Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T13:25:30.868Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of cover crop termination and cotton planting methods on cotton production in conservation systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 December 2017

Leah M. Duzy  and
Ted S. Kornecki
Leah M. Duzy
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, National Soil Dynamics Laboratory, Conservation Systems Research, 411 South Donahue Drive, Auburn, AL 36832, USA
Ted S. Kornecki*
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, National Soil Dynamics Laboratory, Conservation Systems Research, 411 South Donahue Drive, Auburn, AL 36832, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Ted S. Kornecki, E-mail: ted.kornecki@ars.usda.gov
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In conservation agriculture, cover crops are utilized to improve soil properties and to enhance cash crop growth. One important part of cover crop management is termination. With smaller profit margins and constraints on time and labor, producers are searching for ways to reduce time and labor required to terminate cover crops while maintaining or increasing profitability. This study examined the effect of 11 different combinations of terminating cereal rye (Secale cereale L.) and planting cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) on population, seed cotton yield, total costs and net returns; and how combined operations affect labor, fuel consumption and carbon (CO2) emissions in a conservation system. Cereal rye followed by cotton was planted in central Alabama during the 2009–2011 crop years. Treatments included cotton planted directly into standing cereal rye, cover crops terminated at early milk growth stage using mechanical (roller or roller/crimper) with or without chemical termination (spraying) followed by cotton planting, and cover crop termination combined with cotton planting using spraying with or without rolling termination. While the 2011 crop year had the lowest plant populations, there was no year effect on seed cotton yields, total costs or net returns. Rolling with or without spraying yielded higher plant populations (26%), seed cotton yields (18.3%) and net returns (17.2%) than cotton planted into standing rye; however, rolling with or without spraying also had 23.8% higher costs due to increased fuel usage, machinery and labor hours, and yield varying costs. While rolling with spraying had slightly higher total costs compared with rolling alone (6.5%), plant populations, seed cotton yields and net returns were 11.42%, 6.4% and 6.5% higher, respectively. Converting from three separate operations for cover crop termination and cotton planting to rolling and spraying combined with planting, producers could potentially reduce CO2 emissions from fuel use and labor hours associated with cover crop termination and cotton planting by up to 51%.

