The impact of crop rotation on profitability and production risk in the Eastern and North Western Free State
Diversification is a generally accepted measure against production risk. Crop rotation as a unit of diversification can reduce risk even further. Net returns and risk, defined as the cumulative sum of shortfalls below a disaster target level of net return, were estimated for two long term crop rotation trials. One was conducted in the eastern Free State where maize and wheat in monoculture were compared with rotations involving fallow, drybean, soybean and sunflower crops. In the second trial located in the north western Free State monocropped maize was compared with rotations involving groundnut, soyabean and sunflower crops. Crop rotation and the associated diversification produced results varying from increased to reduced net returns and increased risk to dramatically reduced risk depending on crops involved and the net return level accepted as a disaster threshold. Compared to monoculture, groundnut improved net returns without affecting risk. Drybean and soybean improved net returns and reduced risk while sunflower was the most effective in reducing risk with little effect on the net return. Risk reduction in the eastern Free State was mainly due to rotational benefits such as improved yields. In the north western Free State, however, risk reduction was mainly due to the inclusion of crops with relatively low risk.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Botha, P.W. & Meiring, J.A. & Schalkwyk, H.D., 1999. "Quantifying The Risk Associated With Crop Rotation Systems Of An Eastern Free State Trial," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 38(2), June.
- Harwood, Joy L. & Heifner, Richard G. & Coble, Keith H. & Perry, Janet E. & Somwaru, Agapi, 1999. "Managing Risk in Farming: Concepts, Research, and Analysis," Agricultural Economics Reports 34081, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:agreko:9470. 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.