My belief, and that’s all it is, is that the covercrops add organic matter, but more importantly increase the soil’s biology.

 

From all the studies I've read and people I spoke with most conclude it doesn't pencil out financially often (or is really hard to put numbers to the beneficial aspects), but is felt the benefits outweigh the cost.

 

I'm sure the 16% and 22% need to be taken with a grain of salt. There has been far more studies conducted by multiple universities that do not agree with those numbers than do. I haven't read a single one that comes close to agreeing with it. More to the situation, imo, and would like to know what is.

 

If you have enough moisture to sustain an extra crop. I tried it for 5 years on piece of ground. 30% yields of usual on my harvest crops. Couldn't get it to come up if seeded later in July, to dry. Organic matter was getting a slight bit lower than my fallow farmed ground next to it. As if 2% is not low enough. It did kinda help with keeping weeds down. The radish I seeded did help break up some hard spots. Can I put on paper if it helped, it did not on paper.
It did help in certain ways as mentioned. I would not be against it in certain spots for certain reasons. I believe it has to fit your land and it should be raised as if it were a crop. Even fertilize it to make it grow. Hope most those nutrients don't get lost. You don't want to tie up a bunch of nutrient in the cover crop the next crop does not have available until it breaks down. Can be up to a few years. Plan it out, do not just plant a cover crop and expect great things.

 

I am most definitely going to try companion crops/ cover cropping. I grew a half strip of peas and canola granted under irrigation and same field and the canola yielded roughly the same as the field average and the peas were slightly lower. Could have just been lucky with the way the weather was but I'm convinced and will try it again on a slightly larger scale.

This year I'm going to intercrop clover and wheat/durum/barley.

I think the whole idea behind it is to grow more for less and in the end profiting more. I was at a small seminar a few days ago and the way the speaker put it was growing a 45bu/acre crop with half the amount of inputs as growing a 60bu crop of canola. Also they claim a healthy soil should reverse root rots and blights etc and if you have healthy soil you shouldn't have to worry about seed treating.

Also there are varieties that use minimal amounts of water while still fixing n and building organic matter if moisture is an issue.

I think it's something worth trying maybe on a small scale, but to me it seems more of a way to grow more with less inputs and therefore you should be more profitable i don't think it means getting a 75bushel canola crop when you normally Average 60. I'm sure there are people on this forum that have more knowledge on this matter so hopefully they will chime in

 

I am most definitely going to try companion crops/ cover cropping. I grew a half strip of peas and canola granted under irrigation and same field and the canola yielded roughly the same as the field average and the peas were slightly lower. Could have just been lucky with the way the weather was but I'm convinced and will try it again on a slightly larger scale.

I hope to try some intercropping this year. That I have heard of good results even in more arid climates. 70% normal yields of each crop is what I have heard of. Or better.

 

My season's too short anyway for cover crops except if following silage but we don't have cattle... maybe after peas but and I'm not certain if there is enough time once they're off. I do see potential for long-term benefits of cover cropping so I still follow it just for interest, and would if I could - for OM buildup and weed suppression. It just blew me away that someone could claim such immediate yield gains. They really don't go into details in the article so lots of pieces missing.

I'd love to companion-crop peas and canola, but in this clubroot-infested area, peas are being used to extend rotations between canola years so not much sense in doing peaola.

 

Well.... it depends.

My best soybean crops have followed cover crops. I can not raise corn following cover to my expectations.

After silage and seed corn harvest i can get a good established stand, graze it through fall, terminate in spring and no till beans into it. In 2012 following a seed corn field that was terminated in 2011 i grew 80 bpa beans following rye cover while tilled beans were 65 to 70. I can not get no till beans without cover crop to yield with tilled beans, no till with cover will usually beat tilled.

I am a cover believer but stand establishment becomes an issue post harvest in a commercial corn field. I need to be seeded by the 15th of October at the latest.

 

My best soybean crops have followed cover crops. I can not raise corn following cover to my expectations.

After silage and seed corn harvest i can get a good established stand, graze it through fall, terminate in spring and no till beans into it. In 2012 following a seed corn field that was terminated in 2011 i grew 80 bpa beans following rye cover while tilled beans were 65 to 70. I can not get no till beans without cover crop to yield with tilled beans, no till with cover will usually beat tilled.

I am a cover believer but stand establishment becomes an issue post harvest in a commercial corn field. I need to be seeded by the 15th of October at the latest.

Seems in your experience it makes a lot of sense to use cover crop before beans. Funny though, in the article they said in that other study they couldn't get a yield bump on soys.

Are you no-tilling the rye in too? Is 'fresh' corn residue an issue?

