Inter-planting Corn with Forage Soybean Under Varying Fertilizer and Population Treatments to Improve Forage Feed Value PDF Download
Are you looking for read ebook online? Search for your book and save it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Download Inter-planting Corn with Forage Soybean Under Varying Fertilizer and Population Treatments to Improve Forage Feed Value PDF full book. Access full book title Inter-planting Corn with Forage Soybean Under Varying Fertilizer and Population Treatments to Improve Forage Feed Value by Steven Carnby Reynolds. Download full books in PDF and EPUB format.
Author: Steven Carnby Reynolds Publisher: ISBN: 9781085642910 Category : Agronomy Languages : en Pages : 24
Book Description
There is an interest in finding a way to increase protein values in forage for dairies. Previous studies have reported that when intercropped, corn and soybean can increase the dry matter yield and crude protein yield of silage. In 2016 and 2017 a study with three levels of nitrogen application and six different planting densities at two locations were evaluated to help determine what the best combination is to get the highest yields and protein levels when intercropping corn and soybean. There was a linear trend observed showing an increase of nitrogen will increase yields in both grain and forage. There were mixed results when increasing densities of soybean were planted. At the lowest nitrogen level of 150 pounds per acre there was a positive response to the increasing soybean density while at the higher nitrogen level this was not observed. There was also a positive response observed when evaluating increasing soybean densities and protein levels in the aftermath of a grain crop. This did not hold true when the corn was harvested for silage. Overall there is still research that needs to be done as there appears to be some possible advantages to intercropping soybeans in a corn crop, but results were inconsistent in the two years of this project.
Author: Steven Carnby Reynolds Publisher: ISBN: 9781085642910 Category : Agronomy Languages : en Pages : 24
Book Description
There is an interest in finding a way to increase protein values in forage for dairies. Previous studies have reported that when intercropped, corn and soybean can increase the dry matter yield and crude protein yield of silage. In 2016 and 2017 a study with three levels of nitrogen application and six different planting densities at two locations were evaluated to help determine what the best combination is to get the highest yields and protein levels when intercropping corn and soybean. There was a linear trend observed showing an increase of nitrogen will increase yields in both grain and forage. There were mixed results when increasing densities of soybean were planted. At the lowest nitrogen level of 150 pounds per acre there was a positive response to the increasing soybean density while at the higher nitrogen level this was not observed. There was also a positive response observed when evaluating increasing soybean densities and protein levels in the aftermath of a grain crop. This did not hold true when the corn was harvested for silage. Overall there is still research that needs to be done as there appears to be some possible advantages to intercropping soybeans in a corn crop, but results were inconsistent in the two years of this project.
Author: Steve Norberg Publisher: ISBN: Category : Corn Languages : en Pages : 8
Book Description
Intercropping is an old and commonly used agricultural practice of cultivating two or more crops in the same space at the same time. Double cropping is when two crops are planted sequentially in one year. Double cropping corn-triticale rotation for silage is a common practice in the Columbia Basin and in the Treasure Valley of Idaho and Oregon as it increases the amount of feed that can be grown for dairy cows. Double cropping provides protection of the soil from wind and water erosion during the winter months and additional organic matter to the soil via root degradation. Double cropping will also enhance intercropping of corn and soybean as the later planting will increase soybean competition in the intercrop mixture with corn. The most common advantage of intercropping is the greater yield on a given piece of land by making efficient use of the available resources. Moreover, intercropping with legumes improves soil fertility through biological nitrogen fixation, increases soil conservation, and provides better lodging resistance for crops susceptible to lodging. Intercropping provides financial stability, especially during extreme weather conditions such as drought, and makes the system particularly suitable for labor-intensive small farms. In addition, intercropping minimizes agriculture's environmental influences and reduces fertilizer and pesticide application requirements. However, there are some disadvantages with intercropping, such as the selection of the appropriate crop species, sowing densities, crop management, and harvest.
