scholarly journals Forage Yield and Quality of Winter Canola–Pea Mixed Cropping System

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 2122
Author(s):  
Sultan Begna ◽  
Sangamesh Angadi ◽  
Abdel Mesbah ◽  
Rangappa Mathada Umesh ◽  
Michael Stamm
Keyword(s):  
Great Plains ◽  
Forage Yield ◽  
Mixed Cropping ◽  
High Input ◽  
Forage Crop ◽  
Land Equivalent Ratio ◽  
Winter Canola ◽  
Southern Great Plains ◽  
Equivalent Ratio ◽  
Yield And Quality

Forage crop–dairy farming is an important agro-industry across the world. This system is intensive with high-input forage crops. In the United States (US) Southern Great Plains, the system is based primarily on high-input annual grass-type crops in monocropping approaches and requires diverse low-input broadleaf crops for strengthening its sustainability. Winter canola (Brassica napus L.) and pea (Pisum sativum L.) have the potential to provide forage crop diversity options with high forage yields of high quality. Winter canola and pea in mono- and mixed-cropping approaches at seeding ratios of canola/pea at 0:100, 25:75, 50:50, 75:25, and 100:0 were studied for yield and quality in 2015 and 2016 in Clovis, New Mexico (NM). Averaged over years, canola–pea at 75:25 and 50:50 seeding ratios produced similar biomass forage yield but higher than mono-pea by 43% and canola–pea at 25:75 and mono-canola cropping by 8%. The land equivalent ratio of all mixed-cropping treatments exceeded 1.0, with canola–pea at the 50:50 seeding ratio recording a land equivalent ratio of 1.15, indicating that mixed-cropping systems are better users of land resources. Total digestible nutrients and relative feed value were higher in canola–pea mixed cropping than in mono-canola and mono-pea cropping. Canola–pea mixed cropping achieved high yields (13.3 to 14.7 Mg·ha−1) with improved forage quality, as well as improved crop and land productivity, with the potential to improve mechanical harvestability of vining pea, and strengthen the diversity and sustainability of forage crop–dairy farming in the Southern Great Plains under limited irrigation input of ~300 mm.

scholarly journals CROSS HEDGING WINTER CANOLA

2015 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 462-481 ◽  
Author(s):  
SEON-WOONG KIM ◽  
B. WADE BRORSEN ◽  
BYUNG-SAM YOON
Keyword(s):  
Soybean Oil ◽  
Great Plains ◽  
Winter Canola ◽  
Southern Great Plains ◽  
Hedging Effectiveness ◽  
Hard Red Winter Wheat ◽  
Hedge Ratios ◽  
Cross Hedging ◽  
Short Horizon ◽  
Red Winter Wheat

AbstractThe growth in winter canola acreage in the southern Great Plains has led to questions about the best way to reduce price risk because there is no U.S. canola futures market. Cross-hedge ratios and hedging effectiveness are calculated, and encompassing tests are conducted for short-horizon hedging. Possible cross-hedge markets considered are U.S. soybeans, soybean oil, soybean meal, hard red winter wheat, and Canadian canola. The selected cross hedge is a combination of soybean oil and meal futures, but its hedging effectiveness is substantially less than what is typically provided by a direct hedge.

Switchgrass forage yield and biofuel quality with no-tillage interseeded winter legumes in the southern Great Plains

2017 ◽  
Vol 40 (17) ◽  
pp. 2382-2391 ◽  
Author(s):  
Apurba K. Sutradhar ◽  
Eric C. Miller ◽  
Daryl B. Arnall ◽  
Bruce L. Dunn ◽  
Kefyalew Girma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Great Plains ◽  
Forage Yield ◽  
No Tillage ◽  
Southern Great Plains

Residue Management Impacts on Winter Canola in the Southern Great Plains

cftm ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 190007
Author(s):  
Blake Farrow ◽  
Sumit Sharma ◽  
John W. Jones ◽  
Josh Lofton ◽  
A. Post ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Great Plains ◽  
Residue Management ◽  
Winter Canola ◽  
Southern Great Plains

scholarly journals Influence of Cutting Date and Nitrogen Fertilizer Levels on Growth, Forage Yield, and Quality of Sudan Grass in a Semiarid Environment

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
S. J. L. Ziki ◽  
E. M. I. Zeidan ◽  
A. Y. A. El-Banna ◽  
A. E. A. Omar
Keyword(s):  
Water Shortage ◽  
Quality Parameters ◽  
Forage Yield ◽  
Forage Production ◽  
Forage Crop ◽  
Sudan Grass ◽  
Yield And Quality ◽  
Cut Quality ◽  
Almost All

Sudan grass is less sensitive to water shortage and produces large amounts of biomass. For these reasons, it is a promising summer forage crop for arid and semiarid regions where natural pastures are rare and water scarcity limits summer forage production. The aim of the present work was to investigate the influence of cutting date (early and late, for three cuts) and three nitrogen (N) fertilizer levels (35, 70, and 105 kg N/ha/cut) on Sudan grass (Sorghum sudanense (Piper) Stapf.). The study was carried out in the experimental farm of Faculty of Agriculture, Zagazig University, Egypt, during 2016 and 2017 summer seasons using a split-plot design. The results obtained revealed significant differences between the two cutting dates on growth, forage yield, and quality of Sudan grass. The late cutting date (56 days after sowing DAS and 42 days after the 1st cut) gave the highest values for almost all the growth characters, dry forage yield in addition to total dry yield (TDY) in both seasons. The highest number of shoots/plant (1.911), leaf area/plant (2841.6 cm2), and dry forage weight (g)/plant (76.65 g) were obtained by late cutting (56 DAS) with the application of 105 kg N/ha/cut. The lowest values of these characters were recorded with 35 kg N/ha/cut. Quality parameters were significantly affected by N levels during both seasons, while cutting date significantly affected the protein yield (kg/ha). The interaction result apparently indicated that the highest dry forage yield of Sudan grass (16.26 ton/ha) was achievable at the 1st cut with the application of the highest N level (105 kg N/ha/cut).

