Skip to content
  • NationalNAT
  • North CentralNC
  • NortheastNE
  • SouthernS
  • WesternW

Sustainable Agriculture
Research and Education

  • News
    • News
    • Profiles from the Field
    • Media Contacts
    • Social Media
    • Join Our Mailing List
  • About SARE
    • About SARE
    • SARE’s Four Regions
    • SARE Outreach
    • Contact Us
    • Staff
  • What We Do
    • What We Do
    • Grants
    • Professional Development
    • Education and Outreach
    • What is Sustainable Agriculture?
    • Impacts from the Field
    • Events
  • Where We Work
    • Where We Work
    • Regional Programs
    • State Coordinators
    • Funded Grants in Your State
  • Grants
    • Grants
    • Manage a Grant
  • Projects
    • Search Projects
    • Manage a Grant
  • Resources and Learning
    • Search All Resources
    • By Region
      • North Central
      • Northeast
      • South
      • West
    • By Topic
      • Cover Crops
      • On-Farm Energy
      • Farm to Table
      • Season Extension
    • From SARE
      • SARE Outreach Resources
      • What's New?
      • Available in Print
      • Continuing Education Program
      • Search Grants
  • Search
  • Shopping Cart
SARE » Products » Page 54

Search Results Within This Resource:

Managing Alternative Pollinators handbook cover featuring a picture of bees and blooming trees

Managing Alternative Pollinators

A Handbook for Beekeepers, Growers and Conservationists

View Resource »
Can't Find It? Filters:
specific publication: 75272 reset

Showing 531-540 of 1303 results

Prev 1 … 52 53 54 55 56 … 131 Next
www.sare.org publications conservation-tillage-systems-in-the-southeast chapter-7-cash-crop-selection-and-rotation research-case-study-3

Research Case Study

A Farmer-Researcher Collaborative Effort to Design No-Till Systems Appropriate for Small-Scale Organic Producers in Alabama and the Deep South Project Information Project type: Research and Education Grant Project number: LS09-218 Project dates: 2009–2013 Principal investigator: Joseph Kloepper Auburn University Project reports: https://projects.sare.org/sare_project/ls09-218/ Problem Statement No-till has been implemented successfully on large-scale conventional farms that rely on […]

www.sare.org publications conservation-tillage-systems-in-the-southeast chapter-7-cash-crop-selection-and-rotation common-crops-grown-in-the-southeast

Common Crops Grown in the Southeast

Cash crops commonly grown in the Southeast work well in two-, three- and four-year rotations, and with cover crops (Table 7.2). They can be grown using conservation tillage but have historically been grown in monoculture systems. The following sections discuss growth habits and Southeast production considerations for soybeans, hay, corn, wheat, cotton, rice, peanuts, sorghum, […]

www.sare.org publications conservation-tillage-systems-in-the-southeast chapter-7-cash-crop-selection-and-rotation crop-selection-decisions

Crop Selection Decisions

The characteristics of the farm and region determine the cash crops and cover crops that can be successfully grown. Climate, soils, markets, government programs and producer preferences all influence the crops selected. Choosing the right crops and rotations will foster economic and environmental sustainability [4]. Climate Climate is the long-term average rainfall, maximum and minimum […]

www.sare.org publications conservation-tillage-systems-in-the-southeast chapter-7-cash-crop-selection-and-rotation crop-rotations-versus-monoculture

Crop Rotations Versus Monoculture

Crop rotation systems are superior to the monoculture production systems that dominated the Southeast during the “cotton boom” from the mid-1800s to the 1920s. Monoculture systems grow the same crop in the same field year after year. Often, these systems dominate when one crop has greater profit potential than others that thrive in the same […]

www.sare.org publications conservation-tillage-systems-in-the-southeast chapter-7-cash-crop-selection-and-rotation

Chapter 7: Cash Crop Selection and Rotation

Mark S. Reiter, Virginia Tech The crops commonly grown in the Southeast United States do well in the humid, temperate climate and low-organic-matter soils predominant in the region. Yields and soil quality are improved when these crops are part of a rotation. Production practices such as timing, tillage, pesticide application, irrigation and cover crops will […]

www.sare.org publications conservation-tillage-systems-in-the-southeast chapter-6-in-row-subsoiling-to-disrupt-soil-compaction summary-7

Chapter 6 Summary

Even though it is possible to subsoil a field to remove compaction, exercise care before performing this expensive operation. Use a soil penetrometer to determine when and where subsoiling is needed. Subsoiled soil easily re-compacts with vehicle traffic. Research indicates that two passes of a tractor in the subsoiled area will cause the soil to […]

www.sare.org publications conservation-tillage-systems-in-the-southeast chapter-6-in-row-subsoiling-to-disrupt-soil-compaction reducing-in-row-subsoiling-expenses

Reducing In-Row Subsoiling Expenses

Planning budgets for 2011 estimated the total cost of using a four-row subsoiler to be $31.73 per hectare ($12.85 per acre) [16]. A third of this cost, $10.82 per hectare ($4.38 per acre), was for fuel. Wherever in-row subsoiling is needed, reducing the cost emerges as the most likely method of reducing the overall cost […]

www.sare.org publications conservation-tillage-systems-in-the-southeast chapter-6-in-row-subsoiling-to-disrupt-soil-compaction in-row-subsoiling

In-Row Subsoiling

In conservation systems, subsoiling is often conducted only in the row, instead of over the entire field. It is then referred to as in-row subsoiling (Figure 6.2). If adequate crop residue is left on the surface and if appropriate measures are taken to minimize residue disturbance, in-row subsoiling can be a valuable way to combat […]

www.sare.org publications conservation-tillage-systems-in-the-southeast chapter-6-in-row-subsoiling-to-disrupt-soil-compaction subsoiling

Subsoiling

Subsoiling is defined as non-inversion tillage below a depth of 14 inches [1]. Figure 6.1 shows an example of an agricultural implement that has been used for uniform disturbance of a soil profile to depths of 14–20 inches. Soils compacted from traffic, animals or natural processes benefit from subsoiling because the compacted zone is disrupted. […]

www.sare.org publications conservation-tillage-systems-in-the-southeast chapter-6-in-row-subsoiling-to-disrupt-soil-compaction

Chapter 6: In-Row Subsoiling to Disrupt Soil Compaction

Randy L. Raper, Oklahoma State University Warren J. Busscher, USDA-ARS Alan D. Meier, North Carolina State University Kipling S. Balkcom, USDA-ARS Until the 1880s, agricultural vehicles were relatively light, horse-drawn and not particularly damaging to soils. Mass production of tractors began in 1902 [15] and these heavy vehicles caused excessive compaction, especially if operated across […]

Prev 1 … 52 53 54 55 56 … 131 Next
Bot search not allowed

Explore More From SARE Outreach

  • What's New?
  • Featured Content
  • Available in Print
  • Disponible en Español
  • Resources From Grants

Sign up for all the latest news and updates from SARE

Sign Up For Our Newsletters
Navigation
  • What we do
  • Where we work
  • Grant programs
  • Resources and learning
  • SARE Projects Application and Reporting
Sites
  • National SARE
  • North Central SARE
  • Northeast SARE
  • Southern SARE
  • Western SARE
Our Location
  • University of Maryland
    Symons Hall, Room 1296
    7998 Regents Drive
    College Park, MD 20742-5505
  • Contact Us
Follow Us
  • Our facebook page
  • Our youtube page
  • Our twitter page
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education University of Maryland US Department of Agriculture

This work is supported by the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program under a cooperative agreement with the University of Maryland, project award no. 2024-38640-42986, from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and should not be construed to represent any official USDA or U.S. Government determination or policy.


© 2026 Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education