IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/endesu/v22y2020i3d10.1007_s10668-019-00308-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparison of different tillage systems in irrigated conditions by risk and gross margin analysis in Erzurum region of Turkey

Author

Listed:
  • Okan Demir

    (Atatürk University)

  • Zinnur Gözübüyük

    (Directorate of Eastern Anatolia Agricultural Research)

Abstract

The potential of tillage systems for generating environmental pollution and the economic risks of the systems are influential factors for farmers to adopt conservation tillage practices. This study was carried out between 2000 and 2008 in order to evaluate the economic and risk of different tillage and planting systems in the province of Erzurum, Turkey. Tillage treatments consist of conventional tillage [moldboard plow + disk harrow + combined harrows + precision seeder, (CT)], reduced tillage 1 [cultivator + combined harrows + precision seeder, (RT1)], reduced tillage 2 [rotary power harrow + precision seeder, (RT2)] and no-till seeding [no-till seeder, (NT)] systems which were studied. A trial field has been tilled with four different tillage systems with a crop rotation of common vetch–winter wheat–sunflower. The economic evaluation of the tillage and planting systems was made by calculating the gross margin and the risk appraisal and the standard deviation of the yield and gross margins. The conventional tillage system required the most labor, fuel, oil and variable costs. According to conventional tillage and planting system, the most cost-saving system is direct planting by NT. The highest pollutant in terms of environment was the CT system with the highest carbon dioxide release, while the NT system was the most environmentally friendly system. The order of systems from high to low, in terms of obtained gross margin, ranked a CT, RT1, RT2 and NT. The lowest variation in terms of productivity was in the NT system for all products, and the highest variation was in the RT1 system. In terms of gross margin, the lowest variation was again in the NT system. A farmer who decides on the basis of gross margin should choose the CT system with the highest average gross margin. A producer considering gross margin should decide on the NT system based on risk assessment.

Suggested Citation

  • Okan Demir & Zinnur Gözübüyük, 2020. "A comparison of different tillage systems in irrigated conditions by risk and gross margin analysis in Erzurum region of Turkey," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 2529-2544, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:endesu:v:22:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s10668-019-00308-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s10668-019-00308-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10668-019-00308-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10668-019-00308-5?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. David J. Pannell, 1991. "Pests and pesticides, risk and risk aversion," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 5(4), pages 361-383, August.
    2. Konyar, Kazim, 2001. "Assessing the role of US agriculture in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and generating additional environmental benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 85-103, July.
    3. Bacenetti, Jacopo & Restuccia, Andrea & Schillaci, Gianpaolo & Failla, Sabina, 2017. "Biodiesel production from unconventional oilseed crops (Linum usitatissimum L. and Camelina sativa L.) in Mediterranean conditions: Environmental sustainability assessment," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 444-456.
    4. Wu, Huijun & Yuan, Zengwei & Geng, Yong & Ren, Jingzheng & Jiang, Songyan & Sheng, Hu & Gao, Liangmin, 2017. "Temporal trends and spatial patterns of energy use efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions in crop production of Anhui Province, China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 955-968.
    5. Richard E. Just & Rulon D. Pope, 1979. "Production Function Estimation and Related Risk Considerations," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 61(2), pages 276-284.
    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. Hasibuan, Abdul Muis & Gregg, Daniel & Stringer, Randy, 2022. "Risk preferences, intra-household dynamics and spatial effects on chemical inputs use: Case of small-scale citrus farmers in Indonesia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    2. J. K. Horowitz & E. Lichtenberg, 1994. "Risk‐Reducing And Risk‐Increasing Effects Of Pesticides," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(1), pages 82-89, January.
    3. Bontemps, Christophe & Bougherara, Douadia & Nauges, Céline, 2020. "Do Risk Preferences Really Matter? The Case of Pesticide Use in Agriculture," TSE Working Papers 20-1095, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    4. Antti Saastamoinen, 2015. "Heteroscedasticity Or Production Risk? A Synthetic View," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(3), pages 459-478, July.
    5. Nolan, Elizabeth & Santos, Paulo, 2012. "Insurance premiums and GM traits," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 125942, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Martinho, Vítor João Pereira Domingues, 2021. "Direct and indirect energy consumption in farming: Impacts from fertilizer use," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 236(C).
    7. Luigi Tedone & Francesco Giannico & Vincenzo Tufarelli & Vito Laudadio & Maria Selvaggi & Giuseppe De Mastro & Maria Antonietta Colonna, 2022. "Camelina sativa (L. Crantz) Fresh Forage Productive Performance and Quality at Different Vegetative Stages: Effects of Dietary Supplementation in Ionica Goats on Milk Quality," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-17, January.
    8. Francis Tsiboe & Jesse Tack, 2022. "Utilizing Topographic and Soil Features to Improve Rating for Farm‐Level Insurance Products," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(1), pages 52-69, January.
    9. Yassour, Joseph & Zilberman, David D & Rausser, Gordon C., 1980. "Option choices among alternative technologies with stochastic yield," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt8xq1b77m, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    10. Jean-Paul Chavas, 2009. "On the Productive Value of Biodiversity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 42(1), pages 109-131, January.
    11. Mingyue Li & Jingjing Wang & Kai Chen & Lianbei Wu, 2020. "Willingness and Behaviors of Farmers’ Green Disposal of Pesticide Packaging Waste in Henan, China: A Perceived Value Formation Mechanism Perspective," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-18, May.
    12. Nathan D. DeLay & Nathanael M. Thompson & James R. Mintert, 2022. "Precision agriculture technology adoption and technical efficiency," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(1), pages 195-219, February.
    13. Chiwaula, Levison & Waibel, Hermann, 2011. "Does seasonal vulnerability to poverty matter? A case study from the Hadejia-Nguru Wetlands in Nigeria," Proceedings of the German Development Economics Conference, Berlin 2011 19, Verein für Socialpolitik, Research Committee Development Economics.
    14. Matthias Buchholz & Oliver Musshoff, 2021. "Tax or green nudge? An experimental analysis of pesticide policies in Germany [A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit]," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 48(4), pages 940-982.
    15. Liverpool-Tasie, Lenis Saweda O. & Sanou, Awa & Mazvimavi, Kizito, 2015. "How profitable is sustainable intensification? The case of fertilizer micro-dosing in Niger," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205879, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Kawasaki, Kentaro, 2010. "The costs and benefits of land fragmentation of rice farms in Japan," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 54(4), pages 1-18.
    17. repec:ags:aaea22:335576 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Coyle, Barry T., 1994. "Duality Models Of Production Under Risk: A Summary Of Results For Several Nonlinear Mean-Variance Models," 1994 Quantifying Long Run Agricultural Risks and Evaluating Farmer Responses Risk, Technical Committee Meeting, March 24-26, 1994, Gulf Shores State Park, Alabama 271556, Regional Research Projects > S-232: Quantifying Long Run Agricultural Risks and Evaluating Farmer Responses to Risk.
    19. Finkelshtain, Israel & Chalfant, James A., 1992. "Commodity Price Stabilization in a Peasant Economy," Working Papers 232417, University of California, Davis, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    20. Gupta, Shreekant & Sen, Partha & Verma, Saumya, 2016. "Impact of Climate Change on Foodgrain Yields in India," CEI Working Paper Series 2015-9, Center for Economic Institutions, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    21. Zhen, Wei & Qin, Quande & Wei, Yi-Ming, 2017. "Spatio-temporal patterns of energy consumption-related GHG emissions in China's crop production systems," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 274-284.

    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:spr:endesu:v:22:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s10668-019-00308-5. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.