Search

Intercropping using mixtures of dryland crop species for grain or seed production was investigated in southern Australia across a range of rainfall zones over three years. The objective was to understand the productivity and profitability of intercropping in extensive, high-input grain cropping systems. Previous research has shown large productivity benefits of mixtures; however, few farmers practice intercropping in Australia, and an analysis of profitability is needed to support future potential adoption. Experimental results showed strong mixture responses (in terms of yield, value and land equivalence), but not all were profitable compared to an equivalent share of monoculture crops (as measured by gross margins). The most promising mixtures were those containing high-value crops (canola) and legumes (field pea or faba bean) at the wetter sites where the additional gross margin over equivalent monoculture crops ranged from $12/ha to $576/ha. Mixtures containing highly competitive crops (wheat or barley) were generally unprofitable. Mixtures involving cereals were doubly disadvantaged by the aggressiveness of these lower-value crops in the mixtures we examined and the high grain separation costs post-harvest. Cost reduction in mixture systems involving high-value crops that are synergistic (grain legumes) should provide enduring opportunities for intercropping in southern Australia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Intercropping is considered by its advocates to be a sustainable, environmentally sound, and economically advantageous cropping system. Intercropping systems are complex, with non-uniform competition between the component species within the cropping cycle, typically leading to unequal relative yields making evaluation difficult. This paper is a review of the main existing metrics used in the scientific literature to assess intercropping systems. Their strengths and limitations are discussed. Robust metrics for characterising intercropping systems are proposed. A major limitation is that current metrics assume the same management level between intercropping and monocropping systems and do not consider differences in costs of production. Another drawback is that they assume the component crops in the mixture are of equal value. Moreover, in employing metrics, many studies have considered direct and private costs and benefits only, ignoring indirect and social costs and benefits of intercropping systems per se. Furthermore, production risk and growers' risk preferences were often overlooked. In evaluating intercropping advantage using data from field trials, four metrics are recommended that collectively take into account all important differences in private costs and benefits between intercropping and monocropping systems, specifically the Land Equivalent Ratio, Yield Ratio, Value Ratio and Net Gross Margin. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]