Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T21:36:29.118Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Agronomic and economic performance of wheat and canola-based double-crop systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Emily E. Pullins  and
Robert L. Myers
Emily E. Pullins
Affiliation:
Research Assistant, Department of Agronomy, University of Missouri, MO 65211
Robert L. Myers
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Agronomy, University of Missouri, MO 65211.
Get access

Abstract

Double-cropping provides a method of diversifying the rotation, maximizing production, and increasing the profit potential of a cropping system. We assessed agronomic and economic performance of five alternative crops in comparison to the no-till wheat-soybean double-cropping system prevalent in the southern Corn Belt. Canola has shown potential as a profitable winter crop, but its effects on the subsequent crop in a no-till double-crop system required further study. Amaranth, buckwheat, sunflower, and pearl millet were planted after the harvest of canola or wheat, or after fallow. Alternative double-crop grain yield, production costs, and net returns were compared with those of double-crop soybean.

Wheat yielded more than canola. Sunflower grain yields did not differ significantly after winter-crop treatments at any site. Yields of amaranth, buckwheat, soybean, and pearl millet differed after winter crops at some sites. At three study yield levels, net returns were positive and greatest for double-crop wheat-amaranth, canola-amaranth, wheat-sunflower, and canola-sunflower systems. All double-crop systems except canolapearl millet had positive net returns at median study yield levels. Low or negative net returns resulted from the combination of low yield and low price for some double crops. Canola was shown to be an economically feasible alternative to wheat in a doublecropping system for central and southern Missouri. Buckwheat and sunflower were shown to be agronomically and economically competitive alternatives to soybean following either canola or winter wheat, with buckwheat most valuable in late-season planting conditions.

Keywords

alternative cropscropping systemsno-tillamaranthbuckwheatcanolasunflowerpearl milletsoybeanwheat
Type
Articles
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , September 1998 , pp. 124 - 131
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

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

1.Bressani, R. 1990. Grain amaranth: Its chemical composition and nutritive value. In Proc. Fourth National Amaranth Symposium: Perspectives on Production, Processing, and Marketing, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 23–25 Aug. Agric. Extension Service, Univ. of Minnesota, St. Paul. pp. 19–34.Google Scholar
2.Daniels, M.B., and Scott, H.D.. 1991. Water use efficiency of doublecropped wheat and soybean. Agronomy J. 83:564–570.Google Scholar
3.Hairston, J.E., Sanford, J.O., Pope, D.F., and Horneck, D.A.. 1987. Soybean-wheat double cropping: Implications for straw management and supplemental nitrogen. Agronomy J. 79:281–286.Google Scholar
4.Holmes, M.R.J. 1980. The oilseed rape crop. In Nutrition of the Oilseed Rape Crops. Applied Sci. Pub. Limited, London, U.K. pp. 1–20.Google Scholar
5.Horricks, J.S. 1969. Influence of rape residue on cereal production. Canadian J. Plant Sci. 49:632–634.Google Scholar
6.Hussain, M.A., Sizaret, F., and Atkinson, K.. 1988. Pennisetum glaucum. In Traditional food plants. FAO Food and Nutrition Paper 42. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, pp. 394–398.Google Scholar
7.Knight, J.D., Livingston, N.J., and Van Kessel, C.. 1994. Carbon isotope discrimination and water-use efficiency for six crops grown under wet and dryland conditions. Plant and Cell Environment 17:173–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Langdale, G.W., Wilson, R.L. Jr., and Bruce, R.R.. 1990. Cropping frequencies to sustain long-term conservation tillage systems. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 54:193–198.Google Scholar
9.Lewis, W.M. 1976. Double cropping soybeans after winter small grains. In L. Hill (ed). World Soybean Research. Proc. World Soybean Research Conference. Interstate Printers and Pub. Inc., Danville, Illinois, pp. 44–45.Google Scholar
10.Minor, H.C., Helsel, Z.R., and McCrate, S.. 1983. Wheat-soybean double crop management in Missouri. Agric. Guide. Pub. 4953. Univ. of Missouri-Columbia Extension Service, Columbia.Google Scholar
11.Missouri Farm Planning Handbook. 1986. Manual 75. FM7000. Univ. of Missouri-Columbia Extension Service, Columbia.Google Scholar
12.Moore, K.C. 1994. 1993 Missouri m.i.r. crop costs, projected 1995 crop budgets. Dept. of Agric. Economics Pub. FM 94–1. Univ. of Missouri-Columbia Extension Service, Columbia.Google Scholar
13.Myers, R.L. 1996. Amaranth: New crop opportunity. In J. Janick and J. Simon (eds). Proc. Third National Symposium on New Crops, Indianapolis, Indiana, October 22–25. Amer. Horticultural Soc. Press, Alexandria, Virginia, pp. 126–138.Google Scholar
14.Myers, R.L., and Minor, H.C.. 1992. Sunflower: An American native. Agric. Guide. Pub. G 4290. Univ. of Missouri-Columbia Extension Service, Columbia.Google Scholar
15.Myers, R.L., and Meinke, L.J.. 1994. Buckwheat: A multi-purpose, shortseason alternative. Agric. Guide. Pub. G 4306. Univ. of Missouri-Columbia Extension Service, Columbia.Google Scholar
16.Rice, W.A. 1979. Influence of the nitrogen content of barley and rape straw amendments on nitrogenase activity in waterlogged soil. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 11:187–191.Google Scholar
17.Smith, G.S. (ed). 1993. 1993 Missouri winter wheat performance trials. The Integrated Pest and Crop Management Newsletter 3(22): 1. Plant Sci. Unit, College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources, Univ. of Missouri-Columbia, and Lincoln Univ., Columbia.Google Scholar
18.Stinner, B.R., and Blair, J.M.. 1990. Ecological and agronomic characteristics of innovative cropping systems. In Edwards, C.A., Lal, R., Madden, P., Miller, R.H., and House, G. (eds). Sustainable Agricultural Systems. Soil and Water Conservation Soc., Ankeny, Iowa. pp. 107–122.Google Scholar
19.Taylor, A.J., Smith, C.J., and Wilson, I.B.. 1991. Effect of irrigation and nitrogen fertilizer on yield, oil content, nitrogen accumulation and water use of canola. Fertilizer Resources Institute. J. Fertilizer Use Technologies 29(3):249–260.Google Scholar
20.Weber, J.A., Myers, R.L., and Minor, H.C.. 1991. Canola: A promising oilseed. Agricultural Guide, Pub. G 4280. Univ. of Missouri-Columbia Extension Service, Columbia.Google Scholar
21.Worm, D., and Pauley, V. (eds). 1994. 1994 Field crops: Acreage, yield, production and value, Missouri, 1989–1993. In 1994 Missouri Farm Facts. Missouri Agric. Statistics Service, Univ. of Missouri-Columbia Extension Service, Columbia, p. 16.Google Scholar