Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T02:17:44.926Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Farm Return and Land Price Effects from Environmental Standards and Stocking Density Restrictions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Alfons Weersink ,
Greg deVos  and
Peter Stonehouse
Alfons Weersink
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Business, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada
Greg deVos
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Business, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada
Peter Stonehouse
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Business, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada
Get access

Abstract

This study assesses the economic and environmental effects to hog finishing farms from residual taxes/standards and restrictions on manure application and stocking density. Economic effects are measured in terms of net farm income and land prices, while levels of ammonia and excess nitrogen and phosphorus proxy the environmental effects. Any environmental policy requiring the need for additional land comes at a small cost to farmers who have access to adequate neighboring land. If this is not the case, then manure application and stocking density restrictions are expensive since the producer is basically forced to either purchase land or reduce hog production levels.

Keywords

land valuemanure application restrictionsstocking density
Type
Articles
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , October 2004 , pp. 272 - 281
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beghin, J., and Metcalfe, M. (2000, 1st Quarter). “Market Hogs? An International Perspective on Environmental Regulation and Competitiveness in the Hog Industry” Choices, pp. 28–33.Google Scholar
Boland, M. A., Foster, K. A., Preckel, P. V., Jones, D. D., and Joern, B. C. (1999). “Using Linear Programming to Minimize Manure Storage and Application Costs in Pork Production.” Journal of Production Agriculture 12(3), 405–482.Google Scholar
Boland, M. A., Preckel, P. V., and Foster, K. A. (1998). “Economic Analysis of Phosphorus-Reducing Technologies in Pork Production.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 23(2), 468–482.Google Scholar
Den Ouden, M. (1997). “Economic Modelling of Pork Production-Marketing Chains.” Mansholt Studies, No. 4, Wageningen Agricultural University, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
deVos, G., Weersink, A., and Stonehouse, P. (2003). “Economic-Environmental Tradeoffs in Swine Finishing Operations.” Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 51(1), 55–68.Google Scholar
Fleming, R. A., Babcock, B. A., and Wang, E. (1998). “Resource or Waste? The Economics of Swine Manure Storage and Management.” Review of Agricultural Economics 20(1), 96–113.Google Scholar
Fleming, R. A., and Long, J. D. (2002). “Measuring the Cost of Restricting Access to Cropland for Manure Nutrient Management.” Agronomy Journal 94(1), 57–64.Google Scholar
Innes, R. (2000). “The Economics of Livestock Waste and Its Regulation.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 82(1), 97–117.Google Scholar
Johansson, R. C., and Kaplan, J. D. (2004, April). “A Carrot-and-Stick Approach to Environmental Improvement: Marrying Agri-Environmental Payments and Water Quality Regulations.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 33(1), 91–104.Google Scholar
Kaplan, J. D., Johansson, R. C., and Peters, M. A. (2004). “The Manure Hits the Land: Economic and Environmental Implications When Land Application of Nutrients is Constrained.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Lauwers, L. H., van Huylenbroeck, G., and Martens, L. (1998). “A Systems Approach to Analyze the Effects of Flemish Manure Policy on Structural Changes and Cost Abatement in Pig Farming.” Agricultural Systems 56(2), 168–183.Google Scholar
Leneman, H., Giesen, G. W. J., and Berentsen, P. B. M. (1993). “Cost of Reducing Nitrogen and Phosphorus Emissions on Pig Farms in the Netherlands.” Journal of Environmental Management 39(1), 107–119.Google Scholar
Manure Systems Research Group. (1999). MCLONE4: An Integrated Systems Approach to Manure Handling Systems and Nutrient Management. University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs. (1999). Best Management Practices: Livestock and Poultry Waste Management. Industry Handbook, OMAFRA, Toronto, Ontario.Google Scholar
Ribaudo, M. O., Gollehon, N. R., and Agapoff, J. (2003). “Land Application of Manure by Animal Feeding Operations: Is More Land Needed?” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 58(1), 30–38.Google Scholar
Roka, F. M., and Hoag, D. L. (1996). “Manure Value and Live-weight Swine Decisions.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 28(1), 193–202.Google Scholar
Schnitkey, G., and Miranda, M. (1993). “The Impact of Pollution Controls on Livestock-Crop Production.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 18(1), 25–36.Google Scholar
Stonehouse, P., deVos, G., and Weersink, A. (2002). “Livestock Manure Systems for Swine Finishing Enterprises.” Agricultural Systems 73(2), 279–296.Google Scholar
Vukina, T., and Wossink, A. (2000). “Environmental Policies and Land Values: Evidence from the Dutch Nutrient Quota System.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 26(4), 443–460.Google Scholar