Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Effects of input management and crop diversity on economic returns and riskiness of cropping systems in the semi-arid Canadian Prairie

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 February 2011

R.P. Zentner
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Semiarid Prairie Agricultural Research Centre, Box 1030, Swift Current, Saskatchewan, CanadaS9H 3X2.
P. Basnyat
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Semiarid Prairie Agricultural Research Centre, Box 1030, Swift Current, Saskatchewan, CanadaS9H 3X2.
S.A. Brandt
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Scott Research Farm, Box 10, Scott Saskatchewan, CanadaS0K 4A0.
A.G. Thomas
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Saskatoon, Research Centre, 107 Science Place, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, CanadaS7N 0X2.
D. Ulrich
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Scott Research Farm, Box 10, Scott Saskatchewan, CanadaS0K 4A0.
C.A. Campbell
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Cereal and Oilseed Research Centre, 960 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario, CanadaK1A 0C6.
C.N. Nagy
Affiliation:
Centre for Studies in Agriculture, Law and Environment, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Saskatchewan, 51 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, CanadaS7N 5A8.
B. Frick
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, University of Saskatchewan, 51 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, CanadaS7N 5A8.
R. Lemke
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Saskatoon, Research Centre, 107 Science Place, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, CanadaS7N 0X2.
S.S. Malhi
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Melfort Research Farm, Box 1240, Melfort, Saskatchewan, CanadaS0E 1A0.
O.O. Olfert
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Saskatoon, Research Centre, 107 Science Place, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, CanadaS7N 0X2.
M.R. Fernandez
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Semiarid Prairie Agricultural Research Centre, Box 1030, Swift Current, Saskatchewan, CanadaS9H 3X2.
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

Producers in the semi-arid Dark Brown Chernozemic (Typic Boroll) soil zone of the Canadian Prairie are contemplating changes to land-use practices, moving away from conventional high-input production systems that specialize in one or two annual grain crops to more diversified and extended cropping systems that use reduced-input and organic management practices. This study examined the economic merits of nine cropping systems, consisting of a factorial combination of three input management methods and three levels of cropping diversity. It was conducted over the 1996–2007 period on a loam soil at Scott, Saskatchewan. The input treatments were: (1) high input (HIGH), which used conventional tillage and full recommended rates of fertilizers and pesticides ‘as required’; (2) reduced input (RED), which used conservation tillage and integrated weed and nutrient management practices in an effort to lower requirements for fuel, fertilizers and pesticides; and (3) organic input (ORG), which used tillage, non-chemical pest control, higher seeding rates, delayed seeding and legume crops to replenish soil nutrients. The crop diversity treatments included: (1) a fallow-based rotation with low crop diversity (LOW); (2) a diversified annual rotation of cereal, oilseed and pulse grains (DAG); and (3) a diversified rotation using annual grains and perennial forages (DAP). All crop rotations were 6 years in length. At the 2007 input costs and prices, average net returns and 12-year net present values were higher for organic than for non-organic treatments, with the ORG input/LOW crop diversity system being the most profitable (net returns=$234 ha−1 yr−1 and net present value=$1953 ha−1). Net returns averaged about 10% less for ORG/DAG compared to the most profitable system, and about 22% less for HIGH/DAG and RED/DAG (the best non-organic systems). The DAP treatments that included forage were not economically competitive with the other treatments, often producing economic losses. The relative profitability of the organic treatments was highly dependent on the existence of organic price premiums. When price premiums for organic crops were reduced to less than 70% of the 2007 levels, the organic treatments were less profitable than the comparable non-organic treatments. The organic treatments also experienced significantly lower (and often negative) net returns compared to the non-organic treatments during completion of the 3-year organic certification period. We estimated that it required 5–7 years after completion of certification for the organic treatments to break even with the comparable non-organic treatments. Thereafter the organic treatments produced consistently higher net earnings. Production costs averaged 16% lower with ORG management compared to the HIGH-input treatments, but we found little difference in total costs between the respective HIGH- and RED-input treatments. The organic treatments also displayed lower income variability than the non-organic treatments, with the ORG/LOW system being preferred by risk-averse producers, who do not subscribe to all-risk crop insurance, and with the ORG/LOW and ORG/DAG systems preferred by low and medium risk-averse producers when having the added financial protection from the Canada/Saskatchewan all-risk crop insurance program.

