IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agiwat/v240y2020ics0378377420303607.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic comparisons of variable rate irrigation and fertigation with fixed (uniform) rate irrigation and fertigation and pre-plant fertilizer management for maize in three soils

Author

Listed:
  • Sharma, Vasudha
  • Irmak, Suat

Abstract

Extensive field research for data collection to conduct economic comparisons of variable rate irrigation (VRI) with fixed (uniform) rate irrigation (FRI) and no irrigation (NI) in combination with three nitrogen application strategies of fixed (uniform) rate fertigation (FRF), variable rate fertigation (VRF) and pre-plant nitrogen (PP) management for maize (Zea mays L.) were conducted. Research was conducted in three soil types [(i) Crete silt loam (S1); (ii) Hastings silty clay loam (S2); and (iii) Hastings silt loam (S3)] for three growing seasons (2015, 2016 and 2017) in Nebraska, USA. For the economic analyses, the average initial investment of the irrigation system and necessary VRI technology, salvage value of the system, total capital investment, total fixed cost, net present value (NPV) and internal rate of return (IRR) were quantified by considering numerous factors/variables, including interest rate, production input cost, longevity of the system, insurance cost, ownership cost and salvage value. Soil types and irrigation management strategies (treatments) had significant impact on grain yield and thus on profitability, NPV, IRR and irrigation system payback period. Net income from FRI management was significantly higher than VRI management in all soil types. The nitrogen treatments did not affect net income in any of the growing seasons. The FRI management strategy had a positive NPV in all soil types whereas VRI management in S2 and S3 had negative NPVs. The negative NPV indicates that the present value of the costs exceeds the present value of future profits at the assumed discount rate (5%). Averaging all three years and three soils, FRI had a substantially higher net income than VRI in most cases. The maximum NPV of $4,882.07 per ha and maximum IRR of 18 % was observed in FRI-FRF treatment. A payback period of ≤10 years was determined for all FRI management treatments while the payback period for VRI management, in most cases, was more than 27 years. While the pay-back period in VRI irrigation system was less than ten years in S1, it was still longer than the corresponding FRI management treatments. Results suggest that the VRI and VRF strategies are not economically feasible in current conditions. For these variable irrigation and fertilizer technologies to be competitive with the FRI and FRF, the cost of the VRI and VRF technology will need to be significantly lower than the current investment costs. While there could be some environmental benefits of VRI and VRF technology, with the current high investment cost of VRI technology and the fact that the grain yields are not improved sufficiently to offset the investment cost, it is not possible for VRI technology to be an economically viable technology for profitable economic net return. This may explain, in part, extremely limited adoption of these technologies by producers currently in large scale production fields.

Suggested Citation

  • Sharma, Vasudha & Irmak, Suat, 2020. "Economic comparisons of variable rate irrigation and fertigation with fixed (uniform) rate irrigation and fertigation and pre-plant fertilizer management for maize in three soils," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 240(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:agiwat:v:240:y:2020:i:c:s0378377420303607
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106307
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378377420303607
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106307?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nijbroek, Ravic & Hoogenboom, Gerrit & Jones, James W., 2003. "Optimizing irrigation management for a spatially variable soybean field," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 359-377, April.
    2. BOYER, CHRISTOPHER N. & LARSON, JAMES A. & ROBERTS, ROLAND K. & McCLURE, M. ANGELA & TYLER, DONALD D. & SMITH, S. AARON, 2015. "Effects Of Recent Corn And Energy Prices On Irrigation Investment In The Humid Climate Of Tennessee," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 47(1), pages 105-122, February.
    3. Babcock, Bruce A. & Pautsch, Gregory R., 1998. "Moving From Uniform To Variable Fertilizer Rates On Iowa Corn: Effects On Rates And Returns," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 23(2), pages 1-16, December.
    4. DeJonge, Kendall C. & Kaleita, Amy L. & Thorp, Kelly R., 2007. "Simulating the effects of spatially variable irrigation on corn yields, costs, and revenue in Iowa," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 92(1-2), pages 99-109, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kumar, Hemendra & Srivastava, Puneet & Lamba, Jasmeet & Diamantopoulos, Efstathios & Ortiz, Brenda & Morata, Guilherme & Takhellambam, Bijoychandra & Bondesan, Luca, 2022. "Site-specific irrigation scheduling using one-layer soil hydraulic properties and inverse modeling," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 273(C).
    2. McCarthy, Alison & Foley, Joseph & Raedts, Pieter & Hills, James, 2023. "Field evaluation of automated site-specific irrigation for cotton and perennial ryegrass using soil-water sensors and Model Predictive Control," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 277(C).
    3. Hui, Xin & Lin, Xueji & Zhao, Yue & Xue, Mengyun & Zhuo, Yue & Guo, Hui & Xu, Yuncheng & Yan, Haijun, 2022. "Assessing water distribution characteristics of a variable-rate irrigation system," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 260(C).
    4. Lena, Bruno Patias & Bondesan, Luca & Pinheiro, Everton Alves Rodrigues & Ortiz, Brenda V. & Morata, Guilherme Trimer & Kumar, Hemendra, 2022. "Determination of irrigation scheduling thresholds based on HYDRUS-1D simulations of field capacity for multilayered agronomic soils in Alabama, USA," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 259(C).
    5. Wu, Menglong & Xiong, Jiajie & Li, Ruoyu & Dong, Aihong & Lv, Chang & Sun, Dan & Abdelghany, Ahmed Elsayed & Zhang, Qian & Wang, Yaqiong & Siddique, Kadambot H.M. & Niu, Wenquan, 2024. "Precision forecasting of fertilizer components’ concentrations in mixed variable-rate fertigation through machine learning," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 298(C).

