"This guide sheet briefly describes tillage systems and estimates costs and returns on a typical farm."--First page.David E. Ervin, Coy G. McNabb, and Myron D. Bennett (Department of Agricultural Economics, College of Agriculture); Dallas D. Schafer (U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, Columbia, Missouri)New 7/83/10

Bennett, Myron D.

Ervin, David E.

McNabb, Coy G.

Schafer, Dallas D.

University of Missouri: MOspace

Conservation tillage Costs and returns David E. Ervin, Coy G. McNabb, and Myron D. Bennett Department of Agricultural Economics College of Agriculture; and Dallas D. Schafer, U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, Columbia, Missouri Anyone thinking about changing farming practices asks, "Does it pay?" About conservation tillage, a farmer might ask, "What are the costs and returns of conventional tillage in comparison with minimum and no-till systems?" This guide sheet briefly describes tillage systems and estimates costs and returns on a typical farm. Conventional tillage is the traditional way of prepar-ing the soil for a crop. With corn production, for example, the field is tilled with a moldboard plow, disked twice, planted, and then cultivated once. Minimum tillage replaces the moldboard plow with a chisel plow. Plowing is followed by only one disking and one cultivation. At least 30 percent of the ground surface is covered by crop residue at planting time. No-till uses no tillage before planting. Vegetation is killed before or at planting with a contact herbicide. Pre-emergent or postemergent herbicides are used to control new weed growth. A no-till planter is used, and cultivation after planting is generally eliminated. Regarding conservation, the goal of reduced tillage is to leave more residue on the surface to reduce erosion . Costs and returns The detailed crop budgets in this guide sheet are estimated for corn and soybeans on a typical farm with the best information available (as of 1983). Assumptions and procedures • We assumed that corn and soybean yields are the same for all tillage systems. Yields of 81 bushels an acre for corn and 26 bushels for soybeans come from averaging the state yields from 1963 to 1982. We updated them to account for technology that increases yields. 350 1111 291983 From 1977 to 1982, corn grown on MtY<l.t:o and other soils in north Missouri showed no significant f<... difference in average yields between the three tillage systems. However, yield differences between the tillage systems may vary from year to year because of wet or dry weather. • We averaged the corn and soybean prices of 1977-1982. They amounted to $2.42 per bushel for corn and $6.13 for soybeans. • Except for machinery, we based other costs on 1983 Missouri retail prices. For machinery, we used 1981 prices. We developed tables 1 and 2 with the help of the Department of Agronomy. The gave recommenda-tions on fertilizer, lime, seed, and herbicide require-ments for growing corn and soybeans on a Mexico . soil. Insecticide requirements are based on informa-tion from the Department of Entomology. Tillage information comes from the Department of Agricul-tural Engineering. Table 3 shows the average annual income and costs over a two-year rotation of corn and soybeans. There will be differences in yields, soil types, machinery, and other characteristics between this typical farm and your own operation. Use the Your Farm column to enter costs and returns for your specific situation. For example, you may wish to omit the cost of your labor. The breakdown of costs in these tables is a useful way to compare the three tillage methods. Summary of the budgets 1. Herbicide and insecticide costs either stay the same or increase slightly as you shift from convention-al to minimum tillage systems. But these costs are higher for no-till . 2. Machinery operating expenses (fuel and re-pairs) have the opposite result. They decline sub-stantially as you shift from conventional to no-till. The machinery labor costs for no-till vary from one-third to one-half of conventional tillage. This result reflects the decreased amount of field time an acre. 3. Machinery ownership expenses (depreciation, taxes, interest, and insurance) decrease much more gradually. This result primarily reflects the lower investment in machinery as tillage is reduced. But costs can be higher if the operator keeps his conven-tional tillage equipment and buys no-till machinery. In that case, the ownership costs for the conventional Archive version - chck for updatsTable 1. Corn budget on Mexico silt loam (per acre). Conventional Income $196.02 81 bu. at $2.42/bu. Cash costs Seed $ 11.38 Fertilizer and lime 43.90 Herbicides 13.24 Insecticides 4.90 Machinery fuel and repairs 21.31 Operating interest 5.98 Total cash costs $100.71 Return over cash costs (RCC) $ 95.31 Machinery labor cost 9.60 Machinery ownership costs 47.74 Total production costs $158.05 Return to land, management, and overhead (RLMO) $ 37.97 machinery have to be added to the minimum and no-till production costs. Also, loans to purchase mini-mum and no-till machinery increase the pressure on cash flow. 4. Return over cash costs (RCC) indicates your income after paying cash production expenses. Note that no-till provides the lowest RCC primarily because of high chemical costs. Minimum tillage has the highest RCC, followed closely by conventional tillage. 