Type
Research Papers
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

1Padbury, G., Waltman, S., Caprio, J., Coen, G., McGinn, S., Mortensen, D., Nielsen, G., and Sinclair, R. 2002. Agroecosystems and land resources of the Northern Great Plains. Agronomy Journal 94:251261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2Pimentel, D., Hepperly, P., Hanson, J., Douds, D., and Seidel, R. 2005. Environmental, energetic and economic comparisons of organic and conventional farming systems. BioScience 55:573582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3Smolik, J.D., Dobbs, T.L., and Rickerl, D.H. 1995. The relative sustainability of alternative, conventional, and reduced-till farming systems. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 10:2535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4Campbell, C.A., Zentner, R.P., Gameda, S., Blomert, B., and Wall, D.D. 2002. Production of annual crops on the Canadian Prairies: trends during 1976–1998. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 82:4557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5Zentner, 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 94:216230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Entz, M.H., Guilford, R., and Gulden, R. 2001. Crop yield and soil nutrient status on 14 organic farms in the eastern portion of the northern Great Plains. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 81:351354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Smith, E.G., Clapperton, M.J., and Blackshaw, R.E. 2004. Profitability and risk of organic production systems in the northern Great Plains. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 19:152158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8MacRae, R.J., Frick, B., and Martin, R. 2007. Economic and social impacts of organic production systems. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 87:10371044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9Acton, D.F. and Gregorich, L.J. 1995. The Health of Our Soils: Towards Sustainable Agriculture in Canada. Publication No. 1906/E. Centre for Land and Biological Resource Research, Ottawa, ON, Canada.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Janzen, H.H., Desjardins, R.L., Asselin, J.M.R., and Grace, B. 1999. The health of our air: Towards sustainable agriculture in Canada. Publication 1981/E. Research Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada. p. 98.Google Scholar
11Lafond, G.P., Boyetchko, S.M., Brandt, S.A., Clayton, G.W., and Entz, M.H. 1996. Influence of changing tillage practices on crop production. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 76:641649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12Campbell, C.A., Tessier, J.S.J., and Selles, F. 1988. Challenges and limitations to adoption of conservation tillage – soil organic matter, fertility, moisture and soil environment. In Land Degradation and Conservation Tillage, Proceedings of the 34th Annual CSSS/AIC Meeting, AIC, Calgary, AB. p. 140185.Google Scholar
13Derksen, D.A., Anderson, R.L., Blackshaw, R.E., and Maxwell, B. 2002. Weed dynamics and management strategies for cropping systems in the northern Great Plains. Agronomy Journal 94:174185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14Brandt, S.A. 1992. Zero vs. conventional tillage and their effects on crop yield and soil moisture. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 72:679688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15McConkey, B.G., Campbell, C.A., Zentner, R.P., Dyck, F.B., and Selles, F. 1996. Long-term tillage effects on spring wheat production on three soil textures in the Brown soil zone. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 76:747756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16Miller, P.R., McDonald, C.L., Derksen, D.A., and Waddington, J. 2001. The adaptation of seven broadleaf crops to the dry semiarid prairie. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 81:2943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17Campbell, C.A., Zentner, R.P., Janzen, H.H., and Bowren, K.E. 1990. Crop rotation studies on the Canadian Prairies. Publication 1841/E. Research Branch, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, ON. p. 133.Google Scholar
18Smith, E.G., Peter, T.L., Blackshaw, R.E., Lindwall, C.W., and Larney, F.J. 1996. Economics of reduced tillage fallow–crop systems in the Dark Brown soil zone of Alberta. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 76:411416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19Zentner, 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 Science 76:697–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20Zentner, R.P., Brandt, S.A., Kirkland, K.J., Campbell, C.A., and Sonntag, G.J. 1992. Economics of rotation and tillage systems for the Dark Brown soil zone of the Canadian Prairies. Soil and Tillage Research 24:271284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21Zentner, 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
