Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T14:35:06.340Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An economic comparison of conventional and reduced-chemical farming systems in Iowa

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Craig Chase  and
Michael Duffy
Craig Chase
Affiliation:
Extension Associate, Department of Economics, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011.
Michael Duffy
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Economics, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011.
Get access

Abstract

Labor requirements, production costs, yields, and economic returns were evaluated for conventional and reduced-chemical cropping systems in northeast Iowa from 1978 to 1989. Continuous corn (C-C) and corn-soybean (C-Sb) rotations represented the conventional system; a corn-oat-meadow (C-O-M) rotation represented the reducedchemical system. The C-C and C-Sb rotations used both commercial pesticides and fertilizers. The C-O-M rotation used manure for fertilization and applied pesticides only in emergencies. Operations for all systems were implemented by one farm manager. The C-Sb rotation had the highest corn yield over the 12-year period, and the C-O-M rotation the lowest. The corn within the C-O-M rotation, however, produced the second highest average return to land, labor, and management. With costs of production substantially lower than the conventional systems, the C-O-M corn crop had competitive returns despite lower yield. The C-Sb average return to land, labor, and management was significantly higher than for the other systems. Hourly labor charges of $4, $10, $20, and $50 had little effect on the rankings of economic returns. Because of unusually high alfalfa reseeding costs and low average oat yields, returns to the C-O-M rotation were significantly lower than C-Sb but comparable to C-C. With better alfalfa establishment and higher average oat yields, the reduced-chemical system might have been competitive with the C-Sb conventional system.

Keywords

conventional systemsreduced-chemical systemsagricultural profitabilityeconomic returnslabor requirementsproduction cost comparisons
Type
Articles
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , December 1991 , pp. 168 - 173
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

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.Ayers, G., and Williams, D.. 1986. Estimating field capacity of farm machines. Bulletin PM-696. Cooperative Extension Service, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.Google Scholar
2.Batie, S., and Taylor, D.. 1989. Widespread adoption of non-conventional agriculture: Profitability and impacts. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 4:128–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Crosson, P., and Ostrov, J.. 1990. Sorting out the environmental benefits of alternative agriculture. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 45:34–41.Google Scholar
4.Duffy, M. 1990 and previous issues. Estimated costs of crop production in Iowa. Bulletin FM-1712. Cooperative Extension Service, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.Google Scholar
5.Duffy, M., and Chase, C.. 1989. Impacts of the 1985 Food Security Act on crop rotations and fertilizer use. Department of Economics, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.Google Scholar
6.Goldstein, W., and Young, D.. 1987. An agronomic and economic comparison of a conventional and a low-input cropping system in the Palouse. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 2:51–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Hallberg, G. 1987. Agricultural chemicals in ground water: Extent and implications. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 2:3–15.Google Scholar
8.Helmers, G., Langemeier, M., and Atwood, J.. 1986. An economic analysis of alternative cropping systems for east-central Nebraska. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 1:153–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Higgs, R., Peterson, A., and Paulson, W.. 1990. Crop rotations: Sustainable and profitable. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 45:68–70.Google Scholar
10.Libby, L. 1990. A public policy perspective on groundwater quality. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 45:190–193.Google Scholar
11.Madden, J., and O'Connell, P.. 1990. LISA: Some early results. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 45:61–64.Google Scholar
12.Melvin, S. 1979. Land disposal systems for animal waste. Paper No. MC-79-105. Presented at the American Society of Agricultural Engineers Mid-Central meeting, St. Joseph, Missouri.Google Scholar
13.Miller, G. 1987. Establishing realistic yield goals. Bulletin PM-1268. Cooperative Extension Service, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.Google Scholar
14.Moody, D. 1990. Groundwater contamination in the United States. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 45:170–179.Google Scholar
15.Papendick, R. 1987. Why consider alternative production systems? American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 2:83–86.Google Scholar
16.Papendick, R., Elliott, L., and Dahlgren, R.. 1986. Environmental consequences of modern production agriculture: How can alternative agriculture address these issues and concerns? American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 1:3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Voss, R., and Shrader, W.. 1984. Crop rotations: Effect on yields and response to nitrogen. Bulletin PM-905. Cooperative Extension Service, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.Google Scholar
18.Voss, R., Killorn, R., Amemiya, M., Fawcett, R., Grundman, D., Stockdale, H., Melvin, S., Duffy, M., and Benson, G.. 1989. Best management practices to improve groundwater quality in Iowa. Cooperative Extension Service, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.Google Scholar
19.Young, D. 1989. Policy barriers to sustainable agriculture. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 4:135–143.Google Scholar