Search

Integrating alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) with corn (Zea mays L.) for grain will increase biodiversity, reduce the negative environmental impact of corn monoculture and increase farm profitability. The objectives of this research were to evaluate forage productivity and nutritive value, along with stand establishment of alfalfa in a corn grain system in Iowa, Minnesota, and North Dakota. The experimental design was a randomized complete block with four replicates at each site. Treatments included were: sole corn (i.e., check; T1), sole alfalfa (T2), alfalfa intercropped into corn (T3), a prohexadione-treated alfalfa intercropped with corn (T4), and a spring-seeded alfalfa in the year after intercropping (T5), which was planted in plots with T1 the previous year. All sites had below normal rainfall in 2016 and 2017. Corn grain yield was significantly lower when intercropped with alfalfa (T3 and T4) compared with the check corn crop (no alfalfa, T1). Corn grain yield reduction ranged from 14.0% to 18.8% compared with the check (T1). Corn biomass yield was reduced by intercropped alfalfa (T3 and T4) by 15.9% to 25.8%. In the seeding year, alfalfa seasonal forage yield was significantly greater when corn competition was absent in all environments. The intercropped alfalfa from the previous season (T3 and T4) had almost double the forage yield than the alfalfa in the seeding year (spring-seeded alfalfa; T5). In the second production year, there were no meaningful forage yield differences (p > 0.05) across all treatments, indicating alfalfa in intercropping systems does not affect forage yield past the first production year. Prohexadione-calcium, a growth regulator, did not affect alfalfa stand density, forage yield and nutritive value. The forage nutritive value was dependent on harvest date not the alfalfa intercropping treatments. Results of our study suggest that establishing alfalfa with corn is feasible and can be a potential alternative for the upper Midwest region. However, when under drought conditions, this system might be less resilient since competition between alfalfa and corn for soil moisture will be intensified under drought or moisture-limited conditions, and this will likely depress corn grain yield. Research targeted to reintroduce perennial crops into the current dominant corn–soybean systems in the US Corn Belt is urgently needed to improve stability and resiliency of production systems.

Intercropping of silage maize (Zea mays L.) and alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) is not a common practice because alfalfa generally reduces maize grain and biomass yield. The objective of this research was to evaluate the productivity and profitability of silage maize–alfalfa intercropping, with a goal to establish alfalfa and increase alfalfa productivity in the first year of production. The experiment was conducted in Fargo and Prosper, ND, USA, in 2014–2017. The design was a randomized complete block with four replicates and a split-plot arrangement. The main plot had two maize row-spacing treatments (RS), 61 and 76 cm, respectively. Treatments in the subplot were: (1) maize monoculture, (2) maize intercropped with alfalfa, (3) maize intercropped with alfalfa + prohexadione-calcium (PHX), and (4) spring-seeded alfalfa in the following year (simulating a maize–spring-seeded alfalfa crop sequence). Both alfalfa and maize were seeded the same day in May of 2014 at both locations. Prohexadione-calcium, a growth regulator to reduce internode length and avoid etiolation of alfalfa seedlings, did not improve alfalfa plant survival. Averaged across locations, RS did not have an effect on silage maize yield and alfalfa forage yield. Alfalfa established in intercropping with maize had almost double the forage yield in the following year compared with spring-seeded alfalfa following a crop of silage maize. Considering a two-year system, alfalfa intercropped with maize had higher net returns than a silage-maize followed by a spring-seeded alfalfa sequence. This system has the potential to get more growers to have alfalfa in the rotation skipping the typical low forage yield of alfalfa in the establishment year.

Adoption of cover crop interseeding in the northwestern Corn Belt in the USA is limited due to inadequate fall moisture for establishment, short growing season, additional costs, and need for adapted winter-hardy species. This study evaluated three cover crop treatments—no cover crop, winter rye (Secale cereale L.), and winter camelina (Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz)—which were interseeded at the R6 soybean growth stage, using two different soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) maturity groups (0.5 vs. 0.9) and two row spacings (30.5 vs. 61 cm). The objective was to evaluate these treatments on cover crop biomass, soil cover, plant density, and soybean yield. Spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) grain yield was also measured the following year. The early-maturing soybean cultivar (0.5 maturity) resulted in increased cover crop biomass and soil cover, with winter rye outperforming winter camelina. However, the early-maturing soybean yielded 2308 kg·ha−1, significantly less compared with the later maturing cultivar (2445 kg·ha−1). Narrow row spacing had higher soybean yield, but row spacing did not affect cover crop growth. Spring wheat should not follow winter rye if rye is terminated right before seeding the wheat. However, wheat planted after winter camelina was no different than when no cover crop was interseeded in soybean. Interseeding cover crops into established soybean is possible, however, cover crop biomass accumulation and soil cover are limited.

In the North Central USA, intersowing cover crops into standing maize (Zea mays L.) is required to establish plants large enough to afford the benefits of a cover since there is limited favorable weather for cover crop growth after maize harvest. The objective of this study was to quantify the impacts of the planting method and time of planting of three cover crop species when grown with or without maize competition on their establishment. Experiments were conducted in three environments during 2018 and 2019. Experiments consisted of a factorial combination of timing of cover crop planting (V7 and R4 growth stage of maize), cover crop species (camelina (Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz), rye (Secale cereale L.), or radish (Raphanus sativus L.), method of sowing (drilled or broadcast), and maize removal. Initial cover crop populations were similar regardless of maize removal or stage of maize when sown, but intersown cover crops produced only 3% of the fall biomass, compared with treatments with maize-removed when sown at the V7 stage of maize and 14% when sown at the R4 stage. Limited light intensity (less than 20%) under the maize canopy was the main factor affecting interseeded cover crop development. Radish was more sensitive to shading than the other cover crops. Camelina and rye sown at the R4 stage of corn produced similar spring biomass as earlier-sown cover crops. Intersown cover crops had no negative effect on maize grain yield.

Low adoption to utilize cover crops interseeded into soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.), in the northern Plains in the USA, is due to a short growing season and a few adapted winter-hardy species. The objective was to evaluate the impact of interseeded winter camelina (Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz) and winter rye (Secale cereale L.) using different soybean relative maturities on soybean yield, canopy coverage, spring cover crop biomass, and subsequent wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) yield. Cover crops interseeded into early-maturing (0.4–0.8) soybean cultivars had more fall coverage compared with the 0.9 maturity cultivar, but the spring biomass was similar for all maturities. The soybean yield of the 0.9 cultivar was significantly higher, 2365 kg ha−1 compared with 2037 kg ha−1 for the 0.4 cultivar. Rye outperformed winter camelina and had higher fall canopy cover (15 vs. 7%), spring canopy cover (16% vs. 4%), and higher spring biomass (313 vs. 100 kg ha−1 dry matter). Spring wheat, after rye, yielded 90% of the check. It is not recommended to plant spring wheat following winter rye, but there was no negative yield effect from winter camelina. Interseeding cover crops into soybean in the northern Plains is possible but needs further research to optimize interseeding systems.

Faba bean (Vicia faba Roth) and pea (Pisum sativum L.) are grown worldwide as protein sources for food and feed and can be used as cover crops after wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). However, faba bean is underutilized in upper Midwest farming systems. This study was conducted to determine how faba bean relates to pea as a forage, cover crop, and in cycling of nutrients to maize (Zea mays L.) in the following season. Five faba bean cultivars and two pea cultivars, a forage pea and a field pea, were established after wheat harvest in North Dakota, in 2017 and 2018. Faba bean and pea cultivars averaged 1.3 Mg ha&minus, 1 of biomass, enough to support 1.5 animal unit month (AUM) ha&minus, 1 for a 450 kg cow (Bos taurus L.) with calf, at 50% harvest efficiency. Crude protein content was highest in faba bean cv. Boxer (304 g kg&minus, 1), with faba bean cv. Laura and forage pea cv. Arvika having similar content, and field pea having the least (264 g kg&minus, 1). Cover crop treatments did not affect maize in the following year, indicating no nutrient cycling from faba bean and pea to maize. Both cover crop species tested provided high protein forage, suitable for late grazing, with a more fibrous crop residue. Faba bean has potential as a cover crop in the upper Midwest while providing greater quality forage than pea.