economics of conservation systems research in the southeastern
TRANSCRIPT
Economics of Conservation
Systems Research in the Southeastern
United StatesLEAH M. DUZY
USDA-ARS, NATIONAL SOIL DYNAMICS LABORATORY
JUNE 28, 2015
70 T H ANNUAL SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION SOCIETY CONFERENCE
GREENSBORO, NC
Conservation Systems Research
“Our research objectives are specifically designed to develop conservation systems that will improve soil quality, conserve natural resources, and
increase production efficiency, considering input costs and profitability.”
Objectives
What is a conservation system? Importance of economics in evaluating conservation
systems Economic benefits and costs of conservation systems Summarize current economics of conservation systems
research from the Southeast
What is a conservation system?
ConservationTillage
CoverCrop
ConservationSystem
Conservation tillage is… Any tillage sequence, the object of which is to minimize or reduce loss of soil and water; operationally, a tillage or tillage and planting combination which leaves a 30% or greater cover of crop residue on the surface1.
Different types of conservation tillage:
Mulch tillage
Non-inversion tillage
Strip tillage
No-tillage
1Glossary of Soil Science Terms, Soil Science Society of America, https://www.soils.org/publications/soils-glossary
Who cares about economics?“Conservation tillage and related practices have been suggested to conserve moisture and reduce erosion. But farmers will only adopt those conservation methods that allow them to produce a crop profitably.”
~Albert C. Trouse, Jr.
“Planting a cover crop is a minimal expense as compared to the dollar returns we get each year from this cover crop.”
~J.C. Harden, J.W. Harden, and L.C. Harden1st Annual Southeastern No-till Systems Conference
November 29, 1978Georgia Experiment Station
“A conservative estimate is that 60-80% of crop acreage will be planted no-tillage within the next 25 years.”
~S.H. Phillips
Land use practices – includes all agricultural land used for the production of agricultural commodities
Conventional tillage – tillage operations that use standard practices for a specific location and crop to bury crop residues
Conservation tillage – conserves the soil by reducing erosion and decreasing water pollution
No-till practices used – using no-till or minimum till is a practice used for weed control and helps reduce weed seed germination by not disturbing the soil
Cover crop – a crop planted primarily to manage soil fertility, soil quality, water, weeds, pests, diseases, or wildlife
2012 Census of Agriculture: Definitions
Appendix B. General Explanation and Census of Agriculture Report Form (http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012)
ALABAMA GEORGIA MISSISSIPPI NORTH CAROLINA TENNESSEE
14%
32%
43%
26%
7%
11%
22%
18%
13%
7%
26%
17%
12%
40% 40%
Tillage Practices as a % of Total Croplandconventional
conservation
no-till
ALABAMA GEORGIA MISSISSIPPI NORTH CAROLINA TENNESSEE
7.2%
8.8%
1.3%
8.3%
3.4%
Cover Crop Acres as a % of Total Cropland
Source: 2014-2015 Annual Report Cover Crop Survey, July 2015, http://www.ctic.org/media/pdf/20142015CoverCropReport_Draft6.pdf
What are the three most important factors that prevent you from using cover crops on your
farm? Time/labor required for planting and
managing cover Cost of planting and management cover
crops Too wet in spring – fears of delaying
planting time Cover crop seed costs Establishment success No measurable economic return Cover crop becomes a weed the following
year
Cover crop sometimes uses too much moisture
Seeding the right species for my operation Increases overall crop production risk Yield reduction in the following cash crop Cover crop seed availability Increased insect and disease potential Nitrogen immobilization
Benefits and Costs
Controlling soil erosion and reducing runoffo Increase in crop residues and soil
organic mattero Absorb rainfall impact
Improve soil quality Reduce yield variabilityo Reduce risk
Conservation System Benefits
Increases efficiency of a rain or irrigation event by improving water infiltration.
Potential for lower water requirements.
Preserve water resources and lower production costs.
Increases Plant Available Water
Rainfall Variability, E.V. Smith Research Center, Shorter, AL
Source: 2014-2015 Annual Report Cover Crop Survey, July 2015, http://www.ctic.org/media/pdf/20142015CoverCropReport_Draft6.pdf
Cover Crop Benefits (as identified by cover crop users)
Increases soil health Increases soil organic matter Reduces soil erosion Controls weeds Reduces soil compaction Provides a nitrogen source
Provides nitrogen scavenging Increases yields in the following
cash crop Fibrous rooting systems Economic return (e.g. from yield
or haying, grazing, biofuels) Deep tap roots
Improve soil fertilityo Improve fertilizer use efficiency
Reduce labor Reduce fuel use Reduce land preparation Reduce irrigation requirement Improve water quality
Other Cover Crop Benefits
New/modify tillage and/or planting equipment
Cover crop establishment and termination Learning curve for managing high residue Limited experience with conservation
tillage and/or cover crops Change in chemical use
(increase/decrease) Increased seeding rate (?)
Converting to a Conservation System
Cover Crops Costs Establishmento Seed/Plantingo Fertilizer
Terminationo Chemicalo Mechanical
Example of Cover Crop Costs
Note: Machinery costs are for labor, fuel, and repair and maintenance.
