Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T09:24:09.420Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cropping systems for the Southern Great Plains of the United States as influenced by federal policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2007

Jon T. Biermacher ,
Francis M. Epplin  and
Kent R. Keim
Jon T. Biermacher
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078-6026, USA.
Francis M. Epplin*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078-6026, USA.
Kent R. Keim
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078-6026, USA.
*
*Corresponding author: Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The majority of cropland in the rain-fed region of the North Central District of Oklahoma in the US is seeded with winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) and most of it is in continuous wheat production. When annual crops are grown in monocultures, weed species and disease agents may become established and expensive to control. For many years prior to 1996, federal policy provided incentives for District producers to grow wheat and disincentives to diversify. In 1996, the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act (Freedom to Farm Act) was instituted, followed by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act (FSRIA) in 2002. The objective of this study was to determine the impact of FAIR and FSRIA programs on crop diversity in the North Central District of Oklahoma. The economics of three systems, monoculture continuous winter wheat, continuous soybean (Glycine max) and a soybean–winter wheat–soybean rotation, were compared using cash market prices (CASH), CASH plus the effective loan deficiency payments (a yield-dependent subsidy) of the FAIR Act of 1996, and CASH plus the effective loan deficiency payments of the FSRIA of 2002. We found that the loan deficiency payment structure associated with FAIR provided a non-market incentive that favored soybean. However, under provisions of the 2002 FSRIA, the incentive for soybean was adjusted, resulting in greater expected returns for continuous wheat. Due to erratic weather, soybean may not be a good alternative for the region. Research is needed to identify crops that will fit in a rotation with wheat.

Keywords

wheatsoybeancrop rotationFAIRFSRIAeconomics
Type
Review Article
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , June 2006 , pp. 77 - 83
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2006

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

01Epplin, F.M. 1997. Wheat yield response to changes in production practices induced by program provisions. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 22: 333–344.Google Scholar
02Green,, R.C. 1990. Program provisions for program crops: A database for 1961–90. Staff Report No. AGES 9010. USDA, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
03Tweeten, L. 1970. Foundations of Farm Policy. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.Google Scholar
04Gillespie, J.M., Hatch, U. and Duffy, P.A. 1998. An economic analysis of conservation tillage systems under the conservation provisions of the 1985 farm bill. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 44: 483–486.Google Scholar
05Hoag, D. and Holloway, H. 1991. Farm production decisions under cross and conservation compliance. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73: 189–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
06Gebremedhin,, B. and Schwab,, G. 1998. The economic importance of crop rotation systems: Evidence from the literature. Staff paper No. 98–13. Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.Google Scholar
07Young, D.L. and Painter, K.M. 1990. Farm program impacts on incentives for greenmanure rotations. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 5: 99–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
08Smith, E.G. and Young, D.L. 2003. Cropping diversity along the U.S.–Canada border. Review of Agricultural Economics 25: 154–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
09Al-Kaisi,, M.M., Yin,, X., Hanna,, M., and Duffy,, M.D. 2002. Considerations in selecting no-till. Iowa State University University Extension. Bulletin No. PM 1901d. Available at Web site http://www.extension.iastate.edu/Publications/PM1901D.pdf (verified 26 April 2005).Google Scholar
10Oklahoma Agricultural Statistics Service. 2002. 2001 Bulletin. Available at Web site: http://www.nass.usda.gov/ok/5year00/garfield.htm (verified 11 October 2004).Google Scholar
11USDA, Farm Service Agency. 2004. Conservation Reserve Program, Monthly Contract Report, Summary for active Contracts. Available at Web site http://www.fsa.usda.gov/crpstorpt/r1sumyr/ok.htm (verified 11 October 2004).Google Scholar
12Westcott,, P.C., Young,, C.E., and Price,, J.M. 2002. The 2002 Farm Act Provisions and Implications for Commodity Markets. USDA Agriculture Information Bulletin number 778. Available at Web site http://agecon.lib.umn.edu/cgi-bin/pdf_view.pl?paperid=15282&ftype=.pdf (verified 26 April 2005).Google Scholar
13Kletke,, D. and Doye,, D.G. 2002. Oklahoma farm and ranch custom rates, 2001–2002. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service, CR-205, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater.Google Scholar
14Kletke,, D. and Sestak,, R. 1991. The operation and use of MACHSEL: A farm machinery selection template. Department of Agricultural Economics Computer Software Series CSS-53. Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK.Google Scholar
15Oklahoma Department of Agriculture. 2000. Oklahoma Market Report, Vol. 48:. ODA, Oklahoma, OK.Google Scholar
16Lence, S.H. and Mishra, A.K. 2003. The impacts of different farm programs on cash rents. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85: 753–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17El-Osta, H.S. and Mishra, A.K. 2005. Dimensions of wealth dispersion among farm operator households: An assessment of the impacts of farm subsidies. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 37: 187–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar