Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T08:36:18.296Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of corn, soybean and wheat crops to fertilizer and herbicides in Ohio compared with low-input production practices

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

D.A. Munn ,
G. Coffing  and
G. Sautter
D.A. Munn
Affiliation:
Associate Professor of Soil Chemistry, Ohio State University Agricultural Institute, 1328 Dover Road, Wooster, OH 44691
G. Coffing
Affiliation:
Farm Manager, Ohio State University Agricultural Institute, 1328 Dover Road, Wooster, OH 44691
G. Sautter
Affiliation:
Director of Farm Operations at Ohio State University Agricultural Institute, 1328 Dover Road, Wooster, OH 44691
Get access

Abstract

Synthetic inputs have become the norm in cash grain production in the Midwest U.S., but do they really increase profitability compared with low-input production methods? This study reports a comparison of cash grain yields, quality and profitability under two management systems, low-input practices and conventional practices. The crop sequence was corn, soybean, and wheat - medium red clover green manure. Low-input practices included crop rotation, manure, and mechanical weed control. Conventional practices added starter fertilizer, side-dress N for corn, early spring topdress N for wheat and herbicides to the low-input practices. The conventional inputs increased yields in each of the five growing seasons, 1992–96. Weather, N fertilizer and weed control appeared to explain much of the yield and grain quality variation. Soil P and K levels were maintained or increased by manure use. Plant foliar analysis indicated that soil macronutrients were mostly in the sufficient range for both management systems. Economic return in excess of the additional cost of the fertilizer and herbicides averaged $172.63 ha−1 for soybean, $165.63 ha−1 for corn and minus $19.19 ha−1 for wheat over the five-year study. Fertilizer and herbicides did pay with corn and soybean, but not with wheat under the conditions of this study.

Keywords

low-input grain cropconventional grain crop systemeconomic return to synthetic inputs
Type
Articles
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 13 , Issue 4 , December 1998 , pp. 181 - 189
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.Agronomy Extension Staff. 1995. Ohio Agronomy Guide 13th Ed.The Ohio State University Extension Service, Columbus, Ohio. p. 28.Google Scholar
2.Bureau, M.T., Graham, T. E., and Scherzinger, R. J.. 1984. Soil Survey of Wayne County Ohio. USDA-SCS, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
3.Chase, C., and Duffy, M.. 1991. An economic comparison of conventional and reduced chemical input farming systems in Iowa. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 6:168–173.Google Scholar
4.Dhanke, W. C. (ed). 1980. Recommended chemical soil test procedures for the North Central region. Bull No. 499 North Dakota Agr. Exp. Sta., North Dakota State Univ., Fargo, North Dakota.Google Scholar
5.Francis, C.A. 1990. Practical Applications of low-input agriculture in the Midwest. J. Soil and Water Conservation. 45(1):65–67.Google Scholar
6.Hanson, J. C., Lichtenberg, E., and Peters, S. E.. 1997. Organic versus conventional grain production in the mid-Atlantic: An economic and farming system overview. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 12:2–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Harwood, R. 1993. A look back at USDA's Report and Recommendations on Organic Farming. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 8:150–153.Google Scholar
8.King, L.D., and Buchanan, M.. 1993. Reduced chemical input cropping systems in the Southeastern United States. 1. Effect of rotations, green manure crops and nitrogen fertilizer on crop yield. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 8:58–77.Google Scholar
9.Liebhardt, W. C., Andrews, R.W., Culik, M.N., Harwood, R.R., Janke, R.R., Radke, J.K., and Rieger-Schwartz, S.L.. 1989. Crop production during conversion from conventional to low-input methods. Agron. J. 81:150–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Strange, M., and Miller, C.. 1994. A better road to hoe. The economic, environmental and social implications of sustainable agriculture. Northwest Area Foundation, St. Paul, Minnesota.Google Scholar
11.Temple, S.R., Friedman, D.B., Somasco, O., Ferris, H., Scow, K., and Klonsky, K.. 1994. An interdisciplinary, experiment station-based participatory comparison of alternative crop management systems for California's Sacramento Valley. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 9:64–71.Google Scholar
12.Vitosh, M. L., Johnson, J. W., and Mengel, D.B.. 1995. Tri-state fertilizer recommendations for corn, soybeans, wheat, and alfalfa. Michigan State University Extension Publication E-2567(New), East Lansing, Michigan.Google Scholar
13.Vorst, J.J. 1990. Research needs for sustainable agriculture. J. of Soil and Water Conservation 45(1):58–60.Google Scholar