Interseeding Cover Crops into Corn - Comparing 60" and 30" Rows

[@666bruv]

I'd assume N-E rows would be better for more southern/warmer regions, and the opposite for the northern regions, but the mid-way regions would need to experiment and watch the long term forecasts closely

[@nickl8192]

I'm guessing Steve used a Winter rye once or twice!!!

[@babagoudapatil719]

Avarage per acre

[@babagoudapatil719]

Sir

[@wildrangeringreen]

across several different trials (multiple states, many different farms/ universities), what has been found is that if you have the same population (so you reduce the in-row spacing) per acre, your yields of maize is generally equivalent to what 30" rows would yield on the site, but you get the added weed suppression and forage benefit of the improved cover crop growth. You can also reduce your fertilizer inputs if you only band it in the corn rows, compared to 30" rows. In trials where farmers have halved their population (essentially, removing every other row unit, but maintained the "normal" in-row spacing), results are more varied; with some trials yielding the same as 30" rows, some yielding greater (look into the "system of crop intensification" (SCI)), and some offering slightly lower yields (however, input costs are lower with the lower population and fertility requirements). The variables that seemed to make the difference in those trials were: the variety (days to maturity), rainfall, and over all soil health (microbially active, structured soils with good nutrient cycling and water retention). Shorter DTM varieties were often in the reduced yield category, as they usually don't set as many ears (and ear size is often smaller), sites with below average rainfall suffered reduced yields with lower populations, and soil in poor health were often not able to match the yields of 30" corn. Even in the situations where you had reduced corn yields, the ability to graze livestock (thereby reducing the need to feed hay) often made up for it, or improved profitability over 30" rows.