Integrating Cotton and Beef Production in the Texas Southern High Plains: I. Water Use and Measures of Productivity

Allen, V. G.; Brown, Claire; Kellison, Rick; Green, P.; Zilverberg, Cody J.; Johnson, Phillip N.; Weinheimer, Justin; Wheeler, T.; Segarra, Eduardo; Acosta-Martínez, Verónica; Zobeck, Ted M.; Conkwright, J. C.

doi:10.2134/agronj2012.0121

Cited by 45 publications

(78 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Franzluebbers et al 2014), reduced inputs of fertilizers (e.g. Poccard-Chapuis et al 2014) and pesticides (Tracy & Zhang 2008), increased soil carbon (Allen et al 2012), and potential to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and help farmers adapt to drought (Franzluebbers et al 2014). Integrated systems can also increase profits for farmers through reduced costs (e.g.…”

Section: Integrated Crop and Livestock Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecological and economic benefits of integrating sheep into viticulture production

Niles

Garrett

Walsh

2017

Agron. Sustain. Dev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The integration of crop and livestock systems has been recognized for its potential to reduce the environmental impacts associated with agriculture and improve farmer livelihoods. However, to date, most research has focused on the integration of cattle into crop and pasture systems. Here we examine the integration of sheep into vineyards and assess farmers' perceived benefits and costs of the practice. Viticulture expansion has led to significant land use change in recent years and new environmental challenges, particularly with respect to herbicide use. Sheep integration into vineyards offers the potential to utilize the synergies of both systems to reduce external inputs, promote soil health, and increase farmer profit. Our study focuses in New Zealand, the world's 15 th largest wine producer, particularly in Marlborough, which produces 75% of the country's wine. As a result, the case study is an excellent representation of New Zealand viticulture, while also providing unique insights into a novel practice. Using a semi-structured interview and survey, we interviewed fifteen farmers representing five percent of 2 total New Zealand wine production to examine ecological and economic benefits of sheep integration in viticulture systems. We find that seasonal integration of sheep during vine dormancy is common, while integration during the growing season is rare. Overall, farmers perceive significantly more benefits than challenges with the integration of sheep into vineyards, particularly reduced mowing (100% of farmers) and herbicide use (66% of farmers). On average, farmers reported 1.3 fewer herbicide applications annually, saving US$ $56 per hectare. As well, farmers indicated they were doing 2.2 fewer mows annually saving US$ $64 per hectare. These results suggest that wide-scale adoption of seasonal integration of sheep and viticulture can provide large ecological benefits and higher profitability vis-à-vis conventional viticulture practices; however, further integration of the two systems may provide even greater benefits not currently realized.

show abstract

Section: Integrated Crop and Livestock Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecological and economic benefits of integrating sheep into viticulture production

Niles

Garrett

Walsh

2017

Agron. Sustain. Dev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The vitality of the Ogallala in the SHP of Texas is threatened, since extraction rates of ~300 mm yr −1 greatly exceed the annual estimated recharge rate of 15 mm (HPWD, 2014). Allen et al (2012) demonstrated the success of perennial forage grasses with zero to very limited irrigation in the semiarid SHP when integrated into annual cropping systems. Integrating intensive forage-livestock systems in the southern Ogallala Aquifer region can potentially extend the economic life of irrigated crop production (Allen et al, 2005).…”

Section: Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Information on the water footprint of pasture-based beef production is useful for optimizing the allocation of groundwater to crop and livestock production. Warm-season grass pastures in the SHP cannot meet the nutritional demands (particularly protein) of growing steers without supplementation (Allen et al, 2012;Baxter et al, 2017). This method combines blue, green, and gray water into a single value to represent the water consumed.…”

Section: Stocker Beef Production On Low-water-inputmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stocker Beef Production on Low‐Water‐Input Systems in Response to Legume Inclusion: II. Water Footprint

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Information on the water footprint of pasture‐based beef production is useful for optimizing the allocation of groundwater to crop and livestock production. The objective of this research was to determine the effect of including legumes on three water footprints of grass‐based, beef stocker grazing systems with respect to observed and total (observed plus predicted from hay production) liveweight gain (LWG). Water inputs for the calculations included total or effective rainfall, total or corrected drip irrigation, and water directly consumed by the steers. When including rainfall in the calculation, water footprints were 16.2 to 40.5 vs. 1.7 to 8.6 m3 kg−1 LWG when including groundwater only. Inclusion of legumes into the system reduced each water footprint with respect to observed LWG in all years (P ≤ 0.01). When total LWG was considered, the water footprint was lower in the grass‐legume system if rainfall (total or effective) was included (P < 0.01) but greater if the evaluation was restricted to irrigation and drinking water as inputs (P < 0.01). Overall, including legumes reduced the water footprint of beef LWG, largely because of greater rates of gain from the greater quality forages. Quantifying water use in the stocker phase adds a missing component in evaluating limited resources in the beef production life cycle. Managing legumes in mixture with warm‐season grasses and as a protein bank can increase the efficiency of beef grazing systems, resulting in an overall lower water footprint for animal weight gain.

show abstract

“…Allen et al. (, ) advocated for integrating forage‐based livestock production as a complement to annual row‐crop production in the SHP to prolong the useful capacity of the aquifer while maintaining the economic viability of agriculture.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Row spacing of alfalfa interseeded into native grass pasture influences soil‐plant‐water relations

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interseeding alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) can improve forage quality of grasslands by adding a high‐protein species, but this runs the risk of accelerating soil water depletion. The objective was to evaluate effects of cultivar and row spacing of alfalfa on soil water balance and plant water potentials (Ψ) of two upright‐type cultivars, NuMex Bill Melton and WL 440HQ, and a prostrate‐type Falcata‐Rhizoma blend, interseeded into native grasses in October 2015 near Lubbock, Texas. Alfalfa was interseeded at 36‐cm (narrow) and 71‐cm (wide) row spacings. Soil volumetric water content (VWC) and midday Ψstem and Ψleaf were measured weekly in 2017 and 2018 growing seasons. Soil VWC was not affected by alfalfa cultivars (P > .05), whereas alfalfa row spacings differed (P < .05). Narrow spacing caused lower (P < .05) VWC than wide spacing relative to the grass‐only control in both the upper 40‐ and 40‐ to 100‐cm layers of the soil. Wide‐row spacing had similar VWC to control in 2017 for both soil layers (P > .05). Soil water depletion increased with alfalfa crown density (r = .60, P < .05) in association with enhanced evapotranspiration and denser root mass below 30‐cm soil depth. Grass and alfalfa Ψstem and Ψleaf were depressed in narrow rows relative to wide rows and control, indicating that presence of alfalfa intensified competition with the grass for soil water. The wide‐row treatment seldom had adverse effects on grass water stress. Wide‐row spacing achieved a favorable compromise between enhanced water use and improved stand productivity.

show abstract

Integrating Cotton and Beef Production in the Texas Southern High Plains: I. Water Use and Measures of Productivity

Cited by 45 publications

References 27 publications

Ecological and economic benefits of integrating sheep into viticulture production

Ecological and economic benefits of integrating sheep into viticulture production

Stocker Beef Production on Low‐Water‐Input Systems in Response to Legume Inclusion: II. Water Footprint

Row spacing of alfalfa interseeded into native grass pasture influences soil‐plant‐water relations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About