Skip to main content
Log in

Optimal Crop Rotation of Idaho Potatoes

  • Published:
American Journal of Potato Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Idaho’s potato growers face increasing price and production risks as the potato industry undergoes structural change. In response, producers have shortened potato crop rotation to counteract the price risk. A risk-neutral discrete stochastic sequential programming (DSSP) model was developed to analyze the affects of the shortened rotation on expected revenue with incorporated price and production risks. The results support the following conclusions: land constraints due to equipment, labor, and capital efficiency alter optimal rotations; given no land constraints, a whole farm 607.3 ha simulation yields the same results as a per-hectare analysis with Potatoes-Wheat-Wheat-Potatoes being the optimal rotation; and longer rotation cycles generate the highest expected revenue per-hectare. Additional conclusions were that the open market generates higher expected revenue when compared to contracts; producers can counteract some of the loss of expected revenues in the contracted market with lower production risk from longer rotation cycles; Idaho potato producers may not be operating at a risk-neutral level.

Resumen

Los productores de papa de Idaho enfrentan el aumento de los riegos del precio y de producción a medida que la industria de papa sufre cambios estructurales. En respuesta, los productores han acortado la rotación del cultivo de papa para contrarrestar el riesgo del precio. Un modelo de programación secuencial estocástica discreta (DSSP) de riesgo neutral que incorpora los riesgos de precio y producción fue desarrollado para analizar los efectos de una rotación corta sobre los ingresos esperados. Los resultados justifican las siguientes conclusiones: las limitaciones debidas al equipo, trabajo y eficiencia del capital alteran las rotaciones óptimas; cuando no hay tales limitaciones, el rendimiento total de una granja simulada de 607.3 hectáreas da los mismos resultados que el análisis por hectárea siendo la rotación óptima Papa-Trigo-Trigo-Papa; y los ciclos de rotación más largos generan los ingresos esperados por hectárea más altos. Las conclusiones adicionales fueron que el mercado libre genera los ingresos esperados más altos en comparación con los contratos; los productores pueden contrarrestar algunas pérdidas de sus ingresos esperados en el mercado pactado al tener un menor riesgo de producción cuando se usa ciclos rotación más largos; los productores de papa de Idaho pueden no estar operando a nivel de riesgo neutral.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Pre-season contract prices are much less volatile than the open market seasonal prices, and have a smaller range from high to low prices.

  2. The component of recourse often makes the first stage/period of the decision process the most critical.

  3. Note that variable cost of production and potato yields remain the same for both open market and contracted potato crops.

References

  • Anderson, J.R., J.L. Dillon, and B.J. Hardaker. 1977. Agricultural Decision Analysis. 224–227. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Antle, J.M. 1983. Incorporating risk in production analysis. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 655: 1099–1106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barry, P.J. 1984. Risk management in agriculture. Ames IA: Iowa State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooke, A., D. Kendrick, A. Meeraus, and R. Raman. 2003. GAMS a user’s guide. Washington, D.C.: GAMS Development Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, H.O., and G.W. Dean. 1960. Income, price and yield variability for principal California crops and cropping systems. Hilgardia 306: 183–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christenson, D.R., R.S. Gallagher, T.M. Harrigan, and J.R. Black. 1995. Net returns from 12 cropping systems containing sugarbeet and navy bean. Journal of Production Agriculture 82: 276–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cocks, K.D. 1968. Discrete stochastic programming. Management Science 151: 72–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doll, J.P., and F. Orazem. 1984. Production economics theory with applications. 2Melbourne, FL: Krieger Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eborn, B., C.W. Grey, P.E. Patterson, and G. Taylor. 2004. The financial condition of Idaho agriculture: 2004 projections. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology.

    Google Scholar 

  • El-Nazer, T. 1984. Selecting optimum crop rotation. PhD Dissertation, Department of Agricultural Economics, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.

  • GAMS. 2003. GAMS the solver manual. Washington, D.C.: GAMS Development Coporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gebremedhim, B., and G. Schwab. 1998. The economic importance of crop rotation systems: Evidence from the literature. AEC Staff Paper No. 98-13. Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geels, F.P., J.G. Lamers, O. Hoekstra, and B. Schippers. 1986. Potato plant response to seed tuber bacterization in the field in various rotations. Netherlands Journal of Plant Pathology 92: 257–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Idaho Agricultural Statistics Services. (2003–2004). USDA, NASS, Boise, ID.

  • Johnson, S.E. 1933. The theory of combination of enterprises on individual farms. Journal of Farm Economics 153: 656–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, H.M., and J. Apland. 1989. DSSP: a model of production and marketing decisions on a midwestern crop farm. North Central Journal of Agricultural Economics 112: 157–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazarus, S.S., and G.B. White. 1984. Economic impact of introducing rotations on Long Island potato farms. Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 132: 221–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Love, S., and J. Stark. 2003. Potato production systems. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho Agricultural Communications.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarl, B.A., and T.H. Spreen. 1997. Applied mathematical programming using algebraic systems, Chapter 14 Risk modeling. Class notes. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J., T. Miller, B. Hopkins, B. Geary, and P. Nolte. 2003. What about previous crop disease management? Potato Grower Magazine 322: 46–48. February.

