IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea13/149726.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Fungicides for Winter Wheat

Author

Listed:
  • Thompson, Nathanael M.
  • Epplin, Francis M.
  • Edwards, Jeffrey T.
  • Hunger, Robert M.

Abstract

Topic Relevance Foliar diseases often reduce grain yields of winter wheat in the southern Great Plains, with some individual year yield losses in excess of 10%. At current prices, the gross value of these losses for the region could exceed a quarter of a billion dollars annually. Historically, use of foliar fungicide applications to manage these diseases has not been common in the region. As a result, management of foliar diseases has largely relied on genetic resistance and other cultural practices such as planting date and crop rotations. However, in Europe, where wheat yields average more than twice the U.S. average, fungicides are applied to over 95% of the wheat area and are credited as one of the major factors influencing increases in European wheat yields since the 1970s (Gianessi and Williams 2011). Recent wheat prices and decreasing fungicide costs have generated interest among U.S. wheat farmers in evaluating the economics of fungicide treatments. Wheat grain yield response to fungicide treatment is variable, and depends on several factors including incidence and severity of specific foliar diseases, cultivar disease resistance, timing and leaf coverage achieved by fungicide application, yield potential, and environmental conditions. In addition, if a ground applicator is used to apply the fungicide, the wheel tracks or the use of tram lines may influence yield. Alternatively, if an aerial application is used, the cost consequence of applying a sufficient water volume to achieve adequate plant leaf coverage is critical. Some research has been conducted to determine the expected returns to fungicide treatment as part of a disease management strategy. However, variability of expected returns resulting from alternative management strategies has not been considered. The objective of this research is to determine the expected net returns to fungicide treatment on hard red winter wheat cultivars with differing levels of genetic resistance to foliar diseases in the southern Great Plains, and to determine if fungicide treatment is an economically optimal management strategy for several levels of risk aversion. Research Methods Hard red winter wheat grain yield data were produced in field experiments conducted at two locations during seven production seasons, from 2005 to 2012. Varietal resistance for each wheat cultivar was determined based on average disease resistance rating to leaf rust, stripe rust, and powdery mildew. Two fungicides were rotated between the two locations and applied at recommended rates at Feekes growth stage 9.5 to 10. SAS Proc Mixed was used to determine grain yield response to fungicide treatment, varietal resistance level, and their interaction. Least-square mean grain yields were estimated and compared for differences between fungicide treated and nontreated plots by varietal resistance level for each year and location. A partial budgeting approach was used to determine the expected net returns for each disease management strategy at both locations. Expected yields were adjusted for losses expected to occur from wheel tracking and/or tram lines required for ground application of fungicide. Given the lack of information about these losses, sensitivity analysis was done across various levels of yield losses. Fungicide treatment cost included the per acre cost of chemical as well as the per acre rental rate for ground application. Risk analysis was conducted using SIMETAR (Richardson, Schumann, and Feldman 2001). Assuming each season was equally likely, and the years of the study were representative of the entire distribution, cumulative distribution functions of net returns to alternative strategies were evaluated using stochastic efficiency with respect to a function (SERF). SERF was used to determine the fungicide treatment cost that would entice wheat producers to use fungicide for several levels of risk aversion. Potential for Generating Discussion Fungicide treatment on winter wheat is a timely topic that has the potential to generate discussion. Fungicides are not commonly used among U.S. wheat producers in the southern Great Plains. However, results of recent literature, including this analysis, suggest potential economic benefits to treating winter wheat with fungicides. In addition, results of this analysis suggest that the utility of risk averse decision makers would generally be increased by strategies that include fungicide treatment given its tendency to protect from the downside risk of large yield losses in years of high disease incidence and severity. These results may facilitate a discussion as to the role of fungicides in winter wheat production in particular and chemical use in production agriculture in general. Other facets of this research, such whether or not U.S. farmers could benefit from using tramlines, also have potential to stimulate discussion.

