Abstract
Winter annual cover crop use is limited in conservation management systems in the United States. Grazing cover crops could encourage cover crop adoption if returns offset establishment costs without reducing crop yields. A 4‐yr field experiment was conducted near Watkinsville, GA, in which a rye ( Secale cereale L.) cover crop was grazed by cattle or roller‐crimped before planting cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.). Cattle consumed about 2.4 Mg ha −1 of forage annually but amounts were variable due to weather conditions. Rye residue remaining at cotton planting averaged 6.7 Mg ha −1 for non‐grazed compared with 1.7 Mg ha −1 for grazed treatments. Cotton yields tended to be better in the non‐grazed treatment but were significantly different only in 2009 when yields were reduced in the grazed treatment due to soil compaction. Four‐year average lint yield was 120 kg ha −1 greater for the non‐grazed treatment. Cotton fiber quality parameters were generally better in the non‐grazed treatment but not enough to change crop price. Differences between grazed and non‐grazed returns ranged from $–26 to $355 and averaged $81 ha −1 when based on market year prices. The difference in average return increased to $110 ha −1 when based on 2012 market year prices. Although negative effects of soil compaction were observed the final year, returns from grazing have the potential to offset establishment costs of a rye cover crop and increase profits for cotton producers in the Southern Piedmont of the 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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Cattle consumed about 2.4 Mg ha-1 of rye forage annually, with amounts varying by weather.
- Taxon
- rye
Secale cerealee0 - Treatment
- grazed by cattlee0
- Outcome
- Cattle consumede1
- Value
- 2.4 Mg ha −1e1
- Setting
- near Watkinsville, GAe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“A 4‐yr field experiment was conducted near Watkinsville, GA, in which a rye ( Secale cereale L.) cover crop was grazed by cattle or roller‐crimped before planting cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.)”
e1“Cattle consumed about 2.4 Mg ha −1 of forage annually but amounts were variable due to weather conditions”
Claim · model-written summary
Rye residue remaining at cotton planting was lower in grazed treatments (1.7 Mg ha −1) than in non-grazed treatments (6.7 Mg ha −1).
- Taxon
- RyeSecale cerealee2
- Treatment
- grazed treatmentse2
- Outcome
- Rye residue remaining at cotton plantinge2
- Direction
- lowerinferrede2
- Value
- 6.7 Mg ha −1e2
- Qualifier
- 1.7 Mg ha −1e2
- Comparator
- non‐grazede2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“Rye residue remaining at cotton planting averaged 6.7 Mg ha −1 for non‐grazed compared with 1.7 Mg ha −1 for grazed treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton yields tended to be better in the non-grazed treatment than in the grazed treatment.
- Taxon
- Cotton
Gossypium hirsutume3 - Treatment
- grazed treatmente3
- Outcome
- yieldse3
- Direction
- bettere3
- Qualifier
- tendede3
- Comparator
- non‐grazed treatmente3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“Cotton yields tended to be better in the non‐grazed treatment but were significantly different only in 2009 when yields were reduced in the grazed treatment due to soil compaction”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton yields were significantly reduced in the grazed treatment in 2009 due to soil compaction.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutume3
- Treatment
- grazed treatmente3
- Outcome
- yieldse3
- Direction
- reducede3
- Qualifier
- due to soil compactione3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“Cotton yields tended to be better in the non‐grazed treatment but were significantly different only in 2009 when yields were reduced in the grazed treatment due to soil compaction”
Claim · model-written summary
Four-year average cotton lint yield was 120 kg ha-1 greater in the non-grazed treatment.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- grazed by cattlee0
- Outcome
- lint yielde4
- Direction
- greatere4
- Value
- 120 kg ha −1e4
- Comparator
- non‐grazed treatmente4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“A 4‐yr field experiment was conducted near Watkinsville, GA, in which a rye ( Secale cereale L.) cover crop was grazed by cattle or roller‐crimped before planting cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.)”
e4“Four‐year average lint yield was 120 kg ha −1 greater for the non‐grazed treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton fiber quality parameters were generally better in the non-grazed treatment, but the difference was not large enough to change crop price.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- grazed by cattlee0
- Outcome
- fiber quality parameterse5
- Direction
- bettere5
- Qualifier
- not enough to change crop pricee5
- Comparator
- non‐grazed treatmente5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“A 4‐yr field experiment was conducted near Watkinsville, GA, in which a rye ( Secale cereale L.) cover crop was grazed by cattle or roller‐crimped before planting cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.)”
e5“Cotton fiber quality parameters were generally better in the non‐grazed treatment but not enough to change crop price”
Claim · model-written summary
The average difference between grazed and non-grazed returns was $81 per ha based on market year prices.
- Taxon
- RyeSecale cerealet0
- Treatment
- grazede6
- Outcome
- returnse6
- Direction
- higherinferrede6
- Value
- $81 ha −1e6
- Qualifier
- when based on market year pricese6
- Comparator
- non‐grazede6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grazing Winter Rye Cover Crop in a Cotton No‐Till System: Yield and Economics”
e6“Differences between grazed and non‐grazed returns ranged from $–26 to $355 and averaged $81 ha −1 when based on market year prices”
Claim · model-written summary
Differences between grazed and non-grazed returns ranged from -$26 to $355 per ha.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grazing Winter Rye Cover Crop in a Cotton No‐Till System: Yield and Economics”
e6“Differences between grazed and non‐grazed returns ranged from $–26 to $355 and averaged $81 ha −1 when based on market year prices”
Claim · model-written summary
The difference in average return increased to $110 per ha based on 2012 market year prices.
- Taxon
- RyeSecale cerealet0
- Outcome
- difference in average returne7
- Direction
- increasede7
- Value
- $110 ha −1e7
- Qualifier
- 2012 market year pricese7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grazing Winter Rye Cover Crop in a Cotton No‐Till System: Yield and Economics”
e7“The difference in average return increased to $110 ha −1 when based on 2012 market year prices”
Claim · model-written summary
Negative effects of soil compaction from grazing were observed in the final year of the experiment.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume1
- Treatment
- grazinge1
- Outcome
- negative effects of soil compactione1
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Although negative effects of soil compaction were observed the final year, returns from grazing have the potential to offset establishment costs of a rye cover crop and increase profits for cotton producers in the Southern Piedmont of the United States”
Claim · model-written summary
Returns from grazing have the potential to offset establishment costs of a rye cover crop and to increase profits for cotton producers.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume1
- Outcome
- offset establishment costs of a rye cover crope1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Although negative effects of soil compaction were observed the final year, returns from grazing have the potential to offset establishment costs of a rye cover crop and increase profits for cotton producers in the Southern Piedmont of the United States”
The same questions in other papers
grazing · quality: grain · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results differ
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- no effect
grazing · yield · Secale cereale (rye)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
grazing · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 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.