Author: Raeann L. Huffman Publisher: ISBN: Category : Languages : en Pages : 104
Book Description
Intercropping is the practice of growing multiple crops together in the same field. This is not commonly implemented in Midwest agriculture - instead, current monoculture practices have garnered attention because of the negative environmental impacts of monoculture farming. For this study, corn and soybean were intercropped in a production agriculture setting to investigate the benefits to the producer and the environment. Intercropping corn and soybean crops may reduce the need for added nitrogen (N) fertilizer, saving money on inputs and potential loss of N from the farm to the environment. Soybeans within the system may utilize less of the soil N leaving more N, available for the corn crops. Soybean plants are legumes and form a symbiotic relationship with bacteria the soil, Bradyrhizobium japonicum, which allows the soybean plant to fix plant-unavailable N into a plant-available form. Therefore, corn plants within the intercropping system would require little, if any, synthetic N fertilizers.An intercropping system may decrease the loss of N associated with greenhouse gases and acid rain components. The loss of N through leaching and denitrification are seen in monoculture practices where N fertilizer is used. The cause of the negative environmental impacts is from the over application of nutrients that are lost from the soil profile. The macronutrients which crops require in large amounts include nitrogen (N), phosphorous (P), and potassium (K). N, P, and K are being lost in large amounts increasing the creation of laws in many areas, like the Chesapeake Bay and the Lake Eerie watershed, are limiting how much and when fertilization can occur. The proposed intercropping system could increase farmer profit without any additional N fertilizer applied.This study compares monoculture and intercropped systems of corn and soybean. All plots are treated the same for fertility in that no supplemental macronutrients were applied. The monoculture treatments were 38-cm corn (narrow-row corn), 38-cm soybean (narrow-row soybean), 76-cm corn (wide-row corn), and 76-cm soybean (wide-row soybean). Populations were constant for the monocropping treatments: 83,980 corn plants ha-1 (34,000 plants ac-1) and 345,000 soybean plants ha-1 (140,000 plants ac-1). These four monoculture treatments were compared to two intercropping treatments, intercropped corn and soybean with a corn population of 27,993 plants ha-1 (11,333 plants ac-1) and intercropped corn and soybean with a corn population of 55,985 plants ha-1 (22,666 plants ac-1). Since producers are constantly manipulating different cropping systems, this study took into consideration differences in the effect of row orientation and row spacing on yield. Thus, this study compares current monoculture production to intercropping to determine if intercropping could be profitable while requiring fewer environmentally-insensitive inputs.Throughout the study, various statistical analyses were conducted to evaluate if there were any differences between the six treatments. Results evaluating the impact of row orientation and row spacing on corn and soybean production showed that both row orientation and row spacing did not significantly influence corn and soybean productivity. Comparing corn leaf tissue, corn intercropped with soybean contained a significantly greater N concentration within the plant tissue than monoculture corn (p = 0.0006). This difference was visually observed during the 2020 growing season. Further, the results showed that intercropped corn and soybean produced a greater weight of seed per plant than any of the monoculture treatments. Profitability of the monoculture and intercropped treatments was further evaluated to compare the two cropping systems. Two different analyses were conducted, comparing the different prices of corn and soybean at a set market price, and then comparing the different treatments at a range of potential prices. On 19 October 2020 the grain was sold at Prairie Central Co-operative in Lexington, IL. The price received for soybean was $10.24 bu-1 , and corn was $3.79 bu-1 . The intercropping profit was significantly greater than all the monoculture treatments. Since grain prices vary significantly from year to year, different ranges of prices were further evaluated using historical prices from the past 10 years. This resulted in a price range of $3.00 to $6.00 for corn prices and $8.00 to $14.00 for soybean prices. Different price combinations were evaluated and showed that the intercropping treatment was more profitable than the monoculture treatments at most combinations of corn and soybean prices. Further, the profitability of intercropping compared favorably to traditional monocrop corn grown in the Midwest using N fertilizer. Results of this study show that intercropped corn and soybean may be more profitable and benefit the environment from reduced inputs of N fertilizer.
Author: Steven Carnby Reynolds
Author: Steven Carnby Reynolds
Author: Steve Norberg
Author: Raeann L. Huffman
Author: 
Author: Mississippi Agricultural Experiment Station
Author: Paulo Mazzafera
Author: Mississippi Agricultural Experiment Station
Author: William Shurtleff
Author: Mississippi Agricultural Experiment Station
Author: Kevin Lee Armstrong