5. Return to land, management, and overhead (RLMO) represents your income after paying machin-ery labor and ownership expenses. RLMO is available to pay land interest and principal charges, property taxes, overhead (buildings), and family living ex-penses. Between conventional and minimum tillage systems, the difference in RLMO increases over the comparable RCC difference. Again, this result reflects decreasing machinery ownership costs. These savings would not exist if the operator uses all tillage systems on the farm. And all tillage systems may be necessary on some farms, especially those with tight or poorly drained land. 6. The tillage systems can be ranked on the basis of RLMO for the corn-soybeans rotation: (1) mini-mum, (2) no-till, and (3) conventional. However, in this example, there is no advantage for no-till over conventional tillage soybeans because of the very high post-emergent herbicide costs. Your own situation may be different. For corn, the lower cost of post-emergent herbicides makes no-till look more attrac-tive. 350 Minimum No-till Your farm $196.02 $196.02 $ 11.38 $ 12.51 43.90 43.90 13.24 25.45 5.98 7.93 18.16 13.17 5.73 6.23 $ 98.39 $109.19 $ 97.63 $ 86.83 8.36 6.47 42.86 38.57 $149.61 $154.23 $ 46.41 $ 41.79 Erosion control The more residue that is left on the surface, the greater is the reduction in soil loss . Corn provides greater residue after harvest than soybeans, but soybean acreage has been increasing. The soil loss per acre from the three tillage systems was estimated in a corn-soybean rotation on a Mexico soil with 3 percent slope. With conventional tillage, the loss was 12.5 tons per acre, followed by minimum tillage at 8.6 and no-till at 5.2 tons per acre. Both reduced tillage systems represent a substantial reduc-tion in soil loss: 31 percent for minimum till and 58 percent for no-till, in comparison with conventional tillage. At this point, researchers are unable to assign an accurate monetary value to a reduction in soil loss. However, anyone who has given soil conservation much thought knows erosion is a serious problem on sloping, cultivated fields. Decrease in the tilth and in crop yields are gradual and may go unnoticed until gullies appear. More immediate problems are the washing away of fertilizers and chemicals and the deposits of topsoil in low field spots, public road ditches, and in streams and lakes during heavy rains. These are costs to the individual and to society. Conservation tillage appears to be the most promising single practice for economically reducing soil ,erosion. However, on many farms other practices may also be required to reduce soil erosion to a level consistent with private and public soil conservation goals. -Table 2. Soybean budget on Mexico silt loam (per acre). -Conventional Minimum No-till Your farm Income $159.38 $159.38 $159.38 26 bu. at $6.13/bu. Cash costs Seed $ 8.33 $ 8.33 $ 9.38 Fertilizer and lime 31.18 31.18 31.18 Herbicides 19.17 19.17 37.62 Insecticides 1.46 1.88 3.38 Machinery fuel and repairs 16.33 13.19 8.64 Operating interest 4.48 4.37 4.86 Total cash costs $ 80.95 $ 78.12 $ 95.06 Return over cash costs (RCC) $ 78.43 $ 81.26 $ 64.32 Machinery labor cost 7.05 5.81 3.35 Machinery ownership costs 42.35 37.47 33.53 Total production costs $130.35 $121.40 $131.94 Return to land, management, and overhead (RLMO) $ 29.03 $ 37.98 $ 27.44 Table 3. Corn and soybean budget averaged, on Mexico silt loam (per acre). -Conventional Minimum No-till Your farm Income $177.70 $177.70 $177.70 Cash costs Seed $ 9.86 $ 9.86 $ 10.95 Fertilizer and lime 37.54 37.54 37.54 Herbicides 16.21 16.21 31.54 Insecticides 3.18 3.93 5.66 Machinery fuel and repairs 18.82 15.68 10.91 Operating interest 5.23 5.05 5.55 Total cash costs $ 90.84 $ 88.27 $102.15 Return over cash costs (RCC) $ 86.86 $ 89.43 $ 75.55 Machinery labor cost 8.33 7.09 4.91 Machinery ownership costs 45.05 40.17 36.05 Total production costs $144.22 $135.53 $143.11 Return to land, management, and overhead (RLMO) $ 33.48 $ 42.17 $ 34.59 350 ■ Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension Work Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914 in cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture. Leonard C. Douglas, Director, Cooperative Extension Service, University of Missouri and Lincoln University, Columbia, Missouri 65211. ■ An equal opportunity institution. 350 New 7/83/10M •••• •••• •••• I •••• •••• -·-•••• •••• •••• 

Conservation tillage : costs and returns

https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/10355/76455/1/G00350-1983.pdf

Conservation tillage : costs and returns

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Missouri: MOspace