Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T17:57:23.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Determinants of Chemical Input Use in Agriculture: A Dynamic Analysis of the Wine Grape–Growing Sector in France*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2014

Magali Aubert  and
Geoffroy Enjolras
Magali Aubert*
Affiliation:
UMR 1110 MOISA, INRA-Montpellier SupAgro, 2 place Viala, 34060 Montpellier Cedex 2, France
Geoffroy Enjolras*
Affiliation:
UMR 5820 CERAG et IAE de Grenoble, Université Pierre-Mendès-France—Grenoble II, Domaine universitaire, B.P. 47, 38040 Grenoble Cedex 9, France
*
e-mail: [email protected].
e-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines the determinants of chemical consumption by French winegrowers on an individual basis. We introduce criteria relating to the structure of vineyards and the financial situation of the winegrowers. Using data from the Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN-RICA) for the period 2002–2007 from an annual sample of 607 winegrowers, we study the different factors that encourage winegrowers to use chemical inputs to protect or increase the yield of their vines. Drawing on transversal and longitudinal analyses, we illustrate the benefits derived from differentiating the demand for inputs according to their classification: pesticides or fertilizers. Climatic variables, physical size, and turnover all act as driving forces in the decision to use chemical inputs. We show that taking out crop insurance functions as a substitute for inputs and observe a double moral hazard effect: Winegrowers who increase their insurance coverage reduce their consumption of inputs the most and receive greater compensation; among insured winegrowers, those who use the most inputs make the most claims. As wine grape growing is a consistent activity conducted over a long period, we observe permanence in patterns of use of chemical inputs. (JEL Classifications: Q12, Q13, Q14)

Keywords

FADN-RICAfertilizersFranceinsurancepesticideswine
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Wine Economics , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , May 2014 , pp. 75 - 99
Copyright
Copyright © American Association of Wine Economists 2014 

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.)

Footnotes

*

This research has been conducted within the framework of the Precovision Project. The authors thank the editor and an anonymous referee as well as Jean-Pierre Couderc, Pierre Guillaumin, Patrick Rio, and Isabelle Piot-Lepetit from SupAgro-INRA Montpellier for many helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. All remaining errors are the responsibility of the authors. An earlier version of the paper was presented at the 6th Annual Meeting of the American Association of Wine Economists, Princeton, NJ, June 7–10, 2012.

