Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:19:00.446Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Policy barriers to sustainable agriculture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Douglas L. Young
Douglas L. Young
Affiliation:
Professor of Agricultural Economics, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164.
Get access

Abstract

U.S. agriculture, which has developed in a mixed environment of private initiative and government support, is very successful by many measures. American farmers produce record levels of food and fiber per farm worker at very low budgetary cost to consumers. Recently, however, concern about resource depletion and agrichemical pollution has caused critics to question the environmental sustainability of the agricultural production system. Furthermore, pressures to trim the growing contribution of agricultural subsidies to the national budget deficit have led legislators and others to question the sustainability of the federal farm programs. Low agrichemical input or sustainable agricultural practices, such as nitrogen-fixing legumes in rotation with cereals, could reduce environmental damage. The selectivity and structure of historical farm programs, however, have economically favored conventional systems. Farm programs subsidize only about half the total value of agricultural products. Feed and food grains, cotton, and dairy products receive the lion's share of payments. Soil-building crops like forage legumes, most edible legumes, hay, and pasture are excluded. Secondly, the structure of commodity programs favors intensive production of program crops supported by high fertilizer and pesticide applications. This incentive emanates from the policy of computing the farm-wide deficiency payment for a program crop proportionately to the farm's historical “base” acreage and “established” yield for the crop. The leading farm program crops of corn, wheat, cotton, and soybeans occupied slightly over 60 percent of cropped acres and received at least 65 percent of all U.S. agricultural pesticides and fertilizer in the mid 19809s. Despite budget pressures and environmental concerns, near term termination of farm programs or decoupling them from production of particular commodities is unlikely. Fears about aggravating financial stress, reducing land values, and harming agrichemical supply businesses in program crop-growing regions will promote cautious incremental change. Recent promising signs of “creeping decoupling” include the 1986 freeze on established yields, the gradual reduction in target prices, the permitting of multi-year grass or legume plantings as set aside acreage, and the loosening of base acreage restrictions within the 1988 Drought Relief Bill.

Keywords

agricultural policysustainable agriculturecommodity programslowinput agriculturedecoupling
Type
Articles
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 4 , Issue 3-4 , December 1989 , pp. 135 - 143
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.Benbrook, Charles. 1988a. Sustainable agriculture and agricultural policy. Paper presented as USDA Conference on Low-Input/Sustainable Agriculture, September 7–8, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
2.Benbrook, Charles. 1988b. The environment and the 1990 Farm Bill. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 43(6):440–443.Google Scholar
3.Blakeslee, Leroy. 1980. Post World War II government policy impacts on the U.S. wheat sector. College of Agriculture Research Center, Washington State University Technical Bulletin No. 0093.Google Scholar
4.Cacek, T., and Langner, Linda L.. 1986. The economic implications of organic farming. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 1(1):25–29.Google Scholar
5.Cochrane, Willard W. 1986. A new sheet of music: how Kennedy's farm advisor has changed his tune about commodity policy and why. Choices 1(1):11–15.Google Scholar
6.Cochrane, Willard W., and Ryan, Mary E.. 1976. American farm policy, 1948–1973. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota.Google Scholar
7.Cook, R. James. 1986. Interrelationships of plant health and the sustainability of agriculture, with special reference to plant diseases. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 1(1):19–24.Google Scholar
8.Daberkow, Stan G., and Reichelderfer, Katherine H.. 1988. Low-input agriculture: trends, goals, and prospects for input use. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 70(5): 1159–1166.Google Scholar
9.de la Garza, E. (Kika). 1988. A Democratic view: making agricultural policy work - advice to the next President. Choices 3(4):16–19.Google Scholar
10.Dixon, O., Dixon, P., and Miranowski, J.. 1973. Insecticide requirement in an efficient agricultural sector. The Review of Economics and Statistics 55:423–432.Google Scholar
11. Doane's. 1986. Doane's agricultural report: farm exports. Vol. 49, No. 46–5, 14 November.Google Scholar
12.Dobbs, Thomas L., Leddy, Mark G., and Smolik, James D.. 1988. Factors influencing the economic potential for alternative farming systems: Case analyses in South Dakota. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 3(1):26–34.Google Scholar
13.Fleming, Malcolm H. 1987. Agricultural chemicals in ground water: Preventing contamination by removing barriers against lowinput farm management. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 2(3): 124–131.Google Scholar
14.Goldstein, Walter G., and Young, Douglas L.. 1987. An agronomic and economic comparison of a conventional and a low-input cropping system in the Palouse. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 2(2):51–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Hallberg, George R. 1986. From hoes to herbicides: agriculture and groundwater quality. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 41(6):357–364.Google Scholar
16.Hammer, Thomas A. 1988. U.S. sugar policy: it should be changed. Choices 3(4):8–9.Google Scholar
17.Hertel, Thomas W. 1988. Gainers and losers with supply control: an economy-wide perspective. Choices 3(4):10–13.Google Scholar
18.Hodges, R. D. 1978. The case for biological agriculture. Ecologist Quarterly (Summer Summer): 122–143.Google Scholar
19.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. pp. 1–2.Google Scholar
20.Johnston, Warren E., and Sandrey, Ron A.. 1989. Emergence of structural adjustments in response to economic policy reforms: New Zealand agriculture in 1989. Paper presented at Western Agricultural Economics Association annual meeting, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho.Google Scholar
21.Miranowski, J. A. 1975. The demand for agricultural crop chemicals under alternative farm program and pollution control solutions. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
22. Newsweek. 1987. The heretics of the heartland. March 30 issue, pp. 46–47.Google Scholar
23.Ortmann, G. F., Stulp, Valter J., and Rask, Norman. 1986. Comparative costs in agricultural commodities among major exporting countries. Paper presented at the 1986 annual meeting of the American Agricultural Economics Association, August, Reno, Nevada.Google Scholar
24.Reichelderfer, Katherine H. 1985. Do USDA farm program participants contribute to soil erosion? USDA, Economics Research Service. Agricultural Economics Report No. 532.Google Scholar
25.Schuh, G. E. 1986. Impact of national and international economic policies on U.S. agriculture. Paper presented at annual meeting of Agriculture Research Institute, October 8–10, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
26.USDA. 1987. Agricultural statistics 1987. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
27.USDA. 1988. 1988 agricultural chartbook. Agricultural Handbook No. 673. U.S. Government, Washington, DC. p. 72.Google Scholar
28.USDA. 1989. 1989 agricultural chartbook. Agricultural Handbook No. 684. U.S. Government, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
29.Vogtmann, H. 1984. Organic farming practices and research in Europe. In Bezdicek, D. F. and Power, J. F. (eds.). Organic Farming and its Role in Sustainable Agriculture. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 27–38.Google Scholar
30.Vrooman, Harry. 1987. Fertilizer use and price statistics, 1960–1985. USDA, Economic Resources Service. Statistics Bulletin No. 750.Google Scholar
31.Wallace, L. T. 1987. Agriculture's futures: America's food system. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York.Google Scholar
32.Womach, Jasper. 1988. The 1990 Farm Bill: issues likely to shape the policy debate. CRS Report for Congress, 88-700ENR. Food and Agriculture Section, Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division, Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
33.Young, Douglas L. 1988. Economic adjustment to sustainable agriculture: discussion. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 70(5):1173–1174.Google Scholar
34.Young, Douglas L., and Goldstein, Walter A.. 1988. How government farm programs discourage sustainable cropping systems: a U.S. case study. In How systems work: proceedings of farming systems research symposium. University of Arkansas/Winrock Institute, Fayetteville, Arkansas.Google Scholar