Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T16:29:13.918Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Crop-yield and economic comparisons of organic, low-input, and conventional farming systems in California's Sacramento Valley

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Sean Clark ,
Karen Klonsky ,
Peter Livingston  and
Steve Temple
Sean Clark*
Affiliation:
Former Research Manager, Sustainable Agriculture Farming Systems Project, University of California, Davis, CA 95616.
Karen Klonsky
Affiliation:
Extension Specialist, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of California, Davis, CA 95616.
Peter Livingston
Affiliation:
Staff Research Associate, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of California, Davis, CA 95616.
Steve Temple
Affiliation:
Extension Agronomist, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, University of California, Davis, CA 95616.
*
Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Berea College, Berea, KY 40404 (sean_clark@berea.edu).
Get access

Abstract

We compared the crop yields and economic performance of organic, lowinput, and conventional farming systems over an eight-year period based on research from the Sustainable Agriculture Farming Systems (SAFS) Project in California's Sacramento Valley. The SAFS Project consisted of four farming-system treatments that differed in material input use and crop rotation sequence. The treatments included four-year rotations under conventional (conv-4), low-input, and organic management, and a conventionally-managed, two-year rotation (conv-2). The four-year rotations included processing tomato, safflower, corn, and bean and a winter grain and/or legume doublecropped with bean. The conv-2 treatment was a tomato and wheat rotation. In the lowinput and organic systems, inorganic fertilizer and synthetic pesticide inputs were reduced or eliminated largely through crop rotation, legume cover crops, composted manure applications, and mechanical cultivation.

All crops, except safflower, demonstrated significant yield differences across farming systems in at least some years of the experiment. Yields of tomato and corn, the most nitrogen (N)-demanding crops in the rotations, responded most years to the farming-system years treatments, while bean and the winter grain/legume displayed treatment differences less often and instead tended to vary more with yearly growing conditions. Nitrogen availability and/or weed competition appeared to account for lower crop yields in the organic and low-input systems in some years. The economics of all farming systems depended mainly on the costs and profits associated with tomato production. The most profitable system was the conv-2 system due to the greater frequency of tomato in that system. Among the four-year rotations, the organic system was the most profitable. However, this system's dependence on price premiums leads to some concern over its long-term economic viability. Among the low-input cropping systems, corn demonstrated clear agronomic and economic advantages over conventional production methods. Based upon these findings, we suggest that future research on organic and low-input farming systems focus on developing cost-effective fertility and weed management options based upon improved understanding of N dynamics and weed ecology.

Keywords

sustainable agriculturealternative agricultureeconomic analysis
Type
Articles
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , September 1999 , pp. 109 - 121
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1999

