IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i20p11465-d658460.html

Bioeconomic Assessment of an Alley Cropping Field Trial in North Carolina, U.S.: Tree Density, Timber Production, and Forage Relationships

Author

Listed:
  • Kenneth Dunn

    (Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-8008, USA)

  • Lori Unruh Snyder

    (Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7578, USA)

  • James McCarter

    (Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-8008, USA)

  • Gregory Frey

    (USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Forest Science Assessment Center, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2254, USA)

  • Joshua Idassi

    (1890 Research & Extension, South Carolina State University, Orangeburg, SC 29117, USA)

  • David Schnake

    (North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Raleigh, NC 27699-1001, USA)

  • Frederick Cubbage

    (Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-8008, USA)

Abstract

Silvopasture, the combination of trees, forage, and livestock, is a management practice that is gaining interest throughout the southeastern U.S. This research analyzed a hay-based alley cropping field trial that is transitioning into a silvopasture system. We planted four different tree spacings—2.4 × 2.4 m, 2.4 × 3.0 m, 3.0 × 3.0 m, and 1.8 × 3.0 m (8 × 8 ft, 8 × 10 ft, 10 × 10 ft, and 6 × 10 ft)—of loblolly pine ( Pinus taeda L.) and used secondary data for the possible planting of two different grass species—big bluestem ( Andropogon gerardii Vitman) and switchgrass ( Panicum virgatum L.). Tree inventories, forage samples, biometric modeling, and economic analysis of forage and timber monocultures and mixed systems were analyzed with discounted cash flow and capital budgeting analyses. Tree growth on the pasture site was exceptionally fast, generating high projected returns for timber monocultures, which exceeded returns for monoculture grass crops. Projected timber stand returns had the greatest Net Present Values (NPV) at the 4% discount rate, ranging between USD 3196 and USD 3552 per ha (USD 1294 and USD 1438 per ac) for a 2.4 × 3.0 m or 2.4 × 2.4 m tree spacing yield. Representative grass yields were obtained from secondary sources and had lower productivity, with switchgrass having the highest returns at USD 2581 per ha (USD 1045 per ac). Optimal NPVs for mixed silvopasture stands ranged between about USD 1500 per ha and USD 3500 per ha (USD 600/ac and USD 1400/ac), depending on the tree spacing within bands, the alley spacing, and the degree of competition between trees and grasses.

