Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T09:46:47.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economic Analysis of Four Weed Management Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Donald W. Lybecker ,
Edward E. Schweizer  and
Robert P. King
Donald W. Lybecker
Affiliation:
Dep. Agric. and Res. Econ., Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80523
Edward E. Schweizer
Affiliation:
Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric., Crops Res. Lab., Fort Collins, CO 80523
Robert P. King
Affiliation:
Dep. Agric. and Appl. Econ., Univ. Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 5 5108
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An economic analysis of four weed management systems employed on four crop sequences in a barley-corn-pinto bean-sugarbeet rotation in eastern Colorado was computed. Weeds were controlled in each crop with only conventional tillage or conventional tillage plus minimum levels of herbicides (systems 3 and 4), moderate levels of herbicides (system 1), or intensive levels of herbicides (system 2). Adjusted gross returns were higher for systems 3 and 4 where herbicide use was less/year and decreased over 4 yr than for systems 1 and 2 where herbicide use was higher/year and constant. When the four crop sequences were aggregated using yield and sucrose indices, the least herbicide-intensive weed management system had $440/ha/4 yr higher indexed adjusted gross return than the most herbicide-intensive weed management system. An income risk analysis showed that the herbicide-intensive weed management system was not risk efficient and that producers would select one of the other three less herbicide-intensive weed management systems depending upon their risk preferences.

Keywords

Barley, Hordeum vulgare L. ‘Steptoe’corn, Zea mays L. ‘Pioneer 3565’pinto bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L. ‘Olathe’sugarbeet, Beta vulgaris L. ‘Mono Hy A4’Interdisciplinary weed researchBeta vulgarisHordeum vulgarePhaseolus vulgarisZea mays
Type
Special Topics
Information
Weed Science , Volume 36 , Issue 6 , November 1988 , pp. 846 - 849
Copyright
Copyright © 1988 by the Weed Science Society of America 

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

Literature Cited

1. Boehlje, M. D. and Eidman, V. R. 1984. Farm Management. Pages 438–494. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
2. Chenault, E. W., Wiese, A. F., and Harman, W. L. 1986. An economic analysis of incorporation methods for preplant herbicides on clay loam soil. Weed Sci. 34:419–422.Google Scholar
3. Dalsted, N. L. and Owen, J. C. 1985. Selected 1984 crop enterprise budgets for Colorado. ANRE Information Rep. IR:86–6. Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins. 87 pp.Google Scholar
4. Gylling, S. R. and Arnold, W. E. 1985. Efficacy and economics of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) control in pasture. Weed Sci. 33:381–385.Google Scholar
5. King, R. P., Lybecker, D. W., Schweizer, E. E., and Zimdahl, R. L. 1986. Bioeconomic modeling to simulate weed control strategies for continuous corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 34:972–979.Google Scholar
6. King, R. P. and Robinson, L. J. 1984. Risk Efficiency Models. Page 68–81 in Risk Management in Agriculture. Iowa St. Univ. Press, Ames, IA.Google Scholar
7. Lybecker, D. W., King, R. P., Schweizer, E. E., and Zimdahl, R. L. 1984. Economic analysis of two weed management systems for two cropping rotations. Weed Sci. 32:90–95.Google Scholar
8. Nastasi, P., Frans, R., and McClelland, M. 1986. Economics and new alternatives in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) weed management programs. Weed Sci. 34:634–638.Google Scholar
9. Schweizer, E. E., Lybecker, D. W., and Zimdahl, R. L. 1988. Systems approach to weed management in irrigated crops. Weed Sci. 36:840–845.Google Scholar
10. Snipes, C. E., Walker, R. H., Whitewell, T., Buchanan, G. A., McGuire, J. A., and Martin, N. R. 1984. Efficacy and economics of weed control methods in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 32:95–100.Google Scholar