Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T10:39:08.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Estimating The Value of the 0/92 Reduced Planting Alternatives of the 1985 Farm Bill For Farm Program Participants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 September 2016

Troy N. Thompson ,
Thomas O. Knight  and
Billy D. Boren
Troy N. Thompson
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University
Thomas O. Knight
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University
Billy D. Boren
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The 50/92 and 0/92reduced planting alternativestives of the 1985 farm bill allow farm program participants more flexibility in making production decisions. Specifically, these provisions relax the incentive to produce inherent in earlier commodity programs that linked deficiency payments directly to harvested acreage. This study examined the value of this additional decision flexibility for crop producers in the Blacklands of Central Texas. The results suggest that the reduced planting alternatives would not be used by, and have no value for risk neutral producers, but have substantial value for risk averse producers who would reduce planted acreage in years when yield expectations are low.

Keywords

decision treedecouplingfarm billrisk analysis
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , December 1990 , pp. 87 - 97
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 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

Anderson, J.R. Dillon, J.R., and Hardaker, J.D.. Agricultural Decision Analysis. Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1976.Google Scholar
Becker, G.S and Barry Carr, A.. CRS Report for Congress: The 1990 Farm Bill Notebook. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 1989.Google Scholar
Boshwitz, , Rudy, . “Decouple in the Long Run”. Choices, Third Quarter, 1987a, pp. 5–9.Google Scholar
Boshwitz, , Rudy, . “Decouple Supports First; Then Target Benefits”. Choices, First Quarter, 1987b, pp. 34–35.Google Scholar
Breimyer, H. “Grennes' Multilateral Decoupling”. Choices, Second Quarter, 1988, p. 37.Google Scholar
Butell, R and Naive, J.J.. “Factors Affecting Corn Yield”. Feed Situation, Fd 5-269. Economics, Statistics and Cooperatives Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, May 1978, pp. 14–16.Google Scholar
Byerlee, D.R and Anderson, J.R.. “Value of Predictors of Uncontrolled Factors in Response Functions”. Aust. J. Agr. Econ., 13(1969):118–127.Google Scholar
Grennes, , Thomas, . “The Author Responds”. Choices, Second Quarter, 1988a, pp. 37–38.Google Scholar
Grennes, , Thomas, . “Domestic Agriculture Programs: The Case of Multilateral Decoupling”. Choices, First Quarter, 1988b, pp. 9–11.Google Scholar
Griffin, R.C. Rister, M.E., Montgomery, J.M., and Turner, F.T.. “Scheduling Inputs With Production Functions: Optimal Nitrogen Programs for Rice”. So. J. Agr. Econ. 17(1985):159–168.Google Scholar
Griliches, Zvi. “Estimates of the Aggregate U.S. Farm Supply Function”. J. Farm Econ., 42(1960):282–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harkin, , Tom, . “Time for New Directions”. Choices, Third Quarter, 1987, pp. 5; 10–13.Google Scholar
de Janvry, A. “Optimal Levels of Fertilization Under Risk: The Potential for Corn and Wheat Fertilization Under Alternative Price Policies in Argentina”. Am. J. Agr. Econ., 54(1954):1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, R.P and Oamek, G.E.. “Risk Management by Colorado Dryland Wheat Farmers and the Elimination of the Disaster Assistance Program”. Am. J. Agr. Econ., 65(1983):247–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Love, R.O and Robison, L.J.. “An Empirical Analysis of the Intertemporal Stability of Risk Preferences”. So. J. Agr. Econ., 16(1984): 159–165.Google Scholar
Oury, B. “Allowing for Weather in Crop Production Model Building”. J. Farm Econ., 47(1965):250–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rausser, G.C and Foster, W.E., “Managing Farm Supply”. Choices, Third Quarter, 1987, pp. 18–21.Google Scholar
Ryan, J.G and Perrin, R.K.. “Fertilizer Response Information and Income Gains: The Case of Potatoes in Peru”.Am. J. Agr. Econ. 56(1974):337–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS Institute Inc. SAS Users' Guide: Statistics, Version 5 Edition. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc. 1985, p. 764.Google Scholar
Schlaifer, R. Analysis of Decisions Under Uncertainty, Malabar: Kreiger Publishing, 1983.Google Scholar
Teigen, L. “Fertilizer Use and Weather Effects on Corn and Soybean Yields”. Feed Outlook and Situation Report, Fd 5-296, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, May 1985, pp. 15–20.Google Scholar
Thompson, T.N. “Examination of the Benefits of the Reduced Planting Alternatives of the 1985 Farm Bill for Crop Producers in the Blacklands Land Resource Area of Texas”. M.S. thesis, Texas A&M University, 1989.Google Scholar
Vroomen, H and Hawthorn, M.. “1986-88 Com Yield Projections for the 10 Major Producing States”. Feed Situation and Outlook Yearbook, Fd 5-301, November 1986, pp. 15–21.Google Scholar
Wallace, H.A. “Mathematical Inquiry into the Effect of Weather on Corn Yields in the Eight Com Belt States”. U.S. Monthly Weather Rev., 48(1920):439–446.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, P and Eidman, V., “An Empirical Test of the Interval Approach for Estimating Risk Preferences”. West J. Agr. Econ. 8(1983): 170–182.Google Scholar