Risk/Return Analysis of Double‐Cropping and Alternative Crop Rotations with and Without Government Programs

Burton, Robert O.; Crisostomo, Mario F.; Berends, Patrick T.; Buller, Orlan H.; Kelley, K. W.

doi:10.2307/1349599

Cited by 10 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Monocropped soybean cultivars (H431 ITC, H431 NC, and DK 38-52) were included along with the previously described factorial treatments to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of wheat cultivar selection on relay-intercrop and double-crop systems compared with monocrop soybean [10]. In keeping with previous research [10,12,14], we calculated gross margins for the cropping systems using the product of yield and average receipts for wheat ($0.21/kg) and soybean ($0.32/kg) over the past three years [33,34] minus input costs (Table 2) [32]. A single factor ANOVA revealed a significant treatment interaction with years.…”

Section: Gross Margins Of Monocropped Relay-intercropped Andmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some farmers have used double-cropped soybean production to increase wheat profitability [7][8][9]. In the absence of government programs, a risk and return analysis in southeast Kansas favored double-cropped wheatsoybeans over monocropped wheat or soybeans [10]. Relayintercrop production has been proposed in the Midwest to reduce production risks of double-cropping.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Wheat (Triticum aestivumL.) Cultivar Selection Affects Double-Crop and Relay-Intercrop Soybean (Glycine maxL.) Response on Claypan Soils

Nelson

Meinhardt

Smoot

2010

International Journal of Agronomy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Field research (2003–2005) evaluated the effect of wheat row spacing (19 and 38 cm) and cultivar on double-cropped (DC) soybean response, 38-cm wheat on relay-intercrop (RI) response, and wheat cultivar selection on gross margins of these cropping systems. Narrow-row wheat increased grain yield 460 kg , light interception (LI) 7%, and leaf area index (LAI) 0.5 compared to wide rows, but did not affect DC soybean yield. High yielding wheat (P25R37) with greater LI and LAI produced lower (330 kg ) soybean yields in an RI system than a low yielding cultivar (Ernie). Gross margins were 267 greater when P25R37 was RI with H431 Intellicoat (ITC) soybean compared to Ernie. Gross margins were similar for monocrop H431 non-coated (NC) or ITC soybean, P25R37 in 19- or 38-cm rows with DC H431 NC soybean, and P25R37 in 38-cm rows with RI H431 ITC soybean in the absence of an early fall frost.

show abstract

Section: Gross Margins Of Monocropped Relay-intercropped Andmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wheat (Triticum aestivumL.) Cultivar Selection Affects Double-Crop and Relay-Intercrop Soybean (Glycine maxL.) Response on Claypan Soils

Nelson

Meinhardt

Smoot

2010

International Journal of Agronomy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…By intercepting precipitation and increasing infiltration, the winter annual crop reduces runoff that delivers suspended soil particles and dissolved nutrients to surface water. The movement of nutrients such as phosphorus that are bound to soil particles to surface water is also reduced by the presence of the winter annual crop [37].…”

Section: Environmental Benefitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, the second crop may and often requires the use of different machinery, increasing the capital investment required. However, the use of a double crop can lower the average fixed cost of land because more products can be produced from the same area [37]. Realistically, it is unreasonable to expect widespread adoption of biomass double cropping systems until the financial returns are equal to or better than competing cropping systems.…”

Section: Practical Considerations For Double Croppingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Double cropping opportunities for biomass crops in the north central USA

Moore¹,

Karlen

2013

Biofuels

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Double‐cropping soybean after wheat offers a number of potential advantages over single‐cropping systems. Among these are more extensive use of fixed resources, improved cash flow, and increased net returns(1,6,11). However, in single‐cropping systems, average yields of both wheat and soybean typically are higher than in double‐cropping systems primarily because of more timely planting dates(14,15).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Double-cropping Winter Wheat and Soybean Improves Net Returns in the Eastern Great Plains

Kelley

2003

Crop Management

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the eastern Great Plains, winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and different soybean [Glycine max(L.) Merr.] maturity groups (MG) are grown in various cropping systems to diversify crop production. A 10‐year field study was conducted in southeastern Kansas to evaluate effects of multi‐cropping systems on grain yield and net economic returns. Cropping systems evaluated were: (i) annual double‐cropping of wheat and soybean (MG IV); (ii) four 2‐year rotations of wheat‐soybean double‐cropped followed by full‐season soybean the next year, where the same soybean MG (I, III, IV, and V) was grown both years; and (iii) a 3‐year rotation of wheat, wheat, and full‐season (MG V) soybean. On average, wheat yields ranged from 51 bu/acre following early MG I soybean in the 2‐year double‐crop rotation to 36 bu/acre following MG IV soybean in the annual double‐cropping system. Wheat yield differences were primarily determined by planting date. Full‐season (MG V) soybean yields were highest (35 bu/acre) following two years of wheat in the 3‐year rotation. Double‐crop soybean yields in the annual double‐cropping system averaged 26 bu/acre for MG IV. Full‐season and double‐crop soybean yields in the 2‐year double‐crop rotation system were significantly greater for traditional MGs (III, IV, and V) than MG I. Net economic returns averaged $101/acre for annual double‐cropping, which was $10 to $25/acre higher than 2‐year systems with MGs III, IV, and V; whereas, net returns were lowest for the 3‐year rotation ($51/acre) and for the 2‐year system with MG I soybean ($44/acre).

show abstract

Risk/Return Analysis of Double‐Cropping and Alternative Crop Rotations with and Without Government Programs

Cited by 10 publications

References 6 publications

Wheat (Triticum aestivumL.) Cultivar Selection Affects Double-Crop and Relay-Intercrop Soybean (Glycine maxL.) Response on Claypan Soils

Wheat (Triticum aestivumL.) Cultivar Selection Affects Double-Crop and Relay-Intercrop Soybean (Glycine maxL.) Response on Claypan Soils

Double cropping opportunities for biomass crops in the north central USA

Double-cropping Winter Wheat and Soybean Improves Net Returns in the Eastern Great Plains

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About