Comparison of the economic performance of organic and conventional corn–soybean–winter wheat rotations in southwestern Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The economic viability of using summer-seeded legume cover crops (crimson clover, red clover, and hairy vetch) as a primary nitrogen (N) source for an organic corn ( Zea mays L.)–soybean ( Glycine max (L.) Merr.)–winter wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.) rotation was determined on a sandy loam soil in southwestern Ontario, Canada, by comparing gross profit for organic production (organic sources of N and phosphorus, no herbicides) to conventional production (no cover crops, synthetic fertilizers and herbicides added). Profits were determined for the initial 3-year transition period from conventional to organic production (2015–2017), and for 5 years of certified organic production (2018–2022). During the transition period when conventional crop prices applied to both production systems, organic production profits (CAD $1148–$1869 ha−1 per rotation) were lower than conventional profits (CAD $2126 ha−1 per rotation). During the certified organic period when price premiums were applied, organic soybean and corn profits (CAD $1995–$2274 ha−1 and $2819–$3195 ha−1 per year, respectively) were significantly greater than conventional soybean and corn profits (CAD $536 ha−1 and $1926 per ha−1, respectively). Winter wheat profits were slightly higher for organic production (CAD $426–$825 ha−1 per year) than for conventional production (CAD $371 ha−1 per year). During the certified organic production period, profits from the 3-year rotations were CAD $5533–$6153 ha−1 for organic production, and CAD $2860 ha−1 for conventional production. It was concluded that an organic rotation of corn–soybean–winter wheat/legume cover crop can be economically viable and more profitable than conventional production on sandy loam soil in southwestern Ontario.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".