Reduced chemical input cropping systems in the Southeastern United States: III. Economic analysis
This study evaluated the profitability of several cropping systems during a 10-year period of an experiment comparing rotations and levels of purchased inputs. Continuous corn or sorghum, corn/wheat-soybean (2-year), and corn/wheat-soybean/corn/clover hay (4-year) were managed with recommended ferti...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | American journal of alternative agriculture 1998-03, Vol.13 (1), p.12-27 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 27 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 12 |
container_title | American journal of alternative agriculture |
container_volume | 13 |
creator | King, Larry D. Hoag, Dana L. |
description | This study evaluated the profitability of several cropping systems during a 10-year period of an experiment comparing rotations and levels of purchased inputs. Continuous corn or sorghum, corn/wheat-soybean (2-year), and corn/wheat-soybean/corn/clover hay (4-year) were managed with recommended fertilizer and pesticide rates and no-till planting (C) or with N from legumes, conventional tillage, and cultivation for weed control (L). Medium input management (M: medium rate of N and banded herbicides) was included during years 5 through 10. Generally, corn was the least profitable crop, regardless of input level or type of rotation. Rotating crops improved profit more than did adding inputs to continuous corn. With L, average annual profit was: continuous corn, -$64/ha; 2-year rotation, $135/ha; and 4-year rotation, $158/ha. With C, the 2-year rotation increased profit to $165/ha from -$119/ha with continuous corn. The increased profit with rotations was due to greater profits from wheat, soybean, and hay offsetting low or negative profit from corn. Sorghum (grown only in monoculture) was more profitable with L ($34/ha) than with C (-$20/ha). During the 6 years when all input levels were compared, the order of average profit was M>L>C with continuous corn. Generally, profit was not increased by M compared with L in the 2-and 4-year rotations. With L, the cost of weed control was 20% of that for C with corn and 44% with soybean. Cost of N from fertilizer was $0.66/kg, but cost of N from crimson clover (seed and planting costs) averaged $0.92/kg when clover was drilled, $1.27/kg when aerially seeded, and $0.16/kg when naturally reseeded. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1017/S088918930000758X |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1017_S088918930000758X</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_S088918930000758X</cupid><jstor_id>44503050</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>44503050</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c313t-56384dc00f75e957ce034e0360822d110dc6599aff505d2337bdf46d7cf11ef23</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9UE1rGzEQFSWFGsc_oIeCDr2uM1qtVlJvwbFTQ0Kauqa9CVkfjlx7d5HWEP_7ytg4h0IEw8C8ee9pHkKfCYwJEH6zACEkEZJCfpyJPx_QgFRcFKyS4goNjnBxxD-hUUphBWVNCVDBBkj_dHZvnMXmxe2C0Vscmm7fYxPbrgvNGqdD6t0u5THuXxxetPvcdJ7FBi-b0Gfqote9S9_wfD4f46lpmzYrYd3o7SGFdI0-er1NbnTuQ7ScTX9NvhcPT_fzye1DYSihfcFqKiprADxnTjJuHNAqVw2iLC0hYE3NpNTeM2C2pJSvrK9qy40nxPmSDhE56eavpxSdV10MOx0PioA6xqT-iylzvp44nU75dh91Y0K6ELNLDZLktS-ntU3q23iBq4oBhVxDVJzwkHN5veA6_lU1p5yp-v5ZPZd38Hv241FVb3pet0qvY7ZcLoiUHAQAO_rR8yl6t4rBrp3atPuYA03vHPMPf4GYNA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Reduced chemical input cropping systems in the Southeastern United States: III. Economic analysis</title><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><creator>King, Larry D. ; Hoag, Dana L.</creator><creatorcontrib>King, Larry D. ; Hoag, Dana L.