Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:58:07.328Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Farm program impacts on incentives for green manure rotations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Douglas L. Young  and
Kathleen M. Painter
Douglas L. Young
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164.
Kathleen M. Painter
Affiliation:
Research Assistant, Department of Agricultural Economics, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164.
Get access

Abstract

Farm programs influence the profitability of a crop rotation through five effects: (1) a deficiency payment (DP) effect, (2) an acreage reduction (ARP) effect, (3) a base effect, (4) a crop price effect, and (5) a risk reduction effect. This study initially examines ARP and DP effects of the 1985 Farm Bill on the relative profitability of a low-input rotation and a grain-intensive conventional rotation in Washington state over 1986–1990. In years of low deficiency payments or high foregone returns from ARP land, the low-input green manure rotation was competitive with the conventional rotation but lost its advantage in years of low ARP costs or high deficiency payments. Long-runincentives to maintain wheat base introduced a consistent bias against the low-input green manure rotation. Planting flexibility options proposed during the 1990 Farm Bill debate could reduce farm program barriers to green manure and other low-input rotations. The Bush Administration's Normal Crop Acreage (NCA) proposal, which was not accepted in the 1990 legislation, would have largely eliminated base erosion for the green manure rotation in this study. More importantly, non-ARP green manure acreage would have qualified for deficiency payments under the NCA, thereby sharply increasing the low-input rotation's relative profitability. Proposals like the NCA might receive further attention in the future due to environmental concerns, fiscal pressures, or possible trade agreements requiring multilateral phaseout of agricultural subsidies coupled to commodities.

Keywords

farm policysustainable agriculturecommodity programsgreen manurescrop rotations
Type
Articles
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 5 , Issue 3 , September 1990 , pp. 99 - 105
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

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

1.Ash, M., and Hoffman, L.. 1989. Barley: Back-ground for 1990 farm legislation. ERS Staff Report No. 89–65, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
2.Beus, et al. , eds. 1990. Prospects for sustainable agriculture in the Palouse: Farmer experiences and viewpoints. Research Bulletin XB1016, College of Agricultural & Home Economics, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington.Google Scholar
3.de la Garza, E. (Kika). 1989. A Democratic view: Making agricultural policy work-advice to the next president. Choices 3:16–19.Google Scholar
4.Dobbs, T. L., Leddy, M. G., and Smolik, J. D.. 1988. Factors influencing the economic potential for alternative farming systems: Case analyses in South Dakota. Amer. J. of Alt. Ag. 3:26–34.Google Scholar
5.Duffy, M. 1987. Impacts of the 1985 Food Security Act. Department of Economics, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.Google Scholar
6.Ek, C. W. 1989a. Farm program flexibility: An analysis of the triple base option. Congress of the U.S., Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
7.Ek, C. W. 1989b. The 1990 Farm Bill: Grains and oilseed issues. CRS Issue Brief., Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division, Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
8.Goldstein, W. A., and Young, D. L.. 1987. An agronomic and economic comparison of a conventional and a low-input cropping system in the Palouse. Amer. J. of Alt. Ag. 2:51–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Harwood, J. L., and Young, C. E.. 1989. Wheat: Background for 1990 farm legislation. ERS Staff Report No. AGES 89–56, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
10.House of Representatives. 1988. Low-input farming systems: Benefits and barriers. 74th Report by the Committee on Government Operations. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
11.National Research Council. 1989. Alternative Agriculture. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
12.Office of the President/USDA. 1990. Proposal of the Administration: 1990 Farm BUI. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
13.Osteen, C. D., and Szmedra, P. I.. 1989. Agricultural pesticide use trends and policy issues. Agricultural Economics Report No. 622, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
14.U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1989. Agricultural prices, December 29, 1989. National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
15.Washington Department of Agriculture. 1989. Washington agricultural statistics, 1988–1989. Washington Agricultural Statistics Service, Olympia, Washington.Google Scholar