Income effects of limiting soil erosion under organic, conventional, and no-till systems in eastern Pennsylvania

Abstract

AbstractA 294-acre Pennsylvania crop and livestock farm was modeled under alternative management practices using linear programming. The management practices included conventional, organic, and no-till production, with and without the use of overseeding and cover crops. For each of the management practices, soil erosion was estimated using the Universal Soil Loss Equation. Profitability was compared across the options with and without constraints on soil erosion. Prior to constraining soil erosion, no-till was found to be the most profitable option. The conventional option was next most profitable, followed closely by the organic option. The use of cover crops or overseeding was found to be unprofitable when high levels of soil erosion were allowed. When soil erosion was constrained, the relative profitability of the options changed. It was found that practices that can control erosion with the least reduction in the intensity of rotation, such as planting cover crops, overseeding and no-till, are the most profitable options when soil is constrained to below 5 tons per acre. No-till remained the most profitable option at low levels of soil erosion. The economic advantage of conventional over organic production diminished as soil erosion was constrained. Below 5 tons per acre of soil erosion, the organic system became more profitable than the conventional system. It was found that use of overseeding or cover crops makes a more profitable rotation possible at low levels of soil erosion.