Keywords

Cereal ryecombining operationsconservation systemscover cropsnet returnssmooth rollerstraight bar roller/crimper
Type
Research Paper
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 34 , Issue 5 , October 2019 , pp. 406 - 414
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ashford, DL and Reeves, DW (2003) Use of a mechanical roller crimper as an alternative kill method for cover crops. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 18(1), 37–45.Google Scholar
Balkcom, KS, Duzy, LM, Kornecki, TS and Price, AJ (2015) Timing of cover crop termination: management considerations for the southeast. Crop, Forage and Turfgrass Management 1(1). doi: 10.2134/cftm2015.0161.Google Scholar
Barnes, JP and Putnam, AR (1983) Rye residues contribute weed suppression in no-tillage cropping systems. Journal of Chemical Ecology 9, 1045–1057.Google Scholar
Brady, NC and Weil, RR (1999) The Nature and Properties of Soils, 12th edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Bowman, G, Shirley, C and Cramer, C (2007) Managing Cover Crops Profitably, 3rd edn. Beltsville, MD: Sustainable Agriculture Network.Google Scholar
Conservation Technology Information Center (CTIC) (2016) Annual Report 2015–2016, Cover Crop Survey [Internet]. Available at http://www.sare.org/Learning-Center/Topic-Rooms/Cover-Crops/Cover-Crop-Surveys (Accessed 19 September 2016).Google Scholar
Creamer, NG, Bennett, MA, Stinner, BR, Cardina, J and Regnier, EE (1996) Mechanisms of weed suppression in cover crop-based production systems. HortScience 31(3), 410–413.Google Scholar
Derpsch, R (2001) Frontiers in conservation tillage and advances in conservation practice [Internet]. In Stott, D.E., Mohtar, R.H., and Steinhardt, G.C. (eds.). Sustaining the Global Farm – Selected papers from the 10th International Soil Conservation Organization Meeting, May 24-29, 1999. West Lafayette, IN. pp. 248-254; [Cited 19 September 2016]. Available at http://topsoil.nserl.purdue.edu/nserlweb-old/isco99/pdf/ISCOdisc/tableofcontents.htm.Google Scholar
Duiker, SW (2014) Establishment and termination dates affect fall-established cover crops. Agronomy Journal 106(2), 670–678.Google Scholar
Duzy, LM, Balkcom, KS and Price, AJ (2016) Influence of row spacing, herbicide technology, and tillage on fiber quality and economic returns. Journal of Cotton Science 20, 341–355.Google Scholar
Dyer, JA and Desjardins, RL (2003) The impact of farm machinery management on the greenhouse gas emissions from Canadian agriculture. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 22(3), 59–74.Google Scholar
Edwards, W and Boehlje, M (1980) Machinery selection considering timeliness losses. Transactions of the ASAE 23(4), 810–815, 821.Google Scholar
Gbur, EE, Stroup, WW, McCarter, KS, Durham, S, Young, LJ, Christman, M, West, M and Kramer, M (2012) Analysis of Generalized Linear Mixed Models in the Agricultural and Natural Resources Sciences. Madison, WI: ASA SSSA and CSSA.Google Scholar
Helsel, ZR (2007) Fuel requirements and energy saving tips for field operations [Internet]. Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey; [cited September 19, 2016]. Available at http://sustainable-farming.rutgers.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/fs1068.pdf.Google Scholar
Hoffman, LM, Weston, LA, Snyder, JC and Reginer, EE (1996) Allelopathic influence of germinating seeds and seedlings of cover crops and weed species. Weed Science 44(3), 579–584.Google Scholar
Kern, JS and Johnson, MG (1993) Conservation tillage impacts on national soils and atmospheric carbon levels. Soil Science Society of America Journal 57(1), 200–210.Google Scholar
Kornecki, TS (2016) The effects of combined cover crops termination and planting in a cotton no-till system. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 32(5), 551–560.Google Scholar
Kornecki, TS, Price, AJ and Raper, RL (2006) Performance of different roller designs in terminating rye cover crop and reducing vibration. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 22(5), 633–641.Google Scholar
Kornecki, TS, Raper, RL, Arriaga, FJ, Schwab, EB and Bergtold, JS (2009a) Impact of rye rolling direction and different no-till row cleaners on cotton emergence and yield. Transactions of the ASABE 52(2), 383–391.Google Scholar
Kornecki, TS, Price, AJ, Raper, RL and Bergtold, JS (2009b) Effectiveness of different herbicide applicators mounted on a roller/crimper for accelerated rye cover crop termination. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 25(6), 819–826.Google Scholar
Kornecki, TS, Price, AJ, Raper, RL and Arriaga, FJ (2009c) New roller crimper concepts for mechanical termination of cover crops. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 24(3), 165–173.Google Scholar
Kornecki, TS, Arriaga, FJ, Price, AJ and Balkcom, KS (2012) Effects of different residue management methods on cotton establishment and yield in a no-till system. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 28(6), 787–794.Google Scholar
Lal, R (2004) Carbon emission from farm operations. Environment International 30(7), 981–990.Google Scholar
Laughlin, DH and Spurlock, SR (2008) Mississippi State Budget Generator v6 [Internet]. Department of Agricultural Economics, Mississippi State University; [cited 2016 September 19]. Available at http://www.agecon.msstate.edu/whatwedo/budgets/generator/index.asp.Google Scholar
McGregor, KC and Mutchler, CK (1992) Soil loss from conservation tillage for sorghum. Transactions of the ASAE 35(6), 1841–1845.Google Scholar
Mishra, AK and Sandretto, CL (2002) Stability of farm income and the role of nonfarm income in U.S. agriculture. Review of Agricultural Economics 24(1), 208–221.Google Scholar
Mississippi State University (MSU). 2016. 2016 Row Crop Input files [Internet]. Department of Agricultural Economics, Mississippi State University; [cited 2017 May 31]. Available at http://www .agecon.msstate.edu/whatwedo/budgets/generator/index.asp.Google Scholar
Nelson, JE, Kephart, KD, Bauer, A and Connor, JF (1995) Growth Stage of Wheat, Barley, and Wild Oat. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Extension Service.Google Scholar
Raper, RL, Reeves, DW, Schwab, EB and Burmester, CH (2000) Reducing soil compaction of Tennessee Valley soils in conservation tillage systems. Journal of Cotton Science 4(2), 84–90.Google Scholar
Reeves, DW (1994) Cover crops and rotations. In Hatfield, JL and Stewart, BA (eds). Advances in Soil Science: Crops Residue Management. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publ., pp. 125–172.Google Scholar
Reeves, DW (2003) A Brazilian model for no-tillage cotton production adapted to the southeastern USA. In Proceedings of the II World Congress on Conservation Agriculture-Producing in Harmony with Nature. Iguassu Falls, Paraná, Brazil, pp.372–374.Google Scholar
Ritchie, GL, Bednarz, CW, Jost, RH and Brown, SM (2004) Cotton growth and development [Internet]. The University of Georgia College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences; [cited 5 September 2017]. Available at http://www.ugacotton.com/vault/file/UGA-Ext.-Pub.-Cotton-Growth-Development-2004.pdf.Google Scholar
Runge, M (2016) 2016 enterprise planning budget summaries, cotton, south Alabama, reduced tillage, non-irrigated [Internet]. Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Auburn University; [cited 2017 May 16]. Available at http://www.aces.edu/agriculture/business-management/budgets/2016/rowcrops.php.Google Scholar
SAS Institute Inc (2014) SAS Enterprise Guide 7.1. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
Schomberg, HH, McDaniel, RG, Mallard, E, Endale, DM, Fisher, DS and Cabrera, ML (2006) Conservation tillage and cover crop influences on cotton production on a southeastern U.S. coastal plain soil. Agronomy Journal 98(5), 1247–1256.Google Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service (USDA-ERS) (2016) Farm labor [Internet]. Washington, DC; [cited 2017 June 20]. Available at https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-labor/background/.Google Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA-NASS) (2016a) Quick Stats 2.0 [Internet]. Washington, DC; [cited 2016 September 18]. Available at https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/.Google Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA-NASS) (2016b) Land use practices [Internet]. Washington, DC; [cited 2016 September 18]. Available at https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/.Google Scholar
University of Georgia (UGA) (2017) Cotton enterprise budgets [Internet]. College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Agricultural and Applied Economics; [cited 2017 September 1]. Available at http://www.caes.uga.edu/departments/ag-econ/extension/budgets.html.Google Scholar
Wrather, JA, Phipps, BJ, Stevens, WE, Phillips, AS and Vories, ED (2008) Cotton planting date and plant population effects on yield and fiber quality in the Mississippi Delta. Journal of Cotton Science 12, 1–7.Google Scholar
Zadoks, JC, Chang, TT and Konzak, CF (1974) A decimal code for the growth stages of cereals. Weed Research 14, 415–421.Google Scholar