Economic Evaluation of using Different Tillage Methods and Crop Rotation in Rain-Fed Wheat Cultivation

ماشین های کشاورزی

Article 8, Volume 12, Issue 3 - Serial Number 25, September 2022, Pages 367-377   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jam.2021.68182.1008

Authors

S. M. Seyedan¹; A. Heidari^{* 2}

¹Economic, Social and Extension Research Department, Hamedan Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization, Hamedan, Iran

²Department of Agricultural Engineering Research, Hamedan Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension organization (AREEO), Hamadan, Iran

Abstract

Introduction
Soil protection against water and wind erosion is of great importance. Since most soils of arid and semi-arid regions of Iran are poor in organic matter and continuous use of conventional tillage (moldboard plow) has increased the severity of soil organic matter depletion and degradation of soil structure. Therefore replacing conventional tillage with conservation tillage (reduced tillage and no tillage) is needed to improve soil structure and increase soil organic matter. Due to the increasing population growth and the limitation of arable land, it is necessary to remove the fallow year in dryland. Legumes are crops that can be in rotation with wheat.
 
Materials and Methods
This study was conducted to evaluate the effect of crop rotation and different tillage systems on rain-fed wheat farming in Kaboudarahang Township during 2012-2014. The experiment was conducted as split-plot in a randomized complete block design with three replications. In this study, different crop rotations including fallow-wheat rotation, and chickpea-wheat rotation as main plots and different tillage systems including conventional tillage (moldboard plow + power harrow), conservation tillage (chisel plow equipped with roller), conservation tillage (sweep plow equipped with roller) and direct drilling were investigated as subplots.
In the economic evaluation of this project, the economic impacts of the treatments were analyzed using the partial budgeting method and the cost-benefit ratio. For this purpose, the difference between treatments income and cost compared with control treatment has been calculated and compared. The differences in the benefits of the treatments are due to the different yields of wheat.
 
Results and Discussion
Results showed:
1- The highest wheat yield in the first and second years of the study was 605.3 and 2135.1 kg ha^-1, respectively in rotation of fallow wheat.
2- In the first year, the highest wheat yield (690.7 kg ha^-1) was related to direct planting (no tillage), but in the second year, the highest yield (2268.6 kg ha^-1) was related to conservation tillage (sweep blades + roller).
3- In the first and second year, the highest value of treatment was related to direct planting and conservation tillage (sweep tiller + roller), respectively.
4- In the chickpea-wheat rotation, the highest net income in the first and second year was related to direct planting and conservation tillage (sweep + roller), respectively. Thebenefit-cost ratio in the conservation tillage (sweep + roller) (second year) and direct drilling (first year) methods shows that for each rial of expenses, 5.7 and 2.8 rials can be earned respectively. Therefore, economically, these tillage treatments are superior to the control treatment (conventional cultivation).
5- In the wheat rotation, the highest net income in the first and second year was related to direct planting and conservation tillage (sweep + roller), respectively. The benefit-cost ratio in the conservation tillage (sweep + roller) (second year) and direct drilling (first year) methods shows that for   each rial of expenses, 4.2 and 1.3 rials can be earned respectively. Therefore, it is economically justified and these tillage treatments are superior to the control treatment (conventional tillage).
Conclusion
The results of this study showed that in the first and second years, economically the direct method and the conservation tillage treatment (sweep blades + roller) were superior to the conventional method, respectively. Therefore, conservation tillage methods can be replaced by the conventional method (plowing with moldboard plow) in dryland farming. Also, in dry years, direct cultivation (no tillage) is a good and economical method.

Keywords

Chickpea; Conservation tillage; Cost-benefit ratio; Fallow; Net value; No-till; Wheat

References

1. Akheli, L. A. 2003. Calculation of green GNP and degree of sustainability of national income in Iran. PhD Dissertation, College of Humanities, Tarbiat Modares University. Iran. (In Persian with English abstract).
2. Cantero-Martinez, C., P. Anges, and J. Lampurlanes. 2007. Long-term yield and water use efficiency under various tillage systems in Mediterranean rainfed conditions. Annals of Applied Biology 150 (3): 293-305. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7348.2007.00142.x.
3. Cayci, G., L. K. Heng, H. S. Ozturk, D. Surec, and C. Kutuk. 2008. Crop yield and water use efficiency in semi-arid region of Turkey. Soil and Tillage Research 103 (1): 65-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2008.09.004.
4. Ghadiri, H. 1993. Soil conservation. Shahid Chamran university of Ahvaz. Pp. 470. (In Persian).
5. Ghahremanzadeh, M., and S. S. Hoseini. 1993. Economic study of soil conservation benefits in Iranian rainfed wheat fields: A case study: Golestan Province. 4^th Iranian Conference on Agricultural Economics. Tehran. Iran. (In Persian with English abstract).
6. Ghorbani, M., and S. Hosseini. 2006. The application of replacement cost approach in estimating the annual cost of water soil erosion in Iran. Research Journal 7 (3): 177-186. (In Persian with English abstract).
7. Huszar, P. C. 1989. Economics of reducing off - site costs of wind Erosion. Land Economics 65 (4): 333-340. https://doi.org/10.2307/3146801.
8. King, D. A., and J. A. Sinden. 1988. Influence of soil conservation on farm land Ecological Economics 64 (3): 242-255. https://doi.org/10.2307/3146248.
9. Lopez-Bellido, L., M. Fuentes, J. E. Castillo, and E. J. Fernandez. 1996. Long-term tillage, crop rotation, and nitrogen fertilizer effects on wheat yield under rained Mediterranean condition. Agronomy Journal 88 (5): 783-791. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1996.00021962008800050016x.
10. Mejahed, E. I., and K. D. H. Sander. 1998. Rotation, tillage and fertilizer effects on wheat-based rain fed crop rotation in semiarid Morocco. Proceeding of third European conference on grain legumes. Opportunities for high quality, healthy and added-value crops to meet European demands. Valladolid, Spain, p. 442-454.
11. Meteorolgical Calendar. 2013-2014. Publications of I. R. of Iran Meteorological Organization.
12. Mirzah Shahi, K., and K. Bazargan. 2015. Soil organic matter management. Technical Journal. No 535. Publication of Soil & Water Research Institute. (In Persian with English abstract).
13. Morgan, R. P. C. 1995. Soil Erosion and Conservation. Longman, London, UK, p. 60-67.
14. Pattanayak, S., and Mercer, D. E. 1998. Valuing soil conservation benefits of agroforestry: Contour hedgerows in the Eastern Visayas, Philippines. Journal of Agricultural Economics 18 (1): 31-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5150(97)00037-6.
15. Refahi, H. G. 2012. Wind erosion and its control. University of Tehran Publications. Edition 6. Pp.320. Tehran. (In Persian).
16. Refahi, H. G. 2017. Water erosion and its control. University of Tehran Publications. Edition 7. Pp.672. (In Persian).
17. Shiferaw, B., and S. T. Holden. 1998. Investment in soil conservartion in the Ethiopoian soil conservation programs in a Hihly. Ecological Economics 64: 242-255.
18. Soil Protection Act. 2019. Ministry of Jihad Agriculture. Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization. Soil and Water Research Institute.
19. Soltani, G. R., and B. D. Najafi. 2007. Agricultural economics. Academic Publicaion. Pp. 300. Tehran. (In Persian).
20. Veloz, A., D. Southgate, F. Hitzhusen, and R. Macgregor. 1985. The Economics of Erosion control in a subrtopical watershed: A Dominican case. Land Economics 61 (2): 145-155. https://doi.org/10.2307/3145807.
21. Vieth, G. R., M. Gunatilake, and L. J. Cox. 2001. Economic of soil Conservation: The upper Mahaweli watershed of Sirlanka. Journul of Agricultural Economics 52 (1): 139-152. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2001.tb00914.x.
22. Walker, D. I., and D. L. Young. 1986. The effect of techinical progress Erosion Damage and Economic insentives for soil conservation. Land Economics 62 (1): 83-93. https://doi.org/10.2307/3146566.
23. Zare Mehrjerdi, A. 2015. Engineering economics. Mehrjerdi Publication. Pp. 464.Tehran. (In Persian).