Economics of conservation tillage in the semiarid prairie

Zentner, R. P.; McConkey, B.G.; Campbell, C. A.; Dyck, F. B.; Selles, F.

doi:10.4141/cjps96-121

Cited by 36 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Typically, treatments that used zero-tillage management practices required lower expenditures for machinery operation (i.e., fuel and oil, machine repair, and machine overhead) and labour, but higher expenditures for herbicides compared with those that used mechanical tillage management practices. These results are similar to those reported in other studies from the Brown and Dark Brown soil zones that compared zero-and conventional-tillage practices in fallow-based cropping systems (Zentner et al 1992;Smith et al 1996;Zentner et al 1996Zentner et al , 2002b. Cash outlays were highest for fertilizer and chemical inputs, and together they represented from 24 to 46% of the total costs for most cropping systems.…”

Section: Production Costs and Breakeven Conditionssupporting

confidence: 88%

“…Costs of production, gross return, net return, breakeven conditions, and riskiness were evaluated for each of the six IWM treatments using methods described by Zentner et al (1996). Net return was defined as the income remaining after paying for all cash costs (seed, soil testing, fertilizer, pesticides, fuel, oil, repairs, crop insurance, miscellaneous items, land taxes, and interest), ownership costs for machinery and grain storage, and for labour.…”

Section: Economic Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As producers become increasingly risk averse, they tend to prefer cropping systems that display lower income variability (Zentner et al 1996). Based on assessment of the risk-return tradeoffs, producers who are risk averse would choose LH/ZT management from among the no-fungicide treatments, and either LH/ZT or LH/LT management from among the fungicide treatments (Table 7).…”

Section: Riskiness Of Integrated Crop Management Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Agronomic and economic responses to integrated weed management systems and fungicide in a wheat-canola-barley-pea rotation

Holm¹,

Zentner²,

Thomas³

et al. 2006

Can. J. Plant Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

. 2006. Agronomic and economic responses to integrated weed management systems and fungicide in a wheat-canola-barley-pea rotation. Can. J. Plant Sci. 86: 1281-1295. Changes in tillage intensity and herbicide use can influence the incidence of weeds, insects and diseases, crop yields and economic returns. We examined the effects of six integrated weed management systems (with varying combinations of tillage methods, seeding rate, seeding date, time when weed control was applied, and annual fungicide applications on pest incidence, grain yield and quality, and economic returns for a spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)-canola (Brassica napus L.)-barley (Hordeum vulgare L.)-pea (Pisum sativum L.) rotation in the Dark Brown soils of the Moist Mixed Grassland Ecoregion of Saskatchewan. Herbicide use intensity was reduced without a significant increase in weed biomass in five of the six systems in most crops and years. The complete elimination of herbicides in one system resulted in significant crop yield losses. Certain insects were more prevalent in the cropping systems with early planting dates. Zero tillage systems produced higher yields, and yields generally declined as tillage intensity increased. For all crops, the high herbicide-zero tillage system produced the highest yields, whereas the lowest yields were obtained in the no herbicide-high tillage system. Management method had minimal impact on seed quality. Application of fungicide generally increased yields of barley, wheat and pea, but the increases were not sufficient to recover fungicide cost. High herbicide-zero tillage, medium herbicide-zero tillage, and low herbicide-zero tillage systems produced the highest net return and no herbicide-high tillage system the lowest net return, under all grain price scenarios. En modifiant l'intensité du tallage et l'usage d'herbicides, on peut influer sur l'incidence des mauvaises herbes, des ravageurs et des malades mais aussi sur le rendement de la culture et les recettes. Les auteurs ont examiné les effets de six systèmes de lutte intégrée contre les mauvaises herbes (combinaison variable de méthodes de travail du sol, densité des semis, date d'application de l'herbicide et application annuelle de fongicides) sur l'incidence des ravageurs, le rendement et la qualité du grain, ainsi que les recettes venant d'un assolement blé (Triticum aestivum L.) -canola (Brassica napus L.) -orge (Hordeum vulgare L.) -pois (Pisum sativum L.) cultivé sur les sols brun foncé de l'écozone des prairies mixtes humides de la Saskatchewan. Pour cinq des six systèmes à l'étude, les auteurs ont diminué la quantité d'herbicide employée sans constater de hausse sensible de la biomasse des mauvaises herbes pour la plupart des cultures et la majorité des années. L'élimination complète des herbicides dans un régime a débouché sur une baisse appréciable du rendement des cultures. Certains insectes sont plus pré-valents dans les systèmes agricoles caractérisés par des semis plus précoces. Les systèmes avec non-travail du sol donnent un meilleur ...

show abstract

Section: Production Costs and Breakeven Conditionssupporting

confidence: 88%

Section: Economic Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Riskiness Of Integrated Crop Management Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Agronomic and economic responses to integrated weed management systems and fungicide in a wheat-canola-barley-pea rotation

