Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T09:25:40.017Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The sensitivity of economic gains from high-speed planting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2017

C. R. Dillon ,
J. Shockley  and
T. Mark
C. R. Dillon*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, C.E. Barnhart Building, University of Kentucky, Lexington KY 40546-0276, USA
J. Shockley
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, C.E. Barnhart Building, University of Kentucky, Lexington KY 40546-0276, USA
T. Mark
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, C.E. Barnhart Building, University of Kentucky, Lexington KY 40546-0276, USA
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Recent technological progress in high-speed planting (HSP) warrants economic analysis of its potential. A whole farm optimization model of a 1000 ha Kentucky, USA corn and soybean operation finds that operating cost savings (labor, fuel, tractor repairs) and yield increases couple in recovering annual ownership costs of HSP technology. Changes in farm net returns are positive for all 12-row planter scenarios and all double speed cases for the 16-row planter but not for a 50% increase in speed with the 16-row planter. The greatest profit potential occurred when adopting the combination of HSP and variable rate application (VRA), with increased net returns of up to 6.57% compared to conventional speed no VRA for the 12-row planter.

Keywords

profitabilitywhole farm planningmachinery managementvariable rate
Type
Economics
Information
Advances in Animal Biosciences , Volume 8 , Special Issue 2: Papers presented at the 11th European Conference on Precision Agriculture (ECPA 2017), John McIntyre Centre, Edinburgh, UK, July 16–20 2017 , July 2017 , pp. 662 - 667
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2017 

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

Dillon, CR, Mueller, T and Shearer, SA 2003. An economic optimization model for management zone configuration Precision Agriculture: Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on Precision Agriculture. J. Stafford and A. Werner, eds. 165–169.Google Scholar
Dillon, CR and Shockley, JM 2011. The value of suitable working time for crop production machinery activities. Journal of International Farm Management 5 (4), 1–11.Google Scholar
Lee, CD, Egli, DB and TeKrony, DM 2008. Soybean response to plant population at early and late planting dates in the Mid-South. Agronomy Journal 100, 971–976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, B and Herbek, J 2001. Planting practices. A Comprehensive Guide to Corn Management in Kentucky University of Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service ID 139, 14–16. http://www2.ca.uky.edu/agcomm/pubs/id/id139/id139.pdf.Google Scholar
Potter, B 2014. Can you double your planter speed? AgWeb.com. (Retrieved 21 Jan 2014). http://www.agweb.com/article/can_you_double_your_planter_speed_naa_ben_potter/.Google Scholar
Schieffer, J and Dillon, CR 2015. The economic and environmental impacts of precision agriculture and interactions with agro-environmental policy. Precision Agriculture 16 (1), 46–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, J 2015. 10 tips for high-speed planting. Successful Farming at Agriculture.com. (Retrieved 4 Feb 2015). http://www.agriculture.com/machinery/farm-implements/planters/10-tips-f-highspeed-plting_231-ar47375.Google Scholar
Shockley, JM, Dillon, CR and Stombaugh, T 2011. A whole farm analysis of the influence of auto-steer navigation on net returns, risk and production practices. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 43 (1), 57–75.Google Scholar