Abstract
Take home messages • Large gaps in profitability are possible between the best and worst systems – differences of $92-494/ha per year were found between systems at each site • Intensity is the major factor driving good/poor economic performance of the farming system - more so than crop choice. Matching intensity to environmental potential seems to be the most important lever to optimise farming system profitability • Increasing crop intensity increased costs and risks, but potentially higher crop income wasn’t realised over the dry run of seasons and hence has produced lower gross margins than more conservative systems • Lower crop intensity had lower system gross returns, but because of lower inputs and costs may achieve a more favourable return on investment at lower risk when there are limited planting opportunities. These systems have achieved lower gross margins than the baseline system in all but one comparison • Increasing legume frequency has the potential to capitalise on favourable legume prices but using long-term prices has rarely exceeded gross margins of baseline systems • Increasing nutrient supply incurred higher costs and required favourable seasonal conditions to increase grain yields and gross margins – this rarely occurred over the experimental years (excluding Trangie 2016 and Emerald 2017 where significant crop responses were obtained) • Systems involving crops with higher price variability (e.g. pulses, cotton) had limited downside risk but increased upside opportunities of higher economic returns. Even when comparing recent and long-term grain prices, the relative profitability ranking of systems rarely changed • Selecting a crop system is a long-term decision with unknown future yield and prices, hence choose systems that maximise system productivity and resilience, rather than responding to current commodity prices.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Profitability differed by $92-494/ha per year between best and worst systems at each site.
Verbatim
e0“differences of $92-494/ha per year were found between systems at each site”
Claim · model-written summary
System intensity was the major driver of economic performance.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“Intensity is the major factor driving good/poor economic performance of the farming system - more so than crop choice”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing crop intensity increased costs and risks.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Increasing crop intensity increased costs and risks”
Claim · model-written summary
Higher crop income did not materialize during dry seasons, yielding lower gross margins for higher-intensity systems than conservative systems.
Verbatim
e0“potentially higher crop income wasn’t realised over the dry run of seasons and hence has produced lower gross margins than more conservative systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Lower crop intensity produced lower system gross returns.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Lower crop intensity had lower system gross returns”
Claim · model-written summary
Lower-intensity systems had lower gross margins than baseline in all but one comparison.
Verbatim
e0“These systems have achieved lower gross margins than the baseline system in all but one comparison”
e1“crop choice”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing legume frequency rarely exceeded baseline gross margins at long-term prices.
Verbatim
e0“Increasing legume frequency has the potential to capitalise on favourable legume prices but using long-term prices has rarely exceeded gross margins of baseline systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing nutrient supply incurred higher costs.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Increasing nutrient supply incurred higher costs”
e1“crop choice”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing nutrient supply rarely increased grain yields and gross margins over the experimental years, except for significant crop responses at Trangie in 2016 and Emerald in 2017.
- Taxon
- crope0
- Treatment
- favourable seasonal conditionse0
- Outcome
- grain yields and gross marginse0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Qualifier
- rarely occurred over the experimental yearse0
- Setting
- Trangiee0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“required favourable seasonal conditions to increase grain yields and gross margins – this rarely occurred over the experimental years (excluding Trangie 2016 and Emerald 2017 where significant crop responses were obtained)”
Claim · model-written summary
Crops with higher price variability had limited downside risk and greater upside opportunity for economic returns.
Verbatim
e0“crops with higher price variability (e.g. pulses, cotton) had limited downside risk but increased upside opportunities of higher economic returns”
Claim · model-written summary
The relative profitability ranking of systems rarely changed between recent and long-term grain prices.
- Taxon
- graine0
- Treatment
- recent and long-term grain pricese0
- Outcome
- relative profitability rankinge0
- Direction
- rarely changede0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Even when comparing recent and long-term grain prices, the relative profitability ranking of systems rarely changed”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend choosing crop systems that maximize productivity and resilience.
Verbatim
e0“choose systems that maximise system productivity and resilience”
e1“crop system”