Abstract
Concerns about environmental sustainability and economic survival have changed tillage practices significantly in western Canada. This study examined the effects of conventional (CT), minimum (MT), and no-tillage (NT) management on the economic performance of hard red spring wheat (Triticium aestivum L.) or durum wheat (Triticum turgidum L.) production when grown in fallow–wheat (F–W) and continuous wheat (Cont W) rotations, over a period of up to 12 yr (1982–1993) on three soil textures in southwestern Saskatchewan. Our results show little short-term economic incentive for producers to adopt NT management practices. Production costs were similar on the three soil textures, averaging $141 ha −1 for F–W and $224 ha −1 for Cont W. Total costs for Cont W systems averaged 10 to 13% higher for NT compared to CT. For F–W systems total costs for NT averaged 29% higher than for CT on the silt loam, and 14% higher on the heavy clay. Also for F–W systems costs for NT averaged 23, 12, and 17% higher than for MT on silt loam, sandy loam, and heavy clay soils, respectively. Although conservation tillage (MT and NT) provided savings in labor, fuel and oil, machine repair, and machine overhead (compared to CT), these savings were more than offset by greater expenditures for herbicides. On the silt loam, net returns were highest for Cont W (CT) and lowest for F–W (NT) at wheat prices greater than $147 t −1 ; at lower wheat prices, F–W (CT) and Cont W (CT) provided the highest and about equal net returns. On the sandy loam, F–W (MT) consistently earned the highest net return; F–W (NT) ranked second highest, while Cont W systems ranked lowest. On the heavy clay, F–W (MT) and Cont W (CT) provided the highest net return at wheat prices greater than $147 t −1 , while at lower wheat prices F–W (MT) ranked highest. In our study, the relatively poor economic performance of conservation tillage, particularly NT, for monoculture wheat production was due to a combination of higher input costs and the lack of significant yield advantages with MT and NT management. Key words: Minimum tillage, no-tillage, net returns, production costs, riskiness
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 14
Claim · model-written summary
Total costs for continuous wheat under no-tillage averaged 10 to 13% higher than under conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume1 - Treatment
- NTe2
- Outcome
- Total costs for Cont W systemse2
- Direction
- highere2
- Value
- 10 to 13%e2
- Comparator
- CTe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“the economic performance of hard red spring wheat (Triticium aestivum L.) or durum wheat (Triticum turgidum L.) production”
e2“Total costs for Cont W systems averaged 10 to 13% higher for NT compared to CT”
Claim · model-written summary
Total costs for fallow-wheat under no-tillage were 29% higher than under conventional tillage on silt loam.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- NTe3
- Outcome
- total costse3
- Direction
- highere3
- Value
- 29%e3
- Qualifier
- on the silt loame3
- Comparator
- CTe3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“the economic performance of hard red spring wheat (Triticium aestivum L.) or durum wheat (Triticum turgidum L.) production”
e3“For F–W systems total costs for NT averaged 29% higher than for CT on the silt loam, and 14% higher on the heavy clay”
Claim · model-written summary
Total costs for fallow-wheat under no-tillage were 14% higher than under conventional tillage on heavy clay.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- NTe3
- Outcome
- total costse3
- Direction
- highere3
- Value
- 14%e3
- Qualifier
- on the heavy claye3
- Comparator
- CTe3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“the economic performance of hard red spring wheat (Triticium aestivum L.) or durum wheat (Triticum turgidum L.) production”
e3“For F–W systems total costs for NT averaged 29% higher than for CT on the silt loam, and 14% higher on the heavy clay”
Claim · model-written summary
Costs for fallow-wheat under no-tillage were 23% higher than under minimum tillage on silt loam.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- NTe4
- Outcome
- costse4
- Direction
- highere4
- Value
- 23e4
- Qualifier
- silt loame4
- Comparator
- MTe4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“the economic performance of hard red spring wheat (Triticium aestivum L.) or durum wheat (Triticum turgidum L.) production”
e4“Also for F–W systems costs for NT averaged 23, 12, and 17% higher than for MT on silt loam, sandy loam, and heavy clay soils, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Costs for fallow-wheat under no-tillage were 12% higher than under minimum tillage on sandy loam.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- NTe4
- Outcome
- costse4
- Direction
- highere4
- Value
- 12e4
- Qualifier
- sandy loame4
- Comparator
- MTe4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“the economic performance of hard red spring wheat (Triticium aestivum L.) or durum wheat (Triticum turgidum L.) production”
e4“Also for F–W systems costs for NT averaged 23, 12, and 17% higher than for MT on silt loam, sandy loam, and heavy clay soils, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Costs for fallow-wheat under no-tillage were 17% higher than under minimum tillage on heavy clay.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- NTe4
- Outcome
- costse4
- Direction
- highere4
- Value
- 17e4
- Qualifier
- heavy claye4
- Comparator
- MTe4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“the economic performance of hard red spring wheat (Triticium aestivum L.) or durum wheat (Triticum turgidum L.) production”
e4“Also for F–W systems costs for NT averaged 23, 12, and 17% higher than for MT on silt loam, sandy loam, and heavy clay soils, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Greater herbicide expenditures under conservation tillage more than offset its labor, fuel and machinery savings compared with conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- conservation tillage (MT and NT)e5
- Outcome
- expenditures for herbicidese5
- Direction
- greatere5
- Comparator
- CTe5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“the economic performance of hard red spring wheat (Triticium aestivum L.) or durum wheat (Triticum turgidum L.) production”
e5“Although conservation tillage (MT and NT) provided savings in labor, fuel and oil, machine repair, and machine overhead (compared to CT), these savings were more than offset by greater expenditures for herbicides”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation tillage provided savings in labor, fuel and oil, machine repair and machine overhead compared with conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- conservation tillage (MT and NT)e5
- Outcome
- labor, fuel and oil, machine repair, and machine overheade5
- Direction
- savingse5
- Comparator
- CTe5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“the economic performance of hard red spring wheat (Triticium aestivum L.) or durum wheat (Triticum turgidum L.) production”
e5“Although conservation tillage (MT and NT) provided savings in labor, fuel and oil, machine repair, and machine overhead (compared to CT), these savings were more than offset by greater expenditures for herbicides”
Claim · model-written summary
On silt loam, net returns were highest for continuous wheat under conventional tillage and lowest for fallow-wheat under no-tillage at wheat prices above $147 per tonne.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- Cont W (CT)e6
- Outcome
- net returnse6
- Direction
- higheste6
- Qualifier
- at wheat prices greater than $147 t −1e6
- Comparator
- F–W (NT)e6
- Setting
- silt loame6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“the economic performance of hard red spring wheat (Triticium aestivum L.) or durum wheat (Triticum turgidum L.) production”
e6“On the silt loam, net returns were highest for Cont W (CT) and lowest for F–W (NT) at wheat prices greater than $147 t −1”
Claim · model-written summary
On sandy loam, fallow-wheat under minimum tillage consistently earned the highest net return.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- F–W (MT)e7
- Outcome
- net returne7
- Direction
- higheste7
- Qualifier
- consistentlye7
- Setting
- sandy loame7
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“the economic performance of hard red spring wheat (Triticium aestivum L.) or durum wheat (Triticum turgidum L.) production”
e7“On the sandy loam, F–W (MT) consistently earned the highest net return”
Claim · model-written summary
Poor economic performance of conservation tillage in monoculture wheat was due to higher input costs and no significant yield advantage under minimum or no-tillage.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Outcome
- economic performance of conservation tillagee2
- Qualifier
- higher input costs and the lack of significant yield advantages with MT and NT managemente2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“the economic performance of hard red spring wheat (Triticium aestivum L.) or durum wheat (Triticum turgidum L.) production”
e2“the relatively poor economic performance of conservation tillage, particularly NT, for monoculture wheat production was due to a combination of higher input costs and the lack of significant yield advantages with MT and NT management”
Claim · model-written summary
There was little short-term economic incentive for producers to adopt no-tillage wheat management.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Outcome
- short-term economic incentive for producers to adopt NT management practicese2
- Qualifier
- littlee2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“the economic performance of hard red spring wheat (Triticium aestivum L.) or durum wheat (Triticum turgidum L.) production”
e2“Our results show little short-term economic incentive for producers to adopt NT management practices”
Claim · model-written summary
Production costs for fallow-wheat averaged $141 per hectare across the three soil textures.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Outcome
- Production costse3
- Value
- $141 ha −1e3
- Qualifier
- for F–We3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“the economic performance of hard red spring wheat (Triticium aestivum L.) or durum wheat (Triticum turgidum L.) production”
e3“Production costs were similar on the three soil textures, averaging $141 ha −1 for F–W and $224 ha −1 for Cont W”
Claim · model-written summary
Production costs for continuous wheat averaged $224 per hectare across the three soil textures.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Outcome
- Production costse3
- Value
- $224 ha −1e3
- Qualifier
- for Cont We3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“the economic performance of hard red spring wheat (Triticium aestivum L.) or durum wheat (Triticum turgidum L.) production”
e3“Production costs were similar on the three soil textures, averaging $141 ha −1 for F–W and $224 ha −1 for Cont W”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · molecular: metabolites · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
47 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- negative
53 papers more in this group
See all 57 papers →tillage · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
1,115 papers in the same direction as this paper · 257 in the opposite direction · 41 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- positive
1,410 papers more in this group
See all 1,414 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.