Abstract
Abstract Integration of crops and livestock has the potential to provide a multitude of benefits to soil and water conservation and nutrient cycling efficiency, while reducing economic risk and increasing profitability. We conducted a field study from May 2002 to October 2005 to determine crop and cattle responses to three management factors on a Typic Kanhapludult in Georgia, USA. Summer grain/winter cover [sorghum ( Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) or corn ( Zea mays L.)/rye ( Secale cereale L.)] and winter grain/summer cover [wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.)/pearl millet ( Pennisetum glaucum L. R. Br.)] were managed with either conventional tillage (CT) or no tillage (NT) and with or without cattle grazing of cover crops. All crops were successfully established, irrespective of tillage and cover crop management. Although pearl millet was often lower in the plant stand with NT than with CT, plants compensated with greater biomass on an area basis. Across years, grain yield of sorghum (1.9 Mg ha −1 during three seasons) and corn (7.3 Mg ha −1 in one season) was 25% greater under NT than under CT when the cover crop was not grazed. Wheat grain yield (2.7 Mg ha −1 during three seasons) was unaffected by tillage and cover crop management. Unharvested stover production of summer grain crops was greater with NT than with CT (6.5 versus 4.1 Mg ha −1 ; P <0.001). Grazing rye rather than allowing it to accumulate as surface residue reduced summer grain yield 23% and reduced standing grain-crop dry matter 26% under NT, but had no effect under CT. In contrast, grazing pearl millet rather than allowing it to accumulate as surface residue increased wheat standing dry matter yield by 25±14% (mean±standard deviation among 3 years and two tillage systems). Ungrazed cover crop production was greater under NT than under CT for rye (7.0 versus 6.0 Mg ha −1 ; P =0.03) and pearl millet (10.2 versus 7.6 Mg ha −1 ; P =0.01). Calf daily gain was either greater or tended to be greater under NT than under CT on rye (2.27 versus 2.09 kg head −1 d −1 ; P =0.15) and pearl millet (2.05 versus 1.81 kg head −1 d −1 ; P =0.05). Total cattle gain per grazing season was either greater or tended to be greater with NT than with CT on rye (350 versus 204 kg ha −1 ; P =0.01) and pearl millet (324 versus 277 kg ha −1 ; P =0.15). Net return over variable costs was greater with grazing than without grazing of cover crops (US$302 versus −US$63 ha −1 ; P <0.001). Livestock grazing of cover crops had variable effects on subsequent crop production, but increased economic return and diversity overall. Therefore, an integrated crop–livestock production system with conservation tillage is recommended as a viable option for producers to diversify farming operations to avoid risk, improve ecological production of crops, and potentially avoid environmental damage from soil erosion and nutrient loss.
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 20
Claim · model-written summary
All crops established successfully regardless of tillage and cover crop management.
Verbatim
e0“All crops were successfully established, irrespective of tillage and cover crop management.”
Claim · model-written summary
Pearl millet often had a lower stand under no tillage than conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- pearl millet
Cenchrus americanuse0 - Treatment
- NTe0
- Outcome
- plant stande0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Although pearl millet was often lower in the plant stand with NT than with CT”
Claim · model-written summary
Pearl millet compensated for its lower stand with greater area biomass.
- Taxon
- pearl milletCenchrus americanuse1
- Outcome
- biomass on an area basise0
- Direction
- greatere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“plants compensated with greater biomass on an area basis.”
e1“pearl millet ( Pennisetum glaucum L. R. Br.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Ungrazed-cover sorghum grain yield was 25% greater with no tillage than conventional tillage.
- Treatment
- NTe0
- Outcome
- grain yield of sorghume0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 25%e0
- Qualifier
- when the cover crop was not grazede0
- Comparator
- CTe0
SorghumOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grain yield of sorghum (1.9 Mg ha −1 during three seasons) and corn (7.3 Mg ha −1 in one season) was 25% greater under NT than under CT when the cover crop was not grazed.”
Claim · model-written summary
Ungrazed-cover corn grain yield was 25% greater with no tillage than conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- corn
Zea mays subsp. mayse0 - Treatment
- NTe0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 25%e0
- Qualifier
- when the cover crop was not grazede0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grain yield of sorghum (1.9 Mg ha −1 during three seasons) and corn (7.3 Mg ha −1 in one season) was 25% greater under NT than under CT when the cover crop was not grazed.”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat grain yield was unaffected by tillage and cover crop management.
- Taxon
- Wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Treatment
- tillage and cover crop managemente0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- unaffectede0
- Value
- 2.7 Mg ha −1e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Wheat grain yield (2.7 Mg ha −1 during three seasons) was unaffected by tillage and cover crop management.”
Claim · model-written summary
Unharvested stover production of summer grain crops was greater with no tillage than conventional tillage.
Verbatim
e0“Unharvested stover production of summer grain crops was greater with NT than with CT (6.5 versus 4.1 Mg ha −1 ; P <0.001).”
Claim · model-written summary
Grazing rye reduced subsequent summer grain yield by 23% under no tillage.
Verbatim
e0“Grazing rye rather than allowing it to accumulate as surface residue reduced summer grain yield 23% and reduced standing grain-crop dry matter 26% under NT, but had no effect under CT.”
Claim · model-written summary
Grazing rye reduced standing grain-crop dry matter by 26% under no tillage.
