Yuyuan Che , Roderick M. Rejesus , Michel A. Cavigelli , Kathryn E. White , Serkan Aglasan , Lynn G. Knight , Curt Dell , David Hollinger , Erin D. Lane
{"title":"免耕的长期经济影响","authors":"Yuyuan Che , Roderick M. Rejesus , Michel A. Cavigelli , Kathryn E. White , Serkan Aglasan , Lynn G. Knight , Curt Dell , David Hollinger , Erin D. Lane","doi":"10.1016/j.soisec.2023.100103","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>No-till has long been considered a sustainable agricultural practice because of its potential to provide on-farm productivity benefits as well as off-site environmental benefits. However, “economic concerns” have been identified as one of the largest barriers to adopting no-till (i.e., costs associated with adoption possibly being greater than the returns in the short term). This study evaluates the long-term economic impact of no-till adoption using rich plot-level data from a long-term field experiment over the period 1996–2019. Linear fixed-effect models and partial budgeting techniques are used in the empirical analysis. Estimation results reveal that there are generally no statistically significant differences between long-term yields from no-till relative to the conventional tillage practice when considering corn, soybean, and wheat. Nonetheless, the partial budgeting analysis using the long-term data suggests that net returns (or profits) per acre tend to be greater for no-till compared to conventional tillage for all three crops. This is primarily due to the statistically lower farm operation costs associated with no-till. Moreover, our analysis also suggests that relative profitability of no-till increases as the practice is used longer over time. This insight supports suggestions from previous studies that long-term adoption of continuous no-till is important to best realize the benefits from the practice.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":74839,"journal":{"name":"Soil security","volume":"13 ","pages":"Article 100103"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Long-term economic impacts of no-till adoption\",\"authors\":\"Yuyuan Che , Roderick M. Rejesus , Michel A. Cavigelli , Kathryn E. White , Serkan Aglasan , Lynn G. Knight , Curt Dell , David Hollinger , Erin D. Lane\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.soisec.2023.100103\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>No-till has long been considered a sustainable agricultural practice because of its potential to provide on-farm productivity benefits as well as off-site environmental benefits. However, “economic concerns” have been identified as one of the largest barriers to adopting no-till (i.e., costs associated with adoption possibly being greater than the returns in the short term). This study evaluates the long-term economic impact of no-till adoption using rich plot-level data from a long-term field experiment over the period 1996–2019. Linear fixed-effect models and partial budgeting techniques are used in the empirical analysis. Estimation results reveal that there are generally no statistically significant differences between long-term yields from no-till relative to the conventional tillage practice when considering corn, soybean, and wheat. Nonetheless, the partial budgeting analysis using the long-term data suggests that net returns (or profits) per acre tend to be greater for no-till compared to conventional tillage for all three crops. This is primarily due to the statistically lower farm operation costs associated with no-till. Moreover, our analysis also suggests that relative profitability of no-till increases as the practice is used longer over time. This insight supports suggestions from previous studies that long-term adoption of continuous no-till is important to best realize the benefits from the practice.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74839,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Soil security\",\"volume\":\"13 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100103\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Soil security\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667006223000205\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Soil security","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667006223000205","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
No-till has long been considered a sustainable agricultural practice because of its potential to provide on-farm productivity benefits as well as off-site environmental benefits. However, “economic concerns” have been identified as one of the largest barriers to adopting no-till (i.e., costs associated with adoption possibly being greater than the returns in the short term). This study evaluates the long-term economic impact of no-till adoption using rich plot-level data from a long-term field experiment over the period 1996–2019. Linear fixed-effect models and partial budgeting techniques are used in the empirical analysis. Estimation results reveal that there are generally no statistically significant differences between long-term yields from no-till relative to the conventional tillage practice when considering corn, soybean, and wheat. Nonetheless, the partial budgeting analysis using the long-term data suggests that net returns (or profits) per acre tend to be greater for no-till compared to conventional tillage for all three crops. This is primarily due to the statistically lower farm operation costs associated with no-till. Moreover, our analysis also suggests that relative profitability of no-till increases as the practice is used longer over time. This insight supports suggestions from previous studies that long-term adoption of continuous no-till is important to best realize the benefits from the practice.