Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T23:21:17.172Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An economic comparison of alternative and traditional cropping systems in the northern Great Plains, USA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2007

Eric A. DeVuyst ,
Thomas Foissey  and
George O. Kegode
Eric A. DeVuyst*
Affiliation:
Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics, North Dakota State University, PO Box 5636, Fargo, ND, 58104-5636, USA.
Thomas Foissey
Affiliation:
Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics, North Dakota State University, PO Box 5636, Fargo, ND, 58104-5636, USA.
George O. Kegode
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, North Dakota State University, PO Box 5051, Fargo, ND, 58105-5051, USA.
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Current production practices in the Red River Valley of North Dakota and Minnesota involve use of extensive tillage and/or herbicides to control weeds. Given the erosion potential, environmental concerns associated with herbicides, and herbicide-resistant weeds, alternative cropping systems that mitigate these problems need to be assessed economically. Furthermore, the role that government commodity programs play in the adoption of more ecologically friendly cropping systems needs to be determined. We evaluated 8 years of yield data (1994–2001) from field plots near Fargo, North Dakota, to compare the economics of two alternative cropping systems, reduced-input (RI) and no-till (NT), to a conventional tillage (CT) cropping system. The RI system relies on a more diverse rotation of soybean (SB), spring wheat (SW), sweet clover (SC) and rye, and uses fewer herbicide and fertilizer inputs than CT or NT. Both NT and CT systems rotate SB and SW. We found that CT returns averaged over $47 ha−1 more than NT during the study period. Because SC yield data were not available, the economic competitiveness of RI was calculated using break-even yields and returns for SC. Historical SC yields in Cass County, North Dakota were not statistically different from the break-even yields. However, when government program payments were considered, break-even returns for SC increased by about $15 and $18 ha−1 and break-even yields by 0.44 and 0.52 MT ha−1 for RI to compare with NT and CT, respectively. These results indicate that CT management offers greater economic return than either RI or NT and that government program payments impede adoption of more environmentally friendly cropping systems in the northern Great Plains.

Keywords

reduced-inputcropping systemssustainabilitysoybeanspring wheatsweet cloverrye
Type
Research Article
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , March 2006 , pp. 68 - 73
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2006

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

01Derksen, D.A., Anderson, R.L., Blackshaw, R.E., and Maxwell, B. 2002. Weed dynamics and management strategies for cropping systems in the northern plains. Agronomy Journal 94: 174–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
02Kegode, G.O., Forcella, F., and Clay, S. 1999. Influence of crop rotations, tillage, and management inputs on weed seed production. Weed Science 47: 175–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
03Lindwall, C.W. and Larney, F.J. 1993. Why direct seeding will work and is profitable. In 8–9 February.Saskatchewan Soil Conservation Association,Indian Head, SK. p. 1–20.Google Scholar
04Jones, M. 1996. Enhancing yield, profitability and nitrogen mineralization in corn-based integrated cropping systems. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University.Google Scholar
05Ramsdale, B.K., Kegode, G.O., Messersmith, C.G., and North, C.A. 2005. Long-term effects of cropping systems on weed populations. Field Crops Research, in press.Google Scholar
06Stoa, T.E. and Zubriski, J.C. 1969. Crop rotation, crop management, and soil fertility studies on Fargo clay. North Dakota Research Report 20. Agricultural Experiment Station, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND.Google Scholar
07Hoyt, P.B. 1990. Residual effects of alfalfa and brome grass cropping on yields of wheat grown for subsequent 15 years. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 70: 109–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
08Zentner, R.P., Lafond, G.P., Derksen, D.A., and Campbell, C.A. 2002. Tillage method and crop diversification: effect on economic returns and riskiness of cropping systems in a Thin Black Chernozem of the Canadian Prairies. Soil and Tillage Research 67: 9–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
09Zentner, R.P., Wall, D.D., Nagy, C.N., Smith, E.G., Young, D.L., Miller, P.R., Campbell, C.A., McConkey, B.G., Brandt, S.A., Lafond, G.P., Johnston, A.M., and Derksen, D.A. 2002. Economics of crop diversification and soil tillage opportunities in the Canadian Prairies. Agronomy Journal 94: 216–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Zentner, R.P., Campbell, C.A., Brandt, S.A., Bowren, K.E., and Spratt, E.D. 1986. Economics of crop rotations in Western Canada. In Slinkard, A.E. and Fowler, D.B. (eds) 3–5 March.Division of External and Community Relations, University of Saskatchewan,Saskatoon, SK, Canada. p. 254–317.Google Scholar
11Wall, D.D. and Zentner, R.P. 1999. Economics. In Leduc, P.J. (ed.). Direct Seeding Manual: A Farming System for the New Millennium. Prairie Agricultural Machinery Institute Humboldt, Canada. 107–112.Google Scholar
12Zentner, R.P., McConkey, B.G., Campbell, C.A., Dyck, F.B., and Selles, F. 1996. Economics of conservation tillage in the semiarid prairie. Canadian Journal of Plant Sciences 76: 697–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13Brown, W.J., Gray, R.S., and Taylor, J.S. 1996. Economic factors contributing to the adoption of reduced tillage/Direct seeding technologies in Central Saskatchewan. Available at: http://ssca.usak.ca/conference/1996proceedings/Brown.html (verified 16 November 2005).Google Scholar
14USDA North Dakota Agricultural Statistics Service. North Dakota Agricultural Statistics, 1994–2002. USDA NDASS, Fargo, ND.Google Scholar
15North Dakota State University Cooperative Extension Service. 2001. Projected 2002 Crop Budgets South Red River Valley. North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND.Google Scholar
16US NASA. 2004. Producer Price Index Calculator [Online]. Available at: http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/bu2/inflation/ppi/inflatePPI.html (verified 21 June 2004).Google Scholar
17Zollinger, R.K. 1994–2001. North Dakota State University Extension Service Herbicide Price List.Google Scholar
18Lazarus, W. and Selley, R. 2002. Farm Machinery Economic Cost Estimates for 2002. University of Minnesota Extension Service.Google Scholar
19USDA Economic and research service. 2004. Published database. Available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/ (verified 21 June 2004).Google Scholar
20USDA National Agriculture Statistics Service. 2004. Published estimates database [Online]. Available at: http://www.nass.usda.gov:81/ipedb/ (verified 21 June 2004).Google Scholar
21Conservation Technology Information Center (CTIC). 1995. 1995 National Crop Residue Management Survey. CTIC, West Lafayette, IN.Google Scholar