Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T09:00:48.226Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Profitability of organic cropping systems in southwestern Minnesota

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2007

Paul R. Mahoney ,
Kent D. Olson ,
Paul M. Porter ,
David R. Huggins ,
Catherine A. Perillo  and
R. Kent Crookston
Paul R. Mahoney
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Economics and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA.
Kent D. Olson*
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Economics and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA.
Paul M. Porter
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA.
David R. Huggins
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Pullman, Washington, USA.
Catherine A. Perillo
Affiliation:
Department of Crops and Soil Sciences, Washington State University, Washington, USA.
R. Kent Crookston
Affiliation:
College of Biology and Agriculture, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, USA.
*
*Corresponding author: kolson@apec.umn.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In spite of concerns, Minnesota‘s dominant cropping system is the corn–soybean rotation using synthetic pesticides and chemically processed fertilizers. Using experimental data from 1990–99, this study compared the profitability of organic versus conventional strategies. Net return (NR) was calculated from actual yields, operations, inputs, prices and organic premiums. Yields and costs were lower for the 4-year organic strategy. With premiums, the 4-year organic strategy had NRs significantly higher than conventional strategies; without premiums, the NRs were statistically equal (P = 0.05). Thus, the 4-year organic strategy was not less profitable nor its NR more variable than the conventional strategies in this study.

Keywords

net returnsVariable Input Crop Management Systemshigh-purchased inputslow-purchased inputsorganic inputscumulative distribution functionsorganic premiumsriskfirst-degree stochastic dominancesecond-degree stochastic dominance
Type
Research Article
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , March 2004 , pp. 35 - 46
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2004

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

1Roberts, W.S. and Swinton, S.M. 1996. Economic methods for comparing alternative crop production methods: A review of literature. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 11(1): 10–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2Welsh, 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
3Duram, L.A. 1998. Organic agriculture in the United States: Current status and future regulation. Choices 13:34–38.Google Scholar
4Krissoff, B. 1998. Emergence of U.S. organic agriculture–Can we compete?: Discussion. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80(5): 1130–1133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5United States Department of Agriculture. 2001. Organic production and handling standards fact sheet. Agricultural Marketing Service. Available at Web site www.ams.usda.gov/nop/facts/standards.htm (verified 6 September 2001).Google Scholar
6Minnesota Agricultural Statistics Service. 2001. Minnesota Agricultural Statistics 2001. USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, St. Paul, MN.Google Scholar
7Olson, K.D., Weness, E.J., Talley, D.E., and Fales, P.A. 1992. 1991 Annual Report of the Southwestern Minnesota Farm Business Management Association. Economic Report ER92–3. Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.Google Scholar
8Fuller, E., Lazarus, B., Carrigan, L., and Green, G. 1992. Minnesota farm machinery economic costs estimates for 1992. AG-OF–2308-C. Minnesota Extension Service, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.Google Scholar
9Durgan, B.R., Gunsolus, J.L., Becker, R.L., and Dexter, A.G. 1992. Cultural and chemical weed control in field crops–1992. AG-BU–3157-S. Minnesota Extension Service, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.Google Scholar
10Dobbs, T.L. and Pourier, J.L. 1999. Organic price premiums for northern Great Plains and Midwest crops: 1995 to 1998. Economics Pamphlet 99–1. South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD.Google Scholar
11Hardaker, J.B., Huirne, R.B.M., and Anderson, J.R. 1997. Coping with Risk in Agriculture. CAB International, New York. p. 274.Google Scholar
12Porter, 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