A comparison of different tillage systems in irrigated conditions by risk and gross margin analysis in Erzurum region of Turkey

Okan Demir () and Zinnur Gözübüyük
Additional contact information
Okan Demir: Atatürk University
Zinnur Gözübüyük: Directorate of Eastern Anatolia Agricultural Research

Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, 2020, vol. 22, issue 3, No 42, 2529-2544

Abstract: Abstract The potential of tillage systems for generating environmental pollution and the economic risks of the systems are influential factors for farmers to adopt conservation tillage practices. This study was carried out between 2000 and 2008 in order to evaluate the economic and risk of different tillage and planting systems in the province of Erzurum, Turkey. Tillage treatments consist of conventional tillage [moldboard plow + disk harrow + combined harrows + precision seeder, (CT)], reduced tillage 1 [cultivator + combined harrows + precision seeder, (RT1)], reduced tillage 2 [rotary power harrow + precision seeder, (RT2)] and no-till seeding [no-till seeder, (NT)] systems which were studied. A trial field has been tilled with four different tillage systems with a crop rotation of common vetch–winter wheat–sunflower. The economic evaluation of the tillage and planting systems was made by calculating the gross margin and the risk appraisal and the standard deviation of the yield and gross margins. The conventional tillage system required the most labor, fuel, oil and variable costs. According to conventional tillage and planting system, the most cost-saving system is direct planting by NT. The highest pollutant in terms of environment was the CT system with the highest carbon dioxide release, while the NT system was the most environmentally friendly system. The order of systems from high to low, in terms of obtained gross margin, ranked a CT, RT1, RT2 and NT. The lowest variation in terms of productivity was in the NT system for all products, and the highest variation was in the RT1 system. In terms of gross margin, the lowest variation was again in the NT system. A farmer who decides on the basis of gross margin should choose the CT system with the highest average gross margin. A producer considering gross margin should decide on the NT system based on risk assessment.

Keywords: No-till; Greenhouse gas emission; Tillage economics; Erzurum (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10668-019-00308-5 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:endesu:v:22:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s10668-019-00308-5

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/10668

DOI: 10.1007/s10668-019-00308-5

Access Statistics for this article

Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development is currently edited by Luc Hens

More articles in Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().