A long-term precision agriculture system sustains grain profitability

Published on Dec 1, 2019in Precision Agriculture3.36
· DOI :10.1007/s11119-019-09649-7
Matt A. Yost8
Estimated H-index: 8
(USU: Utah State University),
Newell R. Kitchen9
Estimated H-index: 9
(USDA: United States Department of Agriculture)
+ 4 AuthorsM. R. Volkmann1
Estimated H-index: 1
(USDA: United States Department of Agriculture)
After two decades of availability of grain yield-mapping technology, long-term trends in field-scale profitability for precision agriculture (PA) systems and conservation practices can now be assessed. Field-scale profitability of a conventional or ‘business-as-usual’ system with an annual corn (Zea mays L.)-soybean (Glycine max [L.]) rotation and annual tillage was assessed for 11 years on a 36 ha field in central Missouri during 1993 to 2003. Following this, a ‘precision agriculture system’ (PAS) with conservation practices was implemented for the next 11 years to address production, profit and environmental concerns. The PAS was multifaceted and temporally dynamic. It included no-till, cover crops, crop rotation changes, site-specific N and variable-rate or zonal P, K and lime. Following a recent evaluation of differences in yield and yield variability, this research compared profitability of the two systems. Results indicated that PAS sustained profits in the majority (97%) of the field without subsidies for cover crops or payments for enhanced environmental protection. Profit was only lower with PAS in a drainage channel where no-till sometimes hindered soybean stands and wet soils caused wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) disease. Although profit gains were not realized after 11 years of PA and conservation practices, this system sustained profits. These results should help growers gain confidence that PA and conservation practices will be successful.
  • References (35)
  • Citations (1)
4 CitationsSource
1 CitationsSource
#1M. Joy M. AbitH-Index: 2
#2D. Brian Arnall (OSU: Oklahoma State University–Stillwater)H-Index: 4
Last.Steve B. PhillipsH-Index: 1
view all 3 authors...
1 CitationsSource
#1Terry W. Griffin (KSU: Kansas State University)H-Index: 9
#2Jordan M. Shockley (UK: University of Kentucky)H-Index: 4
Last.Tyler B. Mark (UK: University of Kentucky)H-Index: 7
view all 3 authors...
6 CitationsSource
#1S Spiegal (USDA: United States Department of Agriculture)H-Index: 1
#2Brandon T. Bestelmeyer (USDA: United States Department of Agriculture)H-Index: 36
Last.C. L. Walthall (ARS: Agricultural Research Service)H-Index: 2
view all 33 authors...
10 CitationsSource
#1Matt A. Yost (MU: University of Missouri)H-Index: 8
#2Newell R. Kitchen (MU: University of Missouri)H-Index: 38
Last.M. R. Volkmann (MU: University of Missouri)H-Index: 1
view all 6 authors...
13 CitationsSource
#1Athanasios Balafoutis (UoA: National and Kapodistrian University of Athens)H-Index: 1
#2Bert BeckH-Index: 3
Last.Vera Eory (Scotland's Rural College)H-Index: 11
view all 9 authors...
27 CitationsSource
#1Matt A. Yost (MU: University of Missouri)H-Index: 8
#2Newell R. Kitchen (MU: University of Missouri)H-Index: 38
Last.Scott T. Drummond (MU: University of Missouri)H-Index: 13
view all 7 authors...
8 CitationsSource
#1Rattan LalH-Index: 117
3 CitationsSource
#1Humberto Blanco-Canqui (NU: University of Nebraska–Lincoln)H-Index: 33
#2Tim M. Shaver (NU: University of Nebraska–Lincoln)H-Index: 11
Last.Gary W. Hergert (NU: University of Nebraska–Lincoln)H-Index: 21
view all 7 authors...
115 CitationsSource
Cited By1
#1Yusuf Nadi Karatay (Leibniz Association)H-Index: 1
#2Andreas Meyer-Aurich (Leibniz Association)H-Index: 14
View next paperConservation Agriculture Practices in Salt-Affected, Irrigated Areas of Central Asia: Crop Price and Input Cost Variability Effect on Revenue Risks