22Government of Canada. 2006. Organic production systems: General principles and management standards. CAN/CGSB-32.310–2006. Available at Web site http://www.oacc.info/Docs/Cdn_Stds_Principles2006_e.pdf (accessed January 21, 2011).Google Scholar
23Brandt, S.A., Ulrich, D., Thomas, A.G., and Olfert, O.O. 2003. Alternative cropping systems in the Canadian Prairies: Effects of input level and cropping diversity on crop production. In Proceedings of the Dynamic Cropping Systems: Principles, Processes, and Challenges, Bismarck, ND, August 4–7, 2003. p. 224228.Google Scholar
24Schneeberger, W., Darnhofer, L., and Eder, M. 2002. Barriers to the adoption of organic farming by cash-crop producers in Austria. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 17:2431.Google Scholar
25Malhi, S.S., Brandt, S.A., Lemke, R., Moulin, A.P., and Zentner, R.P. 2009. Effects of input level and crop diversity on soil nitrate-N, extractable P, aggregation, organic C and N, and nutrient balance in the Canadian Prairie. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 84:122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26Brandt, S.A., Thomas, A.G., Olfert, O.O., Leeson, J.Y., Ulrich, D., and Weiss, R. 2010. Design, rationale and methodological considerations for a long term alternative cropping experiment in the Canadian plain region. European Journal of Agronomy 32:7379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27Zentner, R.P., Basnyat, P., Brandt, S.A., Thomas, A.G., Ulrich, D., Campbell, C.A., Nagy, C.N., Frick, B., Lemke, R., Malhi, S.S., and Fernandez, M.R. 2010. Effects of input management and crop diversity on non-renewable energy use efficiency of cropping systems in the Canadian Prairie. European Journal of Agronomy 34:113123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28Clayton, J.S. and Ellis, J.G. 1952. Soil Survey of the Experimental Stations and Substations of the Canada Department of Agriculture in Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan Soil Survey. Saskatoon, SK. p. 81.Google Scholar
29Saskatchewan Soil Testing Laboratory. 1990. Nutrient Requirement Guidelines for Field Crops in Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan Soil Testing Laboratory, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK. p. 33.Google Scholar
30Zentner, R.P. and Campbell, C.A. 1988. First 18 years of a long-term crop rotation study in southwestern Saskatchewan – yields, grain protein and economic performance. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 68:121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31Doll, J.P. and Orazem, F. 1978. Production Economics: Theory with Applications. Grid Inc., Columbus, OH. p. 406.Google Scholar
32Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food. 2007. Farm Machinery Custom and Rental Rate Guide 2006–07. Sustainable Production Branch, Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food, Regina, SK. p. 38.Google Scholar
33University of Saskatchewan. 2007. Prairie Crop Protection Planner. Version 2 [CD-ROM] University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK. Available at Web site http://www.extension.usask.ca (accessed January 21, 2011).Google Scholar
34Saskatchewan Crop Insurance Corporation. 2007. Premium Tables 2007 (Commercial and Organic Crops) – Risk Area 20. Saskatchewan Crop Insurance Corporation, Melville, SK.Google Scholar
35Canadian Wheat Board. 2007. 2006–07 initial payments. [Online] Available at Web site http://cwb.ca/public/en//farmers/payments/historical/pdf/2006–07_tonnes.pdf (accessed January 21, 2011).Google Scholar
36SAS Institute Inc. 2006. SAS/STAT 9.1 User's Guide. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
37Littel, R.C., Milliken, G.A., Stroup, W.W., and Wolfinger, R.D. 1996. SAS System for Mixed Models. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC. p. 633.Google Scholar
38SAS Institute Inc. 2006. The GLIMMIX Procedure. Available at Web sitehttp://support.sas/com/rnd/app/papers/glimmix.pdfGoogle Scholar
39Goh, S., Shih, C.C., Cochan, M.J., and Rakin, R. 1989. A generalized stochastic dominance program for the IBM PC. Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics 21:175182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40Zentner, R.P., Selles, F., Campbell, C.A., Handford, K., and McConkey, B.G. 1992. Economics of fertilizer-N management for zero-tillage continuous spring wheat in the Brown soil zone. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 72:981995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41Stonehouse, D.P., Weise, S.F., Sheardown, T., Gill, R.S., and Swanton, C.J. 1996. A case study approach to comparing weed management strategies under alternative farming systems in Ontario. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 44:8199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42Diebel, P.L., Llewelyn, R.V., and Williams, J.R. 1993. An economic analysis of conventional and alternative cropping systems for northeast Kansas. Report of Progress 687. Agriculture Experiment Station, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.Google Scholar