</creatorcontrib><description>This study evaluated the profitability of several cropping systems during a 10-year period of an experiment comparing rotations and levels of purchased inputs. Continuous corn or sorghum, corn/wheat-soybean (2-year), and corn/wheat-soybean/corn/clover hay (4-year) were managed with recommended fertilizer and pesticide rates and no-till planting (C) or with N from legumes, conventional tillage, and cultivation for weed control (L). Medium input management (M: medium rate of N and banded herbicides) was included during years 5 through 10. Generally, corn was the least profitable crop, regardless of input level or type of rotation. Rotating crops improved profit more than did adding inputs to continuous corn. With L, average annual profit was: continuous corn, -$64/ha; 2-year rotation, $135/ha; and 4-year rotation, $158/ha. With C, the 2-year rotation increased profit to $165/ha from -$119/ha with continuous corn. The increased profit with rotations was due to greater profits from wheat, soybean, and hay offsetting low or negative profit from corn. Sorghum (grown only in monoculture) was more profitable with L ($34/ha) than with C (-$20/ha). During the 6 years when all input levels were compared, the order of average profit was M>L>C with continuous corn. Generally, profit was not increased by M compared with L in the 2-and 4-year rotations. With L, the cost of weed control was 20% of that for C with corn and 44% with soybean. Cost of N from fertilizer was $0.66/kg, but cost of N from crimson clover (seed and planting costs) averaged $0.92/kg when clover was drilled, $1.27/kg when aerially seeded, and $0.16/kg when naturally reseeded.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0889-1893</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1478-5498</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S088918930000758X</identifier><identifier>CODEN: AJAAEZ</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>ABONOS ; AGRICULTURA ALTERNATIVA ; AGRICULTURA DE BAJO INSUMO ; AGRICULTURE ALTERNATIVE ; AGRICULTURE FAIBLE NIVEAU INTRANTS ; Agronomy. Soil science and plant productions ; ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURE ; ANALISIS ECONOMICO ; ANALYSE ECONOMIQUE ; APPLICATION RATES ; banded herbicides ; BENEFICE ; Biological and medical sciences ; CERO-LABRANZA ; Clover ; conventional tillage ; Corn ; COSTOS ; COSTS ; COUT ; Crop rotation ; CROP YIELD ; Cropping systems. Cultivation. Soil tillage ; DESHERBAGE ; DOSE D'APPLICATION ; DOSIS DE APLICACION ; ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ; ENGRAIS ; ESCARDA ; ESTADOS DEL SUDESTE (EUA) ; ETATS DU SUD EST (EU) ; FERTILIZERS ; FESTUCA ARUNDINACEA ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; GANANCIAS ; General agronomy. Plant production ; Generalities. Cropping systems and patterns ; GLYCINE MAX ; green manure ; Herbicides ; LOW INPUT AGRICULTURE ; MALEZAS ; MAUVAISE HERBE ; N fertilizer ; no-till ; NON TRAVAIL DU SOL ; PESTICIDE ; PESTICIDES ; PLAGUICIDAS ; PROFIT ; PROFITABILITY ; RENDEMENT DES CULTURES ; RENDIMIENTO DE CULTIVOS ; RENTABILIDAD ; RENTABILITE ; ROTACION DE CULTIVOS ; Rotation ; ROTATION CULTURALE ; ROTATIONAL CROPPING ; rotations ; Sorghum ; SORGHUM BICOLOR ; SOUTH EASTERN STATES (USA) ; soybean ; Soybeans ; Sustainable agriculture ; TRIFOLIUM PRATENSE ; TRIFOLIUM REPENS ; TRITICUM AESTIVUM ; WEED CONTROL ; WEEDS ; Wheat ; ZEA MAYS ; ZERO TILLAGE</subject><ispartof>American journal of alternative agriculture, 1998-03, Vol.13 (1), p.12-27</ispartof><rights>Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998</rights><rights>1998 INIST-CNRS</rights><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c313t-56384dc00f75e957ce034e0360822d110dc6599aff505d2337bdf46d7cf11ef23</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c313t-56384dc00f75e957ce034e0360822d110dc6599aff505d2337bdf46d7cf11ef23</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/44503050$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/44503050$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,27924,27925,58017,58250</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=2336091$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>King, Larry D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hoag, Dana L.