Our goal is to produce a high residue cover
crop.
An Overview of Past, Present, and Future Research
Conservation Systems for Weed Control
2007 2008 2009$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
$400
$450
$500Conservation Tillage with Early Cover Crop Planting Date
Conservation Tillage with Normal Cover Crop Planting Date
Conservation Tillage with Late Cover Crop Planting Date
Conservation Tillage with Winter Fallow
Conventional Tillage
Aver
age
Net
Ret
urns
(US$
ac-
1)
Price, A. J., et al. (2012). "Herbicide and Cover Crop Residue Integration for Amaranthus Control in Conservation Agriculture Cotton and Implications for Resistance Management." Weed Technology 26(3): 490-498.
Rolling Direction and Row Cleaners: Cotton Yield
Treatment Combinations 2004 2005
Rolling Row CleanerEVS TVS EVS TVS
US$ ac-1
No rolling
No row cleaner 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Dawn 0.44 -9.77 9.17 -27.11
Dawn/no coulter 9.87 15.53 0.44 -12.01
Yetter 16.17 23.57 -4.81 -43.12
Parallel
No row cleaner 39.35 -0.36 26.06 -12.32
Dawn 41.53 11.75 3.43 -40.89
Dawn/no coulter 31.40 -4.89 10.77 -66.28
Yetter 36.99 18.32 8.32 -83.54
Kornecki, T. S., et al. (2009). "Impact of rye rolling direction and different no-till row cleaners on cotton emergence and yield." Transactions of the ASABE 52(2): 383-391.
Tomatoes and Conservation Systems
Duzy, L.M., T.S. Kornecki, K.S. Balkcom, and F.J. Arriaga. 2014. Net returns and risk for cover crop use in Alabama tomato production. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems. 29(4): 334-344.
2005 2006 2007 2008$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000Plastic Mulch Rye Clover
Net
Ret
urns
(US$
ac-
1)
Impact of Conservation Systems on Net Returns to
Cotton Production in Alabama Prattville, AL from 2004-2009
Dryland Cotton/Corn Rotation
Four conservation tillage treatmentso Fall paratill, spring paratill, strip-till, and
no-till
3 cover crop treatmentso Fallow (Corn Residue), Rye, and Wheat
Cover crop biomass and soil organic carbon discussed in:◦ Balkcom, K.S., F.J. Arriaga, and E. van
Santen. 2013. Conservation Systems to Enhance Soil Carbon Sequestration in the Southeast U.S. Coastal Plain. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 77:1774-1783.
Rainfall from March 1 to October 31 (inches)
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
32.19 36.03 16.97 13.79 34.81 45.36
Duzy, L.M. and K.S. Balkcom. 2015. Impact of Conservation Systems on Net Returns to Cotton Production in Alabama. In: Boyd, S., Huffman, M. (editors). Proceedings of National Cotton Council Beltwide Cotton Conf., 5-7 Jan. 2015, San Antonio, TX. pp. 445-451.
Net Returns to Wheat Production Four locations (TVS, EVS, WGS, and GCS)
2008 – 2011 (depending on location)
Two tillage treatmentso Non-inversiono Conventional
12 fertilizer treatments
Calculated a discount based on test weighto Range: 46.52 - 63.47 (the low of 46.52 is equivalent to a discount of $1.43 / bu)
Balkcom, K.S. and C.H. Burmester. 2011. Optimize nitrogen for Alabama wheat yields with and without fall tillage. Better Crops 95:8-11.
Tillage System NRAVTC (US$ ac-1)
Conventional 257.02
Non-inversion 289.99LSD0.5 17.80
Tillage System Test Weight
Conventional 56.76
Non-inversion 57.36
Balkcom, K.S. and C.H. Burmester. 2011. Optimize nitrogen for Alabama wheat yields with and without fall tillage. Better Crops 95:8-11.
Cotton Quality and Conservation Systems
2004 – 2006 at E.V. Smith
2 row spacing, 3 cotton varieties, 2 tillage systems
Ordered multinomial mixed logit model to analyze quality attributes
Color gradeo In both narrow and standard row spacing for cotton, the
use of CST produced the highest probability for 11 and 21 color grade cotton fibers.
Uniformityo Standard row spacing with CST had the highest probability
of receiving a fiber quality premium for uniformity.Tillage$230
$240
$250
$260
$270
$280
$290
$300
$310CVT CST
NRA
VTC
(US$
ac-
1)
Balkcom, K.S., A.J. Price, E. van Santen, D.P. Delaney, D.L. Boykin, F.J. Arriaga, J.S. Bergtold, T.S. Kornecki, and R.L. Raper. 2010. Row spacing, tillage system, and herbicide technology affects cotton plant growth and yield. Field Crops Research 117 (2–3):219-225. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2010.03.003.
Current/Future Research…
Meta-analysis on cover crops and cotton across the Cotton Belt
Emphasis on quality data Cover crop mixtures
Long-term benefits of conservation systems
Questions?
More information is available at:
www.ars.usda.gov/sea/nsdl
Subscribe to mailing list and NSDL Highlights: