Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T19:37:26.599Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rotations: Influence and constraint from commodity programs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Stephen Frerichs
Stephen Frerichs
Affiliation:
Examiner, Natural Resource Division, Office of Management and Budget, 725 – 17th Street, NW, Room 8025, Washington, DC 20503.
Get access

Abstract

Recent research and debate in sustainable agriculture has focused on the role of commodity programs in shaping rotation decisions. The commodity programs are often cited as obstacles to establishing long-term, diversified rotations. However, predicting which rotations would be practiced in the absence of commodity programs is difficult. How strongly commodity programs influence the rotation decision depends on the size of the economic incentive to participate and the percentage of cropland enrolled in the program. Data from the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) were used to calculate the distribution of the percentage of cropland in corn base for each farm record at ASCS in the Corn Belt and Lake States in 1988. The distribution shows that the level of corn program enrollment varies widely. Many corn base acres are found on farms with high corn base enrollment levels, which potentially constrains the rotation choice. However, enrollment levels in the corn program do appear to allow the option of diversified rotations for many corn base acres in the Corn Belt and Lake States, even during the high corn price support years of the mid to late 1980s.

Keywords

Rotationcommodity programssustainable agriculture
Type
Commentary
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 5 , Issue 3 , September 1990 , pp. 134 - 138
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

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

1.Dabbert, S., and Madden, P.. 1986. The transition to organic agriculture: A multi-year simulation model of a Pennsylvania farm. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 1(3):99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Daberkow, S., and Gill, M.. 1989. Common crop rotations among major field crops. Agricultural Resources: Inputs Situation and Outlook. Resources and Technology Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, AR-15:34–40.Google Scholar
3.Dobbs, T., Leddy, M. G., and Smolik, J. D.. 1988. Factors influencing the economic potential for alternative farming systems: Case analyses in South Dakota. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 3(1):26–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Fleming, M. 1987. Agricultural chemicals in ground water: Preventing contamination by removing barriers against low-input farm management. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 2(3):124–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Goldstein, W., and Young, D. L.. 1987. An agronomic and economic comparison of a conventional and low-input cropping system in the Palouse. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 2(2):51–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Heady, E. 1948. The economics of rotations with farm and production policy applications. Journal of Farm Economics 30(4):645–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.National Research Council. Committee on the Role of Alternative Farming Methods in Modern Production Agriculture. 1989. Alternative Agriculture. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
8.Power, J. 1987. Legumes: Their potential role in agricultural production. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 2(2):69–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar