Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:27:41.104Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Analysis of Competing Agricultural Land Uses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Fred C. White  and
Frank N. Fleming
Fred C. White
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Georgia
Frank N. Fleming
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Georgia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Several alternative government programs have been used in the past to achieve policy objectives related to the levels of crop acreage and net farm income. Important questions remain relating to the effectiveness of past programs in achieving selected policy objectives. In particular, what is the relative effectiveness of long-term versus short-term acreage diversion programs? One of the major impacts of government diversion programs is in the allocation of land among competing uses. Several studies (Brandow and Learn; Christensen and Aines; Hathaway) indicate that the use of acreage control on single crops rather than on all crops results in less than proportionate reduction in output from a given reduction in acreage. However, only limited information is available on the interrelationships among major competing uses of crop, pasture, and privately owned forest acreage. Studies of these interrelationships (e.g. Dideriksen et al. and Zeimetz et al.) did not consider the influence of government programs. In particular, how do government programs affect these competing uses?

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , December 1980 , pp. 99 - 103
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1980

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

Barlowe, Raleigh. Land Resource Economics, 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1978.Google Scholar
Branddow, G. E. and Learn, E. W.. Effects of 1954 Acreage Restrictions on Crop Production in Southeastern Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Agr. Exp. Sta. Prog. Rep. 128, 1954.Google Scholar
Christensen, R. P. and Aines, R. O.. Economic Effects of Acreage Control Programs in the 1950s. USDA, ERS, Agr. Econ. Rep. 18,1962.Google Scholar
Dideriksen, Raymond I., Hidlebaugh, Allen R., and Schmude, Keith O.. Potential Cropland Study. USDA, SCS, Stat. Bull. 578,1977.Google Scholar
Georgia Crop Reporting Service. Georgia Agricultural Facts. USDA, SRS, Georgia Department of Agriculture, Athens, Georgia, 1900–1976.Google Scholar
Hathaway, D. E. “The Effects of Agriculture Production Controls in 1954 on Four Michigan Farming Areas.” Quart. Bull Michigan Agr. Exp. Sta. 37(1955):565–73.Google Scholar
McCoy, John H.Livestock and Meat Marketing. Westport, Connecticut: AVI Publishing Co., Inc., 1972.Google Scholar
Penn, J. B. and Irwin, George D.. “A Simultaneous Equation Approach to Production Response: Delta Region.” S. J. Agr. Econ. 3(1971):115–21.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. Georgia ASCS Annual Report Athens, Georgia, 1956–1975.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. State Farm Income Statistics. Suppl. to Stat. Bull. No. 557, Aug. 1976.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Georgia Conservation Needs Inventory, April 1970.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1974 Cenus of Agriculture. Georgia State and County Data, Vol. 1, Part 10, July 1977.Google Scholar
Zeimetz, Kathryn A., Dillion, Elizabeth, Hardy, Ernest E., and Otte, Robert C.. The Dynamics of Land Use in Fast Growth Areas. USDA, ERS, Agr. Econ. Rep. 325, 1976.Google Scholar