I think a lot of the benefit comes from stimulating the biological side in soil, to build OM% short term will take more nutrients but does help long term, compaction reduction would be a much bigger short term impact I would think. Toying with cover crops here, this year wasn't the best for establishing them later in the season just not enough heat, but past years seem ok.
We did rye after silage, then cut and wrapped the rye in the spring and put soybeans in after. Beans appeared decent, but strangely the corn after the beans (following the rye) did much better than expected so could be the rye had a longer affect than what I thought, or could just be luck who knows.

This reminded me that rye has allelopathic activity. I wonder if that could be affecting bean yields following rye cover... but some like cptusa are getting the yield bump.

 

At least in my climate, I don't have to put much thought into if it will work or not. Usually by the time we get done harvest, It is next to impossible to get even seed placement, all depends on how big of chunks of frost land on top of the seed! That and getting stuck with the air seeder in snowbanks sucks as well.

 

The factors and variables seem quite high, where I am we get enough water per year that it won't dry out the ground too much and hurt the cash crop that way, which I suspect it may be doing for people in a more arid climate.
I think a lot of the benefit comes from stimulating the biological side in soil, to build OM% short term will take more nutrients but does help long term, compaction reduction would be a much bigger short term impact I would think. Toying with cover crops here, this year wasn't the best for establishing them later in the season just not enough heat, but past years seem ok.
We did rye after silage, then cut and wrapped the rye in the spring and put soybeans in after. Beans appeared decent, but strangely the corn after the beans (following the rye) did much better than expected so could be the rye had a longer affect than what I thought, or could just be luck who knows.
Have been seriously considering cover crop no-till, know of other guys in MN doing it with success including one about 30 miles away, long term I think it is the way to go but might be some short term growing pains to get over first. For sure want to have the planter in tip-top shape, no tillage to mask the sins of improper planter setup!

 

There is three guys around fargo that cover crop no til. One of them is in some fairly heavy rrv ground, ND side along the red river north of fargo 10-15 miles. Their advice has been use a stripper header for grains, no chopping corn head, drain tile preferably, and use proper no till equipment.

Edit: The fellow north of fargo also said putting up fence for grazing was worth the expense. Even considering he has someone else bring cattle in and he is not financially compensated for their grazing.

 

Yeesh Captain, what in the heck are you guys doing to the corn market! Less seed -> more expensive seed. 3,150,000 bushes of corn -> lower corn price!!!


Anyway, point of my post, dumb question. If organic material is beneficial, and cover crop provides OM, why doesn't it pencil out? Is the difference livestock, those that don't have livestock it doesn't but getting some extra feed does?

 

Keep in mind that's just a 5 or 6 county area in Iowa those plants covered, most Dupont plants got acres drastically cut and all but one Dow plant closed. Not promising...

The trouble with making it pencil in a regular corn scenario in order to get it established you need a retrofitted high boy applicator which could result in more crop run down and higher application costs or an aerial application which is difficult to establish a good stand with and coot about $40/acre.

 

Oh, trust me, I kept that in mind!


Starting to wonder about this farming thing! Hahaha

 

I don't have much experience in growing cover crops but I think it has a lot more to do with old stubborn farmers, lack of knowledge or research and it's a fairly new fad, wether it holds much weight behind it or not. Just from the seminar I was recently at I could tell a lot of the older gentlemen were not buying the whole idea. Just like when I talked about it with my dad and grandfather...
My plans are to cut back fert spending and instead plant an n fixing companion crop and try that way, compare yields, disease pressure, and weed pressure with companion vs not.

I don't think it's a silver bullet to high disease free yields with minimal inputs but there must be truth behind it, and I think there is value in trying it out for a few years. I really think it depends on how good or bad your soil is. I'll be the first one to admit that I think I my land can use a little help, I can keep pouring fert on it because it's proven to work or I can do something a little bit different and maybe solve the problem rather than manage the issue

 

I don’t think the fellow from north of Fargo makes as much from his cover crops as from his drain tile. If I had drain tile on everything then we could start talking seriously about these little things that are tough to measure.

Naturally our growing season and soil biology ceases after August because it becomes dry ect. We do live on the 48th parallel after all. Down in southern locations those guys have a lot of frost free days before freeze up unlike us. If we all cover cropped and grazed. The price of beef be even further in the crapper too!

We don’t lose soil to water erosion like boys in corn belt. Ya folks on northern prairies have much nicer healthier soils in general because they are young and not exposed to the heat nor the water that soils in corn belt see I’m general.

Instead of rye I think winter wheat is a good cover here as it gives you options. Rye is a weed here in my opinion. Radishes after wheat should help break down wheat stubble and blacken going to beans but does it pay? Not sure

 

I don’t think the fellow from north of Fargo makes as much from his cover crops as from his drain tile. If I had drain tile on everything then we could start talking seriously about these little things that are tough to measure.

