No‐Till Systems for Corn following Hay or Pasture

Abstract

No‐till (NT) corn ( Zea mays L.) production following perennial forages can reduce soil loss and machinery and labor requirements; yet few farmers in the northern USA are using this practice. Research has indicated NT corn performs best when planted following fall‐killed perennials; yet most farmers who practice NT apply herbicides to perennials in the spring. The objective of this study was to compare two NT systems, fall‐kill NT and spring‐kill NT, with farmers' current tillage (CT) systems, which included either chisel or moldboard plowing. Farmer‐managed comparisons were made in field‐sized, replicated strip tests on silt loam soils on six farms in 1988 and 1989. Variables measured were percentage residue cover after planting, harvest plant populations, and grain moisture and yields. Residue cover averaged 13, 53, and 72% for CT, fall‐kill NT, and spring‐kill NT, respectively. Spring‐kill NT, compared with CT and fall‐kill NT, resulted in reduced plant populations at three of six farms and 3% higher average grain moisture. Fall‐kill NT produced yields equal to, or higher than, CT and spring‐kill NT at all farms. Averaged over all farms, production costs per bushel were lowest for fall‐kill NT, intermediate for CT, and highest for spring‐kill NT. Despite these advantages, use of fall‐kill NT may be limited by (i) farmers' preferences for evaluating hay stands in the spring, before deciding where to plant corn; (ii) fall grazing needs; (iii) minimum requirements for crop residue cover after corn planting; and (iv) shortage of labor in the fall. Research Question Most producers who plant no‐till following perennial forage species apply herbicides to kill perennials in the spring, rather than the fall. Farmers have not made side‐by‐side on‐farm comparisons of corn planted no‐till following spring‐killed and fall‐killed perennials to evaluate relative yields, management challenges, and economics. The objective of this study was to compare two no‐till systems (fall‐kill no‐till and spring‐kill no‐till) with farmers' current tillage systems, which included either chisel or moldboard plowing. Literature Summary Growers' major concern about planting corn no‐till into perennial forages is the application timing and efficacy of herbicides to control perennials. Previous research has indicated that split herbicide treatments, either in the fall or early spring and at planting, were needed to completely control perennial vegetation. No‐till systems using fall Roundup (glyphosate) applications have consistently resulted in yields comparable to those with moldboard plowing. Results for corn planted no‐till with spring‐kill of perennials have been inconsistent, with performance highly dependent on spring rainfall. Study Description Farmer‐managed comparisons were made on silt loam soils on six Wisconsin farms in 1988 and 1989. Treatments: Fall‐kill no‐till (Glyphosate applied to kill perennial species in the fall) Spring‐kill no‐till (Glyphosate or atrazine applied to kill perennial species in the spring) Current tillage (Fall or spring chisel or moldboard plowing) Additional weed control, soil fertility, insect control, hybrids, and other cultural practices varied with farms but were similar within sites for the three tillage systems. Applied Questions Which no‐till system (fall‐ or spring‐kill) resulted in best performance? No‐till corn planted following spring‐kill of perennial forage vegetation resulted in greatest residue cover after planting (Table ), which probably would provide best soil erosion control. But spring‐kill no‐till resulted in inconsistent weed control, variable plant stands and corn growth, and reduced average yields compared with growers' current tillage systems (Table ). With fall‐kill no‐till, weed control was effective and grain yields were always comparable to, or greater than, current tillage systems. Average corn production cost per bushel was lowest for fall‐kill no‐till, intermediate for current tillage systems, and highest for spring‐kill no‐till. Given these production advantages, why have few farmers adopted fall‐kill no‐till for corn following forage perennials? Fall‐kill no‐till requires growers to use a fixed crop rotation schedule, with the decision to rotate to corn made the previous fall. Growers prefer to assess forage crop winter survival in the spring as a basis for crop rotation plans. Other constraints, such as the need for fall grazing and labor shortages at corn harvest time, may prevent fall herbicide applications. In addition, crop residue cover from fall‐killed vegetation, as low as 30% after planting (Table ), may not provide adequate soil erosion control on steep slopes. Average residue cover after planting, plant populations at harvest, grain yield, and production cost for corn grown under three tillage systems at six farms. Tillage system Residue cover Harvest population Grain yield Production cost ‐‐‐‐ % ‐‐‐‐ plants/acre × 1000 bu/acre ‐‐‐‐‐ $/bu ‐‐‐‐ Current tillage 13 22 114 2.42 (4–40) (18–26) (62–163) (1.25–3.88) Fall‐kill no‐till 53 23 120 2.30 (30–67) (19–26) (74–162) (1.29–3.64) Spring‐kill no‐till 72 21 98 4.68 (57–89) (15–29) (20–176) (1.21–11.80) Range of values across six farms.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.