|
|
Impact |
Economic Analysis of Soybean-Wheat Cropping Systems Luke A. Farno, Lewis H. Edwards, Kent Keim, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater 74078; and Francis M. Epplin, Department of Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater 74078 Corresponding author: Luke A. Farno. farno@okstate.edu
Abstract Economic returns for cropping systems represent important management decisions for growers to consider in addition to agronomic practices. This study was conducted to determine the economic consequences of six soybean [Glycine max. (L.) Merr.] - wheat [Triticum aestivum (L.)] cropping patterns. These patterns included monocrop soybean in 15- and 30-inch rows, double-crop soybean-wheat in 15- and 30-inch rows, and a modified double-crop system with soybean in 15- and 30-inch rows. An economic analysis of the six systems was conducted to compare net returns to land, labor, and management. The study was conducted at Bixby and Haskell, OK. The study was separated into three periods: Period 1 = 1992 and 1993; Period 2 = 1994 and 1995; and Period 3 = 1996 and 1997. Separation was necessary since the modified double-crop system required a two-year period to complete one cycle. The modified double-crop system using a 15-inch row spacing produced the greatest net return in each period at Bixby ($308, $306, and $244 per acre per year in Periods 1, 2, and 3, respectively) and the greatest net return at Haskell in Period 1 ($425/acre). Over the three periods and for both locations, the modified double-crop system using a 15-inch row spacing produced the greatest average net return per period of $310/acre. The modified double-crop system using a 30-inch row spacing produced the second highest average net return of $277/acre. This system produced $235/acre per period net return at Bixby and $320/acre per period net return at Haskell. The monocrop system produced an average overall net return of $299/acre with a 30-inch row spacing. The double-cropping system using a 15-inch row spacing produced an average of $228/acre and the double-cropping system using a 30-inch row spacing produced an average of $226/acre in net return. The lowest overall average net return was produced by the monocrop soybean system using the 15-inch row spacing with an average net return of $214/acre. Knowledge of economic returns from alternative cropping systems provide growers another tool in managing crop production. Economically feasible cropping systems are a requirement for a farm to survive as a business. Soybean is well suited for multi-crop systems. Soybean has the ability to perform well under a wide range of soil types and planting dates. The symbiotic relationship between soybean and rhizobium bacteria reduces production costs and makes soybean a good rotational crop for use with high nitrogen-consuming crops (14). Soybean can be double-cropped with wheat, utilizing flexibility afforded by both crops. Wheat can be used as a forage crop, a dual-purpose forage and grain crop, or a grain crop alone. Much agronomic research has been conducted on tillage and planting methods (13), water use efficiency (4), row spacings (1,2) and crop rotations (3,11). In Kansas a wheat-sorghum-fallow rotation was compared to a wheat-corn-fallow rotation using different tillage practices (8). Wesley et al. (15) evaluated net returns above specified costs for cropping systems adapted to clay soils of the lower Mississippi River floodplain. Economic analyses were used to evaluate profitability of different herbicide practices (10), row spacing (9), and the use of double-cropping versus relay intercropping (7). Traditional soybean cropping systems include monocrop soybean, double-crop soybean-wheat, or soybean-corn (or other summer crop) rotations. In this experiment the soybean-wheat pattern was modified to take advantage of the versatility of the wheat crop and to incorporate both early and full season varieties of soybeans. The modified double-cropping pattern as we designated it involves early season soybean planted in April and harvested in August or September; wheat planted in September, forage harvested during fall and winter, and seed harvested in June; full season soybean planted in June and harvested in November; and a fallow period from November through March. Each cycle of this pattern requires a two-year period to complete. The objective of this study was to determine the economic consequences of three alternative soybean and soybean-wheat cropping patterns. The cropping patterns included monocrop soybean, double-crop soybean-wheat, and modified double-crop soybean-wheat with two different soybean row spacing configuration in all three patterns. Three Cropping Patterns: Field Tests and Economic Analysis Experimental design was a randomized complete block with four replications. The six treatments were arranged in a two soybean row spacings by three cropping pattern factorial. Soybeans were planted in 30-inch rows to represent row crop spacing and the 15-inch rows to represent drill planting. The three cropping patterns were monocrop soybean, double-crop soybean-wheat, and a modified double-crop system involving soybean and wheat. The experiment was conducted over six years at two locations: Vegetable