Abstract
Increasing numbers of dairies in northeastern United States are classified as confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs). Many dairy farmers in New York (NY) abandoned conventional and adopted zone tillage (ZT) in 4‐yr corn ( Zea mays L.) silage‐alfalfa ( Medicago sativa L.) rotations on highly erodible land to comply with NY CAFO plans. Farmers now question optimum ZT depth because of increased diesel costs. The objective of this 2‐yr NY study was to determine optimum ZT depth for corn silage in continuous corn and first‐year corn following alfalfa. The ZT depth (with attached Aerway implement), evaluated at 0, 18, and 36 cm, did not affect surface residue (∼34%), plant densities (71,605–73,998 plants ha −1 ), and dry matter (DM) accumulation at the 12th leaf stage (334–365 g m −2 ). Significant contrasts were observed between 18 vs. 0 cm for DM yield (19.9 and 18.7 Mg ha −1 ) and N uptake (236 and 219 kg ha −1 , respectively), but not between 18 vs. 36 cm (19.7 Mg ha −1 and 237 kg ha −1 ).The ZT depth did not affect silage quality. Partial budget analyses indicate that reducing ZT depth from 36 to 18 cm increases profit by ∼$30 ha −1 because of decreased labor ($1.48 ha −1 ), fuel ($5.88 ha −1 ), and equipment repair and maintenance costs ($3.01 ha −1 ) and increased return from higher yield ($21.98 ha −1 , offset by $2.57 ha −1 increased harvest cost). We recommend an 18‐cm ZT depth for corn silage in a 4‐yr corn silage‐alfalfa rotation on silt loam soils in northeastern United States.
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.
Claims 8
Claim · model-written summary
Zone tillage depth did not affect surface residue, plant density or dry matter accumulation.
- Taxon
- Corn
Zea mays subsp. mayst0 - Treatment
- ZT depthe0
- Outcome
- surface residuee0
- Direction
- did not affecte0
- Comparator
- 0, 18, and 36 cme0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The ZT depth (with attached Aerway implement), evaluated at 0, 18, and 36 cm, did not affect surface residue (∼34%), plant densities (71,605–73,998 plants ha −1 ), and dry matter (DM) accumulation at the 12th leaf stage (334–365 g m −2 )”
t0“Corn”
Claim · model-written summary
At 18 cm, dry matter yield exceeded 0 cm significantly.
- Taxon
- CornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- 18e0
- Outcome
- DM yielde0
- Direction
- higherinferrede0
- Value
- 19.9 and 18.7 Mg ha −1e0
- Comparator
- 0 cme0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Significant contrasts were observed between 18 vs. 0 cm for DM yield (19.9 and 18.7 Mg ha −1 ) and N uptake (236 and 219 kg ha −1 , respectively)”
t0“Corn”
Claim · model-written summary
At 18 cm, nitrogen uptake exceeded 0 cm significantly.
- Taxon
- CornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- 18e0
- Outcome
- N uptakee0
- Direction
- higherinferrede0
- Value
- 236 and 219 kg ha −1e0
- Comparator
- 0 cme0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Significant contrasts were observed between 18 vs. 0 cm for DM yield (19.9 and 18.7 Mg ha −1 ) and N uptake (236 and 219 kg ha −1 , respectively)”
t0“Corn”
Claim · model-written summary
Dry matter yield did not differ significantly between 18 and 36 cm.
- Taxon
- CornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- 18e0
- Outcome
- DM yielde0
- Direction
- not betweene0
- Qualifier
- 19.7 Mg ha −1e0
- Comparator
- 36 cme0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“DM yield (19.9 and 18.7 Mg ha −1 ) and N uptake (236 and 219 kg ha −1 , respectively), but not between 18 vs. 36 cm (19.7 Mg ha −1 and 237 kg ha −1 )”
t0“Corn”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen uptake did not differ significantly between 18 and 36 cm.
- Taxon
- CornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- 18e0
- Outcome
- N uptakee0
- Direction
- not betweene0
- Qualifier
- 237 kg ha −1e0
- Comparator
- 36 cme0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“DM yield (19.9 and 18.7 Mg ha −1 ) and N uptake (236 and 219 kg ha −1 , respectively), but not between 18 vs. 36 cm (19.7 Mg ha −1 and 237 kg ha −1 )”
t0“Corn”
Claim · model-written summary
Zone tillage depth did not affect silage quality.
- Taxon
- CornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- ZT depthe0
- Outcome
- silage qualitye0
- Direction
- did not affecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The ZT depth did not affect silage quality”
t0“Corn”
Claim · model-written summary
Reducing zone tillage depth from 36 to 18 cm increased profit by about $30 per hectare.
- Taxon
- CornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- 18 cme0
- Outcome
- profite0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Value
- ∼$30 ha −1e0
- Comparator
- 36e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“reducing ZT depth from 36 to 18 cm increases profit by ∼$30 ha −1”
t0“Corn”
Claim · model-written summary
An 18 cm zone tillage depth is recommended for corn silage in a four year rotation on silt loam soils.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Outcome
- 18‐cm ZT depthe0
- Setting
- northeastern United Statese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“We recommend an 18‐cm ZT depth for corn silage in a 4‐yr corn silage‐alfalfa rotation on silt loam soils in northeastern United States”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · quality: general · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 13 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
14 papers more in this group
See all 18 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.