43Delate, K., Chase, C., Duffy, M., and Turnbull, R. 2006. Transitioning into organic grain production: An economic perspective. [Online]. Crop Management doi:Google Scholar
44Archer, D.W., Jaradat, A.A., Johnson, J.M.-F., Weyers, S.L., Gesch, R.W., Forcella, F., and Kludze, H.K. 2007. Crop productivity and economics during the transition to alternative cropping systems. Agronomy Journal 99:15381547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45Unger, P.W. and McCalla, T.M. 1980. Conservation tillage systems. Advances in Agronomy 33:158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
46Aulakh, M.S., Rennie, D.A., and Paul, E.A. 1982. Gaseous nitrogen losses from cropped and summer-fallowed soils. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 62:187192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
47Campbell, C.A., McConkey, B.G., Zentner, R.P., Selles, F., and Curtin, D. 1996. Long term effects of tillage and crop rotations on soil organic C and total N in a clay soil in southwestern Saskatchewan. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 76:395401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
48Janzen, H.H., Campbell, C.A., Izaurralde, R.C., Ellert, B.H., Juma, N., McGill, W.B., and Zentner, R.P. 1998. Management effects on soil C storage on the Canadian Prairies. Soil and Tillage Research 47:181195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
49Karlen, D.L., Duffy, M.D., and Clovin, T.S. 1995. Nutrient, labor, energy, and economic evaluations of two farming systems in Iowa. Journal of Production Agriculture 8:540546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
50Hanson, J.C., Lichtenberg, E., and Peters, S.E. 1997. Organic versus conventional grain production in the mid-Atlantic: an economic and farming system overview. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 12:29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
51Mahoney, P.R., Olson, K.D., Porter, P.M., Huggins, D.R., Perillo, C.A., and Crookston, R.K. 2004. Profitability of organic cropping systems in southwestern Minnesota. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 19:3546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
52Brandt, S.A. and Zentner, R.P. 1995. Crop production under alternate rotations on a Dark Brown Chernozemic soil at Scott, Saskatchewan. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 75:789794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
53Zentner, R.P., Brandt, S.A., and Campbell, C.A. 1996. Economics of monoculture cereal and mixed oilseed-cereal rotations in west-central Saskatchewan. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 76:393400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
54Smith, E.G., Upadhyay, B.M., Blackshaw, R.E., Beckie, H.J., Harker, K.N., and Clayton, G.W. 2006. Economic benefits of integrated weed management systems for field crops in the Dark Brown and Black soil zones of western Canada. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 86:12731279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
55Batte, M.T., Forster, D.L., and Hitzhusen, F.J. 1993. Organic agriculture in Ohio: An economic perspective. Journal of Production Agriculture 6:536542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
56Welsh, R. 1999. The economics of organic grain and soybean production in the Midwestern United States. Policy Studies Report No. 13. Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture, Greenbelt, MD.Google Scholar
57Anderson, J.R., Dillion, J.L., and Hardaker, B. 1977. Agricultural Decision Analysis. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA. p. 344.Google Scholar
58Hanson, J.C., Johnson, D.M., Peters, S.E., and Janke, R.R. 1990. The profitability of sustainable agriculture on a representative grain farm in the mid-Atlantic region, 1981–89. Northeast Journal of Agriculture and Resource Economics 19:9098.Google Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 5
Total number of PDF views: 94 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 18th January 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-77fc7d77f9-cctwg Total loading time: 0.566 Render date: 2021-01-18T20:14:50.188Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags last update: Mon Jan 18 2021 19:56:13 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) Feature Flags: { "metrics": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "peerReview": true, "crossMark": true, "comments": true, "relatedCommentaries": true, "subject": true, "clr": true, "languageSwitch": true, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Effects of input management and crop diversity on economic returns and riskiness of cropping systems in the semi-arid Canadian Prairie
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Effects of input management and crop diversity on economic returns and riskiness of cropping systems in the semi-arid Canadian Prairie
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Effects of input management and crop diversity on economic returns and riskiness of cropping systems in the semi-arid Canadian Prairie
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *