HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Archer, D. W. Articles by Reicosky, D. C. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Archer, D. W. Articles by Reicosky, D. C. Agricola Articles by Archer, D. W. Articles by Reicosky, D. C. Related Collections Economics Dryland Cropping Systems Tillage

TILLAGE

Economic Performance of Alternative Tillage Systems in the Northern Corn Belt

^a USDA-Agric. Res. Serv., Northern Great Plains Res. Lab., P.O. Box 459, 1701 10th Avenue SW, Mandan, ND 58554
^b USDA-Agric. Res. Serv., North Central Soil Conserv. Res. Lab, 803 Iowa Ave., Morris, MN 56267

^* Corresponding author (david.archer{at}ars.usda.gov).

While no-till (NT) cropping systems can provide conservation benefits in the northern Corn Belt, adoption has been low due to concerns about potential yield reductions and economic risk. Strip-tillage (ST) systems have been proposed as an alternative that may provide many of the conservation benefits of NT while maintaining productivity and economic returns. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the effects of NT and five ST alternatives: fall residue management (Fall RM), Fall RM + ST, spring residue management (Spring RM), Spring RM + ST, and Fall RM + Subsoil, relative to conventional moldboard plow (MP) and chisel plow (CP) tillage systems on corn (Zea mays L.) and soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] yields and economic risks and returns. Average yields over the 7-yr study were not significantly different among tillage systems, but average net returns for NT, Fall RM, and Spring RM were $85, 92, and 53 ha^–1 higher, respectively, than for MP. Risk analysis showed tillage system preferences ranked as: Fall RM > NT > Fall RM + ST > Spring RM + ST, Spring RM > CP > Fall RM + Subsoil > MP for risk neutral or risk averse producers facing uncertain yield, crop price, and input price conditions. Thus, ST and NT may be economically viable alternatives to conventional tillage systems for corn and soybean production in the northern Corn Belt.

Abbreviations: CE, certainty equivalent • CP, chisel plow • Fall RM, fall residue management • LDP, loan deficiency payment • MP, moldboard plow • MVE, multivariate empirical distribution • NT, no-till • RA, risk aversion • SERF, stochastic efficiency with respect to a function • Spring RM, spring residue management • ST, strip-tillage

¹ The use of trade, firm, or corporation names is for the information and convenience of the reader. Such use does not constitute an official endorsement or approval by the USDA or the Agricultural Research Service of any product or service to the exclusion of others that may be suitable.

All rights reserved. No part of this periodical may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

Received for publication September 12, 2008.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. Meyer-Aurich, M. Gandorfer, G. Gerl, and M. Kainz Tillage and Fertilizer Effects on Yield, Profitability, and Risk in a Corn-Wheat-Potato-Wheat Rotation Agron. J., November 1, 2009; 101(6): 1538 - 1547. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]