Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T05:41:53.535Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A perspective on the economic impacts of reducing agricultural chemical use

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Linda K. Lee
Linda K. Lee
Affiliation:
Visiting Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269.
Get access

Abstract

Adoption of agricultural practices that reduce or eliminate chemical use creates tradeoffs among yields and output, production costs and net income at the farm level. If widespread adoption is to occur, potential improvements in human health and the environment from reduced chemical use must be weighed against effects on aggregate farm income and consumer food prices. At present, these tradeoffs are subject to considerable debate.

I review available farm level and aggregate economic studies of reductions in total agricultural chemical use. At the farm level, available studies suggest that organic and low-input farming systems result in declines in per acre yields and in lower net returns than most conventional farming systems, although the studies do indicate that net returns for the two systems can be comparable under some conditions. Several studies suggest that low-input systems perform well with respect to risk criteria. I also discuss the potential influence of government programs on the profitability of some low-input farming systems.

All aggregate economic models conclude that widespread adoption of organic farming would result in decreased yields, decreased aggregate output, increased farm income, and large increases in consumer prices. These models have limitations, however. Recommendations are made for further economic research of the impacts of reducing agricultural chemical use at both the farm and aggregate levels.

Keywords

low-input agricultureorganic agriculture
Type
Articles
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 7 , Issue 1-2: Special Issue on Soil Quality , June 1992 , pp. 82 - 88
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

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.Beraidi, G. 1978. Organic and conventional wheat production: Examination of energy and economics. Agro-Ecosystems 4:377–385.Google Scholar
2.Caswell, J. A. 1990. Food safety policy fights: A U.S. perspective. Northeastern J. Agricultural and Resource Economics 19:59–66.Google Scholar
3.Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. 1980. Organic and conventional farming compared. Report No. 84. Ames, Iowa.Google Scholar
4.Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. 1990. Alternative Agriculture. Scientists' Review. Spec. Pub. No. 16. Ames, Iowa.Google Scholar
5.Dabbert, S., and Madden, P.. 1986. The transition to organic agriculture: A multi-year simulation model of a Pennsylvania farm. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 1:99–107.Google Scholar
6.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. Alternative Agric. 3:26–34.Google Scholar
7.Doering, O. 1990. Fig leaves for naked economists. Choices 3:30–32.Google Scholar
8.Faeth, P., Repetto, R., Kroll, K., Dai, Q., and Helmers, G.. 1991. Paying the farm bill: U.S. agricultural policy and the transition to sustainable agriculture. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
9.Gersh, J. 1988. Why some Wisconsin farmers choose to farm sustainably: A question of circumstances, values and validation. M.S. Thesis, Dept. of Rural Sociology, Univ. of Wisconsin Madison.Google Scholar
10.Gianessi, L. 1990. Comments on alternative agriculture. In Alternative Agriculture: Scientists' Review. Spec. Pub. No. 16. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, Ames, Iowa.Google Scholar
11.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. Alternative Agric. 2:51–56.Google Scholar
12.GRC Economics. 1990. The value of crop protection chemicals and fertilizers to American agriculture and the consumer. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
13.Hanson, J.C., Peters, S.E., and Janke, R.R.. 1990. The profitability of sustainable agriculture in the Mid-Atlantic region:A case study covering 1981 to 1989. Northeastern J. Agricultural and Resource Economics 19:90–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Helmers, G.A., Langemeier, M.R., and Atwood, J.. 1986. An economic analysis of alternative cropping systems for East-central Nebraska. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 1:153–158.Google Scholar
15.King, R., Lybecker, D., Schweizer, E., and Zimdahl, R.. 1986. Bioeconomic modeling to stimulate weed control strategies for continuous corn. Weed Science 34:972–979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Klepper, R., Lockeretz, W., Commoner, B., Gertler, M., Fast, S., O'Leary, D., and Blobaum, R.. 1977. Economic performance and energy intensiveness on organic and conventional farms in the Corn Belt: A preliminary comparison. Amer. J. Agric. Economics 59:1–12.Google Scholar
17.Knutson, R., Taylor, C.R., Penson, J., and Smith, E.. 1990. Economic impacts of reduced chemical use. Knutson & Associates, College Station, Texas, 1990.Google Scholar
18.Lockeretz, W., and Madden, P.. 1987. Midwestern organic farming: A ten-year follow-up. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 2:57–63.Google Scholar
19.Lockeretz, W., Shearer, G., Sweeney, S., Kuepper, G., Wanner, D., and Kohl, D.. 1980. Maize yields and soil nutrient levels with and without pesticides and standard commercial fertilizers. Agronomy J. 72:65–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Lockeretz, W., Shearer, G., and Kohl, D.. 1981. Organic farming in the Corn Belt. Science 211:540–547.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.National Research Council. 1989. Alternative Agriculture. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
22.Natural Resources Defense Council. 1989. Intolerable risk: Pesticides in our children's food. New York, N.Y.Google Scholar
23.Nielsen, E., and Lee, L.. 1987. The magnitude and costs of groundwater contamination from agricultural chemicals: A national perspective. Agric. Economic Rept. No. 576. Economic Research Service, U.S. Dept. of Agric., Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
24.Oelhaf, R. 1978. Organic Agriculture: Economic and Ecological Comparison with Conventional Methods. Allanheld, Osmun and Co., Montclair, N.J.Google Scholar
25.Olson, K.D., Langley, J., and Heady, E.O.. 1982. Widespread adoption of organic farming practices: Estimated impacts on U.S. agriculture. J. Soil and Water Conservation 37:41–45.Google Scholar
26.Schaller, N. 1990. Mainstreaming low-input agriculture. J. Soil and Water Conservation 45:9–12.Google Scholar
27.Schaller, N. 1991. An agenda for research on the impacts of sustainable agriculture: Assessment and recommendation of a panel of social scientists. Occasional Paper No. 2. Institute for Alternative Agriculture. Greenbelt, Maryland.Google Scholar
28.Shearer, G., Kohl, D., Wanner, D., Kuepper, G., Sweeney, S., and Lockeretz, W.. 1981. Crop production costs and returns on Midwestern organic farms: 1977 and 1978. Amer. J. Agric. Economics 63:264–269.Google Scholar
29.Stanhill, G. 1990. The comparative productivity of organic agriculture. Agric., Ecosystems, and Environment 30:1–26.Google Scholar
30.Tweeten, L., and Helmers, G.. 1990. Comment on alternative agriculture systems. In Alternative Agriculture: Scientists' Review. Spec. Pub. No. 16. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, Ames, Iowa.Google Scholar
31.U.S. Dept. of Agric. 1980. Report and Recommendation on Organic Farming. U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
32.Weinberg, A. 1990. Low-input agriculture reduces nonpoint-source pollution. J. Soil and Water Conservation 45:48–50.Google Scholar
33.Young, D.L., and Painter, K.M.. 1990. Farm program impacts on incentives for green manure rotations. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 5:99–105.Google Scholar