Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:27:42.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The relative sustainability of alternative, conventional, and reduced-till farming systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

James D. Smolik ,
Thomas L. Dobbs  and
Diane H. Rickerl
James D. Smolik
Affiliation:
Professor, South Dakota State University, Brookings, South Dakota 57007.
Thomas L. Dobbs
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Plant Science Department, South Dakota State University, Brookings, South Dakota 57007.
Diane H. Rickerl
Affiliation:
Professor, Economics Department, South Dakota State University, Brookings, South Dakota 57007.
Get access

Abstract

We compared the agronomic, economic, and ecological performance of alternative (organic), conventional, and reduced-till farming systems over a 7-year period. We evaluated the sustainability of the various systems regarding several concerns, including soil erosion, pollution potential, whole-farm productivity, energy use, environmental stress, economic performance, and farm size. The alternative systems relied primarily on forage legumes (alfalfa or clover) as substitutes for the pesticides and commercial fertilizers used in the other systems.

Two studies were established in northeastern South Dakota in 1985. Study I emphasized row crops, Study II small grains. The alternative system in Study I, which included alfalfa hay in the rotation, was the most productive, both agronomically and economically. In Study II, the alternative system included a green manure crop (clover) in the 4-year rotation and had the lowest agronomic production; however, its economic performance was similar to the conventional system's. Year-to-year variability in production was lowest in the alternative systems. The alternative systems in both studies were the most energy-efficient, and the reduced-till systems the least. Judged by the distribution of nitrate-N in the soil profile, the potential for groundwater pollution was higher in the conventional and reduced-till systems in Study I than in the alternative system.

The alternative systems in both studies depended less on government payments for their profitability. Results in Study I also showed that more widespread adoption of alternative systems would tend to halt or slow the trend of ever-increasing farm size. These studies suggest that alternative systems are more sustainable in this agro-climatic area.

Keywords

organic farmingenergy usewhole-farm economicswhole-farm productivityfarm size
Type
Other Feature Articles
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , March 1995 , pp. 25 - 35
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Ananth, S. 1992. Effect of management practices on vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal (VAM) spore distribution and root infection in field-grown crops. Ph.D. Dissertation, Dept. of Plant Science, South Dakota State Univ., Brookings.Google Scholar
2.Batte, M.T. 1992. Sustainable agriculture and farm profitability: The case of organic farming in Ohio. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Amer. Agric. Economics Assoc, Baltimore, Maryland.Google Scholar
3.Bird, A. 1992. Virtual large farms and exurban communities: Keys to sustainable agriculture. Choices 7(3):54–55.Google Scholar
4.Chase, C., and Duffy, M.. 1991. An economic comparison of conventional and reduced-chemical farming systems in Iowa. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 6:168–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Crews, T.E., Mohler, C.L., and Power, A.G.. 1991. Energetics and ecosystern integrity: The defining principles of sustainable agriculture. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 6:146–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Diebel, P.L., Llewelyn, R.V., and Williams, J.R.. 1993. A yield sensitivity analysis of conventional and alternative whole-farm budgets for a typical northeast Kansas farm. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Western Agric. Economics Assoc., Edmonton, Canada.Google Scholar
7.Dobbs, T.L. 1993. Implications of sustainable farming systems in the Northern Great Plains for farm profitability and size. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Amer. Agric. Economics Assoc, Orlando, Florida.Google Scholar
8.Dobbs, T.L. 1994. Organic, conventional, and reduced till farming systems: Profitability in the northern Great Plains. Choices 9(2):31–32.Google Scholar
9.Dobbs, T.L., Becker, D.L., and Taylor, D.C.. 1991a Sustainable agriculture policy analyses: South Dakota on-farm case studies. J. Farming Systems Research-Extension 2:109–124.Google Scholar
10.Dobbs, T.L., Smolik, J.D., and Mends, C.. 1991b. On-farm research comparing conventional and low-input/sustainable agricultural systems in the northern Great Plains. In Rice, G.J. (ed). Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education in the Field. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. pp. 250–265.Google Scholar
11.Dobbs, T.L., Taylor, D.C., and Smolik, J.D.. 1992. Farm, rural economy, and policy implications of sustainable agriculture in South Dakota. Bull. 713. South Dakota Agric. Exp. Sta., Brookings.Google Scholar
12.Goering, C.E., and Daugherty, M.J.. 1982. Energy accounting for eleven vegetable oil fuels. Trans. Amer. Soc. Agric. Engineers 25:1209–1215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Helmers, G.A., Langemeier, M.R., and Atwood, J.. 1986. An economic analysis of alternative cropping systems for east-central Nebraska. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 1:153–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Henning, L.D., and Dobbs, T.L.. 1993. Contributions of alfalfa to whole-farm profitability of farming systems in northeastern South Dakota. Research Rep. 93–3. Economics Dept., South Dakota State Univ., Brookings.Google Scholar
15.Ikerd, J., Monson, S., and VanDyne, D.. 1993. Alternative farming systems for U.S. agriculture: New estimates of profit and environmental effects. Choices 8(3):37–38.Google Scholar
16.Keeney, D.R., and DeLuca, T.H.. 1992. Biomass as an energy source for the midwestern U.S. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 7:137–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Rickerl, D.H., and Smolik, J.D.. 1989a. The effects of farming systems on mycorrhizae. South Dakota Academy of Sci. 68:41–46.Google Scholar
18.Rickerl, D.H., and Smolik, J.D.. 1989b. Tillage and crop residue effects on soil frost depth. Proc. Frozen Soil Symposium, Spokane, Washington, pp. 31–35.Google Scholar
19.Rickerl, D.H., and Smolik, J.D.. 1990. Farming systems influence on soil properties and yield. J. Soil and Water Conservation 45:121–125.Google Scholar
20.Rickerl, D.H., Smolik, J.D., Machacek, T.A., and Clay, S.A.. 1994. Weed ecology in northern plains farming systems. Proc. Agricultural Research to Protect Water Quality, Vol. 2. Soil and Water Conservation Soc, Ankeny, Iowa. pp. 643–655.Google Scholar
21.Sahs, W.W., and Lesoing, G.. 1985. Crop rotations and manure versus agricultural chemicals in dryland grain production. J. Soil and Water Conservation 40:511–516.Google Scholar
22.Smith, S. 1992. Farming - It's declining in the U.S. Choices 7(1):8–10.Google Scholar
23.Smolik, J.D., and Dobbs, T.L.. 1991. Crop yields and economic returns accompanying the transition to alternative farming systems. J. Production Agric. 4:153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Smolik, J.D., Dobbs, T.L., Rickerl, D.H., Wrage, L.J., Buchenau, G.W., and Machacek, T.A.. 1993. Agronomic, economic, and ecological relationships in alternative (organic), conventional, and reduced-till farming systems. Bull. 718. South Dakota Agric. Exp. Sta., Brookings.Google Scholar
25.Stanhill, G. 1990. The comparative productivity of organic agriculture. Agric, Ecosystems and Environment 30:1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar