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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:American journal of alternative agriculture 1998-03, Vol.13 (1), p.12-27
Hauptverfasser: King, Larry D., Hoag, Dana L.
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&gt;L&gt;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&amp;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&gt;L&gt;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&gt;L&gt;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