IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Comparative analysis of different tillage systems used in sugarcane (Thailand)

Listed author(s):
  • Grange, Ian
  • Prammanee, P.
  • Prasertsak, P.
Registered author(s):

    In order to reduce the impact of decreasing profit margins in crop production systems, all possible options that will increase net profits need to be explored. Land preparation and stool removal in sugarcane production can be a major contributor to overall production costs. Since estimates that mechanization can contribute as much as 50% of the total production costs, considerable savings can potentially be made if the number of tillage operations is reduced. Such savings however, have to be offset against other costs associated with minimum or no-tillage systems, such as the increased need for herbicide. In addition, conventional tillage systems have been implicated in yield decline over the long-term and therefore yield benefits are envisaged, together with cost savings, by the adoption of minimum and no-tillage sugarcane production. A comparative analysis of five sugarcane tillage systems using data from eight years, showed that minimum tillage, with mechanical stool removal and machine planting gave the best economic returns, being 29.3 and 39.4% more profitable than the conventional and no-tillage treatments, respectively. Other minimum tillage treatments, with sub-soiling and machine / manual planting combinations also performed well. Whilst the no-tillage treatment made substantial savings from the non-use of machinery, these were offset to a large degree by the extra costs associated with herbicide use and extra labour requirements.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Article provided by Australasian Farm Business Management Network in its journal AFBM Journal.

    Volume (Year): 02 (2005)
    Issue (Month): 1 ()

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:ags:afbmau:123140
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    More information through EDIRC

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:afbmau:123140. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.