...

The gentleman north of fargo actually doesn’t have tiled land, one of the other two does (think both do actually) Two of the three wanted to be no till and was able to manage it with the use of cover crops. The third wanted cover crops and felt no till went hand in hand with covers.

IMO the most impressive of the three is the guy north of fargo. Heaviest ground of them, no tile, and yet manages to make no till and cover crops work in an area that “it doesn’t work here”.

 

there was an interesting article in Western Producer last week..... Organic matter in the prairies has been increasing last 20-30 years under no till but still decreasing in corn belt because of higher tillage rates (this is why PM selfie apparently won't look at using ag land as recognized carbon sinks, I personally think that is giving that doofus way too much credit for any sort of thought process but I digress). seems a little bizarre to me when you think how much organic residue corn returns but ..... anyhow that might be part of the reason why cover crops seem to be catching on much faster in the corn belt than out west.


I will be honest, I have watched a couple fields over the years where for whatever reason there was heavy volunteer crop regrowth in the fall. never have really seen any big yield responses jump out the next year (grazing of course was good). I really wonder about how successful you would be to knock out a rye or winter wheat plant in the spring without disking or really delaying seeding. they start growing early, but I worry that at early seeding dates there would be a significant amount survive a glyphosate application unless it had warmed up well and they had really broken dormancy well. I have seen lots of times where winter cereal volunteers have survived a spring burnoff.


would love to see some tillage radish go in locally some time to see what it would do though.

 

...
would love to see some tillage radish go in locally some time to see what it would do though.

Can't find any? Picked some up last fall, roughly $6 acre seed. Didn't get a chance to plant it because the ground was too hard to plant into with a conventional drill following harvest...then the rain came after I prepped the field and when it was dry enough I felt it was too late to plant. Too bad, was looking forward to it as this field had the most surface water issues. Will see what next fall brings.

Edit: I anticipate similar moisture benefits as sugar beets. However the growing season will be shorter. In sugar beets the following year you get in a little earlier and harvest a little earlier. I do not have sugar beets in rotation so I am also hoping I can bring up the deeper nutrients to a depth grain/soybeans can utilize.

 

What happens when you use 100% of the water on the cover crop and do not get moisture to grow the real crop the following year ? That is the reality in western Canada. We have not grown a cover crop and have no moisture for this coming crop. Hopefully it will rain or snow before seeding time. The soil was blowing in the harvested soy bean fields again today from the 90km wind in the middle of winter.

 

What happens when you use 100% of the water on the cover crop and do not get moisture to grow the real crop the following year ? .

well you would have a thin, crappy uneven crop.........


but I bet just planting the cover crops would also provide a pretty good chance of being on the cover of the country guide! lol

 

Like the title says you would increase the yield as well even if there was no water left in the ground to grow a crop. Sometimes these article writers are only interested in putting out there message or philosophy and forget to use common sense.

 

Some studies I've seen comparing cover crops to bare ground do not show much difference in water use. Depending on cover crop type, residue and termination date, the bare ground can lose as much moisture as the crop uses, results may vary.

 

Covers do help with water infiltration and increase water holding capacity of the soil. I also believe they allow for faster soil warm up verse no till without cover crop.

That said with that low amount of rainfall they could very well not work in that area.

 

I see a lot of focus on yield. We have been brainwashed that yield = profits. Why this is true to a certain extent, what does it cost you to get that yield in a current fertilizing and spraying for everything under the sun mentality. The big companies have led us to become reliant on them. I think adding organic matter utilizing cover crops has a pile of benefits along with companion cropping. My season is awful short here but I like the idea. Soil health in the long run is crucial for remaining profitable, and spraying fungicides that kill more than just what you want killed, throws everything out of balance in your soil. This overtime will bite us bad! The best soil is the one mother nature created with various plants with active micro biology in the soil. It fertilizes itself and not one plant becomes dominant. Years ago before the advent of Round up there was quack grass. It would spread fast and would make some of the best loose soil you can imagine. Quack grass now is almost nonexistent here and the loose soil it used to create has dissappeared as well over time. I still remember my dad trying to control quackgrass with summerfalow. He would spike the areas ever second day to dry the soil out so nothing could possibly survive. Hardly a minimum till operation but that was the thinking back then. I could imagine the look on my dads face if I told him I am going to plant some quackgrass!! Soil left black and not in production is unhealthy soil. If we can find plants that can grow when are crops aren't we will benefit overtime. We all would like to spend less on fertilizer and not be in the sprayer for every insect and fungus out there and if this type of farming will create this then I am in. Having cattle, or a friend with some wouldn't hurt either. A little mob grazing would be huge too!!