1. TILLAGE AND CROPPING SYSTEMS STUDY TO INCREASE DRYLAND CROP PRODUCTION
Presented by Gary Strickland
Extension Educator, Agriculture
Jackson County

2. Why Residue Management is Important in Dryland Crop Production - Agronomically
Soil Erosion Prevention
Increased Soil Water Storage Capacity
Increased Water Infiltration Rates
Decreased Soil Evaporation Rates
Increase of In-Season Precipitation Use Efficiency
Increased Organic Matter Pool
Increased Cation Exchange Complex (CEC)
Increased Anion Exchange Complex (AEC)
Decrease in Soil Compaction in the Long Term

3. Soil Organic Matter Results

4. Tillage by Rotations System OM Comparisons (2002-2008)
C-W-GS
C-W
C-GS
W-DCGS-C C W GS
Mean
L.S.D.
(.05) NT
2.00(2)
1.49(6)
1.93(2)
1.63(6)
2.03(2)
1.84(6)
2.08(2)
1.71(6)
2.13(2)
1.94(2)
1.68(6)
2.42(2)
1.79(6)
1.69(6)
NS(2)
NS(6) CT
1.76(2)
1.64(6)
1.87(2)
1.83(6)
1.82(2)
1.70(6)
1.84(2)
1.72(6)
1.79(2)
1.96(2)
1.87(6)
2.06(6)
1.73(6)
0.13(6)
*(.10)

5. Summary of Weed Population Data:
Only a few significant differences have been noted to date between tillage treatments or among cropping systems
In general the NT systems show higher weed populations than the CT systems
Common weed species that continue to be present in the field include: common purslane, prickly lettuce, winter grasses (bromegrass species primarily), marestail, and henbit
New weed species that have appeared with time include: honeyvine milkweed, morningglory, and red stem filaree
To date current herbicide programs seem to be working in terms of weed population control with the exception of the No-Till Mono-Crop Grain Sorghum where significant increase in pigweed species occurred and remained after a glyphosate and two atrazine herbicide applications.

6. Grain Sorghum Pigweed Weed Data 2008
Tillage System
C-GS GS
Mean
L.S.D. (.05) NT
5.8ψ
57.2
31.5
24.2 CT
0.33
0.5
0.42 NS
(ψ) Weed numbers reflect thousand plants/A

8. Herbicide Program Options
Roundup (preplant or preemergence, all crops)
Dual Magnum + Roundup (cotton and sorghum)
Several sulphonyl ureas (wheat and some sorghum)
Atrazine (grain sorghum)
Aim (postemergence in cotton and sorghum, be careful with plant growth conditions.
Phenoxy Herb. (2,4-D or Banvel) (sorghum or wheat)
Buctril (postemergence in grain sorghum)
Peak (postemergence in grain sorghum or wheat)
Basagran (grain sorghum)

9. Crop by Cropping System Comparisons

10. Cotton Production Economics 2002-2008
Cropping Systems
Lint Yield Lbs./A
2005
Lint Yield Lbs./A
2006
2007
2008
Total Crop Return $/A
C-W-GS
264 (NT)
250 (CT)
---
812 (NT)
722 (CT)
438.99ψ
307.08
C-W
252 (NT)
337 (CT)
598 (NT)
0.0 (CT)
292.74
24.35
C-GS
259 (NT)
235 (CT)
670 (NT)
678 (CT)
742 (NT)
759 (CT)
650.28
436.16
W-DCGS- C
445 (NT)
392 (CT)
834 (NT)
712 (CT)
521.31
328.90 C
553 (NT)
607 (CT)
617 (NT)
679 (CT)
0.0(NT)
740 (NT)
732 (CT)
275 (NT)
205 (CT)
694.36
550.27

11. Wheat Production Economics 2002-2008
Cropping Systems
Yield Bu./A
2005
2006
2007
2008
Total Crop Return $/A
C-W-GS
---
74 (NT)
64 (CT)
159 ψ
125
C-W
61 (NT)
68 (CT)
57 (NT)
58 (CT)
308
322
W-DCGS- C
15 (NT)
20 (CT)
0 (NT)
53 (CT)
-20.02
96.78 W
91 (NT)
79 (CT)
51 (NT)
CT)
0.0(N T)
21 (CT)
49 (NT)
49 CT)
53 (NT)
47 (CT)
708.38
607.68

12. Grain Sorghum Production Economics 2002-2008
Cropping
Systems
Yield Lbs./A
2005
2006
2007
2008
Total Crop Return $/A
C-W-GS
---
2274 (NT)
0 (CT)
20.38 ψ
C-GS
3709 (NT)
1677 (NT)
1455 (CT)
93.47
W- DCGS-C
1023 (NT)
1092 (CT)
0 (NT)
1.05
3.73 GS
2955 (NT)
2627 (CT)
4963 (NT)
4827 (CT)
2864 (NT)
4441 (NT)
2415 (CT)
919 (NT)
1725 (CT)
233.14

13. Rotation System ComparisonsCS
Average Crop-Year Returns above Production Inputs ($/A)
Potential Beef Gain Returns ($/A)
C-W-GS
118.54(NT) (CT)
117.98(NT) (CT)
C-W
150.17(NT) (CT)
219.83(NT) (CT)
C-GS
123.89(NT) (CT)
---(NT) (CT)
W-DCGS-C
122.84(NT) (CT)
32.61(NT) (CT) C
115.73(NT) (CT)
27.64(NT) (CT) W
119.67(NT) (CT)
160.54(NT) (CT) GS
51.50(NT) (CT)
--- (NT) (CT)

17. Conclusions – To Present
While not always significant, the NT crop systems have shown a consistent trend for higher return dollars beyond production inputs than the CT systems.
With only a few exceptions the crop rotations have indicated a trend for higher yields and/or returns in the year by year comparisons
However, when averaged across years the C and W only systems appear to be doing well(especially in the CT tillage system) are currently doing as good as all rotation crop systems with the exception of the C-W system. This is somewhat tied to the 2007 elevated crop year yields and commodity prices. If removed from data then the NT-CW and C-GS and CT-CW rotations perform significantly better.
When all years are considered, all NT rotation systems are doing as good if not better than the mono-crop systems plus giving the soil environment added future benefits.
The NT Wheat only system is doing as good if not better in terms of yield than the CT Wheat only system. It shows a return dollar advantage over the CT Wheat Only system.