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

1.Abdul-Baki, A.A., Teasdale, J.R., Korcak, R., Chitwood, D.J., and Huettel, R.N.. 1996. Fresh-market tomato production in a low-input alternative system using cover-crop mulch. Hort-Science 31:65–69.Google Scholar
2.Auburn, J.S. 1994. Society pressures farmers to adopt more sustainable systems. California Agric. 48(5):7–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Batie, S.S., and Taylor, D.B.. 1989. Widespread adoption of non-conventional agriculture: Profitability and impacts. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 4:128–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Brumfield, R.G., Adelaja, F.E., and Reiners, S.. 1995. Economic analysis of three tomato production systems. Acta Horticulturae 340:255–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.CCOF. 1995. California Certified Organic Farmers Certification Handbook. California Certified Organic Farmers, Santa Cruz, CA.Google Scholar
6.California Department of Food and Agriculture. 1997. California Agricultural Resource Directory Including Agricultural Production and Export Statistics. Sacramento, CA. <http://www.cdfa.ca.gov>>Google Scholar
7.California Department of Pesticide Regulation. 1996. Pesticide use reporting system. Cal-EPA, Sacramento, CA. <http://www.cdpr.ca.gov>>Google Scholar
8.Cavero, J., Plant, R.E., Shennan, C., and Friedman, D.B.. 1997. The effect of nitrogen source and crop rotation on the growth and yield of processing tomatoes. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 47:271–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Clark, M.S., Ferris, H., Klonsky, K., Lanini, W.T., van Bruggen, A.H.C., and Zalom, F.G.. 1998a. Agronomic, economic, and environmental comparison of pest management in conventional and alternative tomato and corn systems in northern California. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 68:51–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Clark, M.S., Horwath, W.R., Shennan, C., and Scow, K. M.. 1998b. Changes in soil chemical properties resulting from organic and low-input farming practices. Agronomy J. 90:662–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Clark, M.S., Horwath, W.R., Shennan, C., Scow, K.M., Lanini, W.T., and Ferris, H.. 1999. Nitrogen, weeds and water as yield-limiting factors in conventional, low-input, and organic tomato systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 73:257–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Diebel, P.L., Llewelyn, R.V., and Williams, J.R.. 1993. An economic analysis of conventional and alternative cropping systems for northeast Kansas. Agriculture Experiment Station, Kansas State University, Report of Progress 687.Google Scholar
13.Drinkwater, L.E., Letourneau, D.K., Workneh, F., van Bruggen, A.H.C., and Shennan, C.. 1995. Fundamental difference between conventional and organic tomato agroecosystems in California. Ecological Applications 5:1098–1112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Friedman, D.B., Miller, R.O., Temple, S.R., and Kearney, T.. 1997. Lowinput corn production yields good crop, better returns, and improved soil quality. Sustainable Agriculture Farming Systems Project Newsletter 1(2): 1–3. <http://agronomy.ucdavis.edu/safs.corn.pdf>Google Scholar
15.Friedman, D.B., Miller, R.O., Temple, S.R., and Kearney, T.. 1999. Agronomic performance of field corn in conventional, low-input and organic farming systems. Agronomy J. (in press).Google Scholar
16.Grieshop, J.I., and Raj, A.K.. 1992. Are California's farmers headed toward sustainable agriculture? California Agric. 46(2):4–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Karlen, D.L., Duffy, M.D., and Colvin, T.S.. 1995. Nutrient, labor, energy, and economic evaluations of two farming systems in Iowa. J. Production Agric. 8:540–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.King, L.D., and Hoag, D.L.. 1998. Reduced chemical input cropping systems in the southeastern United States: III. Economic analysis. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 13:12–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Klonsky, K., and Cary, D.. 1990. Budget Planner Overview. Department of Agricultural Economics, University of California, Davis.Google Scholar
20.Klonsky, K., and Livingston, P.. 1994. Alternative systems aim to reduce inputs, maintain profits. California Agric. 48(5):34–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Klonsky, K., and Tourte, L.. 1995. Statistical Review of California's Organic Agriculture 1992–1993. Cooperative Extension, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of California, Davis.Google Scholar
22.Lanini, W.T., Zalom, F.G., Marois, J.J., and Ferris, H., 1994. In low-input and organic systems researchers find short-term insect problems, long-term weed problems. California Agric. 48(5):27–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Liebhardt, W.C., Andrews, R.W., Culik, M.N., Harwood, R.R., Janke, R.R., Radke, J.K., and Rieger-Schwartz, S.L.. 1989. Crop production during conversion from conventional to low-input methods. Agronomy J. 81:150–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Lockeretz, W. 1989. Problems in evaluating the economics of ecological agriculture. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 27:67–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.Lockeretz, W., Shearer, G., and Kohl, D.H.. 1981. Organic farming in the Corn Belt. Science 211:540–547.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26.Mergentime, K., and Emerich, M.. 1996. Widening market carries organic sales to $2.8 billion in 1995. Natural Foods Merchandiser 17(6): 36.Google Scholar
27.Nelson, J.B., and King, L.D.. 1996. Green manure as a nitrogen source for wheat in the southeastern United States. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 11:182–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28.Pimentel, D. 1993. Economics and energetics of organic and conventional farming. J. Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6:53–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29.Scott, M. 1997. Organic sales still boom as new challenges surface. Natural Foods Merchandiser 18(6):38–40.Google Scholar
30.Scow, K.M., Somasco, O., Gunapala, N., Lau, S., Venette, R., Ferris, H., Miller, R., and Shennan, C.. 1994. Transition from conventional to low-input agriculture changes soil fertility and biology. California Agric. 48(5):20–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31.Sellen, D., Tolman, J.H., McLeod, D.G.R., Weersink, A., and Yiridoe, E.K.. 1995. A comparison of financial returns during early transition from conventional to organic vegetable production. J. Vegetable Crop Production 1:11–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32.Smolik, J.D., Dobbs, T.L., and Rickerl, D.H.. 1995. The relative sustainability of alternative, conventional, and reduced-till farming systems. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 10:25–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33.Smolik, J.D., Dobbs, T.L., Rickerl, D.H., Wrage, L.J., Buchenau, G.W., and Machacek, T.A.. 1993. Agronomic, economic, and ecological relationships in alternative (organic), conventional, and reduced-till farming systems. Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 718. South Dakota State University, Brookings.Google Scholar
34.Temple, S.R., Friedman, D.B., Somasco, O., Ferris, H., Scow, K., and Klonsky, K.. 1994. An interdisciplinary experiment station-based participatory comparison of alternative crop management systems for California's Sacramento Valley. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 9:64–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar