Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T07:27:23.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

External economic drivers and US agricultural production systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 June 2008

J.M. Halloran  and
D.W. Archer
J.M. Halloran*
Affiliation:
US Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service, New England Plant, Soil and Water Laboratory, Orono, ME 04469, USA.
D.W. Archer
Affiliation:
US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Northern Great Plains Research Laboratory, Mandan, ND 58554, USA.
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

US agriculture operates in a market driven economy, although government policies can have influence on what farmers produce and how they produce it. As with other businesses, agricultural producers respond to economic incentives and disincentives, and make decisions to maximize their welfare; usually measured as net income. We examined how external economic drivers shape the type of agricultural systems that producers adopt. Specifically, we considered the influence of technological advancements, income supports embodied in farm legislation, and changes in market structure and consumer demand. Changes in technology have often favored large-scale and specialized operations. Many of the technological advancements have required large-scale production units to justify the investment. Often the technology has been commodity specific. However, there is some evidence that more diversified production units might be able to achieve economies of both scale and scope. The influence of commodity support programs has been ambiguous. As farm legislation has evolved to decouple production decisions from program benefits, the incentives to specialize in program crops (crops that receive price and/or income benefits under federal legislation, such as corn, other grains and oil seeds) have diminished. However, wealth and risk effects, albeit small, may have promoted or inhibited the adoption of a more integrated system. The ability of producers to adopt more integrated systems has been primarily influenced by their natural resource base and proximity to markets. Changes in market structure, channels and consumer demand in the past five decades have been dramatic with consolidation and specialization in both production and marketing sectors. However, the diversity of consumer demand has also created opportunities for more integrated farm operations. There is an increasing number of consumers who have become concerned about how and where their food has been produced. Markets for organic, locally produced, free range and the like are expected to grow. While price and income supports may have been biased towards specialization (as these programs were targeted to specific commodities), the reduction in risk associated with the programs has enabled producers to expand the number and diversity of their production enterprises. Furthermore, through the use of strategic alliances, cooperation among producers on a regional basis may eventually lead to greater integration and diversification than could be achieved for the individual farm operation.

Keywords

specializationindustrializationeconomic incentivesFarm Billprice and income supportsintegrated systemsdiversificationmarket structure and concentrationcontractsdemandstrategic alliances
Type
Review Article
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 23 , Special Issue 4: Principles of Integrated Agricultural Systems , December 2008 , pp. 296 - 303
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Cambridge University Press

