Lucerne improves some sustainability indicators but may decrease profitability of cropping rotations on the Jimbour Plain
R. B. Murray-Prior A C , J. Whish B , P. Carberry B and N. Dalgleish BA Muresk Institute, Curtin University of Technology, Northam, WA 6401, Australia.
B APSRU/CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Toowoomba, Qld 4350, Australia.
C Corresponding author. Email: R.Murray-Prior@curtin.edu.au
Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 45(6) 651-663 https://doi.org/10.1071/EA03164
Submitted: 8 August 2003 Accepted: 3 June 2004 Published: 29 June 2005
Abstract
Long-run rotational gross margins were calculated with yields derived from biophysical simulations in a crop simulation model over a period of 100 years and prices simulated in @Risk based on subjective triangular price distributions elicited from the Jimbour Plain farmer group. Rotations included chickpeas, cotton, lucerne, sorghum, wheat and different lengths of fallow. The aim was to assess the profitability of rotations with and without lucerne. Output presented to the farmers included mean annual gross margins and distributions of gross margins with box and whisker plots found to be suitable. Mean–standard deviation and first- and second-degree stochastic dominance efficiency measures were also calculated. The paper outlines a method for combining biophysical and price simulations that can be understood by farmers. Including lucerne in the rotations improved some sustainability indicators but reduced profitability.
Additional keywords: APSIM, modelling rotations.
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge the contributions of the farmer members of the Jimbour Plain’s group (Glen, Jamie and Rob), Professor David Trechter for comments on this paper, and the assistance of Perry Poulton in developing and adapting Visual Basic macros. Thanks also to 2 anonymous referees for their helpful comments. An earlier version of the paper was presented at the 2003 Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society Conference, Fremantle, WA. Financial assistance from GRDC through the Eastern Farming Systems Project is acknowledged.
Bardsley P, Harris M
(1991) Rejoinder: an approach to the econometric estimation of attitudes to risk in agriculture. Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics 35, 319.
(verified 27 April 2004).
Ghosh D, Ray MR
(1997) Risk, ambiguity, and decision choice: some additional evidence. Decision Sciences 28, 81–104.
Keating BA, McCown RL
(2000) Advances in farming systems analysis and intervention. Agricultural Systems 70, 555–579.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Keating BA,
Carberry PS,
Hammer GL,
Probert ME, Robertson MJ ,
et al
.
(2003) An overview of APSIM, a model designed for farming systems simulation. European Journal of Agromony 18, 267–288.
| Crossref |
Kunreuther H,
Meszaros J,
Hogarth RM, Spranca M
(1995) Ambiguity and underwriter decision processes. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 26, 337–352.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Meinke H,
Baethgen WE,
Carberry PS,
Donatelli M,
Hammer GL,
Selvaraju R, Stockle CO
(2001) Increasing profits and reducing risks in crop production using participatory systems simulation approaches. Agricultural Systems 70, 493–513.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Mukerji S
(1998) Ambiguity aversion and incompleteness of contractual form. The American Economic Review 88, 1207–1231.
Murray-Prior R, Wright V
(2001) Influence of strategies and heuristics on farmers’ response to change under uncertainty. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 45, 573–598.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Pannell DJ
(1995) Economic aspects of legume management and legume research in dryland farming systems of southern Australia. Agricultural Systems 49, 217–236.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Sarin RK, Weber M
(1993) Effects of ambiguity in market experiments. Management Science 39, 602–615.