Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
1.5
Conventional
1.0
Reduced Input
Biologically Based
@ standard prices
Biologically Based
@ organic prices
0.5
No-till
0.0
Alfalfa
-0.5
-1.0
Poplar
-1.5
0
100
200
300
400
500
Revenue Above Selected Costs ($ ha
-1
yr
-1
)
Figure 3.3
. Trade-offs between global warming impact (in CO
2
equivalents, CO
2
e) and
revenue above selected costs for different Main Cropping System Experiment systems,
1993-2007 (except for Alfalfa, 1989-2004 and Poplar, 1989-1998). See text for explanation
of lines. Adapted and updated from Jolejole (2009) and Robertson et al (2000).
Two important findings emerge. First, four of the MCSE systems are relatively
inefficient (Conventional, Reduced Input, Poplar, and Biologically Based at standard
nonorganic prices) in that other systems alone or in combination could provide bet-
ter outcomes for both profitability and GWI. As illustrated in Table 3.2, at nonor-
ganic prices, the No-till system offered greater profitability and lower GWI than the
other three annual cropping systems (Conventional, Reduced Input, and Biologically
Based). So switching from any of those systems to No-till would improve one or
both outcomes. Likewise, Poplar dominates Alfalfa in both dimensions, so both
profitability and GWI outcomes could be improved by switching land from Alfalfa
to Poplar. The dashed line in Figure 3.3 illustrates the efficient frontier connecting
the points that are efficient in the sense that at nonorganic prices, no other system
excels in terms of both profitability and GWI. At organic prices, No-till is not domi-
nated by Biologically Based alone (No-till has lower GWI), nor is it dominated by
Poplar alone (No-till has greater profitability), but it is dominated by a combination
of the two. So at organic prices, shifting land from No-till to a combination of the
efficient systems (roughly three-quarters Biologically Based and one-quarter Poplar)
could improve both profitability and GWI relative to No-till alone.
