IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wsu/wpaper/young-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Economic Comparison of the Undercutter and Traditional Tillage Systems for Winter Wheat-Summer Fallow Farming

Author

Listed:
  • Andrey A. Zaikin
  • Douglas L. Young
  • William F. Schillinger

    (School of Economic Sciences, Washington State University)

Abstract

Wind erosion and blowing dust are major problems for traditional tillage winter wheat-summer fallow in eastern Washington. Wind erosion reduces soil productivity and dust particulates are a major air quality concern. Conservation tillage summer fallow can reduce wind erosion markedly, but is used by relatively few farmers in the low-precipitation (less than 12 inch/year) region of the Inland Pacific Northwest. Barriers to adoption include the cost of conservation tillage implements and reluctance to change "tried and proven"traditional tillage methods. This bulletin compares economic results for the V-sweep undercutter and traditional fallow tillage systems on a case study farm located near Ritzville, WA. The farm’s eight-year average wheat yield is 46 bu/ac. Grain yields are similar for the two systems. This study shows that the undercutter method of summer fallow farming is more profitable than the traditional system on the case study farm due to slightly lower production costs. The undercutter system is eligible for conservation payments, but the traditional system is not. Receipt of these payments further strengthens the profitability advantage of the undercutter system

Suggested Citation

  • Andrey A. Zaikin & Douglas L. Young & William F. Schillinger, 2007. "Economic Comparison of the Undercutter and Traditional Tillage Systems for Winter Wheat-Summer Fallow Farming," Working Papers 2007-15, School of Economic Sciences, Washington State University.
    • Handle: RePEc:wsu:wpaper:young-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://faculty.ses.wsu.edu/WorkingPapers/WP_2007-15_Undercutter.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2007
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David J. Walker & Douglas L. You, 1986. "The Effect of Technical Progress on Erosion Damage and Economic Incentives for Soil Conservation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 62(1), pages 83-93.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nunes, P.A.L.D. & Nijkamp, P., 2011. "Biodiversity: Economic perspectives," Serie Research Memoranda 0002, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
    2. Amrita Chatterjee & Arpita Ghose, 2016. "A dynamic economic model of soil conservation and drought tolerance involving genetically modified crops," Journal of Social and Economic Development, Springer;Institute for Social and Economic Change, vol. 18(1), pages 40-66, October.
    3. Amrita Chatterjee & Arpita Ghose, 2015. "A Dynamic Economic Model of Soil Conservation Involving Genetically Modified Crop," Working Papers 2015-096, Madras School of Economics,Chennai,India.
    4. Ian A. COXHEAD, 1995. "Economic Modeling Of Land Degradation In Developing Countries," Staff Papers 385, University of Wisconsin Madison, AAE, revised May 1996.
    5. Walker, David J. & Carter, David L., 1992. "The Impact Of Irrigation Erosion Damage On Farm Profitability," A.E. Research Series 305096, University of Idaho, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology.
    6. Jaenicke, Edward C. & Drinkwater, Laurie E., 1999. "Sources of Productivity Growth During the Transition to Alternative Cropping Systems," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 28(2), pages 169-181, October.
    7. Singha, Chandan, 2021. "Marginal value of sub-watershed treatment on profit in Darjeeling district, India," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    8. Amrita Chatterjee & Arpita Ghose, 2015. "A Dynamic Economic Model of Soil Conservation Involving Genetically Modified Crop," Working Papers id:6623, eSocialSciences.
    9. Harry R. Clarke, 1992. "The Supply Of Non‐Degraded Agricultural Land," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 36(1), pages 31-56, April.
    10. Nunes, Paulo A. L. D. & van den Bergh, Jeroen C. J. M., 2001. "Economic valuation of biodiversity: sense or nonsense?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 203-222, November.
    11. Darrell L. Hueth, 1995. "The Use of Subsidies to Achieve Efficient Resource Allocation in Upland Watersheds," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 39158, Inter-American Development Bank.
    12. Hueth, Darrell L., 1995. "The Use of Subsidies to Achieve Efficient Resource Allocation in Upland Watersheds," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 6301, Inter-American Development Bank.
    13. Kim, Kwansoo & Barham, Bradford L. & Coxhead, Ian, 1997. "The Evolution of Agricultural Soil Quality: A methodology for measurement and some land market implications," Staff Papers 200596, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    14. Michalson, E. L. & Papendick, R. I., 1990. "Steep A Model For Conservation And Environmental Research," A.E. Research Series 305073, University of Idaho, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    capital; labor; land and management resources; type and size of machinery complement;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J43 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Particular Labor Markets - - - Agricultural Labor Markets

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wsu:wpaper:young-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Danielle Engelhardt (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ecwsuus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.