Estimating Field-Level Rotations as Dynamic Cycles

  • Duncan MacEwan
  • Richard E. HowittEmail author
Part of the Natural Resource Management and Policy book series (NRMP, volume 50)


Crop rotation systems are an important part of agricultural production for managing pests, diseases, and soil fertility. Recent interest in sustainable agriculture focuses on low input-use practices which require knowledge of the underlying dynamics of production and rotation systems. Policies to limit chemical application depending on proximity to waterways and flood management require field-level data and analysis. Additionally, many supply estimates of crop production omit the dynamic effects of crop rotations. We estimate a dynamic programming model of crop rotation which incorporates yield and cost intertemporal effects in addition to field-specific factors including salinity and soil quality. Using an Optimal Matching algorithm from the Bioinformatics literature, we determine empirically observed rotations using a geo-referenced panel dataset of 14,000 fields over 13 years. We estimate the production parameters which satisfy the Euler equations of the field-level rotation problem and solve an empirically observed four-crop rotation.


  1. Alston, J. M., Andersen, M. A., James, J. S., & Pardey, P. G. (2010). Persistence pays: U.S. agricultural productivity growth and the benefits from public R&D spending. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Antle, J., & Stoorvogel, J. J. (2006). Predicting the supply of ecosystem services from agriculture. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 88, 1174–1180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Antle, J., & Valdivia, R. O. (2006). Modeling the supply of ecosystem services from agriculture: A minimum data approach. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 50, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beneke, R., & Winterboer, R. (1973). Linear programming applications to agriculture. Ames: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bertsekas, D. P. (1976). Dynamic programming and stochastic control. Mathematics in Science and Engineering, 125, 222–293.Google Scholar
  6. Brzinsky-Fay, C., Kohler, U., & Luniak, M. (2006). Sequence analysis with Stata. The Stata Journal, 6, 435–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burt, O., & Allison, J. (1963). Farm management decisions with dynamic programming. Journal of Farm Economics, 45(1), 121–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Csiszar, I. (1991). Why least squares and maximum entropy? An axiomatic approach to inference for linear inverse problems. Annals of Statistics, 19(4), 2032–2066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Doole, G. J. (2008). Optimal management of annual ryegrass (Lolium rigidum Guad.) in phase rotations in the Western Australian Wheatbelt. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 52(3), 339–362.Google Scholar
  10. Doole, G. J. (2009). A practical algorithm for multiple-phase control systems in agricultural and natural resource economics. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 34(1), 1–21.Google Scholar
  11. El-Nazer, T., & McCarl, B. (1986). The choice of crop rotation: A modeling approach and case study. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 68(1), 127–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heady, E. O. (1948). The economics of rotations with farm and production policy applications. Journal of Farm Economics, 30(4), 645–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hennessy, D. A. (2006). On monoculture and the structure of crop rotations. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 88(4), 900–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hildreth, C., & Reiter, S. (1951). On the choice of crop rotation. In T. Koopmans (Ed.), Analysis of production and allocation. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. Jaenicke, E. C. (2000). Testing for intermediate outputs in dynamic DEA Models: Accounting for soil capital in rotational crop production and productivity measures. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 14(3), 247–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Johnson, S. E. (1933). The theory of combination enterprises on individual farms. Journal of Farm Economics, 15(4), 656–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kennedy, J. (1981). An alternative method for deriving optimal fertilizer rates: Comment and extension. Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, 49(3), 203–209.Google Scholar
  18. Kennedy, J. (1986). Rules for optimal fertilizer carryover: An alternative explanation. Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, 54(2), 3–10.Google Scholar
  19. Kennedy, J., Whan, I., Jackson, R., & Dillon, J. (1973). Optimal fertilizer carryover and crop recycling policies for a tropical grain crop. Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 17(2), 104–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kullback, J. (1959). Information theory and statistics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  21. Langpap, C., Hascic, I., & Wu, J. (2008). Protecting watershed ecosystems through targeted local land use policies. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 90(3), 684–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Langpap, C., & Wu, J. (2008). Predicting the effect of land-use policies on wildlife habitat abundance. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 56(2), 195–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Levine, R. D. (1980). An information theoretical approach to inversion problems. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical General, 13, 91–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Livingston, R., Roberts, M., & Zhang, Y. (2012, Nov). Optimal sequential plantings of corn and soybeans under price uncertainty. Working Paper.Google Scholar
  25. Mittelhammer, R. C., Judge, G. G., & Miller, D. J. (2003). Econometric foundations. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Needleman, S., & Wunsch, C. (1970). A general method applicable to the search for similarities in the amino acid sequence of two proteins. Journal of Molecular Biology, 48(3), 443–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Orazem, P., & Miranowski, J. (1994). A dynamic model of acreage allocation with general and crop-specific soil capital. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 76(3), 385–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Peterson, G. (1955). Selection of maximum profit combinations of livestock enterprises and crop rotation. Journal of Farm Economics, 37(3), 546–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3), 379–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Skilling, J. (1989). The axioms of maximum entropy. In J. Skilling (Ed.), Maximum entropy and Bayesian methods in science and engineering (pp. 173–187). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Swanson, E. R. (1956). Application of programming analysis to Corn Belt Farms. Journal of Farm Economics, 38(2), 408–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tanaka, K., & Wu, J. (2004). Evaluating the effect of conservation policies on agricultural land use: A site specific modeling approach. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 52(3), 217–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Taylor, C. (1983). Certainty equivalence for determination of optimal fertilizer application rates with carry-over. Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, 8(1), 64–67.Google Scholar
  34. Tegene, A., Huffman, W., & Miranowski, J. (1988). Dynamic corn supply functions: A model with explicit optimization. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 70(1), 103–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Thomas, A. (2002). A dynamic model of on-farm integrated nitrogen management. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 30(4), 439–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Thoreson, B., Clark, B., Soppe, R., Keller, A., Bastiaanssen, W., & Eckhardt, J. (2009). Comparison of evapotranspiration estimates from remote sensing (SEBAL), water balance, and crop coefficient approaches. In World Environmental and Water Resource Congress, May 17–21 2009, Kansas City, MO, USA,
  37. Wu, J., Adams, R. M., Kling, C. L., & Tanaka, K. (2004). From microlevel decisions to landscape changes: An assessment of agricultural conservation policies. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 86(1), 26–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wu, J., & Babcock, B. (1998). The choice of tillage, rotation, and soil testing practices: Economic and environmental implications. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 80(3), 494–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ERA EconomicsDavisUSA
  2. 2.Department of Agricultural EconomicsUniversity of California at DavisDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations