Paper · 2007 · Canadian Journal of Plant Science

Economics of spring wheat production systems using conventional tillage management in the Brown soil zone – Revisited

R. P. Zentner; C. A. Campbell; F. Selles; et al.

9
claims
15
verbatim quotes
15
citations
1
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Producers in the semiarid Brown soil zone of the Canadian Prairies have historically used fallow (F)-based cropping systems with mechanical tillage methods to produce spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) (W). However, in the past two decades government policies and programs have changed, as have cropping practices, market opportunities, and weather patterns. This study re-examines the economic merits of these conventional cropping systems under today’s conditions in regard to the optimal cropping frequency, value of applying N and P fertilizer at soil test rates, and the possible advantage of replacing monoculture wheat with lentil (Lens culinaris Medikus) (Lent) or flax (Linum usitatissimum L.) (Flx) grown in mixed rotations. The analysis draws on data from a long-term crop rotation experiment that was established in 1967 on an Orthic Brown Chernozem at the Semiarid Prairie Agricultural Research Centre at Swift Current, Saskatchewan. All cropping systems were managed using conventional tillage practices, which attempted to conserve as much surface crop residue as possible (i.e., stubble mulch tillage techniques were used). The findings for 1985–2002, a period characterized by above normal precipitation, were compared with those reported previously for the 1967–1984 period when growing conditions were less favorable but more typical for this area. Net returns during 1985–2002 were highest for W-Lent ($93 ha -1 yr -1 ) and lowest for F-Flx-W ($38 ha -1 yr -1 ). Net returns for well-fertilized F-W, F-W-W, F-W-W-W-W-W, and Cont W during this same period were similar, averaging about $52 ha -1 yr -1 or 44% less than for W-Lent. These results contrast with those reported for the previous 18-yr period when F-W and F- W-W generally produced higher net returns than Cont W. Within the F-W-W systems, the application of both N and P fertilizer increased the 18-yr (1985–2002) mean net returns by $18 ha -1 yr -1 compared with application of N only, and by $32 ha -1 yr -1 compared with application of P only. For Cont W the application of N and P fertilizer increased the mean net returns by $71 ha -1 yr -1 compared with application of P only. These economic benefits from N and P fertilization were much higher than those reported in 1967–1984 due to the more humid growing conditions and the increased rate of N fertilizer prescribed by the soil testing lab since 1991. Further, our findings showed that only if producers were highly risk averse, do not subscribe to all-risk crop insurance , or if the price for wheat was high or price for lentil low, would the monoculture wheat systems be preferred to W-Lent. However, producers who are highly risk averse would still opt for the cropping systems that included some summerfallow. Our findings support the recent trends in land use practices by area producers towards more diversified and intensive cropping systems which are less reliant on frequent fallowing. Key words: Crop rotations, wheat, lentil, flax, summerfallow, production costs, net returns, income variability

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 9

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

During 1985-2002 net returns were highest for the wheat-lentil (W-Lent) rotation at $93 per ha per year.

Taxon
spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
W-Lente0
Outcome
Net returnse0
Direction
higheste0
Value
$93 ha -1 yr -1e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“spring wheat production systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 13–44 · show in text ↑
e0

“Net returns during 1985–2002 were highest for W-Lent ($93 ha -1 yr -1 ) and lowest for F-Flx-W ($38 ha -1 yr -1 )”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1369–1482 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

During 1985-2002 net returns were lowest for the fallow-flax-wheat (F-Flx-W) rotation at $38 per ha per year.

Taxon
spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
F-Flx-We0
Outcome
Net returnse0
Direction
loweste0
Value
$38 ha -1 yr -1e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“spring wheat production systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 13–44 · show in text ↑
e0

“Net returns during 1985–2002 were highest for W-Lent ($93 ha -1 yr -1 ) and lowest for F-Flx-W ($38 ha -1 yr -1 )”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1369–1482 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Net returns of well-fertilized F-W, F-W-W, F-W-W-W-W-W and continuous wheat were similar to each other, averaging about $52 per ha per year, 44% less than for W-Lent.

Taxon
spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
Outcome
Net returnse0
Direction
less thane0
Value
$52 ha -1 yr -1e0
Qualifier
44% less than for W-Lente0
Comparator
W-Lente0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“spring wheat production systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 13–44 · show in text ↑
e0

“Net returns for well-fertilized F-W, F-W-W, F-W-W-W-W-W, and Cont W during this same period were similar, averaging about $52 ha -1 yr -1 or 44% less than for W-Lent”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1484–1649 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

In F-W-W systems, applying both N and P fertilizer raised mean 1985-2002 net returns by $18 per ha per year compared with N only.

Taxon
spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
application of both N and P fertilizere0
Outcome
mean net returnse0
Direction
increasede0
Value
$18 ha -1 yr -1e0
Comparator
application of N onlye0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“spring wheat production systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 13–44 · show in text ↑
e0

“Within the F-W-W systems, the application of both N and P fertilizer increased the 18-yr (1985–2002) mean net returns by $18 ha -1 yr -1 compared with application of N only, and by $32 ha -1 yr -1 compared with application of P only”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1795–2027 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

In F-W-W systems, applying both N and P fertilizer raised mean 1985-2002 net returns by $32 per ha per year compared with P only.

Taxon
spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
application of both N and P fertilizere0
Outcome
mean net returnse0
Direction
increasede0
Value
$32 ha -1 yr -1e0
Comparator
application of P onlye0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“spring wheat production systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 13–44 · show in text ↑
e0

“Within the F-W-W systems, the application of both N and P fertilizer increased the 18-yr (1985–2002) mean net returns by $18 ha -1 yr -1 compared with application of N only, and by $32 ha -1 yr -1 compared with application of P only”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1795–2027 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

For continuous wheat, applying N and P fertilizer raised mean net returns by $71 per ha per year compared with P only.

Taxon
spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
application of N and P fertilizere0
Outcome
mean net returnse0
Direction
increasede0
Value
$71 ha -1 yr -1e0
Comparator
application of P onlye0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“spring wheat production systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 13–44 · show in text ↑
e0

“For Cont W the application of N and P fertilizer increased the mean net returns by $71 ha -1 yr -1 compared with application of P only”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2029–2163 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Monoculture wheat systems would be preferred to W-Lent only if producers were highly risk averse, lacked all-risk crop insurance, or wheat price was high or lentil price low.

Outcome
monoculture wheat systems be preferred to W-Lente0
Comparator
W-Lente0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“only if producers were highly risk averse, do not subscribe to all-risk crop insurance , or if the price for wheat was high or price for lentil low, would the monoculture wheat systems be preferred to W-Lent”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2427–2634 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Highly risk-averse producers would still choose cropping systems that include some summerfallow.

Outcome
opt for the cropping systems that included some summerfallowe0

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e0

“producers who are highly risk averse would still opt for the cropping systems that included some summerfallow”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2645–2754 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors conclude their findings support the recent trend toward more diversified, intensive cropping systems that rely less on frequent fallowing.

Outcome
more diversified and intensive cropping systemse0

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e0

“Our findings support the recent trends in land use practices by area producers towards more diversified and intensive cropping systems which are less reliant on frequent fallowing”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2756–2935 · show in text ↑

phosphorus · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

572 papers: 524 positive, 48 negative or no effect

523 papers in the same direction as this paper · 43 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. negative

568 papers more in this group

See all 572 papers →

nitrogen · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

2,061 papers: 1,737 positive, 324 negative or no effect

1,736 papers in the same direction as this paper · 285 in the opposite direction · 39 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

2,057 papers more in this group

See all 2,061 papers →

fertilization · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

3,438 papers: 3,115 positive, 323 negative or no effect

3,114 papers in the same direction as this paper · 284 in the opposite direction · 39 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

3,434 papers more in this group

See all 3,438 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.