References

Anderson, G.D., Opaluch, J.J., and Sullivan, W.M. (1985). Nonpoint agricultural pollution: Pesticide contamination of groundwater supplies. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 67(5), 1238–1243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antle, J.M., and Capalbo, S.M. (1994). Pesticides, productivity, and farmer health: Implications for regulatory policy and agricultural research. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 76(3), 598–602.Google Scholar
Antle, J.M., Cole, D.C., and Crissman, C.C. (1998). Further evidence in pesticides, productivity and farmer health: Potato production in Ecuador. Agricultural Economics, 18, 199–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arias-Esévez, M., Lopez-Periago, E., Martinez-Carballo, E., Simal-Gandara, J., Merut, J.C., and Garcia-Rio, L. (2008). The mobility and degradation of pesticides in soils and the pollution of groundwater resources. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 123, 247–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aubertot, J.-N., Barbier, J.-M., Carpentier, A., Gril, J.-J., Guichard, L., Lucas, P., Savary, S., Savini, I., and Voltz, M. (2005). Pesticides, agriculture and the environment. Collective Scientific Expert Report, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Cemagref, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Babcock, B.A., and Hennessy, D.A. (1996). Input demand under yield and revenue insurance. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 78, 416–427.Google Scholar
Babcock, B.A., Chalfant, J.A., and Collender, R.N. (1987). Simultaneous input demands and land allocation in agricultural production under uncertainty. Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, 12(2), 207–215.Google Scholar
Baschet, J.-F., and Pingault, N. (2009). La réduction des usages de pesticides: le plan Ecophyto 2018. Analyse Prospective et Evaluation, Ministère de l'Agriculture et de la Pêche, report no. 4/2009, available at http://agriculture.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/Analyse_4_Ecophyto_indicateurs-2.pdf.Google Scholar
Butault, J.-P., Dedryver, C.-A., Gary, C., Guichard, L., Jacquet, F., Meynard, J.-M., Nicot, P., Pitrat, M., Reau, R., Sauphanor, B., Savini, I., and Volay, T. (2010). Ecophyto R&D, quelles voies pour réduire l'usage des pesticides. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Caswell, M.F., and Shoemaker, R.A. (1993). Adoption of pest management strategies under varying environmental conditions. USDA Economic Research Service, Technical Bulletin 1827. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Chakir, R., and Hardelin, J. (2010). Crop insurance and pesticides in French agriculture: an empirical analysis of multiple risks management. Cahiers de recherche INRA SAE2, 2010/04. Working paper, available at http://www.grignon.inra.fr/economie–publique/english/wp/docs_2010/2010_04.pdf.Google Scholar
Coble, K.H., and Knight, T.O. (2002). Crop insurance as a tool for price and yield risk management. In Just, R.E. and Pope, R.D. (eds.), A Comprehensive Assessment of the Role of Risk in Agriculture. Boston: Kluwer, 445–468.Google Scholar
Craven, C., and Hoy, S. (2005). Pesticides persistence and bound residues in soil—regulatory significance. Environmental Pollution, 133: 5–9.Google Scholar
Ehrlich, I., and Becker, G.S. (1972). Market insurance, self-insurance and self-protection. Journal of Political Economics, 20(4), 623–648.Google Scholar
Enjolras, G., and Sentis, P. (2011). Crop insurance policies and purchases in France. Agricultural Economics, 42, 475–486.Google Scholar
Feinerman, E., Herriges, J.A., and Holtkamp, D. (1992). Crop insurance as a mechanism for reducing pesticide usage: A representative farm analysis. Review of Agricultural Economics, 14(2), 169–182.Google Scholar
Fernandez-Cornejo, J., Jans, S., and Smith, M. (1998). Issues in the economics of pesticide use in agriculture: A review of the empirical evidence. Review of Agricultural Economics, 20(2), 462–488.Google Scholar
Fernandez-Cornejo, J., and Ferraioli, J. (1999). The environmental effects of adopting IPM techniques: The case of peach producers. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 31(3), 551–564.Google Scholar
Flandin, P. (1983). Matériel et techniques de traitement. Bilan des moyens actuels. Evolution en vue, Motorisation et techniques agricoles.Google Scholar
Foster, W.E., and Babock, B.A. (1991). Producer welfare consequences of regulating chemical residues on agricultural crops: Maleic hydrazide and tobacco. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 73(4), 1224–1232.Google Scholar
Goodwin, B.K., Vandeveer, M.L., and Deal, J.L. (2004). An empirical analysis of acreage effects of participation in the federal crop insurance program. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 86(4), 1058–1077.Google Scholar
Greene, W. (2006). Econometric Analysis, 6th ed.New York: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Hall, D.C., and Norgaard, R.B. (1974). On the timing and application of pesticides. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 55(2), 198–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horowitz, J., and Lichtenberg, E. (1993). Insurance, moral hazard, and chemical use in agriculture. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 75(4), 926–935.Google Scholar
Horowitz, J., and Lichtenberg, E. (1994). Risk-reducing and risk-increasing effects of pesticides. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 45(1), 82–89.Google Scholar
Houmy, K. (1994). Importance des conditions climatiques dans l'application des produits phytosanitaires. Revue ANAFIDE, 97, 34–40.Google Scholar
Just, R.E., and Pope, R.D. (2003). Agricultural risk analysis: Adequacy of models, data, and issues. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 85(5), 1249–1256.Google Scholar
Leach, A.W., and Mumford, J.D. (2008). Pesticide environmental accounting: A method for assessing the external costs of individual pesticide applications. Environmental Pollution, 151, 139–147.Google Scholar
Lecocq, S., and Visser, M. (2006). Spatial variations in weather conditions and wine prices in Bordeaux. Journal of Wine Economics, 1(2), 114–124.Google Scholar
McNamara, K.T., Wetzstein, M.E., and Douce, G.K. (1991). Factors affecting peanut producer adoption of integrated pest management. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 13, 129–139.Google Scholar
Mishra, A.K., Nimon, R.W., and El-Osta, H.S. (2005). Is moral hazard good for the environment? Revenue insurance and chemical input use. Journal of Environmental Management, 74, 11–20.Google Scholar
Nerlove, M. (2003). Essay in Panel Data Econometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
OECD. (2000). Income Risk Management in Agriculture. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.Google Scholar
Pan, J., Plant, J.A., Voulvoulis, N., Oates, C.J. and Ihlenfeld, C. (2010). Cadmium levels in Europe: Implications for human health. Environmental Geochemistry and Health, 32(1), 1–12.Google Scholar
Pannell, D.J. (1991). Pests and pesticides, risk and risk aversion. Agricultural Economics, 5, 361–383.Google Scholar
Rahman, S. (2003). Farm level pesticide use in Bangladesh: Determinants and awareness. Agriculture Ecosystem and Environment, 95, 241–252.Google Scholar
Reynolds, A. (2000). Managing Wine Quality: Viticulture and Wine Quality, vol. 1. Cambridge: Woodhead.Google Scholar
Rosenzweig, C., Iglesias, A., Yang, X.B., Epstein, P.R., and Chivian, E. (2001). Climate change and extreme weather events; Implications for food production, plant diseases, and pests. Global Change and Human Health, 2(2), 90–104.Google Scholar
Shoemaker, C.A. (1979). Optimal timing of multiple applications of pesticides with residual toxicity. Biometrics, 35, 803–812.Google Scholar
Shumway, C.R., Saez, R.R., and Gottret, P.E. (1988). Multiproduct supply and input demand in U.S. agriculture. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 70, 330–37.Google Scholar
Smith, V., and Goodwin, B. (1996). Crop insurance, moral hazard, and agricultural chemical use. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 78(2), 428–438.Google Scholar
Storchmann, K. (2005). English weather and Rhine wine quality: An ordered probit model. Journal of Wine Research, 16(2), 105–119.Google Scholar
Trognon, A. (2003). L’économétrie des panels en perspective. Revue d’économie politique, 113(6), 727–748.Google Scholar
Wooldridge, J.M. (2002). Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wu, J.J. (1999). Crop insurance, acreage decisions and non-point source pollution. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 81(2), 305–320.Google Scholar