Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-568f69f84b-lkk24 Total loading time: 0.188 Render date: 2021-09-20T06:27:08.641Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Reduced chemical input cropping systems in the Southeastern United States: III. Economic analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Larry D. King
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Soil Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7619
Dana L. Hoag
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523.
Get access

Abstract

This study evaluated the profitability of several cropping systems during a 10-year period of an experiment comparing rotations and levels of purchased inputs. Continuous corn or sorghum, corn/wheat-soybean (2-year), and corn/wheat-soybean/corn/clover hay (4-year) were managed with recommended fertilizer and pesticide rates and no-till planting (C) or with N from legumes, conventional tillage, and cultivation for weed control (L). Medium input management (M: medium rate of N and banded herbicides) was included during years 5 through 10. Generally, corn was the least profitable crop, regardless of input level or type of rotation. Rotating crops improved profit more than did adding inputs to continuous corn. With L, average annual profit was: continuous corn, -$64/ha; 2-year rotation, $135/ha; and 4-year rotation, $158/ha. With C, the 2-year rotation increased profit to $165/ha from -$119/ha with continuous corn. The increased profit with rotations was due to greater profits from wheat, soybean, and hay offsetting low or negative profit from corn. Sorghum (grown only in monoculture) was more profitable with L ($34/ha) than with C (-$20/ha). During the 6 years when all input levels were compared, the order of average profit was M>L>C with continuous corn. Generally, profit was not increased by M compared with L in the 2-and 4-year rotations. With L, the cost of weed control was 20% of that for C with corn and 44% with soybean. Cost of N from fertilizer was $0.66/kg, but cost of N from crimson clover (seed and planting costs) averaged $0.92/kg when clover was drilled, $1.27/kg when aerially seeded, and $0.16/kg when naturally reseeded.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

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.Cooperative State Research Service. 1991. The basic principles of sustainable agriculture. A policy briefing book. GA5534. U.S. Dept. of Agric., Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
2.Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. 1988. Long term viability of U.S. agriculture. Report No. 114. Ames, Iowa.Google Scholar
3.Crozier, C.R. 1992. Tracing N movement in corn production systems in the North Carolina Piedmont using N pool size analysis and 15N tracing. Ph.D. dissertation abstract number 9305424. Dept. of Soil Science, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh.Google Scholar
4.General Accounting Office. 1990. Alternative agriculture: Federal incentives and farmer's opinions. Report to Congressional requesters. GAO/PEMD-90-12. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
5.Hoag, D.L., Estes, E., Rogers, L., and Cox, V.. 1987. Budget planner user's guide. Dept. of Economics and Business, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh.Google Scholar
6.Kellogg, R., Maizel, M. S., and Goss, D.. 1992. Agricultural chemical use and ground water quality: Where are the potential problem areas?. USDASCS-ERS-CSRS joint publication. National Center for Resource Innovations, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
7.King, L.D., and Buchanan, M.A.. 1993. Reduced chemical input cropping systems in the southeastern United States: I. Effect of rotations, green manure crops and nitrogen fertilizer on crop yields. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 8:5877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.King, L.D. 1994. Reduced chemical input cropping systems in the southeastern United States: II. Effect of moderate rates of fertilizer N and herbicides, tillage, and delayed cover crop plow-down on crop yields. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 9:162170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Madden, Patrick. 1988. Policy options for a more sustainable agriculture. In Understanding of Public Problems and Policies—1988. Farm Foundation, Oak Brook, Illinois. pp. 134142.Google Scholar
10.North Carolina Agricultural Chemicals Manuals. 19851992. College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh.Google Scholar
11.Schaller, N. 1993. Farm policies and the sustainability of agriculture: Rethinking the connections. Policy Studies Program Report No. 1. Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture, Greenbelt, Maryland.Google Scholar
12.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. National pesticide well water survey. Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
2
Cited by

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.

Reduced chemical input cropping systems in the Southeastern United States: III. Economic analysis
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.

Reduced chemical input cropping systems in the Southeastern United States: III. Economic analysis
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.

Reduced chemical input cropping systems in the Southeastern United States: III. Economic analysis
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *