Productivity and profitability with fallow replacement forage, grain, and cover crops in W‐S‐F rotation

Holman, Johnathon D.; Obour, Augustine K.; Assefa, Yared

doi:10.1002/csc2.20670

Cited by 12 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 30 publications

(44 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Incorporating cover crops (CCs) that have dual‐purpose use as forage diversifies a rotation system, increases productivity and precipitation use efficiency, leaves sufficient residue after harvest for soil protection, increases net return, and therefore it is ideal for the semiarid Great Plains (Holman et al., 2018; Holman, Assefa, & Obour, 2021; Nielsen et al., 2005). A significant increase in overall system productivity and profitability with CCs used as forage was reported for a wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.)–fallow and wheat–sorghum [ Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench]–fallow (WSF) rotations (Holman, Assefa, & Obour, 2021; Holman, Obour, & Assefa, 2021a; Holman et al., 2022). Others also reported that an all‐forage‐crop rotation had the greatest net income, followed by a mixed grain and forage crop rotation system, compared with only grain‐based crop rotation (Nielsen et al., 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Single and multispecies dual‐purpose cover crop productivity, nutritive value, and profitability

Obour

Holman

Assefa

2022

Agrosystems Geosci & Env

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Replacing long fallow periods with dual‐purpose forage cover crops increases productivity and profitability of dryland crop rotations. However, little information is available on specific forage cover crops mixtures that optimizes productivity, nutritive value, and profitability. The objective of this research was to quantify forage productivity, nutritive value, and profitability of spring‐planted single or mixed species cover crops in a winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)–grain sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench]–fallow (WSF) crop rotation. This study was conducted from 2015 to 2017 at the Kansas State University Hearting Beason Ranch near Brownell, KS. The experimental design was a split‐plot randomized complete block with four replications. The main plots were three crop phases of the WSF rotation (wheat–sorghum–fallow, sorghum–fallow–wheat, and fallow–wheat–sorghum), and subplots were five spring‐planted cover crop treatments: (a) spring oat (Avena sativa L.), (b) spring triticale [×Triticosecale Wittm. ex A. Camus (Secale × Triticum)], (c) oat and triticale mixture (OT, two‐species mixture), (d) oat, triticale, and pea (Pisum sativum L.) (OTP, three‐species mixture), and (e) oat, triticale, pea, radish (Raphanus sativus L.), turnips (Brassica campestris L.), and buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum Moench) (six‐species mixture). Results showed that cover crop forage accumulation was 33–35% greater in sole triticale and OT mixture compared with sole spring oat or cocktail treatments. Multispecies mixtures, cocktail and OTP cover crops, had significantly greater available energy, digestibility, and dry matter intake based on measured crude protein, acid and netural detergent fiber, and in vitro dry matter digestibility compared with single species (oat or triticale). Net return was US$100 ha–1 greater for the OT treatment compared with the multispecies mixtures. We concluded that greater productivity and net return, along with adequate nutritive value, from sole triticale and OT mixture made them better dual‐purpose forage cover crop alternatives.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Single and multispecies dual‐purpose cover crop productivity, nutritive value, and profitability

Obour

Holman

Assefa

2022

Agrosystems Geosci & Env

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Additionally, spring pea grain yielded an average of 1,923 kg ha −1 in Colby and 1,006 kg ha −1 at Brownell resulting in significant water use. This prolonged water use by spring pea was reported to reduce plant available water compared with triticale or OTP CCs (Holman et al., 2018; 2021). Compared with the chemical fallow treatment, growing a CC or spring pea in 2016 decreased plant available water at winter wheat planting at both study locations.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spring‐planted cover crop effects on weed suppression, crop yield, and net returns in no‐tillage dryland crop production

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Integrating cover crops (CCs) into dryland crop rotations could provide options for herbicide-resistant (HR) weed control in no-tillage (NT) systems. Field experiments investigated weed suppression potential of spring-planted CCs and their effects on plant available water, crop yields, and net returns. The CC treatments were implemented during the fallow phase of NT wheat (Triticum aestivum L)-sorghum (Sorghum bicolor Moench)-fallow rotation at two locations: Brownell and Colby, over 3 yr in western Kansas. Treatments were oat-triticale (OT), oat-triticale-pea (Pisum sativum; OTP), spring pea, and fallow. Spring pea aboveground biomass was 3,290 kg ha −1 , whereas OT produced 5,640 kg ha −1 and OTP produced 5,260 kg ha −1 . Regardless of location, weed biomass was reduced between 86 and 99% with CCs relative to weedy fallow. Cover crops reduced plant available water at winter wheat planting in three out of the six site-years. Averaged across years, CCs reduced winter wheat yields by 18% compared with fallow at Brownell but not at Colby.Replacing fallow with spring pea increased gross revenue but generated negative net returns because of high cost of herbicide and pea seed. Net return with OT or OTP CCs were negative in four out of six site-years when used strictly for weed suppression. However, net returns were mostly positive when OT ($110-876) or OTP (−$110-832) CCs were used as forage. Our results showed replacing fallow with spring-planted CCs for weed suppression in dryland cropping system is profitable only when the CCs are used for forage.

show abstract

“…CP content decreases with maturity and plants were harvested at heading in this study to optimize both yield and nutritive value. Legumes (that were not included in our study) have much higher CP than grasses, however, in semiarid regions, legumes tend to produce less dry matter and often not enough to cover the cost of production (Holman et al, 2018(Holman et al, , 2022.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similarly, with no‐till, a 31%–58% greater forage accumulation was reported for continuous forage sorghum compared with triticale/double crop forage sorghum‐forage sorghum‐oat or triticale‐forage sorghum‐oat rotation (Holman et al., 2021). Forage sorghum grown after double crop forage sorghum had no effect on forage yield, but grain sorghum grown following double crop forage sorghum reduced grain yield by 50%–60% (Holman et al., 2022). Cropping sequence, species, intensity, and rotation length affects forage yield (Holman et al., 2021) and likely profitability.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nutritive value and net return of forage crop rotations in the central Great Plains

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sustainable forage-based rotations with greater forage nutritive values and efficient resource utilization are needed to increase forage availability in the central Great Plains. The objectives of the study were to quantify nutritive value and net return from individual crops and overall crop rotation sequence of winter triticale, forage sorghum, and spring oat. The study was conducted near Garden City, KS, from 2013-2020. There were six treatments in the study, that is, continuous sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] (S-S) no-till (NT), triticale (×Triticosecale Wittm. ex A. Camus [Secale × Triticum])/sorghum-sorghum-oat (Avena sativa L.) (T/S-S-O) reduced till (RT) and NT, triticale/sorghum-sorghum-sorghum-oat (T/S-S-S-O) RT and NT, and triticale-sorghum-oat (T-S-O) NT. Crude protein concentration was 23%-31% greater for T-S-O and T/S-S-O compared with S-S. The S-S treatment had greater fiber content and least digestibility, calcium, and phosphorus concentrations compared with the remaining forage rotations. Annualized cost of production was 11%-32% greater for forage sorghum dominated NT systems (T/S-S-O, T/S-S-S-O, S-S [NT]) compared with T-S-O or T/S-S-S-O (RT) rotation. T/S-S-S-O (RT) wasamong the top in net return due to a combination of greater forage biomass production and forage nutrient value. The cost of production for forage sorghum and triticale were more economical compared to purchasing commercial feedstuffs. We concluded forage producers should consider productivity and market value, in addition to nutritive value and cost of production in selecting crops for a profitable forage-based rotation system.

show abstract

Productivity and profitability with fallow replacement forage, grain, and cover crops in W‐S‐F rotation

Cited by 12 publications

References 30 publications

Single and multispecies dual‐purpose cover crop productivity, nutritive value, and profitability

Single and multispecies dual‐purpose cover crop productivity, nutritive value, and profitability

Spring‐planted cover crop effects on weed suppression, crop yield, and net returns in no‐tillage dryland crop production

Nutritive value and net return of forage crop rotations in the central Great Plains

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About