Double Crop Yields in 2015
El inglés es el idioma de control de esta página. En la medida en que haya algún conflicto entre la traducción al inglés y la traducción, el inglés prevalece.
Al hacer clic en el enlace de traducción se activa un servicio de traducción gratuito para convertir la página al español. Al igual que con cualquier traducción por Internet, la conversión no es sensible al contexto y puede que no traduzca el texto en su significado original. NC State Extension no garantiza la exactitud del texto traducido. Por favor, tenga en cuenta que algunas aplicaciones y/o servicios pueden no funcionar como se espera cuando se traducen.
English is the controlling language of this page. To the extent there is any conflict between the English text and the translation, English controls.
Clicking on the translation link activates a free translation service to convert the page to Spanish. As with any Internet translation, the conversion is not context-sensitive and may not translate the text to its original meaning. NC State Extension does not guarantee the accuracy of the translated text. Please note that some applications and/or services may not function as expected when translated.Collapse ▲
Planting Date Summary – 2013, 2014, 2015 – Lewiston-Woodville
Funded by the NCPGA
The objectives are to determine the feasibility of double cropping major agronomic crops with wheat and to compare crop response to planting date within traditional planting date windows.
After the final year of the trial (2016) economic assessments will be made for all crops at various pricing structures. The design was a split plot with crops serving as the whole plot unit. With all crops in the same field with some randomization, a more detailed analyses can be run for direct comparisons. Summer crops were irrigated as needed. Crops were strip tilled at all planting dates.
For 2015, weather patterns, especially in September and early October, explain some of the key differences in yield. Cotton, corn, and milo (low yields with early planting) were affected by excessive rain during a period of time when the crop approached harvest and harvest was subsequently delayed. Peanut from the first panting date was dug just prior to rainfall “setting in” and vine health was adequate to minimize pod loss during combining, even though harvest was delayed. Peanut for the second planting date remained in the field well past optimum maturity resulting in significant pod shed prior to digging. Double-cropped peanut most likely did not have enough heat units to reach full yield potential, and a second wave of poor weather in late October prevented timely combining and most likely contributed to further pod loss and low yields.
|Peanut (lbs/acre)||Early May||3340 a||3660 a||5590 a|
|Peanut||Late May||3470 a||3690 a||3840 b|
|Peanut||Late June||3070 a||2930 b||2030 c|
|Soybean (bu/acre)||Early May||49 b||44 ab||44 a|
|Soybean||Late May||63 a||45 a||43 a|
|Soybean||Late June||40 b||37 b||32 b|
|Cotton (lbs sc/acre)||Early May||1280 b||1140 a||520 c|
|Cotton||Late May||1500 a||1100 a||820 a|
|Cotton||Late June||560 c||490 b||630 b|
|Corn (bu/acre)||Mid-April||160 a||113 b||79 b|
|Corn||Mid-May||133 b||131 a||111 a|
|Corn||Late June||94 c||67 c||65 c|
|Milo (bu/acre)||Early May||102 a||78 a||74 a|
|Milo||Late May||82 b||78 a||83 a|
|Milo||Late June||79 b||28 b||73 a|
Article first appeared as North Carolina Peanut Note (PNNC-2015-169)