An Economic Comparison of the Wheat‐Fallow and Wheat‐Sorghum‐Fallow Cropping Systems

Dryland wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in the central or southern Great Plains is typically grown in the wheat‐fallow (WF) cropping system. The WF system produces only one crop in 2 yr. When wheat is grown in rotation with grain sorghum ( Sorghum bicolor [L.] Moench) in the wheat‐sorghum‐fallow (WSF) system, two crops in 3 yr are produced. An economic analysis was conducted using grain yields collected from 1987 to 1991 at Garden City, KS, to determine whether the WF or the WSF system was the most profitable and to evaluate the impact of the current government program (1990 Farm Act) on the selection of a cropping system. Conventional‐ (CT), reduced‐ (RT), minimum‐ (MT), and no‐tillage (NT) treatments in the WF system were compared with CT, RT, and NT in WSF with and without government program participation. With program participation, comparisons were made with four different acreage reduction (ACR) levels (0, 5,10, and 15%) and two different wheat base acreage levels (50 and 60%). Although participation and provisions of the government program affected returns, rankings of the various cropping systems were not greatly affected. Both WSFRT and WSFNT returned more than all WF systems except WFRT as the number of harvested WF acres declined with increasing ACR at 50% base. With 50% wheat base acres and 0% ACR and with 60% wheat base acres at all levels of ACR, the returns from WSFRT and WSFNT were not significantly higher than WFRT returns. Returns from the WFCT, WFRT, WFMT, and WSFCT did not differ significantly. We concluded that the WSFRT and WSFNT cropping systems will produce more income than the traditional WF system and that the current government program should not influence selection of a cropping system. Research Question The dryland wheat‐fallow (WF) system is the most common cropping system in the Great Plains. It has, however, a 15‐mo fallow period between crops and produces only one crop in 2 yr. The wheat‐grain sorghum‐fallow (WSF) system produces two crops in 3 yr and has 11‐mo fallow periods between wheat and sorghum and sorghum and wheat. Most farmers participating in government programs have only wheat base acres. Prior to 1990, farmers without a sorghum base wishing to practice WSF did so at the expense of government payments on their wheat acres (cross‐compliance). Cross‐compliance was eliminated in the 1990 Farm Act, allowing farmers to grow grain sorghum and still receive payments on their wheat acres. The objectives of this study were to determine whether the WF or the WSF system is the most profitable and whether the current government program should influence choice of cropping systems. Literature Summary The WSF system has been investigated and found suitable for western Nebraska and western Kansas. Both the WSF and WF systems have proven to be more effective in terms of storage of precipitation during fallow and increased grain yield when combined with reduced‐ or notillage. Analyses have been conducted which indicate the WSF system, combined with reduced tillage, is economically feasible, but the effect of the government program on the choice between WF and WSF has not been determined. Study Description An economic analysis was conducted using grain yields collectd from 1987 to 1991 at Garden City, KS, to compare dryland wheat in the WF system with dryland wheat and grain sorghum in the WSF system. The soil type was a Richfield silt loam having a pH of 7.7 and an organic matter content of 1.5%. Combinations of herbicides and tillage were used to give the following treatments: Wheat‐fallow Conventional tillage (WFCT) Reduced tillage (WFRT) Minimum tillage (WFMT) No tillage (WFNT) Wheat‐sorghum‐fallow Conventional tillage (WSFCT) Reduced tillage (WSFRT) No tillage (WSFNT) The economic analysis was based on a 2000‐acre farm. The farmer plants and harvests 1000 acres of wheat (less set‐aside) each year in WF, or 667 acres of wheat and 667 acres of sorghum each year in WSF. The systems were compared with and without government program participation. With program participation, two wheat base acreage levels (50 and 60%) and four acreage reduction or set‐aside levels (0, 5, 10, and 15%) were included. Commodity prices used were the average harvest prices per bushel in southwest Kansas for the study period and were wheat, $2.87; grain sorghum, $2; and for the government program, a deficiency payment for wheat of $1.07/bu. Applied Questions Which cropping system and tillage combination is the most profitable? The WSFRT and WSFNT systems produced the highest net income. Both systems were more profitable than the WF system (Table ). In the WF rotation, WFRT was the most profitable tillage system. The WSF system became more profitable in relation to WF as the amount of set‐aside increased. This was particularly true with 50% wheat base acres, since set‐aside caused a reduction in the number of harvested wheat acres in WF. In WF with 60% base or in WSF with either base, the set‐aside was included in the fallow acres and harvested acres were not reduced. Should the current government program influence selection of a croping system? The answer to this question is no. Prior to the 1990 Farm Act, cross‐compliance was in effect, meaning that a farmer could not receive deficiency payments on wheat acres if grain sorghum was planted in the absence of sorghum base acres. An examination of Table indicates that, in most cases, WF returns with government payments were greater than WSF returns without government payments. Cross‐compliance was eliminated in the 1990 Farm Act, making WSF economically feasible. Further examination of Table indicates that the rankings of the cropping systems did not change much when the effect of the government program was included. The WSFRT and WSFNT systems produced the most income regardless of program participation. Recommendation We recommend the WSF cropping system in combination with reduced or no‐tillage because it will produce more income than will the WF system. Under the current Farm Act, farmers can plant grain sorghum and still receive deficiency payments on their wheat acres. In the WSF system, harvested acres are not reduced unless set‐aside exceeds 33%. With a wheat base of 50%, harvested wheat acres are reduced in the WF system if set‐aside is greater than 0%. Farmers with a wheat base greater than 50% will not benefit as much from WSF. Net return distributions as affected by cropping system and participation in government programs, 1987–1991. Cropping system Government program WFCT‐ WFRT WFMT WFNT WSFCT WSFRT WSF‐NT ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐$‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ None ‐5 007 ‐1 091 ‐8 702 ‐16 260 ‐1 261 9 277 7 688 50% Wheat base 0% ACR 18 710 22 620 15 010 7 458 20 560 31 090 29 510 5% ACR 15 870 19 420 11 850 4 223 19 270 29 810 28 220 10% ACR 13 030 16 220 8 693 989 17 990 28 530 26 940 15% ACR 10 200 13 020 5 533 ‐2 246 16 710 27 240 25 660 60% Wheat base 0% ACR 23 450 23 370 19 760 12 200 24 910 35 450 33 860 5% ACR