ARS | Publication request: Potential for double-cropping with winter camelina

Submitted to: Meeting Abstract
Publication Type: Abstract Only
Publication Acceptance Date: October 24, 2012
Publication Date: October 24, 2012
Repository URL: http://scisoc.confex.com/scisoc/2012am/webprogram/Paper73117.html
Citation: Gesch, R.W., Archer, D.W. 2012. Potential for double-cropping with winter camelina [abstract]. ASA-CSSA-SSSA Annual Meeting Abstracts. ASA-CSSA-SSSA Annual Meeting. Oct. 21-24, 2012, Cincinnati, OH. Available: http://scisoc.confex.com/scisoc/2012am/webprogram/Paper73117.html.

Technical Abstract: Double-cropping camelina with a food or forage crop may offer a profitable means of producing a dedicated biofuel crop without jeopardizing food security. A 2-yr field study was conducted in west central Minnesota to evaluate the agronomic and economic viability of producing short-season cultivars of soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.], oilseed sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.), and forage millet (Setaria italica L.) after winter camelina in conventionally-tilled and no-tilled soil. Averaged over both years of this study, double-crop soybean and sunflower yielded 82 and 72% percent, respectively, of their conventionally-managed mono-crop counterparts. Total oil yields for the camelina-soybean and camelina-sunflower sequences averaged 704 and 1508 L ha-1, rivaling oil yields of mono-cropped soybean or sunflower. Moreover, double-crop soybean seed protein content was little affected by late seeding, while double-crop sunflower oil content averaged over both years was about 13% lower than conventional sunflower sown at an optimum time. If camelina prices were similar to canola, double-crop soybean and sunflower average net returns over both years of the study ranged from 99-111% and 77-84%, respectively, of their conventionally-managed mono-crop counterparts. Double-cropping winter camelina with soybean appears to have the greatest potential and using camelina as a dedicated biofuel crop offers at least a partial solution to the fuel vs. food debate.