Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T22:37:42.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economic Analysis of Two Weed Management Systems for Two Cropping Rotations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Donald W. Lybecker ,
Robert P. King ,
Edward E. Schweizer  and
Robert L. Zimdahl
Donald W. Lybecker
Affiliation:
Dep. Agric. and Nat. Res. Econ., Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80523
Robert P. King
Affiliation:
Dep. Agric. and Appl. Econ., Univ. of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108
Edward E. Schweizer
Affiliation:
Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric., Crops Res. Lab.
Robert L. Zimdahl
Affiliation:
Dep. Bot. and Plant Pathol., Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80523
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A standard weed management system (system I) had a higher return above variable costs than did an intensive weed management system (system II) for two eastern Colorado cropping rotations. For continuous corn (Zea mays L.), the return above variable costs averaged $18.85/ha more under system I than under system II. For a barley (Hordeum vulgare L.)-corn-sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris L.) rotation, the return above variable costs averaged $20.48/ha more under System I than under System II. Based on alternative input (herbicide) and product prices, higher herbicide costs favored the standard weed management system, whereas higher crop prices favored the weed management system with the higher yields adjusted for quality. The probability that returns above variable costs differed between the two weed management systems depended upon the level of product prices and herbicide costs.

Keywords

Enterprise budgetsZea maysHordeum vulgareBeta vulgaris
Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , January 1984 , pp. 90 - 95
Copyright
Copyright © 1984 by the Weed Science Society of America 

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

Literature Cited

1. American Society of Agricultural Engineers. 1981. Agricultural Engineers Yearbook. St. Joseph, MI. 832 pp.Google Scholar
2. Anderson, J. M. and McWhorter, C. G. 1976. The economics of common cocklebur control in soybean production. Weed Sci. 24:397–400.Google Scholar
3. Hawkins, D. E., Slife, F. W., and Swanson, E. R. 1977. Economic analysis of herbicide use in various crop sequences. Ill. Agric. Econ. 17:8–13.Google Scholar
4. McWhorter, C. G. and Anderson, J. M. 1981. The technical and economic effects of johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) control in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 29:245–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Schweizer, E. E. and Zimdahl, R. L. 1983. Weed seed decline in irrigated soil after rotation of crops and herbicides. Weed Sci. 32:84–89.Google Scholar
6. Schweizer, E. E. and Zimdahl, R. L. 1983. Weed seed decline in irrigated soil after six years of continuous corn (Zea mays) and herbicides. Weed Sci. 32:76–83.Google Scholar
7. Shaw, W. C. 1982. Integrated weed management systems technology for pest management. Weed Sci. 30:2–12.Google Scholar
8. Winter, S. R. and Wiese, A. F. 1982. Economical control of weeds in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris). Weed Sci. 30:620–623.Google Scholar