Abstract
Conventional tillage (CT) continues to be used on the vast majority of land seeded to monoculture winter wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.) in the Southern Plains of the United States. In the region, wheat can be grown for either grain‐only, forage‐only, or for both fall–winter forage + grain (dual‐purpose). This study was conducted to determine the net returns of five alternative wheat production systems, for both CT and no‐till (NT). The five production systems included one for forage‐only, two for dual‐purpose (fall–winter grazing + grain) with different planting dates, one grain‐only, and one forage‐only double cropped with foxtail millet [ Setaria italica (L.) Beauv.]. The field research was conducted on three farm fields for 3 yr. Average wheat grain yields were greater with CT, whereas average fall wheat forage yields were significantly greater on the NT plots. Wheat hay and millet hay yields were not significantly different across tillage systems. Economic analysis was conducted for both a machinery complement sized for a 260‐ha farm and a machinery complement sized for a 1036‐ha farm. For both farm sizes and both tillage systems, the early‐September‐planted dual‐purpose system (ESD) produced the greatest net returns. For the 260‐ha farm, CT produced greater net returns than NT for each of the five production systems. Conventional tillage also produced greater economic returns for the three systems that included grain harvest for the 1036‐ha farm. However, for the larger farm size, NT generated greater net returns for both total forage systems.
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
Conventional tillage gave greater average wheat grain yields than no-till.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Treatment
- CTe0
- Outcome
- wheat grain yieldse0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- NTe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Average wheat grain yields were greater with CT”
e1“for both CT and no‐till (NT)”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till gave significantly greater average fall wheat forage yields.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- NTe0
- Outcome
- fall wheat forage yieldse0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- CTe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“average fall wheat forage yields were significantly greater on the NT plots”
e1“for both CT and no‐till (NT)”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat hay yield did not differ significantly across tillage systems.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- tillage systemse0
- Outcome
- Wheat haye0
- Direction
- not significantly differente0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Wheat hay and millet hay yields were not significantly different across tillage systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Millet hay yield did not differ significantly across tillage systems.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Wheat hay and millet hay yields were not significantly different across tillage systems”
Claim · model-written summary
The early September dual-purpose system had the greatest net returns for both farm sizes and tillage systems.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- early‐September‐planted dual‐purpose systeme0
- Outcome
- greatest net returnse0
- Direction
- greateste0
- Qualifier
- both farm sizes and both tillage systemse0
Not reportedMaterial
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For both farm sizes and both tillage systems, the early‐September‐planted dual‐purpose system (ESD) produced the greatest net returns”
e1“wheat production systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage gave greater net returns than no-till in all five systems on the 260-ha farm.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- CTe0
- Outcome
- net returnse0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- NTe0
- Setting
- 260‐ha farme0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For the 260‐ha farm, CT produced greater net returns than NT for each of the five production systems”
e1“wheat production systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage gave greater returns for the three grain-harvest systems on the 1036-ha farm.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- Conventional tillagee0
- Outcome
- economic returnse0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Qualifier
- three systems that included grain harveste0
- Comparator
- NTe2
- Setting
- 1036‐ha farme0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Conventional tillage also produced greater economic returns for the three systems that included grain harvest for the 1036‐ha farm”
e1“wheat production systems”
e2“for both CT and no‐till (NT)”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till gave greater net returns for both total-forage systems on the larger farm.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- NTe0
- Outcome
- net returnse0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Qualifier
- both total forage systemse0
- Comparator
- CTe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“for the larger farm size, NT generated greater net returns for both total forage systems”
e1“wheat production systems”
e2“for both CT and no‐till (NT)”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · organism · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
18 papers in the same direction as this paper · 19 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
34 papers more in this group
See all 38 papers →tillage · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
1,115 papers in the same direction as this paper · 257 in the opposite direction · 41 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- positive
1,410 papers more in this group
See all 1,414 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.