Economic analysis of adopting no‐till and cover crops in irrigated cotton production under risk

Abstract

Adoption of soil conservation practices has been promoted to improve environmental and economic benefits across the United States. These practices are especially necessary for soil health improvement in the Southern High Plains where soils are prone to erosion and agricultural irrigation relies heavily on groundwater. Winter cover crops and no‐till cropping are two conservation practices for reducing soil erosion, but producers might face additional risks associated with adopting these practices. The objective of this study was to examine the profitability and risks associated with alternative tillage and cover crops (no cover crop, winter wheat [Triticum asestivum L.], and grass–legume mixture) for irrigated cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Using data from a 6‐yr field experiment, net return distributions of each production system were evaluated and ranked across various risk aversion levels. The results showed that the average net returns were $1040 and $1049 ha−1 for conventionally tilled and no‐till cotton without a cover crop, while the net returns were $1121 and $1075 ha−1 for no‐till cotton with wheat and mixed cover crops, respectively. Producers adopting cover crops had a greater probability of getting a middle interval of net returns between $760 and $1370 ha−1. The results of risk analysis show that risk‐neutral and slightly risk‐averse producers prefer no‐till cotton production with wheat cover, while no‐till with mixed and wheat cover are the first and second most preferred systems for very and extremely risk‐averse producers. Sensitivity analysis confirms consistent profit effects of cover crops and no‐till adoption at multiple cotton price levels.

Dicamba-Based Herbicide Programs, Cropping Sequences, Tillage Types in Cotton – Profitability and Risk Efficiency Analysis

“…Similar observations were recorded in South Texas and West Tennessee, where risk-averse growers preferred no-tillage without cover crops over no-tillage with cover crops and conventional tillage (Boyer et al, 2018;Ribera et al, 2004). However, in the Texas High Plains under irrigated conditions, risk-averse growers preferred no-tillage with cover crops over no-tillage (Fan et al, 2020b).…”

“…This can be attributed to significantly higher cotton yields (> 3,300 kg ha -1 ) under no-till cover cropping compared to other tillage types (1,100 -2,500 kg ha -1 ) in 2019 (Vulchi et al, 2023), followed by cost savings in tillage operations in the following years. Fan et al (2020b) observed similar results in Texas where no-till cover cropping systems produced greater or similar partial net returns compared to conventional systems, primarily due to higher yields under irrigated conditions. No significant differences in partial net returns were observed between cropping sequences and herbicide programs (LI and HI) averaged across other respective factors at College Station (Table 6).…”

Cover crop forage potential and subsequent sorghum silage yield and nutritive value

“…Cover cropping has been promoted to provide multiple ecosystem services, such as soil health improvements, soil erosion control, and improved nutrient cycling (Frasier et al., 2016; Schipanski et al., 2014). However, their adoption rate has not advanced at the predicted pace because of the additional cost associated with seed purchase, planting, termination, and supplemental irrigation needed in arid and semiarid regions (Faé et al., 2009; Fan et al., 2020). One of the ways to offset cover cropping costs is to utilize cover crop biomass by harvesting forage or allowing cattle to graze.…”

Farmers' Decision to Adoption of Modern Irrigation Systems Under Risk Condition: Application of Stochastic Efficiency With Respect to a Function Approach

“…Despite the obvious importance of financial information in deciding whether to use alternative irrigation options (Adusumilli et al, 2016), there is less information about their profitability prospects under risk conditions. Moreover, in examining alternative farming practices, risk analysis utilizing SERF has been frequently used in recent years (Özkan et al, 2015;Liu et al, 2017;Adusumilli et al, 2020;Fan et al, 2020). The SERF technique ranks the preference of decision-makers (DMs) according to the value of the CE of each alternative.…”