Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:35:30.452Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Implications of low-input farming systems for the U.S. position in world agriculture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

John E. Lee Jr  and
Kenneth Baum
John E. Lee Jr
Affiliation:
Assistant Director, Resources and Technology Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20005-4788.
Kenneth Baum
Affiliation:
Assistant Director, Resources and Technology Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20005-4788.
Get access

Abstract

The adoption of sustainable farming system practices by U.S. producers could affect the international competitive position of many agricultural commodities, including livestock. The adoption of such practices over the next several decades will depend on commodity policy legislation, environmental regulation, commodity price and acreage diversion incentives, and the success of ongoing GATT negotiations and trade liberalization. However, the extent and magnitude of these effects are dependent on the internalization and recognition of social costs of agricultural production by farmers and explicit tradeoffs between environmental degradation and agricultural profitability. Environmental externalities include soil loss, surface and ground water contamination by agricultural residuals, loss of wildlife habitat, and diminished aesthetic amenities. In effect, both public and private concerns about the marginal social environmental costs associated with production, when present, will influence the shape and location of commodity supply curves and the U.S. export capability. In turn, these supply curves, which define the production capacity of the U.S. to meet domestic and export demand, will determine our comparative competitive positions for different commodities in world markets.

Keywords

sustainabilityenvironmental regulationagricultural profitabilitysoil and water conservationexport capability
Type
Articles
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 4 , Issue 3-4 , December 1989 , pp. 144 - 152
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

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.Baum, Kenneth, Young, C. Edwin, and Crutchfield, Steven. 1989. Policy tradeoffs: Agricultural production, input use, and environmental quality. Selected paper, Southern Agricultural Economics Meetings, Nashville, Tennessee.Google Scholar
2.Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. 1988. Long Term Viability of U.S. Agriculture. Report No. 114.Google Scholar
3.Dabbert, Stephan, and Madden, Patrick. 1986. The transition to organic agriculture: A multiyear simulation model of a Pennsylvania farm. American J. Alternative Agriculture 1(3):99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Daberkow, Stan, Hansen, Leroy, and Vroomen, Harry. 1988. Low-input practices. Agricultural Outlook. Economic Research Service, Dept. of Agriculture, December, pp. 22–25.Google Scholar
5.Doering, Otto, Schmitz, Andrew, and Miranowski, John. 1983. The full costs of farm exports. Giannini Foundation Working Paper No. 206. Univ. of California.Google Scholar
6.Domanico, Jean L., Madden, Patrick, and Partenheimer, Earl J.. 1986. Income effects of limiting soil erosion under organic, conventional, and no-till systems in eastern Pennsylvania. American J. Alternative Agriculture 1(2):75–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Economic Research Service. 1988. Agriculture in the Uruguay Round: Analysis of Government Support. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture.Google Scholar
8.Gardner, Bruce. 1988. Bringing together international and resource economists: Comment. In Sutton, J. (ed.). Agricultural Trade and Natural Resources. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder and London, pp. 236–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Glaze, Dargan, and Ali, Mir. 1988. Distribution of costs and production for wheat farms. Agricultural Income and Finance: Situation and Outlook Report. AFO-31. Economic Research Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, December.Google Scholar
10.Goldstein, Walter, and Young, Douglas L.. 1987. An agronomic and economic comparison of a low-input cropping system in the Palouse. American J. Alternative Agriculture 2(2):51–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Helmers, Glenn, Langemeier, Michael R., and Atwood, Joseph. 1986. An economic analysis of alternative cropping systems for east-central Nebraska. American J. Alternative Agriculture 1(4):153–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Meilke, K. 1987. A comparison of the simulation results from six international trade models. Working paper WP87/3. Dept. of Agricultural Economics and Business, University of Guelph.Google Scholar
13.Parikh, K., Fischer, G., Frohberg, K., and Gulbrandsen, O.. 1986. Toward free trade in agriculture. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. Laxenburg, Austria.Google Scholar
14.Sutton, John. 1988. Introduction. In Sutton, John (ed.). Agricultural Trade and Natural Resources. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder and London, pp. 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Sutton, John. 1989. Agricultural resource policy issues and the GATT negotiations. Agricultural Economic Report, Economic Research Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (in publication).Google Scholar
16.U.S. House of Representatives. 1988. Low input farming systems: Benefits and barriers. Committee on Government Operations, Seventy-Fourth Report. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
17.Vocke, Gary. 1988. U.S. grain imports by developing countries. Agricultural Information Bulletin No. 542. Economic Research Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture.Google Scholar
18.Vollrath, Tom L. 1987. Revealed comparative advantage for wheat. Staff Report AGES861030. Economic Research Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture.Google Scholar
19.World Bank. 1986. World Development Report. Oxford University Press, New York, New York.Google Scholar
20.Young, Michael E. 1988. Agriculture and the environment: OECD policy experiences and American opportunities. Agricultural Economics Report (in review). Economic Research Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture.Google Scholar
21.U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. 1988. Wheat: Situation and Outlook Report. Economic Research Service. WWS-283. November.Google Scholar