Tillage and Cover Crop Impacts on Economics of Cotton Production in Tennessee

Cover crops have the potential to increase ecosystem services of cropping systems, although mixed results have been found throughout the U.S. Great Plains. Crop performance and economic returns are often used by producers to gauge the feasibility of adoption. In addition, soil moisture use by cover crops is a concern in semiarid environments. The objective of this research was to determine the impact of cover crops on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) yield and economic return compared with conventional practices in pivot irrigated systems of the southern Great Plains. A 6-yr study was conducted at the Texas A&M AgriLife Chillicothe Research Station evaluating the following treatments: (i) conventional till (CT); (ii) no-till (NT); (iii) NT with winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cover crop (NT-W); and (iv) NT with a multi-species cover crop mixture (NT-M). Cotton yields, expenses, and returns were determined over a 6-yr period (2013-2018). No significant treatment effect was determined for crop yield. Compared to NT, lint yields were increased 9.5% by NT-M and 9.4% by NT-W. Cover crop treatments significantly increased total costs compared to NT. However, net returns were 12% greater for NT-W and 8% greater for NT-M compared to NT. Over the 6-yr study, NT-M did not provide an agronomic or economic advantage over NT-W. Under irrigated conditions in the southern Great Plains, cover crops were implemented without negatively affecting lint yield or net returns in continuous cotton systems at seeding rates of 34 kg ha -1 .

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cover crop impact on irrigated cotton yield and net return in the southern Great Plains

DeLaune¹,

Mubvumba²,

Fan³

et al. 2020

“…Roberts, Larson, Tyler, Duck, and Dillivan (1998) found out that cover crop adoption reduced net return due to the establishment cost of cover crops. Zhou, Larson, Boyer, Roberts, and Tyler (2017) found out that cover crops may reduce net return of cotton production without considering N fertilizer. However, when the cost savings from N fertilizer were considered, cover crops could raise profitibility.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Net return and risk analysis of winter cover crops in dryland cotton systems

Fan¹,

Liu

DeLaune³

et al. 2020

Winter cover crop and no-till are two promising conservation practices to reduce soil erosion and promote long-term sustainability. This research evaluates the net returns of two different tillage methods and five cover crop treatments in dryland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) production and identifies risk-efficient tillage and cover crop management practices. Four-year field experiments (2013−2016) were conducted for a continuous cotton production system under conventional tillage and no-till without a cover crop, as well as no-till with cover crops including winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), crimson clover (Trifolium incarnatum L.), Austrian winter field pea (Pisum sativum L.), hairy vetch (Vicia villosa Roth), and mixed cover crops. Results showed no statistical differences in lint yields (P = .98) or net returns (P = .82). No-till with crimson clover decreased yield variation compared to conventional tillage, while hairy vetch and mixed cover crops increased yield variation. The average net returns were US$454 and $461 ha −1 for conventional tillage and no-till without a cover crop, respectively. The average net returns ranged from $346 to $389 ha −1 for the cover crop treatments. Producers have a higher probability of getting a higher net return if switching from conventional tillage to no-till. The risk analysis results showed that no-till without a cover crop was the most preferred practice by risk-neutral, somewhat and rather risk-averse producers. For very and extremely risk-averse producers, no-till with crimson clover was the most preferred management practice.

“…Studies have reviewed the adoption of NT in the United States (Prokopy et al., ; Ranjan, Church, Floress, & Prokopy, ) and concluded that NT resulted in improvements in soil properties, greater cropping intensity, and higher crop productivity (Hansen, Allen, Baumhardt, & Lyon, ; Wallace et al., ). Agronomic and economic influences of cover crop adoption have been evaluated in studies of different cropping systems (Lewis et al., ; Schomberg et al., ; Zhou, Larson, Boyer, Roberts, & Tyler, ). The outcomes of these studies varied across regions and were affected by other farm practices, such as fertilizer application and crop rotation (Marcillo & Miguez, ; Miguez & Bollero, ; Ranjan et al., ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Based on a long‐term cotton experiment with various winter cover crops (wheat, hairy vetch [ Vicia villosa L.], and crimson clover [ Trifolium incarnatum L.]) and tillage treatments (till vs. NT) in Tennessee, Zhou et al. () found that the net returns were greater for NT cotton production using hairy vetch, followed by NT with crimson clover.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…winter cover crops (wheat, hairy vetch [Vicia villosa L.], and crimson clover [Trifolium incarnatum L.]) and tillage treatments (till vs. NT) in Tennessee, Zhou et al (2017) found that the net returns were greater for NT cotton production using hairy vetch, followed by NT with crimson clover. Producers are risk-averse with different levels of risk aversion and have different preferences for tillage and cover crops (Carlisle, 2016).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Economic analysis of adopting no‐till and cover crops in irrigated cotton production under risk

Fan¹,

Liu

DeLaune³

et al. 2020

Adoption of soil conservation practices has been promoted to improve environmental and economic benefits across the United States. These practices are especially necessary for soil health improvement in the Southern High Plains where soils are prone to erosion and agricultural irrigation relies heavily on groundwater. Winter cover crops and no‐till cropping are two conservation practices for reducing soil erosion, but producers might face additional risks associated with adopting these practices. The objective of this study was to examine the profitability and risks associated with alternative tillage and cover crops (no cover crop, winter wheat [Triticum asestivum L.], and grass–legume mixture) for irrigated cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Using data from a 6‐yr field experiment, net return distributions of each production system were evaluated and ranked across various risk aversion levels. The results showed that the average net returns were $1040 and $1049 ha−1 for conventionally tilled and no‐till cotton without a cover crop, while the net returns were $1121 and $1075 ha−1 for no‐till cotton with wheat and mixed cover crops, respectively. Producers adopting cover crops had a greater probability of getting a middle interval of net returns between $760 and $1370 ha−1. The results of risk analysis show that risk‐neutral and slightly risk‐averse producers prefer no‐till cotton production with wheat cover, while no‐till with mixed and wheat cover are the first and second most preferred systems for very and extremely risk‐averse producers. Sensitivity analysis confirms consistent profit effects of cover crops and no‐till adoption at multiple cotton price levels.