Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:56:15.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Implications of Policy Regulations on Land Applications of Poultry Litter

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Ramu Govindasamy
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J.
Mark J. Cochran
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Ark.

Abstract

The growth of the poultry industry in Arkansas has exploded in the past decade. As a result, approximately 1.5 million tons of litter are produced every year. Concerns about possible contamination of ground and surface water from land applications of poultry litter have been raised. This paper compares four policy scenarios in terms of their efficiency and practicality to manage land applications of poultry litter. The results indicate that a litter tax per ton of litter applied could achieve the same level of litter control as that of a land tax on litter applications, but at a lower tax rate.

Type
Economics and the Environment in the 21st Century
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 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.)

References

Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology. 1990. Arkansas Water Quality Inventory Report. Little Rock, Ark.Google Scholar
Baumol, W.J., and Oats, W.E. 1988. The Theory of Environmental Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brooke, A., Kendrick, D., and Meerus, A. 1988. GAMS: A User's Guide. San Francisco. Scientific Press.Google Scholar
Buchberger, E. 1991. “An Economic and Environmental Analysis of Land Application of Poultry Litter in Northwest Arkansas.” Unpublished thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.Google Scholar
Buchberger, E., Cochran, M.J., and Govindasamy, R. 1993. “Optimal Poultry Litter Management Strategies for Better Environmental Quality.” Staff paper, SP0193. Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, University of Arkansas.Google Scholar
Cochran, M.J., and Govindasamy, R. 1994. “The feasibility of poultry litter transportation from environmentally sensitive areas to Delta Row Crop Production.” Staff paper, SP0694. Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, University of Arkansas.Google Scholar
Cochran, M.J., Govindasamy, R., Miller, D.M., and Norman, R.J. 1993. “Economics of Poultry Litter Management for Rice Production.” Staff paper, SP01293. Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, University of Arkansas.Google Scholar
Dales, J.H. 1968. Pollution, Property and Prices. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Davis, G.V., Clower, J.A., Hankins, B.J., Gibson, J.O., Green, J., Ibsen, D., Mass, J.M., Brown, A.H., Brown, C.J., Gamer, C., and Ray, M.L. 1987. Beef Cattle Production. MP 184-10M-1-87RV. Cooperative Extension Service, University of Arkansas.Google Scholar
Govindasamy, R., and Cochran, M.J. 1994. “Market Solutions to Excess Application of Poultry Litter.” Staff paper, SP0794. Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, University of Arkansas.Google Scholar
Govindasamy, R., and Cochran, M.J. 1995a. “Implications of Alternative Environmental Policies on Phosphorus Loading From Poultry Litter.” Agricultural Economics 13: 137–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Govindasamy, R., and Cochran, M.J. 1995b. “The Feasibility of Poultry Litter Transportation from Environmentally Sensitive Areas to Delta Row Crop Production.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 24: 101–10.Google Scholar
Govindasamy, R., Cochran, M.J., and Buchberger, E. 1993. “Efficiency Implications of Environmental Regulation on Poultry Litter Management,” Staff paper, SP0293. Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, University of Arkansas.Google Scholar
Govindasamy, R., Cochran, M.J., and Buchberger, E. 1994. “Economic Implications of Phosphorus Loading Policies for Pasture Land Applications of Poultry Litter.” Water Resources Bulletin 30: 901–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Govindasamy, R., Cochran, M.J., Miller, D.M., and Norman, R.J. 1994. “Economics of Trade-off between Urea Nitrogen and Poultry Litter for Rice Production.” Journal of Agriculture and Applied Economics 26: 552–64.Google Scholar
Madison, R.J., and Brunett, J.O. 1985. “Over View of the Occurrence of Nitrate in Groundwater in the United States.” U.S. Geological Survey, Water Supply Paper 2275, pp. 93-106.Google Scholar
National Research Council. 1989. Alternative Agriculture. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Prato, T., Vandepopuliere, J., Fulhage, C., Haithcoat, T., Xu, F., Fulcher, C., and Jenner, M. 1991. “Managing Land Application of Broiler Litter to Optimize Economic Value and Water Quality.” Report no. G-1572-04, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior and Missouri Water Resources Center, University of Missouri-Columbia. August.Google Scholar
Prato, T., Xu, F., and Jenner, M. 1992a. “An Economic Analysis of Land Application of Broiler Litter in the Shoal Creek Watershed, Barry County, Missouri.” Proceedings, Second Annual Water Quality Conference, January 30-31, Center for Water Quality, University of Missouri-Colombia.Google Scholar
Prato, T., Xu, F., and Jenner, M. 1992b. “Economics of Broiler Litter Utilization in an Agricultural Watershed.” Proceedings, Fourth North American Symposium on Society and Resource Management, May, Madison, Wisc.Google Scholar
Prato, T., Xu, F., and Jenner, M. 1992c. “Application of Broiler Litter to Protect Water Quality.” Research Report no. 1, Center for Agricultural, Resource and Environmental Systems, University of Missouri-Columbia. August.Google Scholar
Prato, T., Xu, F., and Jenner, M. 1992d. Managing Land Application of Broiler Litter to Optimize Economic Value and Water Quality. Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics 24: 301.Google Scholar
Rutherford, A. 1993. “A Descriptive Analysis of the Poultry Litter Industry in Washington D.C. County, Arkansas.” Unpublished thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.Google Scholar
Scott, H.D., Smith, P.A., Mauromoustakos, A., and Limp, W.F. 1992. “Geographical and Statistical Relationships between Landscape Parameters and Water Quality Indices in an Arkansas Watershed.” Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Arkansas, Bulletin 933. December.Google Scholar
Scott, H.D., Mauromoustakos, A., and Gilmour, J.T. 1994. “The Impact of Land Application of Poultry Litter to Tall Fescue on the Fate of Nitrogen and Phosphorus.” Department of Agronomy and Agricultural Statistics, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Google Scholar
Seneca, J.J., and Taussig, M.K. 1974. Environmental Economics. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Steele, K.F., McCallister, W.K., and Adamski, J.C. 1990. “Nitrate and Bacterial Contamination of Limestone Aquifers in Poultry Cattle Production Areas of Northwestern Arkansas, U.S.A.” Fourth International Conference on Environmental Contamination, October, Barcelona.Google Scholar
Xu, F., and Prato, T. 1992. “Optimal Farm-Level Use and Value of Broiler Litter.” Research Report no. 4, Center for Agricultural, Resource and Environmental Systems, University of Missouri-Columbia. December.Google Scholar
Xu, F., and Prato, T. 1993. Optimal Farm-Level Use and Value of Broiler Litter.” Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics 23: 285.Google Scholar
Xu, F., and Prato, T. 1995. “Optimal Farm-Level Use and Value of Broiler Litter.” In Animal Waster and the Land-Water Interface, ed. Steele, Kenneth, 293–91. New York: Lewis Publishers.Google Scholar
Xu, F., Prato, T., and Fulcher, C. 1993. “Broiler Litter Application to Land in an Agricultural Watershed.” Water Science and Technology 28: 111–18.Google Scholar