</creatorcontrib><title>Reduced chemical input cropping systems in the Southeastern United States: III. Economic analysis</title><title>American journal of alternative agriculture</title><addtitle>Am J Alt Ag</addtitle><description>This study evaluated the profitability of several cropping systems during a 10-year period of an experiment comparing rotations and levels of purchased inputs. Continuous corn or sorghum, corn/wheat-soybean (2-year), and corn/wheat-soybean/corn/clover hay (4-year) were managed with recommended fertilizer and pesticide rates and no-till planting (C) or with N from legumes, conventional tillage, and cultivation for weed control (L). Medium input management (M: medium rate of N and banded herbicides) was included during years 5 through 10. Generally, corn was the least profitable crop, regardless of input level or type of rotation. Rotating crops improved profit more than did adding inputs to continuous corn. With L, average annual profit was: continuous corn, -$64/ha; 2-year rotation, $135/ha; and 4-year rotation, $158/ha. With C, the 2-year rotation increased profit to $165/ha from -$119/ha with continuous corn. The increased profit with rotations was due to greater profits from wheat, soybean, and hay offsetting low or negative profit from corn. Sorghum (grown only in monoculture) was more profitable with L ($34/ha) than with C (-$20/ha). During the 6 years when all input levels were compared, the order of average profit was M>L>C with continuous corn. Generally, profit was not increased by M compared with L in the 2-and 4-year rotations. With L, the cost of weed control was 20% of that for C with corn and 44% with soybean. Cost of N from fertilizer was $0.66/kg, but cost of N from crimson clover (seed and planting costs) averaged $0.92/kg when clover was drilled, $1.27/kg when aerially seeded, and $0.16/kg when naturally reseeded.</description><subject>ABONOS</subject><subject>AGRICULTURA ALTERNATIVA</subject><subject>AGRICULTURA DE BAJO INSUMO</subject><subject>AGRICULTURE ALTERNATIVE</subject><subject>AGRICULTURE FAIBLE NIVEAU INTRANTS</subject><subject>Agronomy. Soil science and plant productions</subject><subject>ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURE</subject><subject>ANALISIS ECONOMICO</subject><subject>ANALYSE ECONOMIQUE</subject><subject>APPLICATION RATES</subject><subject>banded herbicides</subject><subject>BENEFICE</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>CERO-LABRANZA</subject><subject>Clover</subject><subject>conventional tillage</subject><subject>Corn</subject><subject>COSTOS</subject><subject>COSTS</subject><subject>COUT</subject><subject>Crop rotation</subject><subject>CROP YIELD</subject><subject>Cropping systems. Cultivation. Soil tillage</subject><subject>DESHERBAGE</subject><subject>DOSE D'APPLICATION</subject><subject>DOSIS DE APLICACION</subject><subject>ECONOMIC ANALYSIS</subject><subject>ENGRAIS</subject><subject>ESCARDA</subject><subject>ESTADOS DEL SUDESTE (EUA)</subject><subject>ETATS DU SUD EST (EU)</subject><subject>FERTILIZERS</subject><subject>FESTUCA ARUNDINACEA</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>GANANCIAS</subject><subject>General agronomy. Plant production</subject><subject>Generalities. Cropping systems and patterns</subject><subject>GLYCINE MAX</subject><subject>green manure</subject><subject>Herbicides</subject><subject>LOW INPUT AGRICULTURE</subject><subject>MALEZAS</subject><subject>MAUVAISE HERBE</subject><subject>N fertilizer</subject><subject>no-till</subject><subject>NON TRAVAIL DU SOL</subject><subject>PESTICIDE</subject><subject>PESTICIDES</subject><subject>PLAGUICIDAS</subject><subject>PROFIT</subject><subject>PROFITABILITY</subject><subject>RENDEMENT DES CULTURES</subject><subject>RENDIMIENTO DE CULTIVOS</subject><subject>RENTABILIDAD</subject><subject>RENTABILITE</subject><subject>ROTACION DE CULTIVOS</subject><subject>Rotation</subject><subject>ROTATION CULTURALE</subject><subject>ROTATIONAL CROPPING</subject><subject>rotations</subject><subject>Sorghum</subject><subject>SORGHUM BICOLOR</subject><subject>SOUTH EASTERN STATES (USA)</subject><subject>soybean</subject><subject>Soybeans</subject><subject>Sustainable agriculture</subject><subject>TRIFOLIUM PRATENSE</subject><subject>TRIFOLIUM REPENS</subject><subject>TRITICUM AESTIVUM</subject><subject>WEED CONTROL</subject><subject>WEEDS</subject><subject>Wheat</subject><subject>ZEA MAYS</subject><subject>ZERO TILLAGE</subject><issn>0889-1893</issn><issn>1478-5498</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1998</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9UE1rGzEQFSWFGsc_oIeCDr2uM1qtVlJvwbFTQ0Kauqa9CVkfjlx7d5HWEP_7ytg4h0IEw8C8ee9pHkKfCYwJEH6zACEkEZJCfpyJPx_QgFRcFKyS4goNjnBxxD-hUUphBWVNCVDBBkj_dHZvnMXmxe2C0Vscmm7fYxPbrgvNGqdD6t0u5THuXxxetPvcdJ7FBi-b0Gfqote9S9_wfD4f46lpmzYrYd3o7SGFdI0-er1NbnTuQ7ScTX9NvhcPT_fzye1DYSihfcFqKiprADxnTjJuHNAqVw2iLC0hYE3NpNTeM2C2pJSvrK9qy40nxPmSDhE56eavpxSdV10MOx0PioA6xqT-iylzvp44nU75dh91Y0K6ELNLDZLktS-ntU3q23iBq4oBhVxDVJzwkHN5veA6_lU1p5yp-v5ZPZd38Hv241FVb3pet0qvY7ZcLoiUHAQAO_rR8yl6t4rBrp3atPuYA03vHPMPf4GYNA</recordid><startdate>199803</startdate><enddate>199803</enddate><creator>King, Larry D.</creator><creator>Hoag, Dana L.</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><general>Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture, Inc</general><general>Institute for Alternative Agriculture</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>199803</creationdate><title>Reduced chemical input cropping systems in the Southeastern United States: III. Economic analysis</title><author>King, Larry D. ; Hoag, Dana L.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c313t-56384dc00f75e957ce034e0360822d110dc6599aff505d2337bdf46d7cf11ef23</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1998</creationdate><topic>ABONOS</topic><topic>AGRICULTURA ALTERNATIVA</topic><topic>AGRICULTURA DE BAJO INSUMO</topic><topic>AGRICULTURE ALTERNATIVE</topic><topic>AGRICULTURE FAIBLE NIVEAU INTRANTS</topic><topic>Agronomy. Soil science and plant productions</topic><topic>ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURE</topic><topic>ANALISIS ECONOMICO</topic><topic>ANALYSE ECONOMIQUE</topic><topic>APPLICATION RATES</topic><topic>banded herbicides</topic><topic>BENEFICE</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>CERO-LABRANZA</topic><topic>Clover</topic><topic>conventional tillage</topic><topic>Corn</topic><topic>COSTOS</topic><topic>COSTS</topic><topic>COUT</topic><topic>Crop rotation</topic><topic>CROP YIELD</topic><topic>Cropping systems. Cultivation. Soil tillage</topic><topic>DESHERBAGE</topic><topic>DOSE D'APPLICATION</topic><topic>DOSIS DE APLICACION</topic><topic>ECONOMIC ANALYSIS</topic><topic>ENGRAIS</topic><topic>ESCARDA</topic><topic>ESTADOS DEL SUDESTE (EUA)</topic><topic>ETATS DU SUD EST (EU)</topic><topic>FERTILIZERS</topic><topic>FESTUCA ARUNDINACEA</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>GANANCIAS</topic><topic>General agronomy. Plant production</topic><topic>Generalities. Cropping systems and patterns</topic><topic>GLYCINE MAX</topic><topic>green manure</topic><topic>Herbicides</topic><topic>LOW INPUT AGRICULTURE</topic><topic>MALEZAS</topic><topic>MAUVAISE HERBE</topic><topic>N fertilizer</topic><topic>no-till</topic><topic>NON TRAVAIL DU SOL</topic><topic>PESTICIDE</topic><topic>PESTICIDES</topic><topic>PLAGUICIDAS</topic><topic>PROFIT</topic><topic>PROFITABILITY</topic><topic>RENDEMENT DES CULTURES</topic><topic>RENDIMIENTO DE CULTIVOS</topic><topic>RENTABILIDAD</topic><topic>RENTABILITE</topic><topic>ROTACION DE CULTIVOS</topic><topic>Rotation</topic><topic>ROTATION CULTURALE</topic><topic>ROTATIONAL CROPPING</topic><topic>rotations</topic><topic>Sorghum</topic><topic>SORGHUM BICOLOR</topic><topic>SOUTH EASTERN STATES (USA)</topic><topic>soybean</topic><topic>Soybeans</topic><topic>Sustainable agriculture</topic><topic>TRIFOLIUM PRATENSE</topic><topic>TRIFOLIUM REPENS</topic><topic>TRITICUM AESTIVUM</topic><topic>WEED CONTROL</topic><topic>WEEDS</topic><topic>Wheat</topic><topic>ZEA MAYS</topic><topic>ZERO TILLAGE</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>King, Larry D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hoag, Dana L.</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>American journal of alternative agriculture</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>King, Larry D.</au><au>Hoag, Dana L.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Reduced chemical input cropping systems in the Southeastern United States: III. Economic analysis</atitle><jtitle>American journal of alternative agriculture</jtitle><addtitle>Am J Alt Ag</addtitle><date>1998-03</date><risdate>1998</risdate><volume>13</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>12</spage><epage>27</epage><pages>12-27</pages><issn>0889-1893</issn><eissn>1478-5498</eissn><coden>AJAAEZ</coden><abstract>This study evaluated the profitability of several cropping systems during a 10-year period of an experiment comparing rotations and levels of purchased inputs. Continuous corn or sorghum, corn/wheat-soybean (2-year), and corn/wheat-soybean/corn/clover hay (4-year) were managed with recommended fertilizer and pesticide rates and no-till planting (C) or with N from legumes, conventional tillage, and cultivation for weed control (L). Medium input management (M: medium rate of N and banded herbicides) was included during years 5 through 10. Generally, corn was the least profitable crop, regardless of input level or type of rotation. Rotating crops improved profit more than did adding inputs to continuous corn. With L, average annual profit was: continuous corn, -$64/ha; 2-year rotation, $135/ha; and 4-year rotation, $158/ha. With C, the 2-year rotation increased profit to $165/ha from -$119/ha with continuous corn. The increased profit with rotations was due to greater profits from wheat, soybean, and hay offsetting low or negative profit from corn. Sorghum (grown only in monoculture) was more profitable with L ($34/ha) than with C (-$20/ha). During the 6 years when all input levels were compared, the order of average profit was M>L>C with continuous corn. Generally, profit was not increased by M compared with L in the 2-and 4-year rotations. With L, the cost of weed control was 20% of that for C with corn and 44% with soybean. Cost of N from fertilizer was $0.66/kg, but cost of N from crimson clover (seed and planting costs) averaged $0.92/kg when clover was drilled, $1.27/kg when aerially seeded, and $0.16/kg when naturally reseeded.</abstract><cop>Cambridge, UK</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1017/S088918930000758X</doi><tpages>16</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0889-1893 |
ispartof | American journal of alternative agriculture, 1998-03, Vol.13 (1), p.12-27 |
issn | 0889-1893 1478-5498 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_crossref_primary_10_1017_S088918930000758X |
source | JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing |
subjects | ABONOS AGRICULTURA ALTERNATIVA AGRICULTURA DE BAJO INSUMO AGRICULTURE ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURE FAIBLE NIVEAU INTRANTS Agronomy. Soil science and plant productions ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURE ANALISIS ECONOMICO ANALYSE ECONOMIQUE APPLICATION RATES banded herbicides BENEFICE Biological and medical sciences CERO-LABRANZA Clover conventional tillage Corn COSTOS COSTS COUT Crop rotation CROP YIELD Cropping systems. Cultivation. Soil tillage DESHERBAGE DOSE D'APPLICATION DOSIS DE APLICACION ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ENGRAIS ESCARDA ESTADOS DEL SUDESTE (EUA) ETATS DU SUD EST (EU) FERTILIZERS FESTUCA ARUNDINACEA Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology GANANCIAS General agronomy. Plant production Generalities. Cropping systems and patterns GLYCINE MAX green manure Herbicides LOW INPUT AGRICULTURE MALEZAS MAUVAISE HERBE N fertilizer no-till NON TRAVAIL DU SOL PESTICIDE PESTICIDES PLAGUICIDAS PROFIT PROFITABILITY RENDEMENT DES CULTURES RENDIMIENTO DE CULTIVOS RENTABILIDAD RENTABILITE ROTACION DE CULTIVOS Rotation ROTATION CULTURALE ROTATIONAL CROPPING rotations Sorghum SORGHUM BICOLOR SOUTH EASTERN STATES (USA) soybean Soybeans Sustainable agriculture TRIFOLIUM PRATENSE TRIFOLIUM REPENS TRITICUM AESTIVUM WEED CONTROL WEEDS Wheat ZEA MAYS ZERO TILLAGE |
title | Reduced chemical input cropping systems in the Southeastern United States: III. Economic analysis |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T19%3A11%3A27IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Reduced%20chemical%20input%20cropping%20systems%20in%20the%20Southeastern%20United%20States:%20III.%20Economic%20analysis&rft.jtitle=American%20journal%20of%20alternative%20agriculture&rft.au=King,%20Larry%20D.&rft.date=1998-03&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=12&rft.epage=27&rft.pages=12-27&rft.issn=0889-1893&rft.eissn=1478-5498&rft.coden=AJAAEZ&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S088918930000758X&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_cross%3E44503050%3C/jstor_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_cupid=10_1017_S088918930000758X&rft_jstor_id=44503050&rfr_iscdi=true |