Research Station at Bixby, OK, and Eastern Research Station at Haskell, OK. Plots at the Bixby location were 120 ft x 65 ft and plots at the Haskell location were 29 ft x 65 ft. A 10-ft-x-65-ft bordered area was harvested from each plot for grain yield. Weight of grain harvested was recorded and converted to bu/acre at 13% moisture. Two soybean cultivars were used in the study. A Maturity Group III soybean variety (Pioneer 9391) was selected as the early season soybean cultivar. Choska, a Maturity Group VI cultivar, was selected as the full season soybean cultivar. During years one through three of this study, the wheat cultivar Karl was used. During years four through six, the wheat cultivar Pioneer 2163 was used, because Karl exhibited leaf rust susceptibility beginning in 1994. Each cropping system was managed according to accepted agronomic practices for the area. The study was separated into three periods of two years each. Periods corresponded with each cycle of the modified double-crop pattern (Period 1 = 1992 and 1993, Period 2 = 1994 and 1995, and Period 3 = 1996 and 1997). In each period the modified double-crop pattern produced two soybean crops (an early season soybean crop and a full season soybean crop), a wheat forage crop, and a wheat grain crop. During one period the monocrop soybean pattern produced two soybean crops and the double-crop soybean-wheat pattern produced two soybean crops and two wheat crops. Economic analyses evaluated the net returns to land, labor, and management for each system. Economic implications of the combinations of cropping pattern and row spacing alternatives were determined. Interest, management, labor, land, and taxes were not calculated in the analyses. Economic values were based on current costs for all inputs and outputs. The Oklahoma Farm and Ranch Custom Rates, 1994-95 report distributed by the Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service was used to determine the cost of tillage, planting, cultivation, harvesting, hauling, and spraying (6). Estes Chemical Co., Muskogee, OK, provided herbicide costs. Fertilizer costs were obtained from Muskogee Farmers Association, Muskogee, OK, and Oklahoma Foundation Seed Inc., Stillwater, OK, and Ron Limon, Coweta, OK, provided prices for soybean and wheat planting seed. Market values for the wheat and soybean grain were obtained from the Wall Street Journal. The wheat price used for all analyses was $2.73/bu quoted on Monday 15 June 1998. The soybean price used was $4.84/bu quoted on Tuesday 15 Sept. 1998. Wheat forage was valued at $57.45/acre/yr (5). Gross returns were determined for each cropping system using these market values and measured yield data. Fixed costs in this study included planting, harvesting, tillage, and hauling cost. Variable costs included seed, fertilizer, and herbicide costs. Partial budgets were developed for each of the six treatments to determine the net return to land, labor, and management for each. Net return represents the excess of gross return over total specified costs (fixed and variable) (9) and reflects the return to land, labor, and management. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was conducted using the net return values for each period at each location and all periods combined at each location. An average total cost was developed for both locations. Least significant differences (LSD, P = 0.05) were used to compare means (12). Net Returns from the Modified Double-Crop Pattern Table 1 presents net returns for each cropping system for the three periods at the Bixby location and the average of the three periods. Pooled data indicates the modified double-crop system using a 15-inch row spacing was significantly higher than all other system row spacing combinations with a net return of $286/acre per period. The modified double-crop system using a 30-inch row spacing produced significantly higher returns than the other two cropping systems. The double-crop system produced the lowest net return using a 30-inch row spacing, but it was not significantly less than the double-crop system using a 15 in. row spacing. Part of the reason the double-crop systems were usually in the lower half of the returns could be attributed to the higher variable cost. The plots at Bixby frequently have high weed populations; so additional herbicide applications are sometimes required. Table 1. Net returns from three cropping systems involving soybean and wheat at Bixby, OK: 1992-1997.
† Net returns to land, labor, and management. Data from the Haskell location is presented in Table 2. The pooled data at Haskell indicated the modified double-crop system using a 15-inch row spacing produced the highest net return. But, no significant difference was found between the two modified double-crop systems, which were the two highest returning systems. The pooled data of the three periods shows tact at Bixby (Table 1) the monocrop system out-preformed the double-crop system and tact at Haskell (Table 2) the two systems switched. Part of this could be attributed to the higher weed concentration at Bixby as compared to Haskell, which would cause higher variable cost. Table 2. Net returns from three cropping systems involving soybean and wheat at Haskell, OK: 1992-1997.
