The adoption of alternative cropping systems in the Black and Gray Soil zones of Saskatchewan is a response to changing economic forces. One change has been the removal of the subsidy on freight rates. This has changed the net returns proportionally more for low valued high volume commodities resulting in an incentive to produce relatively higher value, low volume crops. Also, alternative tillage systems are being considered as a means to reduce costs. The relative profitability of these alternative cropping systems is then a major factor in the selection of a cropping system. This study looks at the economic performance of alternative cropping systems at the whole farm level using 1994 to 1997 plot data from Agriculture Canada's Black soil (Melfort) and Gray soil (Tisdale) research sites. Whole farm analysis is used to model the differences in net returns of nine cropping systems for each site. Yearly yield, crop input and field operation data for three tillage systems in combination with three crop rotations are used to develop representative farms. The cropping systems are then ranked by economic criteria. The limited data set though constrains the conclusions that can be drawn, as trends evident in the short term may not hold over the long run.
The treatments consist of three tillage systems; conventional tillage (CT), minimum tillage (MT) and zero tillage (ZT), in combination with three rotations. Rotation one (R1) canola - wheat - barley - barley; rotation two (R2) canola - barley - pea - wheat; and rotation three (R3) canola - pea - flax - barley. Crop types grown are CPS wheat (cv. AC Taber), edible yellow field pea (cv. Express), malt barley (cv. Harrington), flax (cv. Norlin) and canola (B. napus, cv. Excel).
A producer's ability to achieve high yields and/or high quality has a major impact on the profitability of the cropping systems used in this study. The average net return for all cropping systems at Melfort covered all costs and a return to land and management. At Tisdale R2 for all systems and MT for R3 covered all costs and a return to land and management. Costs were similar between tillage systems at Melfort and Tisdale. The higher yields at Melfort compared to Tisdale had a major impact on farm profitability.
Although the net returns are not significantly different between tillage systems or rotations the trends evident with this simple analysis of the limited data set favor ZT and the more diversified rotation of Canola-Barley-Peas-Wheat for the Black soil zone. CT had the highest returns for R1 and R2; and MT for R3 for the Gray soil. Only in 1997, when the relative yield difference narrowed, was ZT as good as or better than the net returns of the other two tillage systems. The poor economic performance of barley resulted in R1 and R2 having net returns that would not have covered all land and management costs. Barley is only more profitable than CPSW when two-row malt barley is accepted for malting.
The study was partially funded by the Program of Energy Research and Development (PERD).