Economies of Size for Conventional Tillage and No-till Wheat Production

2,560-acre farms. These estimates do not include differences in the opportunity cost of labor
across farm sizes and production systems.

Figure 6 includes a chart of the cost difference between conventional tillage and no-till
for selected items for the four farm sizes. The chart depicts the estimated cost changes in
herbicide, fuel, lube, and repairs, and custom application (for the two smaller farms), between
conventional tillage and no-till for the four farm sizes. The chart shows that no-till requires more
herbicide, custom application, and total operating costs. Conventional tillage requires more fuel,
lube, and repairs, and more machinery fixed costs. The final sets of bars in Figure 6 depict the
net result. For the two small farms, estimated total operating plus machinery fixed costs are
slightly greater for the no-till system. However, for both the 1,280 and 2,560-acre farms
estimated costs are less for the no-till system.

Summary and Conclusions

Less than three percent of the wheat farms in the Prairie Gateway use no-till to produce
wheat. This suggests that no-till has not been more economical than conventional tillage for
continuous monoculture wheat in the region. Earlier studies have found that the reduction in
tillage costs when switching from conventional tillage to no-till was insufficient to offset the
increase in herbicide costs. Several changes provided justification for reevaluating the cost of
no-till relative to conventional tillage for wheat production in the region. The most important
change has been the more than 55% reduction in the price of glyphosate that has occurred since
generic glyphosate became available.

The objectives of this study were to determine the costs of conventional tillage and no-till
for continuous monoculture wheat production for each of four farm sizes (320, 640, 1,280, and

<<   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   >>

More intriguing information