4.5 Article

Economics of cropping systems featuring different rotations, tillage, and management

Journal

AGRONOMY JOURNAL
Volume 92, Issue 3, Pages 485-493

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.2134/agronj2000.923485x

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Economics is the dominant factor influencing the adoption of cropping systems. The objective of this 6-yr study was to determine profitability of cropping systems featuring four crop rotations (continuous corn (Zea mays L.), soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]-corn, soybean-corn-corn, and soybean-wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)/red clover (Trifolium pratense L.)-corn), three tillage systems (moldboard, chisel, and ridge) and two management input (high and low chemical) systems. The soybean-corn rotation under low chemical management resulted in the greatest net returns in chisel ($100 ha(-1)) and moldboard plow tillage ($148 ha(-1)) because the reduction in production costs (similar to$110 ha(-1)), associated with less fertilizer and pesticide costs in corn and less herbicide costs in soybeans, offset the reduction in gross returns ($72 ha(-1) in chisel and $38 ha(-1) in moldboard plow), associated with lower corn and soybean yields in chisel and lower corn yields in moldboard plow. Continuous corn under high chemical and soybean-corn-corn and soybean-corn rotations under low chemical management had similar net returns in ridge tillage ($33, $26, and $17 ha(-1), respectively). Growers who substitute soybean-corn and soybean-corn-corn (in ridge) rotations for continuous corn can maximize profits and reduce starter fertilizer use by 33 to 50%, N fertilizer by 60 to 70%, herbicides by about 60%, and insecticides by 65 to 100%. Growers who use moldboard plow tillage may realize maximum profits by adopting the soybean-wheat/red clover-corn rotation under low chemical management if they market the wheat straw, a common practice in New York.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available