    Google Scholar 

  • Musser, W.N., V.J. Alexander, B.V. Tew, and D.A. Smittle. 1985. A mathematical programming model for vegetable rotations. Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics 171: 169–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nolte, P., J.L. Whitworth, M.K. Thornton, and C.S. McIntosh. 2004. Effect of seed-borne potato virus Y on performance of Russet Burbank, Russet Norkotah and Shepody Potatoes. Plant Disease 883: 248–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, P.E., W.H. Bohl, and R.L. Smathers. 2003a. 2003 Southeastern Idaho costs and returns estimates for South District Russet Burbank Commercial Potatoes: No Storage. EBB4-P01–03. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho Cooperative Extension System.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, P.E., S.R. Gortsema, and R.L. Smathers. 2003b. Southeastern Idaho costs and returns estimates for soft white spring wheat. EBB4-SWS-03. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho Cooperative Extension System.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, G.A. 1955. Selection of maximum profit combinations of livestock enterprises and crop rotations. Journal of Farm Economics 371: 546–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powelson, M.L., and R.C. Rowe. 1993. Biology and management of early dying of potatoes. Annual Review of Phytopathology 31: 111–126.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rae, A. 1971. An empirical application and evaluation of discrete stochastic programming in farm management. American Journal of Agriculture Economics 534: 625–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richards, T.J., P.M. Patterson, and R.N. Acharya. 2001. Price behavior in a dynamic oligopsony: Washington processing potatoes. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 832: 259–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholte, K. 1992. Effect of crop rotation on the incidence of soil-borne fungal diseases of potato. Netherlands Journal of Plant Pathology 982: 93–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, Earl R. 1956. Application of programming analysis to corn belt farmers. Journal of Farm Economics 381: 408–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tice, T.F. 1979. An investigation of nitrogen application under uncertainty. PhD Dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.

  • Throsby, C.D. 1967. Stationary-state solutions in multi-period linear programming problems. Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics 111: 192–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Umaerus, V. 1992. Crop rotation in relation to crop protection. Netherlands Journal of Plant Pathology 982: 241–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United State Department of Agricultural. 2004. Potatoes: 2003 summary. Washington DC: National Agricultural Statistics Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitworth, J.L., P. Nolte, C.S. McIntosh, and R. Davidson. 2005. Effect of potato virus Y on yield of three potato cultivars grown under different nitrogen levels. Plant Disease 901: 73–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher S. McIntosh.

Additional information

The authors are former graduate student, professor, extension professor and associate professor in the Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology at the University of Idaho and associate professor, Brigham Young University. The authors wish to thank Leroy Stodick for his assistance with the GAMS code, Phil Nolte for comments on potato diseases, and two anonymous reviewers for comments on a previous draft.

Appendices

Appendix A—Production Costs

2003 Southeastern Idaho South District Russet Burbank Commercial Potatoes: No Storage

South District: Bannock, Bingham and Power Counties

Budget A/ Publication ID: EBB4-P01–03

University of Idaho

Table 8 Budget/publication ID, EBB4-P01–03 (Patterson et al. 2003a)

Wheat Enterprise Budget

South Eastern Idaho Soft White Spring

Budget/Publication ID: EBB4-SWS-03

University of Idaho

The costs and returns estimate shown here is typical for irrigated soft white spring wheat in southeastern Idaho. Production practices are based on surveys conducted in Bingham, Bonneville, Madison and Power counties.

Table 9 Budget/Publication ID, EBB4-SWS-03 (Patterson et al. 2003b)

Appendix B—Input Variations

Input Variations from Russet Burbank Budget/Publication ID: EBB4-P01–03

Adjustments Occur due to Crop Rotation Cycle and Previous Year’s Disease State

University of Idaho Extension

Herbicide Adjustments:

Prowl is added to existing tank mix for rotations shorter than 3 years; no additional application cost is required.

Insecticide Adjustments:

One Fulfill application is added to rotations shorter than 3 years.

For two continuous years of potatoes (P-P), a second application of Monitor is made.

For three continuous years of potatoes, an in-furrow application of Admire replaces Thimet application.

No additional applications costs are included for insecticide application; assuming that these added insecticides applied with an existing fungicide.

Fungicide Adjustments:

One additional application of Dithane and application cost included in 2-year rotation (W-P) with low to medium previous disease incident.

Three additional fungicides (Dithane, Moncut, and Omega) are added to 1-year rotation (P-P) with low-medium previous disease incident.

A 1-year rotation (P-P) with a high incident of previous disease or for all three and 4-year continuous potatoes (P-P-P) and (P-P-P-P) an additional four applications (Dithane, Moncut, Omega, and Quadris) are added.

Quadris applied 0.4 to 0.6 per 304.8 m of row equaling 0.585 l application per hectare.

Fumigation Adjustments:

The additional application rate of metam sodium changes by rotation, ranging from 374 to 654 l per hectare.

Table 10 Potato crop chemical pricing list
Table 11 Potato chemical applications based on rotation cycle

Appendix C—Potato Yield Adjustments

Adjustments Based on Crop Rotation Cycle and Previous Year’s Disease Occurrence

Yield decreases by 4.483 metric tons per hectare for each year less than 3 years out of potatoes (Miller et al. 2003). The rotation crop is assumed to be wheat.

Table 12 Yield reduction based on rotation cycles (metric tons per hectare)
Table 13 Yields reduction based on previous disease incidence

Appendix D—Soil Borne Disease Probabilities

Dependent upon Crop rotation Cycles and Disease State of the Previous Year

University of Idaho Extension

Table 14 Probability of potato disease occurrence

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Myers, P., McIntosh, C.S., Patterson, P.E. et al. Optimal Crop Rotation of Idaho Potatoes. Am. J. Pot Res 85, 183–197 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12230-008-9026-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12230-008-9026-2

Keywords

Navigation