Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T06:34:57.575Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economic Incentives to Reduce the Quantity of Chemicals Used in Commercial Agriculture*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Ronald D. Lacewell  and
William R. Masch
Ronald D. Lacewell
Affiliation:
Texas A&M University
William R. Masch
Affiliation:
Texas A&M University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In recent years, considerable national attention has focused on the use of chemicals by the agriculture sector. Recent descriptive analyses have addressed the problem.of attempting to determine, or to describe, some of the social “costs” of chemicals used in agriculture which later move to non-agricultural areas. The primary effect of the attention on chemical use in agriculture has been legislative action relative to specific pesticides such as DDT and 2,4,5-T. These actions have made national news along with reports of measured residues of these pesticides in wildlife, fish and other forms of foodstuffs.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , July 1972 , pp. 203 - 208
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1972

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.)

Footnotes

*

Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Technical Article No. 9606

References

[1]Farris, D. E., and Sprott, J. M., “Economie and Policy Implications of Pollution from Agricultural Chemicals,” American Journal of Agricultural Economies, 53: 661, Nov. 1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Fox, Austin S., et. al., Restricting the Use of Phenoxy Herbicides – Costs to Farmers, USDA, Ag. Econ. Report No. 194, Nov. 1970.Google Scholar
[3]Green, John W., Eidman, Vernon R. and Peters, Larry R., Alternative Irrigated Crop Enterprises on Clay and Sandy Loam Soils of the Oklahoma Panhandle: Resource Requirements, Costs and Returns, Oklahoma Agr. Exp. Sta. Processed Series P-554, March, 1967.Google Scholar
[4]Grubb, Herbert W., Moors, D. S., and Lacewell, R. D., Expected Production Requirements, Costs and Returns for Major Agricultural Crops: Fine Textured Soils – Texas High Plains, Texas Agr. Exp. Sta., MP-848, Sept. 1967.Google Scholar
[5]Headley, J. C, and Lewis, J. N., The Pesticide Problem: An Economic Approach to Public Policy, Resources for the Future, Inc., John Hopkins Press, 1966.Google Scholar
[6]Jenkins, Robert P., “A Systems Approach to Pest Control Research,” Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 3: 143–148, Dec.1971.Google Scholar
[7]Langham, Max R., “A Theoretical Framework for Viewing Pollution Problems,” Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 3:1–8, Dec. 1971.Google Scholar
[8]Report to the President, Control of Agricultural-Related Pollution, Submitted by the Secretary of Agriculture and The Director of the Office of Science and Technology, Washington, D. C, Jan. 1969.Google Scholar
[9]Texas Agricultural Extension Service, “Enterprise Costs and Returns per Acre for Northern Texas High Plains,” unpublished Area Farm Management Specialist Budgets, 1971.Google Scholar
[10]Texas Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, ASCS Annual Report, Texas 1969, College Station, Texas.Google Scholar
[11]Texas Department of Agriculture, Texas Field Crop Statistics, 1969, Austin, Texas.Google Scholar
[12]Texas Department of Agriculture, Texas Small Grains Statistics, 1969, Austin, Texas.Google Scholar
[13]U. S. Department of Agriculture, “Economic Research on Pesticides for Policy Decisionmaking,” Proceedings of a Symposium, Washington, D. C, April, 1971.Google Scholar
[14]Wadleigh, Cecil H., Wastes in Relation to Agriculture and Forestry, USDA, Dept. of Agr. Miscellaneous Publication No. 1065, March, 1968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar