Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-fnpn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-25T19:19:22.942Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Risk and Sustainable Agriculture: A Target-Motad Analysis of the 92-Year “Old Rotation”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 September 2016

James L. Novak ,
Charles C. Mitchell Jr.  and
Jerry R. Crews
James L. Novak
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Auburn University, Alabama
Charles C. Mitchell Jr.
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Soils, Auburn University, Alabama
Jerry R. Crews
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Auburn University, Alabama
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Target-MOTAD was used to assess the risks and returns of sustainable cotton crop rotations from Auburn University's 92-year “Old Rotation.” Study results analyze rotations of continuous cotton, with and without winter legumes; two years of cotton-winter legumes-corn, with and without nitrogen fertilization; and three years of cotton-winter legumes-corn and rye-soybeans double-cropped. Ten years of observations on deviations from target income were used to identify optimal sustainable rotation(s). Study results suggest that diversification in rotations, as well as in crops, results in the least risk for a given level of target income.

Keywords

Target-MOTADrisk-returnscotton rotation(s)sustainable agriculture
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , July 1990 , pp. 145 - 154
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1990

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

Agricultural-Food Policy Review: Commodity Program Perspectives. ERS/USDA, Washington, DC, July, 1985:141.Google Scholar
Agricultural Outlook. EMS/USDA, Washington, DC, Dec, 1980 - Jan., 1989.Google Scholar
Alabama Agricultural Statistics, Alabama Agricultural Statistics Service, Montgomery, Alabama. Bulletin 30, 1988.Google Scholar
Brown, W.J. “A Risk Efficiency Analysis of Crop Rotations in Saskatchewan.” Can. J. Agr. Econ., 35(1987):333–355.Google Scholar
Burmester, C.H. Chapman, L.J., Webster, W.B., and Calvert, V.H.. “Cotton Yield Response to Rotations Small in Tennessee Valley Research,” Highlights of Agricultural Research. Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, 35:3 (1988):5.Google Scholar
Crisostomo, M.F. Burton, R.O. Jr., Buller, O.H., and Kelley, K.W.. “A Target MOTAD Analysis of Double-Cropping and Alternative Cropping Patterns in Southeast Kansas.” Kansas State University, Dept. of Ag. Econ., Staff Paper No. 88-9, Jan., 1988.Google Scholar
Davis, F.L. “The Old Rotation at Auburn, Alabama.” Better Plants With Plant Food. American Potash Institute, Inc., Washington, DC, Reprint DD-8-49, 1949.Google Scholar
Dicks, M. Fulton, T., Glaser, L., Matsumoto, M., Moses, H., Ogg, C., Rector, J., Singer, P., Townsend, T., and Traub, L.. “Implications of the 1985 Farm Bill.” Ag. Outlook, EMS/USDA, Washington, DC, March, 1986:23–33.Google Scholar
Dover, M. and Talbot, L.M.. To Feed The Earth, Agro-Ecology For Sustainable Development. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, 1987.Google Scholar
Evans, E.M. and Sturkie, D.G.. “Winter Legumes Can Help Supply Nitrogen Need.” Highlights of Agricultural Research, Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn University, Alabama, 21:2 (1974).Google Scholar
Fisher, C. The Future is Abundant, A Guide to Sustainable Agriculture, Tilth, 13217 Mattson Road, Arlington, Washington, 1982:25–26.Google Scholar
Granatstein, D. Reshaping the Bottom Line, On-Farm Strategies For Sustainable Agriculture. 1988 Land Stewardship Project. Stillwater, Minnesota, 1988.Google Scholar
Hazell, P.B.R. “A Linear Alternative to Quadratic and Semivariance Programming for Farm Planning.” Am. J. Agr. Econ., 53(1971):53–62.Google Scholar
Heichel, G.H. “Stabilizing Agricultural Energy Needs: Role of Forages, Rotations, and Nitrogen Fixation.” J. Soil Water Cons., 33:6(1978):279–282.Google Scholar
King, P.R. and Robison, L.J.. “Risk Efficiency Models.” Risk Management in Agriculture, Barry, Peter J., ed., Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, 1984:68–81.Google Scholar
McNutt, R.B. “Soil Survey of Lee County, Alabama.” USDA, National Cooperative Soil Survey, 1981.Google Scholar
McCamley, F. and Kliebenstein, J.B.. “Describing and Identifying the Complete Set of Target MOTAD Solutions.” Am. J. Agr. Econ., 69:3(1987):669–676.Google Scholar
Mitchell, C.C. Jr. “New Information From Old Rotation.” Highlights of Agricultural Research, Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn University, Alabama, 35:4 (1988).Google Scholar
Poincelot, R.P. Toward a More Sustainable Agriculture. AVI Publishing Company, Inc. Westport, CT, 1986.Google Scholar
Tauer, L.W. “Target MOTAD.” Am. J. Agr. Econ., 65(1983):606–610.Google Scholar
Wishmeir, W.H. and Smith, D.D.. “Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses.” USDA Agricultural Handbook 537, Washington, DC, 1978.Google Scholar
Young, G.J. “Progress Report on Alabama's Farm Analysis Associations and 1988 Analysis Summary Data By Farm Type.” Extension Special Report 89-6, Alabama Coop. Ext. Service. Auburn University, Alabama, June, 1989.Google Scholar
Zacharias, T.P. and Grube, A.H.. “An Economic Evaluation of Weed Control Methods Used in Concert With Crop Rotation: A Stochastic Dominance Approach.”. M. Cent. J. Agr. Econ., 6:1(1984): 113–120.Google Scholar