No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Role of economic analysis in the evaluation of new dryland technologies
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 October 2009
Abstract
An evaluation of agricultural systems often involves multidisciplinary teams that include crop scientists, animal scientists, soil scientists, pest control specialists, agricultural economists, and others. Agricultural economists can improve the technical quality and comprehe nsiveness of agricultural systems research in six major areas: budgeting and investment analyses; whole-farm and institutional factors; risk considerations; aggregate effects on crop and livestock prices; society-wide welfare effects of technical or policy changes; and economic values of environmental and other nonmarket effects. Economic analysis has been part of several successful multidisciplinary research efforts in the United States Pacific Northwest. These have covered soil conservation, integrated pest management, sustainable agriculture, crop rotation choice, and beef ranch management. As an example of institutional influences on economic outcomes, one study showed that the structure and selectivity of United States commodity programs have favored conventional over low-input rotations. Regarding risk management, an appropriate “package system” including conservation tillage, a diversified crop rotation, and adequate chemical weed management was shown both to sustain profitability and to reduce income fluctuations. Properly designed economic analysis can make similar contributions to identifying successful dryl and agricultural technologies throughout the world.
- Type
- Selected Papers from the U.S.-Middle East Conference on Sustainable Dryland Agriculture
- Information
- American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 11 , Issue 2-3 , September 1996 , pp. 127 - 131
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996
References
1.Boehlje, M.D., and Eidman, V.R.. 1984. Farm Management. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y.Google Scholar
2.Faeth, P., Repetto, R., Kroll, K., Dai, Q., and Helmers, G.. 1991. Paying the Farm Bill: U.S. Agricultural Policy and the Transition to Sustainable Agriculture. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
3.Gardner, B.L. 1988. The Economics of Agricultural Policies. MacMillan, New York, N.Y.Google Scholar
4.Johnson, G.L. 1987. Holistic modeling of multidisciplinary subject matter and problematic domains. In Fox, K.A. and Miles, D.G. (eds). Systems Economics: Concepts, Models, and Multidisciplinary Perspectives. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames. pp. 85–109.Google Scholar
5.Mitchell, R.C., and Carson, R.T.. 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
6.Painter, K.M., and Young, D.L.. 1994. Environmental and economic impacts of policy reform: An interregional comparison. J. Agric. and Applied Economics 26:451–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Patrick, G. 1992. Managing risk in agriculture. North Central Extension Pub., Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, Indiana.Google Scholar
8.Weston, J.R., and Brigham, E.F.. 1993. Essentials of Managerial Finance. 10th ed.Dryden Press, Ft. Worth, Texas.Google Scholar
9.Young, D.L., Kwon, T.J., and Young, F.L.. 1994. Profit and risk for integrated conservation farming systems in the Palouse. J. Soil and Water Conservation 49:601–606.Google Scholar
10.Young, D.L., and van Kooten, G.C.. 1989. Economics of flexible spring cropping in a summer fallow region. J. Production Agric. 2:173–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar