANUT; PERFORMANCE; ROTATION;
D O I
10.2134/agronj13.0434
中图分类号
S3 [农学(农艺学)];
学科分类号
0901 ;
摘要
Winter annual cover crop use is limited in conservation management systems in the United States. Grazing cover crops could encourage cover crop adoption if returns offset establishment costs without reducing crop yields. A 4-yr field experiment was conducted near Watkinsville, GA, in which a rye (Secale cereale L.) cover crop was grazed by cattle or roller-crimped before planting cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Cattle consumed about 2.4 Mg ha(-1) of forage annually but amounts were variable due to weather conditions. Rye residue remaining at cotton planting averaged 6.7 Mg ha(-1) for non-grazed compared with 1.7 Mg ha(-1) for grazed treatments. Cotton yields tended to be better in the non-grazed treatment but were significantly different only in 2009 when yields were reduced in the grazed treatment due to soil compaction. Four-year average lint yield was 120 kg ha(-1) greater for the non-grazed treatment. Cotton fiber quality parameters were generally better in the non-grazed treatment but not enough to change crop price. Differences between grazed and non-grazed returns ranged from $-26 to $355 and averaged $81 ha(-1) when based on market year prices. The difference in average return increased to $110 ha(-1) when based on 2012 market year prices. Although negative effects of soil compaction were observed the final year, returns from grazing have the potential to offset establishment costs of a rye cover crop and increase profits for cotton producers in the Southern Piedmont of the United States.
引用
收藏
页码:1041 / 1050
页数:10
相关论文
共 43 条
  • [1] Allmaras RR, 2000, J SOIL WATER CONSERV, V55, P365
  • [2] [Anonymous], WHILE CROP ROTATIONS
  • [3] Ashford D. L., 2003, American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, V18, P37, DOI 10.1079/AJAA2003037
  • [4] Tillage and Cattle Grazing Effects on Soil Properties and Grain Yields in a Dryland Wheat-Sorghum-Fallow Rotation
    Baumhardt, R. L.
    Schwartz, R. C.
    MacDonald, J. C.
    Tolk, J. A.
    [J]. AGRONOMY JOURNAL, 2011, 103 (03) : 914 - 922
  • [5] Cattle Gain and Crop Yield for a Dryland Wheat-Sorghum-Fallow Rotation
    Baumhardt, R. L.
    Schwartz, R. C.
    Greene, L. W.
    MacDonald, J. C.
    [J]. AGRONOMY JOURNAL, 2009, 101 (01) : 150 - 158
  • [6] Impacts of soil damage by grazing livestock on crop productivity
    Bell, Lindsay W.
    Kirkegaard, John A.
    Swan, Antony
    Hunt, James R.
    Huth, Neil I.
    Fettell, Neil A.
    [J]. SOIL & TILLAGE RESEARCH, 2011, 113 (01) : 19 - 29
  • [7] Boehlje MichaelD., 1984, FARM MANAGEMENT
  • [8] Bradow J. M., 2000, Journal of Cotton Science, V4, P34
  • [9] Bransby D., 1999, HIGHLIGHT AGR RES, V46, P9
  • [10] SURFACE SOIL DEGRADATION AND SOIL PRODUCTIVITY RESTORATION AND MAINTENANCE
    BRUCE, RR
    LANGDALE, GW
    WEST, LT
    MILLER, WP
    [J]. SOIL SCIENCE SOCIETY OF AMERICA JOURNAL, 1995, 59 (03) : 654 - 660