Suggested Citation

  • Kenneth Dunn & Lori Unruh Snyder & James McCarter & Gregory Frey & Joshua Idassi & David Schnake & Frederick Cubbage, 2021. "Bioeconomic Assessment of an Alley Cropping Field Trial in North Carolina, U.S.: Tree Density, Timber Production, and Forage Relationships," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-17, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:20:p:11465-:d:658460
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/20/11465/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/20/11465/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shrestha, Ram K. & Alavalapati, Janaki R. R. & Kalmbacher, Robert S., 2004. "Exploring the potential for silvopasture adoption in south-central Florida: an application of SWOT-AHP method," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 81(3), pages 185-199, September.
    2. Gregory E. Frey & D. Evan Mercer & Frederick W. Cubbage & Robert C. Abt, 2013. "A real options model to assess the role of flexibility in forestry and agroforestry adoption and disadoption in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 44(1), pages 73-91, January.
    3. Andrew Stainback, G. & Alavalapati, Janaki R. R., 2004. "Restoring longleaf pine through silvopasture practices: an economic analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(3-4), pages 371-378, June.
    4. Cary, Michael A. & Frey, Gregory E., 2020. "Alley cropping as an alternative under changing climate and risk scenarios: A Monte-Carlo simulation approach," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    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. Thiesmeier, Alma & Zander, Peter, 2023. "Can agroforestry compete? A scoping review of the economic performance of agroforestry practices in Europe and North America," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    2. Madjid Tavana & Mariya Sodenkamp & Leena Suhl, 2010. "A soft multi-criteria decision analysis model with application to the European Union enlargement," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 181(1), pages 393-421, December.
    3. Gregg, Daniel & Rolfe, John, 2016. "Using experiments to improve understanding of limits to decision making in Grazing Land Management," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 508-521.
    4. Dwivedi, Puneet & Bailis, Robert & Stainback, Andrew & Carter, Douglas R., 2012. "Impact of payments for carbon sequestered in wood products and avoided carbon emissions on the profitability of NIPF landowners in the US South," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 63-69.
    5. Al Abri, Ibtisam H. & Grogan, Kelly A. & Daigneault, Adam, "undated". "Optimal Forest Fire Management with Applications to Florida," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258568, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Sepehr Ghazinoory & Mansoureh Abdi & Mandana Azadegan-Mehr, 2010. "Swot Methodology: A State-of-the-Art Review for the Past, A Framework for the Future," Journal of Business Economics and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(1), pages 24-48, November.
    7. Cary, Michael, 2023. "Climate policy boosts trade competitiveness: Evidence from timber trade networks," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    8. Zelin Liu & Xiyan Duan & Hongling Cheng & Zhaoran Liu & Ping Li & Yang Zhang, 2023. "Empowering High-Quality Development of the Chinese Sports Education Market in Light of the “Double Reduction” Policy: A Hybrid SWOT-AHP Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-18, January.
    9. Matta, Jagannadha & Alavalapati, Janaki & Tanner, George, 2007. "A framework for developing marked-based policies to further biodiversity on non-industrial private forests (NIPF)," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(7), pages 779-788, April.
    10. Omkar Joshi & Rajan Parajuli & Gehendra Kharel & Neelam C Poudyal & Eric Taylor, 2018. "Stakeholder opinions on scientific forest management policy implementation in Nepal," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-15, September.
    11. Cynthia J. Mkong & Tahirou Abdoulaye & Paul Martin Dontsop-Nguezet & Zoumana Bamba & Victor Manyong & Godlove Shu, 2021. "Determinant of University Students’ Choices and Preferences of Agricultural Sub-Sector Engagement in Cameroon," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-18, June.
    12. Syed Hammad Mian & Bashir Salah & Wadea Ameen & Khaja Moiduddin & Hisham Alkhalefah, 2020. "Adapting Universities for Sustainability Education in Industry 4.0: Channel of Challenges and Opportunities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-33, July.
    13. Chanthawong, Anuman & Dhakal, Shobhakar, 2016. "Stakeholders' perceptions on challenges and opportunities for biodiesel and bioethanol policy development in Thailand," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 189-206.
    14. Ustaoglu, E. & Aydınoglu, A.C., 2020. "Suitability evaluation of urban construction land in Pendik district of Istanbul, Turkey," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    15. Ali Azarnivand & Mohammad Ebrahim Banihabib, 2017. "A Multi-level Strategic Group Decision Making for Understanding and Analysis of Sustainable Watershed Planning in Response to Environmental Perplexities," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 629-648, May.
    16. Abdul-Salam, Yakubu & Ovando, Paolo & Roberts, Deborah, 2021. "Incentivising agroforestry: A Real Options Analysis," 95th Annual Conference, March 29-30, 2021, Warwick, UK (Hybrid) 311083, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
    17. Ching-Sung Lee & Yen-Cheng Chen & Ming-Chen Chiang & Chen-Jin Lin, 2024. "Unforgettable Food Experiences: A Model for Constructing Rural Tourism Cooking Experience Classrooms," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 58(6), pages 5445-5462, December.
    18. Elżbieta M. Zębek & Jakub J. Zięty, 2022. "Effect of Landfill Arson to a “Lax” System in a Circular Economy under the Current EU Energy Policy: Perspective Review in Waste Management Law," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-25, November.
    19. Uddin, Mohammad Nizam & Hossain, Mohammad Mosharraf & Chen, Yong & Siriwong, Wapakorn & Boonyanuphap, Jaruntorn, 2019. "Stakeholders' perception on indigenous community-based management of village common forests in Chittagong hill tracts, Bangladesh," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 102-112.
    20. Darshini, Dina & Dwivedi, Puneet & Glenk, Klaus, 2013. "Capturing stakeholders´ views on oil palm-based biofuel and biomass utilisation in Malaysia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1128-1137.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:20:p:11465-:d:658460. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.