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 Crews, T.E., Mohler, C.L., and Power, A.G. 1991. Energetic and ecosystem integrity: the defining principles of sustainable agriculture. Americal Journal of Alternative Agriculture 6(3):146–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2 Ruttan, V.W. 1990. Sustainability is not enough. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 5(1):128–130.Google Scholar
3 Freyenberger, S., Levins, R., Norman, D., and Rumsey, D. 2001. Beyond profitability: using economic indicators to measure for sustainability. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 16(1):31–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4 Grilliches, Z. 1957. Hybrid corn: an exploration in the economics of technological change. Econometrica 25(4):501–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 Caswell, K., Fuglie, C., Ingram, S., and Kasak, C. 2001. Adoption of agricultural production practices: lessons learned from the U.S. Department of Agriculture area studies project. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Agricultural Economic Report 792, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
6 Heady, E.O. 1952. Diversification in resource allocation and minimization of income variability. Journal of Farm Economics 54:482–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7 Dimitri, C.A., Effland, A., and Conklin, N. 2005. The 20th century transformation of U.S. agriculture and farm policy. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Economic Information Bulletin 3, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
8 Morrison Paul, C., Nehring, R., Banker, D., and Somwaru, A. 2004. Scale economies and efficiency in U.S. agriculture: are traditional farms history? Journal of Productivity Analysis 22:185–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9 Fernandez-Cornejo, J., Mishra, A., Nehring, R., Hendricks, C., Southern, M., and Gregory, A. 2007. Off-farm income, technology adoption, and farm economic performance. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Economic Research Report 36, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
10 Westcott, P.C. and Young, C.E. 2004. Farm program effects on agricultural production: coupled and decoupled programs. In Burfisher, M.E. and Hopkins, J. (eds) Decoupled Payments in a Changing Policy Setting. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Agricultural Economic Report No. 838, Washington, DC. p. 7–17.Google Scholar
11 Bowers, D.E., Rasmussen, W.D., and Baker, G.L. 1984. History of agricultural price-support and adjustment programs 1933–84: background for 1985 farm legislation. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Agriculture Information Bulletin Number 485, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
12 Ahearn, M.C., El-Osta, H., and Dewbre, J. 2006. The impact of coupled and decoupled government subsidies on off-farm labor participation of U.S. farm operators. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 88:393–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13 Just, R. and Schmitz, A. 1989. The effect of U.S. farm programs on diversification. In Schmitz, A. (ed.) Free Trade and Agricultural Diversification. Westview Press, CO. p. 302–328.Google Scholar
14 Mafoua-Koukenbene, E., Hornbaker, R.H., and Sherrick, B.J. 1996. Effects of government program payments on farm portfolio diversification. Review of Agricultural Economics 18:281–291.Google Scholar
15 Smith, E.G. and Young, D.L. 2003. Cropping diversity along the U.S.–Canada border. Review of Agricultural Economics 25(1):154–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16 Westcott, P.C., Young, C.E., and Price, J.M. 2002. The 2002 farm act: provisions and implications for commodity markets. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Agricultural Information Bulletin 778, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
17 Goodwin, B.K. and Mishra, A.K. 2006. Are ‘Decoupled’ farm program payments really decoupled? An empirical evaluation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 88:73–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18 Key, N. and Roberts, M.J. 2006. Government payments and farm business survival. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 88:382–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19 Goetz, S.J. and Debertin, D.L. 1996. Rural population decline in the 1980s: impacts of farm structure and federal farm programs. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78:517–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20 Makki, S.S., Somwaru, A., and Vandeveer, M. 2004. Decoupled payment and farmers' production decisions under risk. In Burfisher, M.E. and Hopkins, J. (eds). Decoupled Payments in a Changing Policy Setting. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Agricultural Economic Report No. 838, Washington, DC. p. 33–39.Google Scholar
21 Lin, W. and Dismukes, R. 2007. Supply response under risk: implications for counter-cyclical payments' production impact. Review of Agricultural Economics 29:64–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22 Hardaker, J.B., Huirne, R.B.M., and Anderson, J.R. 1997. Coping with Risk in Agriculture. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
23 Pope, R.D. and Prescott, R. 1980. Diversification in relation to farm size and other socioeconomic characteristics. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 62:554–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24 Sumner, D.A. 2003. Implications of the US Farm Bill of 2002 for agricultural trade and trade negotiations. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 47:99–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25 Roberts, M.J. and Key, N. 2005. Losing under contract: transaction-cost externalities and spot market disintegration. Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization, Vol. 3. Available at web site: http://www.bepress.com/jafio/vol3/iss2/art2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26 Hoshide, A.K., Dalton, T.J., and Smith, S.N. 2004. Representative farm budgets and performance indicators for integrated farming practices in Maine. Bulletin 850, Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station, University of Maine.Google Scholar
27 Harris, J.M., Kaufman, P.R., Martinez, S.W., and Price, C. 2002. Competition, coordination and technological innovations in the 21st century. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Agricultural Economic Report 811, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
28 Dimitri, C., Tegene, A., and Kaufman, P.R. 2003. U.S. produce markets: marketing channels, trade practices, and retail pricing behavior. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Agricultural Economic Report 825, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
29 MacDonald, J., Perry, J., Ahearn, M., Banker, D., Chambers, W., Dimitri, C., Key, N., Nelson, K., and Southard, L. 2004. Contracts, markets, and prices: organizing the production and use of agricultural commodities. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Agricultural Economic Report Number 837, Washington, DC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30 MacDonald, J.M. and Korb, P. 2006. Agricultural contracting update: contracts in 2003. U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, Economic Information Bulletin No. 9, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
31 Ward, C.E., Koontz, S.R., Dowty, T.L., Trapp, J.N., and Peel, D.S. 1999. Marketing agreement impacts in an experimental market for fed cattle. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 81:347–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32 Roberts, M.J., Kirwan, B., and Hopkins, J. 2003. The incidence of government program payments on agricultural land rents: the challenges of identification. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85:762–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33 Zhang, M. and Sexton, R.J. 2000. Captive supplies and the cash market price: a spatial markets approach. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 25:88–108.Google Scholar
34 Schroeter, J.R. and Azzam, A. 2003. Captive supplies and the spot market price of fed cattle: the plant-level relationship. Journal of Agribusiness 19:489–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35 MacDonald, J.M. 2006. Agricultural contracting, competition, and antitrust. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 88:1244–1250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36 Goodhue, R.E. and Hoffmann, S. 2006. Reading the fine print in agricultural contracts: conventional contract clauses, risks and returns. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 88:1237–1243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37 Morrison Paul, C., Nehring, R., and Banker, D. 2004. Productivity, economies, and efficiency in U.S. agriculture: a look at contracts. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86:1308–1314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38 Heuth, B. and Melkonyan, T. 2004. Identity preservation, multitasking, and agricultural contract design. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86:842–847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39 Russelle, M, Entz, M., and Franzluebbers, A. 2007. Reconsidering integrated crop-livestock systems in North America. Journal of Agribusiness 99:325–334.Google Scholar
40 Oberholtzer, L., Dimitri, C., and Greene, C. 2005. Price Premiums Hold on as U.S. Organic Produce Market Expands. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
41 Hatanaka, M., Bain, C., and Busch, L. 2005. Third-party certification in the global agrifood system. Food Policy 30:354–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42 Guthman, J. 2004. Agrarian Dreams: The Paradox of Organic Farming in California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
43 DeLind, L.B. 2000. Transforming organic agriculture into industrial organic products: reconsidering national organic standards. Human Organization 59:198–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44 Tubene, S. and Hanson, J. 2002. The wholesale produce auction: an alternative marketing strategy for small farms. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 17:18–24.Google Scholar
45 Liebig, M., Tanaka, D., Krupinsky, J., Merill, S., and Hanson, J. 2007. Dynamic cropping systems: contributions to improve agroecosystem sustainability. Journal of Agribusiness 99(4):899–903.Google Scholar