Suggested Citation

  • Thompson, Nathanael M. & Epplin, Francis M. & Edwards, Jeffrey T. & Hunger, Robert M., 2013. "Fungicides for Winter Wheat," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 149726, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea13:149726
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.149726
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/149726/files/thompson%20et%20al%20AAEA%20poster%202013.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.149726?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. J. Brian Hardaker & James W. Richardson & Gudbrand Lien & Keith D. Schumann, 2004. "Stochastic efficiency analysis with risk aversion bounds: a simplified approach," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(2), pages 253-270, June.
    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. Yangxuan Liu & Michael R. Langemeier & Ian M. Small & Laura Joseph & William E. Fry & Jean B. Ristaino & Amanda Saville & Benjamin M. Gramig & Paul V. Preckel, 2018. "A Risk Analysis of Precision Agriculture Technology to Manage Tomato Late Blight," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-19, August.
    2. Watkins, K. Bradley & Mane, Ranjitsinh U. & McClung, Anna, 2018. "Economic Risk Analysis of Rice Cultivars under Organic and Conventional Management," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266587, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    3. Lyman, Nathaniel & Nalley, Lawton Lanier, 2013. "Stochastic Valuation of Hybrid Rice Technology in Arkansas," 2013 Annual Meeting, February 2-5, 2013, Orlando, Florida 142505, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    4. Frikkie Maré & Bennie Grové & Johan Willemse, 2017. "Evaluating the long-term effectiveness of crop insurance products to provide cost effective and constant cover for maize producers under stochastic yields and prices," Agrekon, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(3), pages 233-247, July.
    5. Hristovska, Tatjana & Watkins, K. Bradley & Anders, Merle M., 2012. "An Economic Risk Analysis of No-till Management for the Rice-Soybean Rotation System used in Arkansas," 2012 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2012, Birmingham, Alabama 119676, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    6. Flaten, O. & Lien, G., 2007. "Stochastic utility-efficient programming of organic dairy farms," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 181(3), pages 1574-1583, September.
    7. Meyer-Aurich, Andreas & Karatay, Yusuf Nadi, 2019. "Effects of uncertainty and farmers' risk aversion on optimal N fertilizer supply in wheat production in Germany," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 130-139.
    8. Jack Meyer & James W. Richardson & Keith D. Schumann, 2009. "Stochastic efficiency analysis with risk aversion bounds: a correction," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(4), pages 521-525, October.
    9. Asci, Serhat & VanSickle, John J. & Cantliffe, Daniel J., 2014. "Risk in Investment Decision Making and Greenhouse Tomato Production Expansion in Florida," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 17(4), pages 1-26, November.
    10. Fumasi, Roland J. & Klose, Steven L. & Kaase, Greg H. & Richardson, James W. & Outlaw, Joe L., 2008. "Viability of cellulosic feedstock production from producer to biorefinery," Integration of Agricultural and Energy Systems Conference, February 12-13, 2008, Atlanta, Georgia 48716, Farm Foundation.
    11. Monjardino, Marta & McBeath, T. & Brennan, Lisa E. & Llewellyn, Rick S., 2012. "Are farmers in low-rainfall cropping regions under-fertilizing? An Australian case-study," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 124976, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Eihab Fathelrahman & Aydin Basarir & Mohamed Gheblawi & Sherin Sherif & James Ascough, 2014. "Economic Risk and Efficiency Assessment of Fisheries in Abu-Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (UAE): A Stochastic Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(6), pages 1-21, June.
    13. Tzouramani, Irene & Karanikolas, Pavlos & Alexopoulos, George, 2008. "Risk and Income Risk Management Issues for Organic Crops in Greece," 108th Seminar, February 8-9, 2008, Warsaw, Poland 48116, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. Clancy, Daragh & Breen, James P. & Butler, Anne Marie & Thorne, Fiona S. & Wallace, Michael T., 2008. "Valuing the risk associated with willow and miscanthus relative to conventional agricultural systems," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 43972, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. Mohammad Khakbazan & Hushton C. Block & John Huang & Jeff J. Colyn & Vern S. Baron & John A. Basarab & Changxi Li & Chinyere Ekine-Dzivenu, 2022. "Effects of Silage-Based Diets and Cattle Efficiency Type on Performance, Profitability, and Predicted CH 4 Emission of Backgrounding Steers," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-20, February.
    16. Fengxia Dong, 2022. "Cover Crops, Drought, Yield, and Risk: An Analysis of US Soybean Production," NBER Chapters, in: American Agriculture, Water Resources, and Climate Change, pages 241-267, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Lien, Gudbrand D. & Flaten, Ola & Schumann, Keith D. & Richardson, James W. & Korsaeth, Audun & Eltun, Ragnar, 2005. "Comparison of Risk Between Cropping Systems in Eastern Norway," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24663, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Asci, Serhat & VanSickle, John J. & Fry, Curtiss J. & Thomas, John, 2015. "Where is Risk in Fumigation Choice: Methyl Bromide versus Alternatives?," 2015 Annual Meeting, January 31-February 3, 2015, Atlanta, Georgia 196862, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    19. Donnelly, Kallie & Noel, Jay E., 2006. "Optimal Market Contracting in the California Lettuce Industry," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21461, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    20. Morris, Brittany D. & Richardson, James W. & Frosch, Brian J. & Outlaw, Joe L. & Rooney, William L., 2009. "Economic Feasibility of Ethanol Production from Sweet Sorghum Juice in Texas," 2009 Annual Meeting, January 31-February 3, 2009, Atlanta, Georgia 46852, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.

    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:ags:aaea13:149726. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.