    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. Asci, Serhat & Borisova, Tatiana & VanSickle, John J., 2015. "Role of economics in developing fertilizer best management practices," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 251-261.
    2. Popp, Jennie S. Hughes & Griffin, Terry W., 2000. "Profitability Of Variable Rate Phosphorus In A Two Crop Rotation," 2000 Annual meeting, July 30-August 2, Tampa, FL 21806, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    3. Hossain, Ferdaus & Jensen, Helen H., 2000. "Lithuania's food demand during economic transition," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 23(1), pages 31-40, June.
    4. Cao, Jingjing & Tan, Junwei & Cui, Yuanlai & Luo, Yufeng, 2019. "Irrigation scheduling of paddy rice using short-term weather forecast data," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 213(C), pages 714-723.
    5. Agnieszka Karczmarczyk & Agnieszka Bus & Anna Baryła, 2021. "Assessment of the Efficiency, Environmental and Economic Effects of Compact Type On-Site Wastewater Treatment Plants—Results from Random Testing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-15, January.
    6. Boyer, Christopher N. & Larson, James A. & Roberts, Roland K. & McClure, Angela T. & Tyler, Donald D. & Smith, S. Aaron, 2014. "Probability of Irrigated Corn Being Profitable in a Humid Region," 2014 Annual Meeting, February 1-4, 2014, Dallas, Texas 162470, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    7. Murat Isik & Madhu Khanna, 2003. "Stochastic Technology, Risk Preferences, and Adoption of Site-Specific Technologies," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(2), pages 305-317.
    8. Madhu Khanna & Shady S. Atallah & Saurajyoti Kar & Bijay Sharma & Linghui Wu & Chengzheng Yu & Girish Chowdhary & Chinmay Soman & Kaiyu Guan, 2022. "Digital transformation for a sustainable agriculture in the United States: Opportunities and challenges," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 53(6), pages 924-937, November.
    9. Ng'ombe, John, 2019. "Economics of the Greenseeder Hand Planter, Discrete Choice Modeling, and On-Farm Field Experimentation," Thesis Commons jckt7, Center for Open Science.
    10. Cochran, Rebecca L. & Larson, James A. & Roberts, Roland K. & English, Burton C., 2004. "Will Variable Rate Application Technology Pay in Tennessee?," 2004 Annual Meeting, February 14-18, 2004, Tulsa, Oklahoma 34678, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    11. Pautsch, Gregory R. & Babcock, Bruce A. & Breidt, F. Jay, 1999. "Optimal Information Acquisition Under A Geostatistical Model," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 24(2), pages 1-25, December.
    12. Bullock, David S. & Lowenberg-DeBoer, Jess & Swinton, Scott M., 2002. "Adding value to spatially managed inputs by understanding site-specific yield response," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 233-245, November.
    13. Dillon, Carl R. & Shearer, Scott A. & Mueller, Thomas, 2001. "A Mixed Integer, Nonlinear Programming Model Of Innovative Variable Rate Planting Date With Polymer Seed Coatings," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20572, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    14. Sharma, Vasudha & Irmak, Suat, 2021. "Comparative analyses of variable and fixed rate irrigation and nitrogen management for maize in different soil types: Part II. Growth, grain yield, evapotranspiration, production functions and water p," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    15. Lijing Gao & J. Arbuckle, 2022. "Examining farmers’ adoption of nutrient management best management practices: a social cognitive framework," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(2), pages 535-553, June.
    16. English, Burton C. & Mahajanashetti, S.B. & Roberts, Roland K., 2001. "Assessing Spatial Break-even Variability in Fields with Two or More Management Zones," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 33(3), pages 551-565, December.
    17. Li, Xiumei & Zhao, Weixia & Li, Jiusheng & Li, Yanfeng, 2021. "Effects of irrigation strategies and soil properties on the characteristics of deep percolation and crop water requirements for a variable rate irrigation system," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 257(C).
    18. Garcia y Garcia, A. & Persson, T. & Guerra, L.C. & Hoogenboom, G., 2010. "Response of soybean genotypes to different irrigation regimes in a humid region of the southeastern USA," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 97(7), pages 981-987, July.
    19. Asci, Serhat & Borisova, Tatiana & VanSickle, John J., 2014. "Risks in Potato Production: Fertilizer, Water, and Producers’ Decision Making," 2014 Annual Meeting, February 1-4, 2014, Dallas, Texas 162536, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    20. Isik, Murat & Coble, Keith H. & Hudson, Darren & House, Lisa O., 2003. "A model of entry-exit decisions and capacity choice under demand uncertainty," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 28(3), pages 215-224, May.

    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:eee:agiwat:v:240:y:2020:i:c:s0378377420303607. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agwat .

    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.