Holm¹,

Zentner²,

Thomas³

et al. 2006

Can. J. Plant Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This appears to be the case for both large-scale mechanised agriculture in the temperate zone as well as for subsistence hillslope farming in developing countries (Knowler et al, 2001). In both scenarios, potential savings are offset by additional costs: in mechanised systems the cost of machinery and agrochemicals offsets savings in fuel costs (Zentner et al, 1996;Janosky et al, 2002), while in traditional hillslope farming extra work hours are needed to maintain conservation structures and some land has to be sacrificed to implement these structures, thereby reducing overall yields Quang et al, 2014). Importantly and contrary to common belief, crop yields do not rise significantly in conservation systems if no additional inputs are provided: this is true for advanced technological systems (Van den Putte et al, 2010;Pittelkow et al, 2015) as well as for tropical smallholder farming (Brouder and Gomez-Macpherson, 2014).…”

Section: Why Then Is Soil Conservation Not More Generally Adopted?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Soil conservation in the 21st century: why we need smart agricultural intensification

Govers

Merckx

Wesemael

et al. 2017

SOIL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Soil erosion severely threatens the soil resource and the sustainability of agriculture. After decades of research, this problem still persists, despite the fact that adequate technical solutions now exist for most situations. This begs the question as to why soil conservation is not more rapidly and more generally implemented. Studies show that the implementation of soil conservation measures depends on a multitude of factors but it is also clear that rapid change in agricultural systems only happens when a clear economic incentive is present for the farmer. Conservation measures are often more or less cost-neutral, which explains why they are often less generally adopted than expected. This needs to be accounted for when developing a strategy on how we may achieve effective soil conservation in the Global South, where agriculture will fundamentally change in the next century. In this paper we argue that smart intensification is a necessary component of such a strategy. Smart intensification will not only allow for soil conservation to be made more economical, but will also allow for significant gains to be made in terms of soil organic carbon storage, water efficiency and biodiversity, while at the same time lowering the overall erosion risk. While smart intensification as such will not lead to adequate soil conservation, it will facilitate it and, at the same time, allow for the farmers of the Global South to be offered a more viable future.

show abstract

“…

…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Timing of pre-seeding glyphosate application in direct-seeding systems

Johnson¹,

Kirkland²,

Stevenson³

2002

Can. J. Plant Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Direct-seeding systems are growing in popularity on the Canadian prairies, a trend that can be attributed to the low cost of glyphosate, reduced labor, fuel, and equipment requirements, and to a lesser extent improved soil moisture and soil quality conservation (Zentner et al. 1996). Weed management is an integral component of direct-seeding systems (Brandt 1992;Derksen et al. 1996;Moyer et al. 1994). Pre-seeding glyphosate applications are a critical practice to ensure optimal weed control and crop productivity in directseeding systems.An application of glyphosate in May rather than April extended the weed-free period following application and resulted in the lowest weed density among different cover crop residues (Blum et al. 1997). O'Donovan et al. (1985) found that barley and wheat yield decreased by 3% for each day that wild oat (Avena fatua L.) emerged before the crop. Limited evidence indicates that glyphosate application should be timed just prior to sowing or emergence to ensure that most weeds emerging before the crop are controlled. However, direct seeders have reported that additional weed control with sweeps rather than narrow-hoe openers allows them to apply glyphosate a week or more prior to seeding rather than immediately prior to seeding or emergence without any penalty to weed control and crop productivity. Also, Producers are interested in whether crop productivity can be maintained with pre-seeding glyphosate application 2 to 3 wk prior to direct seeding with sweeps. A wider window for glyphosate application would be beneficial, particularly for producers with a large number of hectares. An experiment was conducted at Scott and Melfort, SK, Canada, in 1997 and 1998 to assess glyphosate application 2 to 3 wk before, 1 d before, and 3 to 4 d after (just before crop emergence) the time of seeding in narrow-hoe and simulated-sweep (cultivation immediately followed by a narrow-hoe drill) direct-seeding systems. Wheat grain yield was 25% lower when glyphosate was applied 2 to 3 wk before rather than just prior to seeding only with the narrow-hoe direct-seeding system at Scott in both years. This yield reduction corresponded with the greater median grass weed fresh weight. Yields were 15% lower for both direct-seeding systems at Scott when glyphosate was applied 3 to 4 d after seeding. Barley grain yield was 46% greater (1997) or 25% lower (1998) in the narrow-hoe compared with the simulated-sweep directseeding system at Melfort. These yield responses corresponded with opposite responses for median grass weed fresh weight. The tillage effect of sweeps at the time of seeding can improve the control of grass weeds compared with seeding implements equipped with narrow hoes. However, a narrow-hoe system with glyphosate applied just prior to sowing consistently provided the greatest cereal yields. . À Scott, le rendement grainier du blé a diminué de 25 % les deux années, quand le glyphosate a été appliqué deux à trois semaines avant les semis plutôt qu'immédiatement avant avec le système d'ensemencement ...

show abstract

Economics of conservation tillage in the semiarid prairie

Cited by 36 publications

References 3 publications

Agronomic and economic responses to integrated weed management systems and fungicide in a wheat-canola-barley-pea rotation

Agronomic and economic responses to integrated weed management systems and fungicide in a wheat-canola-barley-pea rotation

Soil conservation in the 21st century: why we need smart agricultural intensification

Timing of pre-seeding glyphosate application in direct-seeding systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About