Free Standard AU & NZ Shipping For All Book Orders Over $80!
Register      Login
Animal Production Science Animal Production Science Society
Food, fibre and pharmaceuticals from animals
Shopping Cart: ( empty )
You are here: Home > Journals > AN > EA07044
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Contents Vol 47(12)

Adoption of conservation tillage in California: current status and future perspectives

J. P. Mitchell A G , K. Klonsky B , A. Shrestha A , R. Fry C , A. DuSault D , J. Beyer E and R. Harben F
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A University of California, 9240 S. Riverbend Avenue, Parlier, CA 93648, USA.

B Agricultural & Resource Economics, University of California, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616-8512, USA.

C USDA NRCS, 430 G Street, Davis, CA 95616, USA.

D Sustainable Conservation, 121 Second Street, 6th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105, USA.

E USDA NRCS, 4974 E. Clinton Way, Suite 214, Fresno, CA 93727, USA.

F California Association of Resource Conservation Districts, 4974 E. Clinton Way, Suite 114, Fresno, CA 93727, USA.

G Corresponding author. Email: mitchell@uckac.edu

Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 47(12) 1383-1388 https://doi.org/10.1071/EA07044
Submitted: 6 February 2007  Accepted: 24 August 2007   Published: 16 November 2007

Abstract

While there have been several similarities between the development of cropping systems in Australia and California (including climate, the need for irrigation and very diverse, highly specialised crop rotations), the historical patterns of conservation tillage development in the two regions have been quite different. Current estimates indicate that conservation tillage (CT) practices are used on less than 2% of annual crop acreage in California’s Central Valley. Tillage management systems have changed relatively little since irrigation and cropping intensification began throughout this region, more than 60 years ago. The University of California (UC) and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) CT Workgroup is a diverse group of UC, NRCS, farmer, private sector, environmental group and other public agency people. It has provided wide-ranging services aimed at developing information on reduced tillage alternatives for California’s production valleys. In a short span of 7 years, the CT Workgroup has grown to over 1000 members and has conducted over 60 demonstration evaluations of CT systems. While CT is still quite new in California, a growing number of farmers has become increasingly interested in it, for both economic and environmental reasons. They are now pursuing a wide range of activities and approaches aimed at developing sustainable CT systems. As successful CT systems continue to be demonstrated, the rate of adoption is expected to increase.


References


Baker JB, Southard RJ, Mitchell JP (2005) Agricultural dust production and composition in standard and conservation tillage systems in the San Joaquin Valley. Journal of Environmental Quality 34, 1260–1269.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Beck DL (1990) No-till guidelines for the arid and semi-arid prairies. Soil and Tillage Research 9, 307–316. open url image1

Chauhan BS, Gill GS, Preston C (2006) Tillage system effects on weed ecology, herbicide activity and persistence: a review. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 46, 1557–1570.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Conservation Tillage Systems and Management (2000) ‘MWPS-45. Crop residue management with no-till, ridge-till, mulch-till and strip-till.’ 2nd edn. (Midwest Plan Service, Iowa State University: Ames, IA)

Coughenour CM, Chamala S (2000) ‘Conservation tillage and cropping innovation: constructing the new culture of agriculture.’ (Iowa State University Press: Ames, IA)

CTIC (2004) ‘National crop residue management survey.’ (Conservation Technology Information Center: West Lafayette, IN)

D’Emden FH, Llewellyn RS (2006) No-tillage adoption decisions in southern Australia cropping and the role of weed management. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 46, 563–569.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Freebairn DM, Loch RJ, Cogle AL (1993) Tillage methods and soil and water conservation in Australia. Soil and Tillage Research 27, 303–325.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Herrero EV, Mitchell JP, Lanini WT, Temple SR, Miyao EM, Morse RD, Campiglia E (2001a) Use of cover crop mulches in a furrow-irrigated processing tomato production system. HortTechnology 11, 43–48. open url image1

Herrero EV, Mitchell JP, Lanini WT, Temple SR, Miyao EM, Morse RD, Campiglia E (2001b) Soil properties change in no-till tomato production. California Agriculture 55(1), 30–34. open url image1

Llewellyn RS, Lindner RK, Pannell DJ, Powles SB (2002) Resistance and the herbicide resource: perceptions of Western Australian grain growers. Crop Protection (Guildford, Surrey) 21, 1067–1075.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Mitchell JP, Munk DS, Prys B, Klonsky KK, Wroble JF, DeMoura RL (2006) Conservation tillage production systems compared in the San Joaquin Valley cotton. California Agriculture 60(3), 140–145. open url image1

Reicosky DC (1997) Tillage-induced CO2 emission from soil. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems. 49, 273–285.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1