‘TAM 304’ Wheat, Adapted to the Adequate Rainfall or High-Input Irrigated Production System in the Southern Great Plains

2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 331-337 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jackie C. Rudd ◽  
Ravindra N. Devkota ◽  
Amir M. Ibrahim ◽  
David Marshall ◽  
Russell Sutton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Great Plains ◽  
Production System ◽  
High Input ◽  
Southern Great Plains

Effect of row spacing and seeding rate on forage yield and quality of perennial cereal rye (Secale cereale L.)

2003 ◽  
Vol 83 (2) ◽  
pp. 363-369 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. N. Acharya ◽  
Z. Mir ◽  
J. R. Moyer ◽  
B. R. Orshinsky ◽  
J. E. Thomas
Keyword(s):  
Secale Cereale ◽  
Crude Protein ◽  
Forage Yield ◽  
Forage Production ◽  
Seeding Rate ◽  
Forage Crop ◽  
Cereal Rye ◽  
Yield And Quality ◽  
Secale Cereale L ◽  
Dough Stage

Perennial cereal rye (PC rye) is being developed at Lethbridge Research Centre as a new forage crop. The first Canadian cultivar of this crop (ACE-1), tested as LRC 96-1, will have the distinction of being the first North American cultivar of PC rye and the only perennial cereal crop specifically developed for forage production. PC rye was originally developed in Germany by crossing rye (Secale cereale L.) with a perennial wild rye (Secale montanum L.) and then backcrossing the F1 with Secale cereale L. while selecting for a perennial nature. In field trials, ACE-1 PC rye has produced economically viable biomass yields for 3 yr under southern Alberta growing conditions. It has similar yield and quality to barley, which is grown extensively for silage in the Canadian prairies. For proper land management and adequate forage production, ACE-1 PC rye should be seeded from mid-September to mid-October in narrow (17.5 cm) rows at a seeding rate of 80 kg ha-1. When harvested at the soft dough stage for silage it contained less crude protein (CP) and more fibre than barley; however, in vitro gas production indicates that its dry matter (DM) digestibility will be similar to that of barley. PC rye is a valuable forage crop, but it needs to be harvested earlier than the soft dough stage to obtain comparable silage quality to barley. Key words: Acid detergent fibre, crude protein, digestibility, neutral detergent fibre, perennial cereal rye, forage yield, seed yield

Winter Canola: A Potential Dual-Purpose Crop for the United States Southern Great Plains

2017 ◽  
Vol 109 (6) ◽  
pp. 2508-2520 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Begna ◽  
S. Angadi ◽  
M. Stamm ◽  
A. Mesbah
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Great Plains ◽  
The United States ◽  
Dual Purpose ◽  
Winter Canola ◽  
Southern Great Plains

scholarly journals Performance of Mixed Cropping of Lentil with Cowpea Under Variable Seeding Ratios

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 125-129
Author(s):  
ISM Farhad ◽  
E Jahan ◽  
MA Rahman ◽  
MG Azam ◽  
TA Mujahidi
Keyword(s):  
Cost Ratio ◽  
Mixed Cropping ◽  
Land Equivalent Ratio ◽  
Net Return ◽  
Equivalent Ratio ◽  
Benefit Cost Ratio ◽  
Mixed Crop ◽  
Sole Cropping ◽  
Benefit Cost ◽  
Equivalent Yield

The field experiment was carried out at South Lemua, MLT site, Feni (AEZ 19) during Rabi season of 2015-16 to evaluate the performance of lentil as mixed crop with cowpea under variable seeding ratio. The treatment combinations used for the experiment were T1= Sole Lentil (100 %) @ 40 kg seed ha-1, T2 =Sole Cowpea (100%) @ 45kg seed ha-1, T3 = Lentil (100%) + Cowpea (10 %), T4 = Lentil (100 %) + Cowpea (20 %) and T5 = Lentil (100 %) + Cowpea (30 %). Lentil var. BARIMashur-6 and cowpea variety BARI Felon-1 were used in this study. The yield of lentil decreased with the increase of cowpea population in the mixed cropping situation. All the mixed cropping combinations showed higher lentil equivalent yield (LEY), land equivalent ratio (LER), net return and benefit cost ratio (BCR) than sole cropping. The highest lentil equivalent yield (1438 kg ha-1) and maximum land equivalent ratio (1.24) were observed in T4 treatment. Cost and return analysis showed that the highest net return (Tk. 77,890 ha-1) was found in T4 treatment while sole cowpea gave the lowest net return (Tk. 7530 ha-1). The highest benefit cost ratio (3.09) was recorded from lentil (100 %) + cowpea (20 %) whereas the minimum (1.21) from sole cowpea. Bangladesh Agron. J. 2018, 21(1): 125-129

Forage yield and quality from intercropped barley, annual ryegrass and different annual legumes

1997 ◽  
Vol 52 (3) ◽  
pp. 298-308 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. G. Stout ◽  
B. Brooke ◽  
J. W. Hall ◽  
D. J. Thompson
Keyword(s):  
Forage Yield ◽  
Annual Ryegrass ◽  
Annual Legumes ◽  
Yield And Quality
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document