IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aare10/59088.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Economics of managing acid soils in dryland mixed cropping systems: comparing gross margins with whole-farm analysis derived using a business process model

Author

Listed:
  • Hutchings, Timothy R.
  • Nordblom, Thomas L.
  • Li, Guangdi
  • Conyers, Mark

Abstract

A 12-year experiment designed to show the benefits of applying lime to acid soils when growing annual pasture, perennial pasture, and annual crops in rotations with annual or perennial pastures, provides the context for comparing methods of economic analysis. In this study enterprise gross margins are compared with whole-farm cumulative monthly cash flows derived using a business process model. The current study gave gross margins comparable with those of a recently published study based on the first 12 years of the same field experiment at Book Book near Wagga Wagga in southern NSW (Li et al., 2010). Both gross margin analyses indicated positive results for all treatments. However, because key fixed and capital cost items were not taken into account in the gross margin analysis the financial benefits of the treatments were overstated. In the whole-farm analysis, a full set of accounts (including fixed and capital costs) was developed for the experimental combinations of prime lamb and dryland cropping enterprises and used to generate a monthly cash flow sequence for each treatment over the 12-year term of the experiment. This full financial analysis, where all costs are included, showed all mixed treatments (cropping and grazing) accumulated unsustainable losses over the period of the trial. The grazing-only treatments generated positive cash lows over the 12 year period, but 2 accumulated high levels of debt in the initial years. None of these outcomes were predicted by gross margins, which were consistently positive for all treatments. This paper concludes that the analysis of trial results benefits from interpretation in the context of whole-farm analysis, verified by district experience. Relying on gross margin analysis alone would have supported loss-making outcomes in this trial. This conclusion has important ramifications for analysis of all systems trials.

Suggested Citation

  • Hutchings, Timothy R. & Nordblom, Thomas L. & Li, Guangdi & Conyers, Mark, 2010. "Economics of managing acid soils in dryland mixed cropping systems: comparing gross margins with whole-farm analysis derived using a business process model," 2010 Conference (54th), February 10-12, 2010, Adelaide, Australia 59088, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aare10:59088
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.59088
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/59088/files/Hutchings_%20Tim.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.59088?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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Hutchings, Timothy R. & Nordblom, Thomas L., 2011. "A financial analysis of the effect of the mix of crop and sheep enterprises on the risk profile of dryland farms in south-eastern Australia," AFBM Journal, Australasian Farm Business Management Network, vol. 8(1), pages 1-23, October.
    2. Nordblom, Thomas L. & Hutchings, Timothy R. & Godfrey, Sosheel S. & Schefe, Cassandra R., 2021. "Precision variable rate nitrogen for dryland farming on waterlogging Riverine Plains of Southeast Australia?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agribusiness;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:aare10:59088. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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/aaresea.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.