Verbatim
e0“Grazing rye rather than allowing it to accumulate as surface residue reduced summer grain yield 23% and reduced standing grain-crop dry matter 26% under NT, but had no effect under CT.”
Claim · model-written summary
Rye grazing had no effect on these summer grain measures under conventional tillage.
Verbatim
e0“Grazing rye rather than allowing it to accumulate as surface residue reduced summer grain yield 23% and reduced standing grain-crop dry matter 26% under NT, but had no effect under CT.”
Claim · model-written summary
Grazing pearl millet increased wheat standing dry matter yield by 25±14%.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- grazing pearl millete0
- Outcome
- wheat standing dry matter yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 25±14%e0
- Comparator
- allowing it to accumulate as surface residuee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grazing pearl millet rather than allowing it to accumulate as surface residue increased wheat standing dry matter yield by 25±14% (mean±standard deviation among 3 years and two tillage systems).”
Claim · model-written summary
Ungrazed rye cover crop production was greater with no tillage than conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- rye
Secale cerealee0 - Treatment
- NTe0
- Outcome
- cover crop productione0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 7.0 versus 6.0 Mg ha −1e0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Ungrazed cover crop production was greater under NT than under CT for rye (7.0 versus 6.0 Mg ha −1 ; P =0.03) and pearl millet (10.2 versus 7.6 Mg ha −1 ; P =0.01).”
Claim · model-written summary
Ungrazed pearl millet cover crop production was greater with no tillage than conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- pearl milletCenchrus americanuse0
- Treatment
- NTe0
- Outcome
- cover crop productione0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 10.2 versus 7.6 Mg ha −1e0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Ungrazed cover crop production was greater under NT than under CT for rye (7.0 versus 6.0 Mg ha −1 ; P =0.03) and pearl millet (10.2 versus 7.6 Mg ha −1 ; P =0.01).”
Claim · model-written summary
Calf daily gain on rye was greater or tended greater under no tillage.
- Taxon
- ryeSecale cerealee0
- Treatment
- NTe0
- Outcome
- Calf daily gaine0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 2.27 versus 2.09 kg head −1 d −1e0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Calf daily gain was either greater or tended to be greater under NT than under CT on rye (2.27 versus 2.09 kg head −1 d −1 ; P =0.15) and pearl millet (2.05 versus 1.81 kg head −1 d −1 ; P =0.05).”
Claim · model-written summary
Calf daily gain on pearl millet was greater or tended greater under no tillage.
- Taxon
- pearl milletCenchrus americanuse0
- Treatment
- NTe0
- Outcome
- Calf daily gaine0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 2.05 versus 1.81 kg head −1 d −1e0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Calf daily gain was either greater or tended to be greater under NT than under CT on rye (2.27 versus 2.09 kg head −1 d −1 ; P =0.15) and pearl millet (2.05 versus 1.81 kg head −1 d −1 ; P =0.05).”
Claim · model-written summary
Total cattle gain on rye was greater or tended greater under no tillage.
- Taxon
- ryeSecale cerealee0
- Treatment
- NTe0
- Outcome
- Total cattle gain per grazing seasone0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 350 versus 204 kg ha −1e0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Total cattle gain per grazing season was either greater or tended to be greater with NT than with CT on rye (350 versus 204 kg ha −1 ; P =0.01) and pearl millet (324 versus 277 kg ha −1 ; P =0.15).”
Claim · model-written summary
Total cattle gain on pearl millet was greater or tended greater under no tillage.
- Taxon
- pearl milletCenchrus americanuse0
- Treatment
- NTe0
- Outcome
- Total cattle gain per grazing seasone0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 324 versus 277 kg ha −1e0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Total cattle gain per grazing season was either greater or tended to be greater with NT than with CT on rye (350 versus 204 kg ha −1 ; P =0.01) and pearl millet (324 versus 277 kg ha −1 ; P =0.15).”
Claim · model-written summary
Net return over variable costs was greater with grazing than without grazing cover crops.
Verbatim
e0“Net return over variable costs was greater with grazing than without grazing of cover crops (US$302 versus −US$63 ha −1 ; P <0.001).”
Claim · model-written summary
Livestock grazing of cover crops increased economic return and production diversity overall.
Verbatim
e0“Livestock grazing of cover crops had variable effects on subsequent crop production, but increased economic return and diversity overall.”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend integrated crop-livestock production with conservation tillage to diversify farms and improve crop production.
Verbatim
e0“an integrated crop–livestock production system with conservation tillage is recommended as a viable option for producers to diversify farming operations to avoid risk, improve ecological production of crops, and potentially avoid environmental damage from soil erosion and nutrient loss.”
The same questions in other papers
Cenchrus americanus · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →cover crop · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
31 papers more in this group
See all 35 papers →grazing · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
33 papers in the same direction as this paper · 34 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- positive
- negative
66 papers more in this group
See all 70 papers →tillage · yield · SorghumResults differ
101 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
119 papers more in this group
See all 123 papers →tillage · growth · Cenchrus americanus (pearl millet)Positive and negative results
4 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →tillage · yield · Secale cereale (rye)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →tillage · yield · Cenchrus americanus (pearl millet)Positive and negative results
33 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
33 papers more in this group
See all 37 papers →tillage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
811 papers in the same direction as this paper · 230 in the opposite direction · 57 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- positive
1,095 papers more in this group
See all 1,099 papers →8 of 9 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.
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.