Rotation and tillage effects on forage cropping systems productivity and resource use

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

doi:10.1002/csc2.20565

Cited by 6 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(2018) reported an increase in net return for farmers that grazed CCs. The size of the profit from a dual‐purpose CC, however, depends on factors such as the forage species, productivity, nutritive value, and cost of production (Holman, Obour, & Assefa, 2021b). For example, forage multispecies CC may provide the most benefits from a CC than a single species CC (Chapagain et al., 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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). Growing forages in the crop rotation enable increased cropping intensity and increased profitability (Holman, Obour, & Assefa, 2021b). However, what CC mixture optimizes productivity, nutritive value, and profitability the best will be a continuous research gap that should be evaluated based on available CCs adapted across locations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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%

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

“…The impact of various rotation sequences and tillage on productivity, water use, water productivity, and precipitation use efficiencies of sorghum, triticale, and oat was reported previously (Holman et al, 2021). However, nutritive value and net return from these treatments were not reported.…”

Section: Corementioning

confidence: 84%

“…Forage sorghum CP was greater for T/S-S-O (NT) compared with S-S treatment even though sorghum forage yield was greatest for S-S and least for T/S-S-O a HSD is minimum difference between two treatments used to declare they are significantly different using Tukey's honest significant difference test at p < 0.05. (Holman et al, 2021). In addition, the double crop forage sorghum in low moisture years had slow growth and occasionally did not reach Feekes 10.1 prior to a killing frost, when biomass was harvested.…”

Section: Crude Protein Concentrationsmentioning

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

“…Tillage system tended to affect CC biomass production. Tilled soils slightly favored CC biomass production relative to no-till soils, probably because of reduced residue cover and warmer soil temperatures under tilled systems that improved CC establishment or increased plant available soil water (Blanco-Canqui & Ruis, 2018;Holman et al, 2021b). Also, brassica CCs tended to produce less biomass than legume and grass CCs, and CC mixes (Figure 1).…”

Section: Cover Crop Biomass Productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can cover crops improve soil ecosystem services in water‐limited environments? A review

Blanco‐Canqui

Ruis

Holman

et al. 2021

Soil Science Soc of Amer J

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cover crops (CCs) are considered to deliver multiple soil ecosystem services, but such potential could vary by climatic region. This leads to the question: can CCs improve soil ecosystem services in low precipitation regions? To answer this, we reviewed published data up to 27 July 2021 regarding CC impacts on CC biomass production, soil organic C (SOC) accumulation, water and wind erosion, soil water, nitrate leaching potential, soil microbial biomass, weed management, crop yields, and livestock production (i.e., CCs as forage) across regions with <500 mm precipitation. Literature indicates that CCs produce 2.37 ± 2.30 Mg ha −1 of aboveground biomass, but belowground biomass data are unavailable. Cover crops increased soil wet aggregate stability (63% of CC vs. no CC comparisons), suggesting reduced water erosion potential with CCs. Also, CCs reduced nitrate leaching potential (74% of comparisons) and soil water (50%), increased soil microbial biomass (73%), and did not affect dry aggregate stability (67%) and crop yields (56%). Cover crops accumulated SOC in 59% of comparisons. Averaged across all comparisons, CCs accumulated 0.43 Mg SOC ha −1 yr −1 in the upper 30-cm depth. This SOC accumulation rate is within the range of SOC accumulation across all regions in previous reviews. Cover crops can reduce weed biomass by 89%. Also, when hayed or grazed, CCs could provide net economic returns without negating soil benefits. Overall, CCs improve most soil ecosystem services without many detrimental effects on crop yields in waterlimited environments, although more long-term (>10 yr) data are needed for definitive conclusions. INTRODUCTIONCover crops (CCs) are considered a reemerging strategy to enhance ecosystem services from agricultural lands (

show abstract

Rotation and tillage effects on forage cropping systems productivity and resource use

Cited by 6 publications

References 32 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

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

Can cover crops improve soil ecosystem services in water‐limited environments? A review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About