Winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) is the foundation of dryland cropping systems in the Central Great Plains. The objective of this study was to quantify the effects of four short‐season spring‐planted crops used to replace summer fallow on the subsequent winter wheat crop. Wheat was seeded into four crop stubbles [spring triticale (×Triticosecale Wittmack), dry pea (Pisum sativum L.), foxtail millet (Setaria italica L. Beauv.), and proso millet (Panicum miliaceum L.)] at sites near Akron, CO, and Sidney, NE, in the fall of 2004 and 2005. These summer fallow replacement crops were planted into silt loam soils at three different soil water levels at planting (low, medium, and high). Winter wheat water use was 3.6 cm greater, and grain yield was 662 kg ha−1 greater in the high water treatment compared with the low water treatment averaged across all sites and years. Winter wheat used an average of 4.3 cm more water following early planted summer crops (triticale and dry pea) than after late planted summer crops (foxtail and proso millet), but this increased water use did not consistently translate into increased grain yield as a result of terminal drought at Sidney in 2006. The high water treatment always had a positive net return. The high cost of pea seed ($3.30 kg−1, USD) strongly reduced profitability. The flexible summer fallow cropping system appears to be most applicable when using short‐duration summer annual forage crops such as triticale and foxtail millet.

Summer fallow is commonly used to stabilize winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) production in the Central Great Plains, but summer fallow results in soil degradation, limits farm productivity and profitability, and stores soil water inefficiently. The objectives of this study were to quantify the production and economic consequences of replacing summer fallow with spring‐planted crops on the subsequent winter wheat crop. A summer fallow treatment and five spring crop treatments [spring canola (Brassica napus L.), oat (Avena sativa L.) + pea (Pisum sativum L.) for forage, proso millet (Panicum miliaceum L.), dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), and corn (Zea mays L.)] were no‐till seeded into sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) residue in a randomized complete block design with five replications during 1999, 2000, and 2001. Winter wheat was planted in the fall following the spring crops. Five N fertilizer treatments (0, 22, 45, 67, and 90 kg N ha−1) were randomly assigned to each previous spring crop treatment in a split‐plot treatment arrangement. The 3‐yr mean wheat grain yield after summer fallow was 29% greater than following oat + pea for forage and 86% greater than following corn. The 3‐yr mean annualized net return for the spring crop and subsequent winter wheat crop was $4.20, −$6.91, −$7.55, −$29.66, −$81.17, and −$94.88 ha−1 for oat + pea for forage, proso millet, summer fallow, dry bean, corn, and spring canola, respectively. Systems involving oat + pea for forage and proso millet are economically competitive with systems using summer fallow.

Field experiments were conducted near Scottsbluff, NE, in 2001 and 2002 to compare economic aspects of glyphosate applied to different glyphosate-resistant sugar beet cultivars with that of conventional herbicide programs applied to near-equivalent, non–glyphosate-resistant conventional cultivars. Glyphosate applied two or three times at 2-wk intervals, beginning when weeds were 10 cm tall, provided excellent weed control, yield, and net economic return regardless of the glyphosate-resistant sugar beet cultivar. All conventional herbicide treatments resulted in similar net economic returns. Although the conventional sugar beet cultivars ‘HM 1640’ and ‘Beta 4546’ responded similarly to herbicide treatments with respect to sucrose content, ‘Beta 4546RR’ produced roots with 1% more sucrose than ‘HM 1640RR’. When averaged over herbicide treatments, a producer planting Beta 4546RR could afford to pay US $185/ha more for glyphosate-resistant technology as could a producer planting HM 1640RR. When averaged over cultivars and herbicide treatments, it is estimated that a producer could afford to pay an additional US $385/ha for glyphosate-resistant technology without decreasing net return.

A field trial was conducted for 3 yr (2005 through 2007) near Scottsbluff, NE, to examine weed control, crop safety, forage production, and economics of glyphosate-tolerant and conventional alfalfa establishment systems. Glyphosate applied to alfalfa at the unifoliate growth stage provided 67% weed control and was similar to imazamox applied at the two-trifoliate leaf stage. Delaying glyphosate application until alfalfa had reached the two-trifoliate growth stage improved weed control to 83%, and weed control was similar to imazamox plus 2,4-DB and imazethapyr plus 2,4-DB. Imazamox and imazethapyr caused minor crop injury, and the addition of bromoxynil or 2,4-DB to both herbicides further decreased crop safety. Weeds were most competitive with the first forage harvest and reduced relative feed value, crude protein, and value (dollars per t) of forage compared to forage that had been treated with herbicides. The total forage yield for the season consisted of three forage harvests and was greatest when no herbicides were applied. The total forage yield of plots treated with glyphosate at the two-trifoliate growth stage was greater than that of plots treated with imazamox or imazethapyr in combination with bromoxynil. When glyphosate was applied at the two-trifoliate growth stage, seasonal forage yield was similar to forage treated with imazamox, imazethapyr, or both herbicides in combination with 2,4-DB. When herbicide was applied to alfalfa at the two-trifoliate growth stage, the net return from using glyphosate with a glyphosate-tolerant alfalfa variety or utilizing imazamox with a conventional alfalfa variety were similar at $742 and $743/ha, respectively.

Can the availability of poorly‐designed government insurance alter technology adoption decisions? A theoretical model of technology adoption and insurance incentive effects for a high‐ and low‐risk technology is developed and explored empirically using a unique dataset of skip‐row agronomic trial data. A multivariate nonparametric resampling technique is developed, which augments the trial data with a larger dataset of conventional yields to improve estimation efficiency. Skip‐row adoption is found to increase mean yields and reduce risk in areas prone to drought. RMA insurance rules have incentive‐distorting impacts which disincentivize skip‐row adoption.