The effect of companion crops and herbicides on economic returns of alfalfa-bromegrass establishment

Abstract

. 1997. The effect of companion crops and herbicides on economic returns of alfalfa-bromegrass establishment. Can J. Plant Sci. 77: 231-235. In moist regions and under irrigation in western Canada, there may be an economic advantage to using companion crops in forage establishment. Economic returns of establishing a mixture of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) and bromegrass (Bromus spp.) were determined with and without a companion crop of barley grain and silage (Hordeum vulgare L.) and with and without post-emergence herbicides at Westlock, Alberta under dryland, and with and without a companion crop of soft white spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and with and without post emergence herbicides at Lethbridge, Alberta under irrigation conditions. The yearly economic benefit of companion crops was greater on irrigation than on dryland ($15 to $27 ha -1 ), higher for companion crops harvested for silage than for grain ($55 to $75 ha -1 ), and was dependent on the price of forage and grain. On dryland with medium product price levels, economic returns were 100% higher for a barley silage companion crop, and were 14% lower for a barley grain companion crop than without a companion crop. At high hay prices, returns for the barley silage companion crop were 5% higher than without a companion crop. On irrigation, the yearly economic returns with a companion crop were higher ($23 to $139 ha -1 ) than without a companion crop. The use of post-emergence herbicides had no long-term economic benefit for forage establishment and reduced yearly net returns $13 ha -1 on dryland and $41 ha -1 on irrigation. A Lethbridge, l'expérience était conduite sous irrigation et la culture-abri utilisée était le blé blanc mou de printemps (Triticum aestivum L.) Les avantages économiques annuels des cultures-abri étaient plus prononcés en régime irrigué qu'en culture sèche (15 à 27 $ ha de plus) ainsi que lorsque la culture-abri était récoltée comme ensilage plutôt qu'à maturité (55 à 75 $ ha -1 de plus), tout dépendant du prix des fourrages et du grain. En culture sèche, avec des prix du produit moyen le rendement économique était 100 % plus élevé avec culture-abri d'orge récoltée pour ensilage et 14 % plus bas avec une culture-abri d'orge récoltée à maturité que sans culture-abri. Lorsque le prix du foin était plus fort, le rendement économique lié à l'utilisation d'une culture-abri pour ensilage était de 5 % supérieur à celui du système sans culture-abri. En régime irrigué, le rendement économique annuel avec culture-abri était plus élevé (23 à 139 $ ha -1 de plus) que sans culture-abri. L'emploi d'herbicides de postlevée ne produisait pas d'avantages économiques à long terme pour l'installation de la prairie et réduisait le rendement net annuel de 13 $ ha -1 en culture sèche et de 41 $ en régime irrigué.Mots clés: Culture-abri, installation de culture fourragère, économie, herbicide Companion crops are often used when establishing forages, but the current recommendation for the Canadian prairies is not to use companion crops, especially u...

Establishment of Irrigated Timothy for Forage Production in Saskatchewan

“…Wheat or barley at the recommended seeding rate will permit acceptable timothy establishment. This result is consistent with previous results for other forage species grown on irrigation (Jefferson and Zentner, 1994; Smith et al, 1997) and at moister sites in Saskatchewan (Waddington and Bittman, 1983)…”

“…This has resulted in the establishment of irrigated timothy fields in the Outlook, SK region without any companion crops in recent years (Coulman, unpublished data, 2000). Harvesting the cereal companion crop for silage or hay was not evaluated in our study, but it might have the potential to provide higher establishment‐year returns than direct‐seeding (Smith et al, 1997) while avoiding volunteer cereal crop contamination of the subsequent timothy hay. Oat and canola ( Brassica napus L.) are possible companion crops that avoid the restriction on the presence of Hessian‐fly host plants in the hay (Canadian Hay Assoc., 1999).…”

“…Companion crops are not recommended in the drier regions of Saskatchewan because of the significant reductions in subsequent forage yield (Kilcher and Heinrichs, 1960) However, cereal companion crops have been used in the moister regions of the province with minimal reductions in subsequent forage yield (Waddington and Bittman, 1983) Irrigation increased the forage seedling growth when seeded with barley and wheat companion crops (Janson and Knight, 1973) Companion crops under irrigation in the prairie region of Canada provided a greater economic return than direct‐seeded forages in the year of forage establishment (Jefferson and Zentner, 1994; Smith et al, 1997).…”

Potential of Forages to Diversify Cropping Systems in the Northern Great Plains

“…Most forages in the NGP are seeded with a companion crop (Entz et al, 1995). Companion crops tend to reduce forage establishment and reduce first‐year forage yields and sometimes even second‐year forage yields (Smith et al, 1997). However, despite the loss in forage yield potential from companion crops, most workers agree that use of companion crops is economical.…”

“…However, despite the loss in forage yield potential from companion crops, most workers agree that use of companion crops is economical. For example, working in Alberta, Smith et al (1997) concluded that companion crops for alfalfa establishment significantly enhanced economic performance over 3 yr compared with where no companion crop was used, especially when the companion crop was removed early (as silage). Jefferson and Zentner (1994) concluded that forage yield would have to be negatively affected by companion crops for 2 yr after forage establishment to be less profitable than establishment without a companion crop.…”