Conclusions and policy implications

We characterized analytically conditions for the socially and privately optimal choice between conventional and no-till cultivation technology. Drawing on our theoretical model, we developed a detailed description of cultivation technologies and surface runoffs of nutrients in a parametric model to assess empirically the relative merits of conventional and no-till technology. Concerning crop yields for wheat, barley and oats and surface runoffs a new field experiment data was used.

We found that the adoption of no-till technology is socially and privately optimal only for barley cultivation. Conventional cultivation turned out to be optimal for wheat and oats, because, despite considerable costs savings, no-till has much lower yields than conventional technology in this new, short-term experimental data we utilized. Our model predicts that in order to become adopted, yield under no-till can be at most 300 kg/ha smaller than the yield under conventional technology. Now the difference for wheat was 1476 kg/ha for wheat and 685 kg/ha for oats. It must be noted, however, the remarkably great yield difference in our data runs counter international evidence and also survey results from Finnish agriculture. Hence, the data may exhibit some yield penalty because of transitional period and unfamiliarity to no-till technology.

With respect to environmental aspects, both technologies behaved as one could expect.

Under no-till buffer strips are considerably lower than under conventional technology. In fact, buffer strips under no-till are quite close to the normal field edges. No-till reduces the nitrogen runoffs 54%, and particulate phosphorus runoffs more than 67% relative to conventional technology, but it causes almost 3.5 times more dissolved phosphorus runoffs. However, no-till entails lower total surface runoffs of phosphorus.

Hence, in the light of current and, admittedly sparse and preliminary, data no-till does not provide a general win-win possibility for agri-environmental policy. Instead, its adoption may be optimal for some crops. Further field experiments will show whether the no-till yields will be higher and thus strengthen the case for no-till, or not. Also including some other important aspect may make no-till more profitable. One such example is the potential of no-till to promote net carbon sequestration in croplands as an important means affecting greenhouse gas emissions.

There are many issues for further research. From environmental angle, a very urgent topic is to study the role of no-till in carbon sequestration in croplands as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Also, one would like to know how no-till relates to species diversity (birds, weeds, herbivores and soil micro-organisms), and what the implications of potential increase in herbicide use are. On the practical side, there are many questions concerning farmers’ behavior, such as their willingness to adopt a no-till technology, and their needs for financial and educational aid.

References

Aakkula, J.J. 1999. Economic value of pro-environmental farming – A critical and

decision-making oriented application of the contingent valuation method. Agricultural Economics Research Institute, Publications 92. Helsinki, Finland.

Alakukku, L. 2003. Zero Tillage of Spring Cereals on Two Clay Soils in Humid Climate.

Proceedings of International Soil Tillage Research Organisation 16^th Triennial Conference “Soil Management for Sustainability”, 13-18 July 2003, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. p. 10-15. http://www.istro.org.

Baylis, K., Feather, P., Padgitt, M. and Sandretto, C. 2002. Water-Based Recreational Benefits of Conservation Programs: The Case of Conservation Tillage on U.S. Cropland.

Review of Agricultural Economics 24, 384-393.

Bäckman, S.T., Vermeulen, S. and Taavitsainen, V.-M. 1997. Long-term fertilizer field trials: comparison of three mathematical response models. Agricultural and

Food Science in Finland 6: 151-160.

CTIC 2002. Economic benefits with environmental protection – No-till and conservation buffers in the Midwest. Conservation Technology Information Center.

Danfors, B. 1988. Bränsleförbrukning och avverkning vid olika system för jordbearbetning och sådd. Olika sätt att spara motorbränsle och öka kapaciteten.

Jordbrukstekniska Institute. Meddelande nr 420. 85 s.

European Commision 1998. Experiences with the applicability of no-tillage crop production in the West-European countries. Concerted Action No. AIR3-CT 93-1464.

Wissenschaftlicher Fachverlag, Giessen, Germany.

Fuglie, K. 1999. Conservation tillage and pesticide use in the Cornbelt. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 31, 133-147.

Fuglie, K. and Kascak, C. 2001. Adoption and diffusion of natural-resource-conserving agricultural technology. Review of Agricultural Economics 23, 386-403.

Holma, E. 2000. Suorakylvö harkittava joka lohkolla erikseen – tutkija ja viljelijä yhteistyössä. Koneviesti 3/2000, 6-7.

Khanna, M., Isik, M. and Zilberman, D. 2002. Cost-effectiveness of alternative green payment policies for conservation technology adoption with heterogeneous land quality.

Agricultural Economics 27, 157-174.

Kiirikki, M., Rantanen P., Varjopuro, R., Leppänen, A., Hiltunen M., Pitkänen H., Ekholm, P., Moukhametsina, E., Inkala A., Kuosa, H. and Sarkkula, J. 2003. Cost

effective water protection in the Gulf of Finland. Focus on St. Petersburg. The Finnish Environment No. 632.

Lankoski, J. and Ollikainen, M. 2003. Agri-environmental externalities: a framework for designing targeted policies. European Review of Agricultural Economics 30, 51-75.

Lätti, M. 2002. Suorakylvöä käytännössä – käyttäjien kokemuksia. Työtehoseuran maataloustiedote 8/2002.

Lötjönen, T., Pitkänen, J., Vanhala, P., Jalli, M. and Mikkola, H. 1999. Kyntämättä viljelyn vaikutus rikkakasveihin ja kasvitauteihin – kirjallisuuskatsaus. Maatalouden tutkimuskeskuksen julkaisuja, sarja A 59. MTT, Jokioinen.

Myyrä, S., Ketoja, E. and Yli-Halla, M. 2003. Pellon hallintaoikeuden yhteys maanparannuksiin – esimerkkinä kalkitus ja fosforilannoitus. MTT:n selvityksiä 37.

Mikkola, H. and Nikula, A. 2003. Tilamalli -laskelmia suorakylvökoneen hankinnan kannattavuudesta eri tilakokoluokissa. Julkaisemattomat laskelmat.

Nielsen, V. 1987. Energiforbrug og arbejdsbehov ved direkte såning og traditional jordbehandling. Statens jordbrukstekniske forsög. Beretning nr. 37 (1987).

Puustinen, M. 1999. Viljelymenetelmien vaikutus pintaeroosioon ja ravinteiden huuhtoutumiseen. Suomen ympäristö 285. Suomen ympäristökeskus, Helsinki.

Puustinen, M. 2004. Surface runoffs of nitrogen, particulate phosphorus and dissolved phosphorus under alternative tillage methods. Unpublished manuscript.

Saarela, I., Järvi, A., Hakkola, H., and Rinne, K. 1995. Fosforilannoituksen porraskokeet 1977-1994. Vuosittain annetun fosforimäärän vaikutus maan viljavuuteen ja peltokasvien satoon monivuotisissa kenttäkokeissa. (Summary: Phosphorus fertilizer trials, 1977-1994: effects of the rate of annual phosphorus application on soil fertility and yields of field crops in long-term field experiments). Maatalouden tutkimuskeskus, Tiedote 16/95.

Salo, Y. 2003. Direct drilling of cereals. Proceedings of Nordic Association of Agricultural Scientists 22^nd Congress, July 1-4 2003, Turku, Finland.

Simmelsgaard, S. 1991. Estimation of nitrogen leakage functions - Nitrogen leakage as a function of nitrogen applications for different crops on sand and clay soils. In: Rude, S.

(ed.). Nitrogen fertilizers in Danish Agriculture - present and future application and leaching, Institute of Agricultural Economics Report 62 (in Danish: Kvaelstofgödning i landbruget - behov og udvasking nu og I fremtiden). English summary.

Copenhagen.p135-150.

Soileau, J.M., Touchton, J.T., Hajek, B.F. and Baglio, J.V. 1994. Sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorus runoff with conventional- and conservation tillage cotton in a small watershed. J. Soil Water Cons. 48: 449-457.

Stonehouse, D.P. 1997. Socio-economics of alternative tillage systems. Soil & Tillage Research 43: 109-130.

Turtola, E. and Lemola, R. 2000. Vesistökuormitus kyntämättä viljelyssä. Loppuraportti tutkimuksesta “Ympäristötuen kasvipeitteisyysvaatimuksen ympäristövaikutukset syyssänkimuokkauksessa, aurattoman viljelyn suorat ravinnepäästöt”. MTT, Jokioinen.

Turtola, E. and Puustinen, M. 1998. Kasvipeitteisyys ravinnehuuhtoutumien vähentäjänä.

Vesitalous 1/1998.

Uusi-Kämppä, J. and Yläranta, T. 1992. Reduction of sediment, phosphorus and nitrogen transport on vegetated buffer strips. Agricultural Science in Finland 1: 569-575.

Uusi-Kämppä, J and Yläranta, T. 1996. Effect of buffer strip on controlling erosion and nutrient losses in Southern Finland. In: Mulamoottil, G., Warner, B.G. & McBean, E.A.

(eds.). Wetlands: environmental gradients, boundaries and buffers. Boca Raton: CRC Press/Lewis Publishers. p. 221-235.

Uusi-Kämppä, J and Kilpinen, M. 2000. Suojakaistat ravinnekuormituksen vähentäjänä.

Maatalouden tutkimuskeskuksen julkaisuja, Sarja A 83.

Uusitalo, R. and Jansson, H. 2002. Dissolved reactive phosphorus in runoff assessed by soil extraction with an acetate buffer. Agricultural and Food Science in Finland 11: 343-353.

Uusitalo, R., Yli-Halla, M. and Turtola, E. 2000. Suspended soil as a source of potentially bioavailable phosphorus in surface runoff waters from clay soils. Wat.Res.

34: 2477-2482.

Vuorinen, J. and Mäkitie, O. 1955. The method of soil testing in use in Finland.

Agrogeological Publications 63: 1-44.

Yrjölä, T. 2004. Citizens’ willingness to pay for multifunctional agriculture in Finland.

Unpublished manuscript.

Background material for calculating labor, fuel and machinery expense

Kalk, W.-D. and HÜlsbergen, K.-J. 1999. Dieselkraftstoffeinsatz in der Pflanzenproduktion. Landtecknik 6/99, p. 332-333.

TTS. 1990. Maatalouden työnormit –viljanviljelyn työketjut. Leikkuupuinnin työnmenekki. Työtehoseuran maataloustiedote 10/1990 (386). 6 s.

TTS. 1992a. Maatalouden työnormit –viljanviljelyn työketjut. Kylvötyöt. Työtehoseuran maataloustiedote 12/1992 (419). 8 s.

TTS. 1992b. Maatalouden työnormit –kasvintuotannon yleiset työt. Työtehoseuran maataloustiedote 14/1992 (421). 8 s.

TTS. 1997. Maataloustraktorin kesto, kunnossapito ja luotettavuus. Työtehoseuran maataloustiedote 9/1997 (487). 6 s.

TTS. 2002. Konetyön kustannukset. Työtehoseuran maataloustiedote 4/2002 (544). 8 s.

Appendix

Table A1. Privately optimal nitrogen use, yields and profits under no-till and conventional cultivation technologies in the absence of agri-environmental support

Crop Nitrogen kg/ha Yield, kg/ha Profits, €/ha Conv. No-till Conv. No-till Conv. No-till Wheat 163.8 88.7 5214 2781 259.8 51.5 Barley 104.2 98.3 4057 3785 51.9 59.2 Oats 110.0 91.0 5037 4062 179.6 123.3

Nro

1. Jussi Lankoski, Markku Ollikainen & Pekka Uusitalo(2004): No-till technology: benefits to farmers and the environment?" Ympäristöekonomia.

ISBN 952-10-1761-9(pdf) ISSN 1459-9996

Helsinki 2004

In document No-till technology : benefits to farmers and the environment? (sivua 30-36)