Data from the 2006 Agricultural Resource Management Survey and multivariate regression procedures are used to examine the role of human capital in impacting the incomes of farm households. The paper uses an “adjusted” concept of income where government payments are subtracted from total household income thus allowing for the utilization of government payments as a potential control variable in the regression models. Findings indicate a significant and positive role for higher education except for farm households at the very lower and upper ends of the income distribution.

This research uses data from the 2005–2011 Agricultural Resource Management Survey and a two-part-model regression procedure to examine the impact of health insurance and other relevant socioeconomic factors on the distribution of health care expenditures among U.S. farm households. Findings show the importance of privately acquired health insurance coverage in explaining inequality in health care expenditures. The results also reveal, among other things, a statistical positive association between health care expenditures and farm operators who fall into the baby boomer age category. A similar statistical association is found for higher income levels but not for inequality of income.

We estimate the impacts of various types of government payments to U.S. agriculture on different components of farm household consumption. Using 2003 to 2005 data from the Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS), we show that marginal rates of consumption differ by consumption category and income source, including different types of farm program payments. The results suggest that farm households treat income from different sources as imperfect substitutes and may reserve income from specific sources for specific types of consumption. Implications for the effects of different types of government payments on the farm household are considered.

The 2002 Farm Bill creates several opportunities for landowners to adopt management practices that protect and improve soil and water quality. Landowners considering enrollment in conservation programs must compare the monetary and nonmonetary costs and benefits from removing land from production agriculture. The overall purpose of this invited paper session was to improve the understanding of the factors affecting a landowner's decision to enroll in conservation programs. Papers addressed the environmental benefits of conservation programs and compared the returns to enrolling in conservation programs to the returns from production agriculture.

Conservation reserve program (CRP) payments amount to several billion dollars annually. Payments are allocated to both remove land from production and to help farmers pay for conservation improvements. However, research examining whether farmers increase their utility with CRPs is limited. This paper uses simulation analysis and certainty equivalents to compare farming income to payments under the CRP. Farming income is a combination of crop production and government payments as specified in the 2002 Farm Bill. This analysis focuses on farms in three different counties in Kentucky. Results indicate that CRPs are good choices for many farmers.

Government farm support programs such as Loan Deficiency Payments (LDP) and Counter-Cyclical Payments (CCP) have payoff structures that effectively make them costless price insurance instruments. A combination of these payments with yield insurance may provide a viable alternative to revenue insurance. This paper finds that, contrary to expectations, the revenue product analyzed is uniformly superior to yield insurance under both current (2002) and proposed (2008) Farm Bill structures of government payments. Given minor adjustments, however, yield insurance combined with government payments can provide more effective risk management than revenue insurance in production areas with low yield–price correlation.