† Net returns to land, labor, and management. Further confirmation of how the modified double-crop system out-performed the alternatives is evident when data from all three periods and both locations were pooled. Table 3 presents the average net returns for both locations combined over the six years this study was conducted. The modified double-crop system using a 15-inch row spacing produced the highest average net return of $310/acre and was significantly different than the other systems. The modified double-crop system using a 30-inch row spacing produced a net return of $277/acre. Among the other four systems, no significant differences between them occurred. The monocrop soybean system using 15-inch row spacing produced the lowest average net return at $214/acre. The results of the combined data reinforce the fact that the modified double-crop pattern out-performed the monocrop and double-crop patterns. Although the modified double-crop patterns often had total costs between the total costs of the other two patterns, gross returns of the modified double-crop pattern were always the highest. A difference was found between the two locations with the other two cropping patterns. At Bixby, the monocrop soybean pattern was consistently the second most productive system followed by the double-crop soybean-wheat pattern. At Haskell however, the double-crop soybean-wheat pattern produced the better net returns. It was the second most productive pattern in Periods 1 and 3 and it was the highest producing pattern in Period 2. When both locations were averaged together, there were no significant differences between the monocrop soybean pattern and the double-crop soybeans-wheat pattern. The differences between the two locations could be attributed to several factors. The plots at Bixby are much larger than the plots at Haskell, thus requiring more inputs to maintain. It was also common to have higher weed populations at the Bixby location, and thus more herbicide and more applications were needed. The soil types between these two locations were also different. Bixby has a Wynona silty clay loam (Fine-silty, mixed, thermic Cumulic Epiaquoll) soil that is located in Arkansas River bottom while Haskell has a Taloka silt loam (Fine, mixed, thermic Mollic Albaqualf) soil. Also, further examination of the data indicates 15-inch soybean rows produce more net return than 30-inch rows. The 15-inch rows averaged $250/acre compared to $244/acre for 30-inch rows. Table 3. Average cost and returns for Bixby and Haskell, OK, combined: 1992-1997.
† Net returns to land, labor, and management. Conclusion The modified double-cropping pattern can provide farmers a valuable tool to continue to remain competitive in today’s marketplace. This study has shown that the modified double-cropping pattern can produce higher net returns to land, labor, and management when compared to classical cropping patterns. The performance of the modified double-cropping pattern with soybeans planted in 15-inch rows also proves that this pattern can be a valuable tool for those farmers who are shifting towards more conservational farming practices. Today’s farmers realize that they must get the maximum usage from their farmland because of an ever-growing world population, changes occurring in U. S. farm policies, and the growing cost of inputs. The farmer must implement economically feasible cropping systems to survive. This new cropping pattern provides them that tool. Acknowledgements Published with the approval of the Director of the Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater 74078. This work was supported in part by the Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station and the Oklahoma Soybean Board. Received 2002. Literature Cited 1. Alessi, J., and Power, J. F. 1982. Effects of plant and row spacing on dryland soybean yield and water-use efficiency. Agron. J. 74:851-854. 2. Cooper, R. L. 1977. Response of soybean cultivars to narrow rows and planting rates under weed-free conditions. Agron. J. 69:89-92. 3. Crabtree, R. J., Prater, J. D., and Mbolda, P. 1990. Long-term wheat, soybean, and grain sorghum double-cropping under rainfed conditions. Agron. J. 82:683-686. 4. Daniels, M. B., and Scott, H. D. 1991. Water use efficiency of double-cropped wheat and soybean. Agron. J. 83:564-570. 5. Doye, D. G., and Kletke, D. 1997. Oklahoma pasture rental rates: 1997. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service. CR-216. 6. Jobes, R., and Kletke, D. D. 1994. Oklahoma farm and ranch custom rates, 1994-95. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service. CR-205. 7. Moomaw, R. S., and Powell, T. A. 1990. Multiple cropping systems in small grains in Northern Nebraska. J. Prod. Agric. 3:569-530. 8. Norwood, C. A., and Currie, R. S. 1998. An agronomic and economic comparison of the wheat-corn-fallow and wheat-sorghum-fallow rotations. J. Prod. Agric. 11:67-73. 9. Oriade, C. A., Dillon, C. R., Vories, E. D., and Bohanan, M. E. 1997. An economic analysis of alternative cropping and row spacing systems for soybean production. J. Prod. Agric. 10:619-624. 10. Paudel, K. P., Martin N. R., Jr., Wehtje, G., and Grey, T. 1998. Economic decision making using enterprise budgeting and statistical analysis: An illustration in weed control practices in peanut production. J. Prod. Agric. 11:48-52. 11. Sanford, J. O., Myhre, D. L. and Merwine N. C. 1973. Double cropping systems involving no-tillage and conventional tillage. Agron. J. 65:978-982. 12. SAS Institute. 1988. SAS user’s guide: Statistics. 6.03 ed. SAS Inst., Cary, NC. 13. Touchton, J. T., and Johnson, J. W. 1982. Soybean tillage and planting method effects on yield of double-cropped wheat and soybeans. Agron. J. 74:57-59. 14. Varvel, G. E., and Peterson, T. A. 1992. Nitrogen fertilizer recovery by soybeans in monoculture and rotation systems. Agron. J. 84:215-218. 15. Wesley, R. A., Heatherly L. G., Elmore C. D., and Spurlock S. R. 1995. Net returns from eight non-irrigated cropping systems on clay soil. J. Prod. Agric. 8:514-520. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
