Net Returns from 12 Cropping Systems Containing Sugarbeet and Navy Bean

Considerable research has been conducted evaluating yield relationships among crops in various rotations and cropping systems. To compare cropping systems of different lengths of rotation and with different crops, however, a common measurement is needed. This paper evaluates annual net return to land and unallocated resources (ANR) from various cropping systems containing sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris L.), navy bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), corn (Zea mays L.), oat (Avena sativa L.), and alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.). Gross returns using representative crop prices are calculated for each cropping system for yield data from a 15-yr cropping systems study conducted on a Misteguay silty clay soil in the Saginaw Valley of Michigan. Costs in 1991 dollars of agricultural inputs, machinery ownership, repairs, maintenance, fuel, and wages are used to calculate expenses. ANR is calculated by subtracting pre- and postharvest operating costs plus machinery ownership costs from gross income for two farm sizes and two sugarbeet prices. With sugarbeet priced at $36/ton, systems with the greatest proportion of sugarbeet and also including navy bean have the highest ANR. The relative ranking of a cropping system's ANR did not change appreciably when farm size increased from 600 to 1000 acres. A sensitivity analysis shows that sugarbeet priced at or below $18/ton caused the relative ranking of the systems to shift and navy bean to become a more dominant factor in the ANR of these systems. While short rotations for sugarbeet and navy bean production may result in lower crop yields, the high economic return of these crops is probably the major reason growers do not employ longer rotations. Research QuestionTo compare several cropping systems containing different crops grown in rotations of different lengths requires development of a common measurement for all systems. In this study a common measurement “annual net return to land and unallocated resources” (ANR) is developed by subtracting costs for preharvest inputs, machinery ownership, labor and postharvest inputs from gross income. ANR is then used to compare cropping systems using yield data from a long-term experiment. Literature SummaryCropping systems play an important role in maintaining yield, biological and economic stability of agricultural production due in part to the interruption of the life cycles of disease and other pests. In addition, diverse rotations distribute machinery and labor requirements over a greater portion of the season as well as lessening risks associated with fluctuations of yields and prices. Long-term studies evaluating rotations or cropping systems are necessary to study the effects of crop yields. Integration of economic parameters makes it possible to compare the economic value of dissimilar cropping systems. Study DescriptionThis 15-yr study was conducted in the Saginaw Valley of Michigan on a lake bed soil. Each crop was grown each year. General recommendations for fertilizers and pesticides were followed. A machinery selection model was used to select machinery complements to accomplish field operations common to the cropping methods used in the Saginaw Valley. This includes fall moldboard plowing, spring secondary tillage, growing crops in 30-in. rows and two cultivations. Annual costs were then calculated for machinery ownership. Yield data from the 15-yr study were used in this analysis. The 12 cropping systems are listed below: 2-yr3-yr4-yrCorn-beetCorn-corn-beetCorn-corn-corn-beetCorn-beanCorn-bean-beetCorn-corn-bean-beetBean-beetBean-bean-beetCorn-bean-bean-beetOat-beanOat-bean-beetOat-alfalfa-bean-beetwhere: beet = sugarbeet and bean = navy bean. Applied QuestionWhat is the effect of cropping system on yield? Yield of navy bean is generally better in 4-yr rotations than in shorter rotations (Table 1). Sugarbeet yielded more following navy bean than following corn. When corn follows corn in a rotation, yield is reduced by 11.9% compared with following navy bean or sugarbeet. What is the effect of cropping systems on net return to land and unallocated resources? For a 600-acre farm and a sugarbeet price of $36/ton, ANR ranges from $392/acre for navy bean-sugarbeet to $127/acre for oat-navy bean (Table 2). Systems containing sugarbeet had higher ANR than those that did not. The average ANR for 2-yr systems containing sugarbeet is $355; for 3-yr systems, $278; and- for 4-yr systems, $173/acre. What happens to relative ranking of ANR for the systems when farm size is increased from 600 to 1000 acres? When farm size is increased for 600 to 1000 acres, the relative ranking of the cropping systems does not change appreciably. ANR increases an average of $16/acre for all systems. ANR for corn-sugarbeet systems increased the least ($5/acre) due to greater machinery costs. The oat-navy bean-sugarbeet system increased the most ($32/acre), since machinery costs did not increase as much as for corn intensive systems. What happens to the relative ranking of cropping systems if sugarbeet prices decline? Since the gross return for sugarbeet is greater than for the other crops, we conducted an analysis to measure the effect of lower sugar prices on the ranking of these systems. There is no change in the ranking of the cropping systems until the sugarbeet price falls to $18/acre. Below this price, navy bean becomes a more dominant factor in the economic return from these systems. Table 1Average yield of crops grown in the Saginaw Valley cropping systems study. Position in the rotationCropping system†1st2nd3rd 4thC-SB129‡ 24.8 -- --C-NB125 18.1 -- --NB-SB 16.3 25.3 -- --O-NB 80 18.4 -- --C-C-SB127111 25.2 --C-NB-SB130 18.0 26.4 --NB-NB-SB 15.3 16.5 26.4 --O-NB-SB 83 18.5 25.2 --C-C-C-SB125113105 24.7C-C-NB-SB126110 19.3 25.4C-NB-NB-SB122 17.3 17.3 26.4O-A-NB-SB 85 2.84 19.5 26.8†C = corn: SB = sugarbeet; NB = navy bean; O = oat; A = alfalfa. ‡Units: corn and oat = bu/acre; sugarbeet and alfalfa = tons/acre; navy bean = cwt/acre. Table 2Annual net return to land and unallocated resources (ANR)† for two farm sizes with two sugarbeet prices in the Saginaw Valley Cropping Systems study. Sugarbeet price at $36/tonSugarbeet price at $18/ton600-acre1000-acre600-acre1000-acreCroppingsystem‡ANRCroppingsystemANRCroppingsystemANRCroppingsystemANR$/acre$/acre$/acre$/acreNB-SB392NB-SB405NB-NB-SB166NB-NB-SB184C-SB326NB-NB-SB341NB-SB163NS-SB177NB-NB-SB323C-SB327C-NB-NB-SB154C-NB-NB-SB176C-NB-SB305C-NB-SB324C-NB153C-NB169C-NB-NB-SB273C-NB-NB-SB295C-NB-SB149C-NB-SB168O-NB-SB259O-NB-SB291O-NB127O-NB-SB141C-C-NB-SB236C-C-NB-SB253C-C-NB-SB122C-C-NB-SB139C-C-SB224C-C-SB232O-NB-SB109O-NB138O-A-NB-SB207O-A-NB-SB222C-SB102C-SB111C-C-C-SB176C-C-C-SB183O-A-NB-SB 86O-A-NB-SB102C-NB153C-NB169C-C-SB 74C-C-SB 82O-NB127O-NB138C-C-C-SB 65C-C-C-SB 72 LSD (5%) 15 15 10 10†Acreage reduction payments of $14/acre for corn and $13.25/acre for oat are included. When corn appeared in the rotation one out of 4 years (¼ of the time), $4/acre was included in the ANR. Values for other frequencies of corn were: ⅓ = $5/acre, ½ = $7/acre, ⅔ = $9/acre, and ¾ = $10/acre. Similar values for oat were: ¼ = $3/acre, ⅓ = $4/acre, and ½ = $7/acre. ‡C = corn: SB = sugarbeet; NB = navy bean; O = oat: A = alfalfa.