Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T15:02:52.270Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Potential Income Effects of the Harkin-Gephardt Proposal on New York Dairy Farms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2017

Harry M. Kaiser ,
Edward H. Heslop  and
Robert A. Milligan
Harry M. Kaiser
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Cornell University
Edward H. Heslop
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Cornell University
Robert A. Milligan
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Cornell University
Get access

Abstract

This article reports the results of research regarding the farm-level implications for New York dairy producers of national mandatory supply control programs for feed grains and milk. The analysis is based on the proposed Harkin-Gephardt Bill which would authorize a mandatory supply control program for milk and the major supported crops. Representative farm budgets were constructed for a sample of dairy farms to assess the possible effects on costs and returns. Some farmers would gain, while others would not. The results suggest that dairy farmers who purchase all of their feed would be worse off, while farmers who grow grain would be better off under the proposed supply control program.

Type
Articles
Information
Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , October 1987 , pp. 73 - 83
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

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

The authors wish to thank Kenneth Robinson and two anonymous reviewers for useful suggestions and comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

References

Department of Agricultural Economics, Cornell University, Dairy Farm Business Summary Records, 1986.Google Scholar
Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute. “Comparative Analysis of Selected Policy Options for U.S. Agriculture.” FAPRI Staff Report #1-87 Center for National Food and Agricultural Policy. Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Missouri and Center for Trade and Agricultural Policy, Department of Economics, Iowa State University, February 1987.Google Scholar
Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute. “The Commodity Supply Management Program.” FAPRI Staff Report #2-87, Center for National Food and Agricultural Policy, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Missouri and Center for Trade and Agricultural Policy, Department of Economics, Iowa State University, February 1987.Google Scholar
Jesse, Ed and Cropp, Bob. “Use of Mandatory Supply Control in the U.S. Dairy Sector.” Marketing and Policy Briefing Paper 2, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Wisconsin, May 1986.Google Scholar
Kaiser, Harry M. “Economic Issues and Implications of a U.S. Milk Quota Program.” Journal of Dairy Sciences. 70:1318, 1987.Google Scholar
Kaiser, Harry M. and Heslop, Edward H. “A Summary of House Congressional Bill H.R. 5588 a.k.a. The ‘Save the Family Farm Act’.” A.E. Ext. 86-36, Department of Agricultural Economics, Cornell University, December 1986.Google Scholar
Kaiser, Harry M., Heslop, Edward H., and Milligan, Robert A. “The Economic Impacts of the ‘Save the Family Farm’ Bill on New York Dairy Farmers.” A.E. Res. 87-11, Department of Agricultural Economics, Cornell University, April 1987.Google Scholar
Kalter, Robert J., Milligan, Robert, Lesser, William, Magrath, William, Tauer, Loren, Bauman, Dale. “Biotechnology and the Dairy Industry: Production Costs, Commercial Potential, and the Economic Impact of the Bovine Growth Hormone.” A.E. Res. 85-20, Department of Agricultural Economics, Cornell University, December 1985.Google Scholar
Knutson, Ronald D., Smith, Edward G., Richardson, James W., Penson, John B. Jr., Hughs, Dean W, Paggi, Mechel S., Yonkers, Robert D., and Chen, Dean T. “Policy Alternatives for Modifying the 1985 Farm Bill.” Agricultural and Food Policy Center, Paper B-1561, Texas Agricultural Research Station and Extension Service, The Texas A&M University, January 1987.Google Scholar
Market Administrator, Federal Milk Marketing Order No. 2. Statistical Handbook, August 1957 to August 1986. 1986.Google Scholar
Mason, Judson P. “Alternative Ways of Balancing Production to Market Needs.” Journal of Dairy Science. 62:1365, 1979.Google Scholar
“New York Economic Handbook: Agricultural Situation and Outlook.” A.E. Ext. 86-35. Prepared by Extension Staff, Department of Agricultural Economics, Cornell University, December 1986.Google Scholar
Nott, Sherrill B. and Hamm, Larry. “Quotas for U.S. Dairy Farmers? A Review.” Unpublished Mimeograph, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, September 1986.Google Scholar
Oltenacu, Pascal. Department of Animal Science, Cornell University, Conversation regarding appropriate reductions in lowest producing cows to achieve cutbacks in milk marketings required of HG.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Dairy Situation and Outlook Yearbook, July 1986.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1982 Agricultural Census.Google Scholar