Economic Performance of Crop Rotations in the Presence of Herbicide‐Resistant Giant Ragweed

Abstract

Economic assessment of alternative crops and crop rotations helps farmers determine those most appropriate for their farms. Th e objective of this research was to evaluate the economic net return and associated fi nancial risk for crops and crop rotations common to the midwestern United States, based on two 3-yr experiments in southern Minnesota where herbicide-resistant giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifi da L.) was present. Crop rotations included corn (Zea mays L.), soybean [Glycine max L. (Merr.)], wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), and alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.). Crop rotations were continuous corn (CCC), soybean-corncorn (SCC), corn-soybean-corn (CSC), soybean-wheat-corn (SWC), soybean-alfalfa-corn (SAC), and alfalfa-alfalfa-corn (AAC). Average crop yields during the study period were utilized along with average prices received and estimated production costs for each crop in Minnesota during this period to evaluate economic net return. Average net return of the SWC, SCC, CCC, CSC, SAC, and AAC rotations was US$11, $170, $247, $258, $368, and $919 ha -1 yr -1 , respectively. Th e AAC rotation was stochastically dominant to all other crop rotations for risk-averse decision makers. One or 2 yr of alfalfa stochastically dominated corn, soybean, and wheat, regardless of crop rotation, largely due to more stable alfalfa prices over the study period coupled with above-average yield and lower production costs. Th ese results confi rm that rotations containing alfalfa have the potential to provide a substantial economic net return to farmers while mitigating the risk of herbicide-resistant giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifi da L.) infestations.

Economic profitability of crop rotation systems in the Caiuá sandstone area

“…The crop with the highest production costs was Carioca beans, which in the winter of 2015/16 cost US$ 1,056.34 to produce, mainly due to high expenditure on inputs. Overall, crop rotation systems, planned with a wide diversification of commercial plants, as was the case of this treatment, were able to present more profitable results compared with those with fewer commercial crops, in accordance with what was reported in the municipality of Passo Fundo, in the Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Sul (SANTOS et al, 2004), in the Midwest region of the United States (GOPLEN et al 2018), and in Chile (GONZÁLEZ et al, 2013).…”

Cropping System Redesign for Improved Weed Management: A Modeling Approach Illustrated with Giant Ragweed (Ambrosia trifida)

“…Low profitability of the dominant corn-soybean system and growing concerns over soil and water quality have led to reconsideration of the use of forage legumes and small grains within integrated crop-livestock systems in the U.S. Corn Belt [26,30]. Recent studies indicate that diversified cropping systems that include forages and small grains in addition to corn and soybean can match or exceed the profitability of simpler corn-soybean rotations [31][32][33] while reducing soil loss, nutrient discharge, greenhouse gas emissions, PM 2.5 and precursor emissions, and herbicide-related aquatic toxicity [33][34][35].…”

“…In 2017, alfalfa occupied 49% of the forage crop area in the states of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin [27]. The use of winter cereals, like rye, and perennial forages, like alfalfa, appears to offer considerable opportunities to suppress populations of giant ragweed, due to differences in phenology and crop-specific mowing and herbicide regimes [17,32,42]. Additionally, because alfalfa is a perennial species that may remain in a field for forage harvesting for varying lengths of time after planting, modeling its use in different rotations provided an opportunity to investigate the weed-related effects of altering planting patterns without a concomitant increase in crop species richness.…”

Production and profitability of crop rotation systems in southern Brazil

“…Operating costs incurred in the production process were considered in the analysis (Al-Kaisi et al, 2015;Golpen et al, 2018;Volsi et al, 2020). To calculate the cost of sowing, spraying, and harvesting, as well as labor, we used the technical coefficients of the station where the experiment was conducted.…”