Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T11:02:58.605Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluating the Economic Risk of Herbicide-Based Weed Management Systems in Corn and Soybean Using Stochastic Dominance Testing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Thomas R. Hoverstad ,
Gregg A. Johnson ,
Jeffrey L. Gunsolus  and
Robert P. King
Thomas R. Hoverstad
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota, Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, St. Paul, MN 55108
Gregg A. Johnson*
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota, Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, St. Paul, MN 55108
Jeffrey L. Gunsolus
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota, Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, St. Paul, MN 55108
Robert P. King
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics, St. Paul, MN 55108
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Herbicide evaluation trials are typically conducted with the objective of rating herbicide efficacy and assessing crop yield loss. There is little if any attempt to quantify the economic risk associated with each treatment. The objective of this research was to use second-degree stochastic dominance to evaluate the economic stability of corn and soybean weed management systems between two contrasting environments. Weed management systems were evaluated in small-plot replicated trials over a 3-yr time period at two locations in southern Minnesota. One location (Waseca) had a slightly cooler and wetter environment than the second location (Lamberton). The Waseca location also had higher weed density and greater weed species diversity. Adjusted returns from weed management were calculated for each system by measuring economic returns, as determined by deducting weed management costs from the product of crop price and grain yield. Stochastic dominance is a technique that considers the entire distribution of net returns from weed management and compares these cumulative distributions as a basis for analyzing risk. Climate, soils, and weed diversity dictated differences in risk efficiency and effectiveness of the various weed management systems evaluated between the Waseca and Lamberton sites. Stochastic dominance testing is a useful tool for understanding long-term risk across environments. Results can be used to develop effective long-term weed management systems that minimize risk while maximizing profit potential.

Keywords

Corn, Zea mays L.soybean, Glycine max (L.) MerrRisk efficiencynet returnsALS, acetolactate synthaseGDU, growing degree unitsPOST, postemergencePPI, preplant incorporatedPRE, preemergenceSSD, second-degree stochastic dominance
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , June 2006 , pp. 422 - 429
Copyright
Copyright © 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

Armel, G. R., Wilson, H. P., Richardson, R. J., and Hines, T. E. 2003. Use of mixtures of mesotrione, imazethapyr, and imazethapyr plus imazapyr in imidazolinone-resistant corn. Weed Technol. 17:674–679.Google Scholar
Auld, B. A., Menz, K. M., and Tisdell, C. A. 1987. Weed Control Economics. London: Academic. Pp. 76–77, 86.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. 2002. Challenges and opportunities for integrated weed management. Weed Sci. 50:273–280.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Liebman, M., and Obrycki, J. J. 2000. Theoretical and practical challenges to an IPM approach to weed management. Weed Sci. 48:274–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bussan, A. J. and Boerboom, C. M. 2001. Modeling the integrated management of giant foxtail in corn-soybean. Weed Sci. 49:675–684.Google Scholar
Gebremedhin, B., Schwab, G., Harwood, R., Christenson, D., and Becker, C. 1998. A Stochastic Dominance Analysis of Alternative Sugarbeet and Navy Bean Based Crop Rotations in Michigan. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. Staff Paper 98-22.Google Scholar
Hilgenfeld, K. L., Martin, A. R., Mortensen, D. A., and Mason, S. C. 2004. Weed management in a glyphosate resistant soybean system: weed species shifts. Weed Technol. 18:284–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoverstad, T. R., Gunsolus, J. L., Johnson, G. A., and King, R. P. 2004. Risk efficiency criteria for evaluating economics of herbicide-based weed management systems in corn. Weed Technol. 18:687–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, R. P. and Robison, L. J. 1984. Risk efficiency models. in Barry, P., ed. Risk Management in Agriculture. Ames, IA: The Iowa State University Press. Pp. 68–81.Google Scholar
Lazarus, W. F. 2000. Minnesota Farm Machinery Economic Cost Estimates for 2000. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota Extension Service.Google Scholar
Manley, B. S., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 2001. Weed management and crop rotations influence populations of several broadleaf weeds. Weed Sci. 49:106–122.Google Scholar
Olson, K. D. and Eidman, V. R. 1992. A farmer's choice of weed control method and the impacts of policy and risk. Rev. Agric. Econ. 18:523–535.Google Scholar
Popp, M. P., Oliver, L. R., Dillon, C. R., Keisling, T. C., and Manning, P. M. 2000. Evaluation of seedbed preparation, planting method, and herbicide alternatives for dryland soybean production. Agron. J. 92:1149–1155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramsdale, B. K. and Messersmith, C. G. 2002. Low-rate split-applied herbicide treatments for wild oat control in wheat. Weed Technol. 16:149–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehm, G. W., Schmitt, M. A., and Munter, R. 1994. Fertilizer Recommendations for Agronomic Crops in Minnesota. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Extension Service, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar