Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T18:57:27.935Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Long-term economic performance of organic and conventional field crops in the mid-Atlantic region

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 May 2009

Michel A. Cavigelli ,
Beth L. Hima ,
James C. Hanson ,
John R. Teasdale ,
Anne E. Conklin  and
Yao-chi Lu
Michel A. Cavigelli*
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, Sustainable Agricultural Systems Laboratory, Beltsville, MD, USA.
Beth L. Hima
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, Sustainable Agricultural Systems Laboratory, Beltsville, MD, USA. Social Security Administration, Baltimore, MD, USA.
James C. Hanson
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA.
John R. Teasdale
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, Sustainable Agricultural Systems Laboratory, Beltsville, MD, USA.
Anne E. Conklin
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, Sustainable Agricultural Systems Laboratory, Beltsville, MD, USA.
Yao-chi Lu
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, Sustainable Agricultural Systems Laboratory, Beltsville, MD, USA.
*
*Corresponding author: michel.cavigelli@ars.usda.gov
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Interest in organic grain production is increasing in the United States but there is limited information regarding the economic performance of organic grain and forage production in the mid-Atlantic region. We present the results from enterprise budget analyses for individual crops and for complete rotations with and without organic price premiums for five cropping systems at the US Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service (USDA–ARS) Beltsville Farming Systems Project (FSP) from 2000 to 2005. The FSP is a long-term cropping systems trial established in 1996 to evaluate the sustainability of organic and conventional grain crop production. The five FSP cropping systems include a conventional, three-year no-till corn (Zea mays L.)–rye (Secale cereale L.) cover crop/soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr)–wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)/soybean rotation (no-till (NT)), a conventional, three-year chisel-till corn–rye/soybean–wheat/soybean rotation (chisel tillage (CT)), a two-year organic hairy vetch (Vicia villosa Roth)/corn–rye/soybean rotation (Org2), a three-year organic vetch/corn–rye/soybean–wheat rotation (Org3) and a four- to six-year organic corn–rye/soybean–wheat–red clover (Trifolium pratense L.)/orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata L.) or alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) rotation (Org4+). Economic returns were calculated for rotations present from 2000 to 2005, which included some slight changes in crop rotation sequences due to weather conditions and management changes; additional analyses were conducted for 2000 to 2002 when all crops described above were present in all organic rotations. Production costs were, in general, greatest for CT, while those for the organic systems were lower than or similar to those for NT for all crops. Present value of net returns for individual crops and for full rotations were greater and risks were lower for NT than for CT. When price premiums for organic crops were included in the analysis, cumulative present value of net returns for organic systems (US$3933 to 5446 ha−1, 2000 to 2005; US$2653 to 2869 ha−1, 2000 to 2002) were always substantially greater than for the conventional systems (US$1309 to 1909 ha−1, 2000 to 2005; US$634 to 869 ha−1, 2000 to 2002). With price premiums, Org2 had greater net returns but also greater variability of returns and economic risk across all years than all other systems, primarily because economic success of this short rotation was highly dependent on the success of soybean, the crop with the highest returns. Soybean yield variability was high due to the impact of weather on the success of weed control in the organic systems. The longer, more diverse Org4+ rotation had the lowest variability of returns among organic systems and lower economic risk than Org2. With no organic price premiums, economic returns for corn and soybean in the organic systems were generally lower than those for the conventional systems due to lower grain yields in the organic systems. An exception to this pattern is that returns for corn in Org4+ were equal to or greater than those in NT in four of six years due to both lower production costs and greater revenue than for Org2 and Org3. With no organic premiums, present value of net returns for the full rotations was greatest for NT in 4 of 6 years and greatest for Org4+ the other 2 years, when returns for hay crops were high. Returns for individual crops and for full rotations were, in general, among the lowest and economic risk was, in general, among the highest for Org2 and Org3. Results indicate that Org4+, the longest and most diverse rotation, had the most stable economic returns among organic systems but that short-term returns could be greatest with Org2. This result likely explains, at least in part, why some organic farmers in the mid-Atlantic region, especially those recently converting to organic methods, have adopted this relatively short rotation. The greater stability of the longer rotation, by contrast, may explain why farmers who have used organic methods for longer periods of time tend to favor rotations that include perennial forages.

Keywords

organic grain cropseconomic performanceenterprise budget analysisorganic crop rotationlong-term agricultural research
Type
Research Papers
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , June 2009 , pp. 102 - 119
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (USDA–ERS). 2008. Data Sets: Organic Production [Online].USDA–ERS, Washington, DC. Available at Web site http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Organic/ (verified 13 March 2009).Google Scholar
2Streff, N. and Dobbs, T.L. 2004. ‘Organic’ and ‘conventional’ grain and soybean prices in the northern Great Plains and Upper Midwest: 1995 through 2003. Economic Pamphlet 2004-1, South Dakota State University, Brookings.Google Scholar
3Hamilton, M. 2006. Meeting the demand for organic livestock feed. Presentation at the Southern Sustainable Agriculture Working Group Annual Conference, 19–22 January, Louisville, Kentucky, USA.Google Scholar
4USDA–ERS. 2009. Data Sets: Feed Grains Database [Online]. USDA–ERS, Washington, DC. Available at Web site http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/feedgrains (verified 13 March 2009).Google Scholar
5United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service (USDA–AMS). 2009. Upper Midwest Organic Grain and Feedstuffs Report [Online].USDA Market News Service, Des Moines, IA. Available at Web site http://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/nw_gr113.txt (verified 13 March 2009).Google Scholar
6Bull, C.T. 2006. US federal organic research activity is expanding [Online]. Crop Management. Available at web site http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/pub/cm/symposium/organics/Bull (verified 2 May 2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Thilmany, D. 2006. The US organic industry: important trends and emerging issues for the USDA. Agribusiness Marketing Report, Colorado State University Extension Bulletin ABMR 06-01.Google Scholar
8Mainville, D., Farrell, M., Groover, G., and Mundy, K. 2007. Organic feed-grain markets: consideration for potential Virgina producers. Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication 448–520.Google Scholar
9Drinkwater, L.E., Wagoner, P., and Sarrantonio, M. 1998. Legume-based cropping systems have reduced carbon and nitrogen losses. Nature 396:262–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Welsh, R. 1999. The Economics of Organic Grain and Soybean Production in the Midwestern United States. Policy Studies Report No. 13. Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture, Greenbelt, MD.Google Scholar
11Robertson, G.P., Paul, E.A., and Harwood, R.R. 2000. Greenhouse gases in intensive agriculture: contributions of individual gases to the radiative forcing of the atmosphere. Science 289:1922–1925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12Poudel, D.D., Horwath, W.R., Lanini, W.T., Temple, S.R., and van Bruggen, A.H.C. 2002. Comparison of soil N availability and leaching potential, crop yields and weeds in organic, low-input and conventional farming systems in northern California. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 90:125–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13Porter, P.M., Huggins, D.R., Perillo, C.A., Quiring, S.R., and Crookston, R.K. 2003. Organic and other management strategies with two- and four-year crop rotations in Minnesota. Agronomy Journal 95:233–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14Delate, K. and Cambardella, C.A. 2004. Agroecosystem performance during transition to certified organic grain production. Agronomy Journal 96:1288–1298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15Archer, D.W., Jaradat, A.A., Johnson, J.M-F., Weyers, S.L., Gesch, R.W., Forcella, F., and Kludze, H.K. 2007. Crop productivity and economics during the transition to alternative cropping systems. Agronomy Journal 99:1538–1547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16Cavigelli, M.A., Teasdale, J.R., and Conklin, A.E. 2008. Agronomic performance of organic and conventional field crops in the mid-Atlantic region. Agronomy Journal 100:785–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17Hanson, J.C., Johnson, D.M., Peters, S.E., and Janke, R.R. 1990. The profitability of sustainable agriculture on a representative grain farm in the mid-Atlantic region, 1981–89. Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 19:90–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18Delate, K., Duffy, M., Chase, C., Holste, A., Friedrich, H., and Wantate, N. 2003. An economic comparison of organic and conventional grain crops in a long-term agroecological research (LTAR) site in Iowa. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 18:59–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19Mahoney, P.R., Olson, K.D., Porter, P.M., Huggins, D.R., Perillo, C.A., and Crookston, R.K. 2004. Profitability of organic cropping systems in southwestern Minnesota. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 19:35–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20Smith, E.G., Clapperton, M.J., and Blackshaw, R.E. 2004. Profitability and risk of organic production systems in the northern Great Plains. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 19:152–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21Clark, S., Klonsky, K., Livingston, P., and Temple, S. 1999. Crop yield and economic comparisons of organic, low-input, and conventional farming systems in California's Sacramento Valley. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 14:109–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22Hanson, J.C., Lichtenberg, E., and Peters, S.E. 1997. Organic versus conventional grain production in the mid-Atlantic: an economic and farming system overview. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 12:2–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23Hanson, J.C. and Musser, W.N. 2003. An economic evaluation of an organic grain rotation with regards to profit and risk. Working Paper 03–10, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
24Archer, D.W. and Kludze, H. 2006. Transition to organic cropping systems under risk. In Proceedings of the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, p. 1–24.Google Scholar
25Atorand, S.W., Denver, J.M., and Pitchford, A.M. 2000. Developing landscape-indicator models for pesticides and nutrients in streams of the mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain. USGS Fact Sheet FS-157-00 [Online]. Available at Web site http://md.water.usgs.gov/publications/fs-157–00/html (verified 13 March 2009).Google Scholar
26Alley, M.M., Brann, D.E., Stromber, E.L., Hagood, E.S., Herbert, A., Jones, E.C., and Griffith, W.K. 1993. Intensive soft red winter wheat production: a management guide. Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication 424–803.Google Scholar
27Teasdale, J.R. and Rosecrance, R.C. 2003. Mechanical versus herbicidal strategies for killing a hairy vetch cover crop and controlling weeds in minimum-tillage corn production. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 18:95–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28Johnson, D.M. 2002. Custom work charges and land rental rates in Maryland. Fact Sheet 683. Maryland Cooperative Extension, College Park.Google Scholar
29USDA–NASS. 2008. Crop farm index: prices received and prices paid, all items, U.S., 1997–2008, by quarter [Online]. Available at Web site http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/graphics/data/cropfarm.txt (verified 13 March 2009).Google Scholar
30Maryland Agricultural Statistics Service. 2001. Agriculture in Maryland: Summary for 2000–2001 [Online]. Available at Web site http://www.nass.usda.gov/md/Ag2000.pdf (verified 13 March 2009).Google Scholar
31Musser, W.N., Ohannesian, J., and Benson, F.J. 1981. A safety first model of risk management for use in extension programs. North Central Journal of Agricultural Economics 3:41–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32SAS Institute. 2002. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Version 9.1. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.Google Scholar
33Pimentel, D., Hepperley, P., Hanson, J., Douds, D., and Seidel, R. 2005. Environmental, energetic, and economic comparisons of organic and conventional farming systems. BioScience 55:573–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34Paustian, K., Collins, H.P., and Paul, E.A. 1997. Management controls on soil carbon. In Paul, E.A., Paustian, K., Elliott, E.T., and Cole, C.V.). Soil Organic Matter in Temperate Agroecosystems. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. p. 15–49.Google Scholar
35Gardner, B.L., Chase, R., Haigh, M., Lichtenberg, E., Lynch, L., Musser, W., and Parker, D. 2002. Economic situation and prospects for Maryland agriculture. Policy Analysis Report No. 02–01. Center for Agricultural and Natural Resource Policy, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
36Teasdale, J.R., Mangum, R.W., Radhakrishnan, J., and Cavigelli, M.A. 2004. Weed seedbank dynamics in three organic farming crop rotations. Agronomy Journal 96:1429–1435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar