Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T00:59:34.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Physical and Economic Model Integration for Measurement of the Environmental Impacts of Agricultural Chemical Use

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2017

John M. Antle
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Economics, Montana State University
Susan M. Capalbo
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Economics, Montana State University
Get access

Extract

Chemical use in agriculture has, over the last fifty years, been the good, the bad, and the uncertain. By all accounts, agricultural productivity increased significantly in the last half century due in part to the introduction and expanded use of agricultural chemicals. More recently, however, some agricultural practices, including increased chemical use, are viewed as having a major impact on the larger ecosystem and as being an important source of environmental nonpoint pollution. Recent groundwater-monitoring programs in the United States sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have revealed contamination of underground water supplies by pesticides, nitrates, and other industrial organic chemicals. It has also been questioned whether the high rates of productivity growth that have characterized modern agriculture can be sustained with technologies that disrupt the ecosystem. While there is no doubt that production agriculture does affect the ecosystem, it is not obvious that these effects are necessarily widespread and deleterious to the environment or to long-run productivity, or, if they are, how they should be valued and traded-off with other social objectives.

Type
The Effects of Agricultural Production on Environmental Quality
Copyright
Copyright © 1991 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.)

Footnotes

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Montana Agricultural Experiment Station, the Resources and Technology Division. ERS/USDA, and the Rockefeller Foundation.

References

Antle, J. M., and Just, R. E.Effects of Commodity Program Structure on Resource Use and the Environment.” In Commodity and Resource Policy in Agricultural Systems, edited by Bockstad, N. and Just, R. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1990.Google Scholar
Beasley, D. B., Pionke, H. B., and Leonard, R. A.Modeling of Agricultural Nonpoint-Source Surface Runoff and Sediment Yield: A Review of the Modeler's Perspective.” Unpublished paper, 1989.Google Scholar
Jury, W. A., Focht, D., and Farmer, W. J.Evaluation of Pesticide Groundwater Pollution Potential from Standard Indices of Soil-Chemical Adsorption and Biodegradation.” Journal of Environmental Quality 16 (1987):422–28.Google Scholar
Mackay, D., Paterson, S., Cheung, B., and Neily, W. B.Evaluating the Environmental Behavior of Chemicals Using a Level III Fugacity Model.” Chemosphere 14 (1985):335–74.Google Scholar
Rao, P. S., Hornsby, A. G., and Jessup, R. E.Indices for Ranking the Potential for Pesticide Contamination of Groundwater.” Pro. Soil Crop Science Soc., Fla. 44 (1985):18.Google Scholar
Wagenet, R. J., and Hutson, J. L. Leaching Estimation and Chemistry Model: LEACHM. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, Center for Environmental Research, 1987.Google Scholar
Wagenet, R. J., and Rao, P. S. C.Modeling Pesticide Fate in Soils.” In Pesticides in the Environment: Processes, Impacts, and Modeling (Soil Sci. Book Ser. no. 2), edited by Cheng, H. H., Green, R. E., Spencer, W., and Bailey, G. W. Madison, WI: Amer. Soc. Agron., 1990.Google Scholar