Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nmvwc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-03T13:23:10.916Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Yields and returns from strip intercropping on six Iowa farms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

D.N. Exner
Affiliation:
Iowa State University Extension associate serving as fanning systems coordinator for Practical Farmers of Iowa (PFI), 2104 Agronomy Hall, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011.
D.G. Davidson
Affiliation:
PFI research cooperator, 18711 250th St., Grundy Center, IA 50638.
M. Ghaffarzadeh
Affiliation:
Research agronomist, Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., 6900 NW 62nd Ave., Johnston, IA 50131
R.M. Cruse
Affiliation:
Professor of agronomy, 3210 Agronomy Hall, ISU, Ames, IA 50011.
Get access

Abstract

Strip intercropping seeks to capture the biological efficiency of intercropping in traditional agricultural systems and is compatible with agricultural equipment used in the U.S. This efficiency stems from complementary use of resources by constituent crops and is a function of crop selection, strip width and orientation, weed control, and other factors. Strip intercropping requires a high level of management; further, some reports suggest the gains and losses more-or-less balance in actual production situations. These questions are best addressed by the performance of strip intercropping as implemented by farmers in production situations.

Practical Farmers of Iowa (PFI) members have worked with Iowa State University agronomists to evaluate strip intercropping. For three years six farmers compared strip intercropping to field blocks of individual crops. The strip intercrop systems employed three crops: corn, soybeans, and small grains with a forage legume underseeding. The comparison systems, crops grown in sole-crop blocks, consisted of the same three crops on four farms (planting pattern comparison) or, on two farms, just corn and soybeans in rotation (systems comparison). Yields and field operations were recorded and entered in the Iowa State University Crop Enterprise Record System (CER) to derive gross profit, total production cost, and net profit for each crop component and for each cropping system on every farm. Strip intercropping net profit was generally greater than that in field blocks, and intercropping compared favorably with CER results obtained from corn-soybean rotations on other farms around Iowa. Land equivalent ratios (LER) were usually greater than 1.0, indicating satisfactory biological efficiency. Despite occasional problems, in this set of 18 site-years strip intercropping was associated with greater stability of net profit.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1999

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.Adetiloye, P.O., and Adekunle, A.A.. 1989. Concept of monetary equivalent ratio and its usefulness in the evaluation of intercropping advantages. Tropical Agric. (Trinidad) 66(4):337341.Google Scholar
2.Anderson, J.R., Dillon, J.L., and Hardaker, J. B.. 1977. Agricultural Decision Analysis. Iowa State University Press, Ames.Google Scholar
3.Crookston, R.K., and Hill, D.S.. 1979. Grain yields and land equivalent ratios from intercropping corn and soybeans in Minnesota. Agronomy J. 71(1):4144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Edwards, W. 1993, 1994, 1995. Crop Enterprise Record Analysis State Summary. Iowa State University Extension Service Bulletin FM-1847.Google Scholar
5.Ellsbury, M.E., Exner, D.N., and Cruse, R.M.. 1999. Movement of corn rootworm larvae (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) between border rows of soybean and corn in a strip intercropping system. J. Econ. Ent. 92(1):207214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Exner, D.N. 1997. Productivity and profitability of strip intercropping systems as implemented by agronomists and farmers. Ph.D. diss. Iowa State Univ., Ames.Google Scholar
7.Francis, C.A., Jones, A., Crookston, K., Wittler, K., and Goodman, S.. 1986. Strip cropping corn and grain legumes: A review. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 1(4):159164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Gilley, J.E., Kramer, L.A., Cruse, R.M., and Hull, A.. 1997. Sediment movement within a strip intercropping system. J. Soil and Water Conservation 52(6):443447.Google Scholar
9.Hien, V., Kabore, D., Youl, S., and Lowenberg-DeBoer, J.. 1993. Stochastic dominance analysis of on-farm-trial data: The case of the Food Crops Fertilizer Project, Burkina Faso, 1889 to 1991. Staff paper 93–19. Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, West Lafayette.Google Scholar
10.Norman, D.W. 1974. Rationalising mixed cropping under indigenous conditions: The example of northern Nigeria. J. Dev. Stud. 11(1):321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Pendleton, J.W., Bolen, C.D., and Seif, R. D.. 1963. Alternating strips of corn and soybeans vs. solid plantings. Agronomy J. 55:293295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Shen, L. 1984. Yield response of corn and soybean strip intercropping in different row directions. M.S. thesis. Iowa State University, Ames.Google Scholar
13.Steel, R.G.D., and Torrie, J.H.. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach. 2nd ed.McGraw-Hill, NY.Google Scholar
14.Weber, E. 1993. Narrow strip intercropping: Creating wider windows of opportunity. Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Ames, IA. Leopold Letter 5(3):46.Google Scholar
15.West, T.D., and Griffith, D.R.. 1992. Effect of strip intercropping corn and soybean on yield and profit. J. Production Agric. 5(1):107110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Willey, R.W. 1985. Evaluation and presentation of intercropping advantages. Experimental Agric. 21:119133.Google Scholar
17.Wittler, G.K. 1986. Summary of Strip Cropping. Parkland College, Champaign, IL.Google Scholar