Does Skip‐Row Planting Configuration Improve Cotton Net Return?

Abstract

Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) growers want information about alternative planting confi gurations to reduce seed, technology, and other production costs. We evaluated the impact of solid and 2 × 1 skip-row confi gurations on net returns for cotton grown in 25-, 76-, and 102-cm rows based on yield and fi ber quality data from an experiment in adjacent nonirrigated and irrigated fi elds at Milan, TN. Price diff erences for fi ber quality were calculated using USDA-Agricultural Marketing Service spot prices. Eff ects of planting confi guration on fi ber quality were not signifi cant or small relative to row spacing eff ects. Price discounts for fi ber quality were larger in stripper-harvested 25-cm rows than in spindle-picked 76-and 102-cm rows under irrigation. Skip-row cotton provided similar or larger net returns relative to solid-planted cotton for 25-and 76-cm spacings for base lint prices from 84 to 136¢ kg -1 . For 76-cm rows, equivalent yields for solid and skip-rows and seed, technology, and harvest cost savings were enough to justify skip-rows. Technology and harvest costs did not vary with planting confi guration for 25-cm rows, but seed cost savings and equivalent yields were enough to justify skip-rows. Skip-row cotton had a lower net return than solid-row cotton in 102-cm rows because savings in seed, technology, and harvest costs were not enough to off set lower yields. Producers interested in skip-row cotton should consider rows spaced 76-cm or less to maximize net returns.

Influence of Row Spacing, Herbicide Technology, and Tillage on Fiber Quality and Economic Returns

“…1). Whereas Balkcom et al (2010) found equivalent or higher yields (depending on year) between narrow and standard row spacing, narrow row spacing had higher seeding, planting, and harvesting costs, as compared to standard row spacing, Larson et al (2009) concluded that, although not statistically significant, nonirrigated standard row cotton with solid row configuration had numerically higher NR at 85 ¢ kg -1 cotton lint than narrow row cotton with solid row configuration; however results were dependent on the price of cotton. 13, average NR across all treatments and years was 1711.88 $ ha -1 (SD = 707.09 $ ha -1 ).…”

“…Standard row spacing with CST had the highest probability of receiving a fiber quality premium (π 1 + π 2 = .7319; Table 11). Although Larson et al (2009) did not consider different tillage treatments, they concluded that standard row spacing had higher uniformity percentages than ultra-narrow row spacing.…”

“…Narrow row with CST treatment had the highest estimated probability (π 3 +π 4 + π 5 + π 6 = 0.2293) of having a staple value less than 36, which is associated with a greater discount or a lower premium depending on color grade and leaf grade. Larson et al (2009) concluded that ultra-narrow-row cotton reduced staple length when compared to standardrow cotton, which they attributed to different harvest methods. In this study, all plots were harvested in the same manner.…”

“…The advent of various transgenic cultivars with herbicide-resistant traits provided weed control opportunities for viable narrow-row cotton in conservation tillage systems (Vories and Glover, 2006;Wilson et al, 2007). Scientists in agronomy, weed science, and economics have published research results on the impact of adopting these production methods on yields, quality attributes, and net returns (Askew et al, 2002;Balkcom et al, 2010;Gwathmey et al, 2011;Jost and Cothren, 2000;Jost et al, 2008;Larson et al, 2007Larson et al, , 2009. Balkcom et al (2010) found that cotton plant growth and yield were affected marginally by row spacing, tillage system, and herbicide trait.…”

Effects of row spacing and potassium foliar applications on yield of cotton

“…(2008). Some studies have also found no impact of planting density on cotton fiber color (Nichols et al., 2004; Vories et al., 2001), while other studies looking at planting population and color have found a different outcome, with more favorable color at higher densities (Larson et al., 2009; Wrather et al., 2008).…”