Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T13:47:31.798Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mandatory supply controls versus flexibility policy options for encouraging sustainable farming systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Thomas L. Dobbs  and
David L. Becker
Thomas L. Dobbs
Affiliation:
Professor, Economics Department, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD 57007-0895.
David L. Becker
Affiliation:
Assistant, Economics Department, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD 57007-0895.
Get access

Abstract

We analyzed two sets of farm policy options, representing different ideological approaches to government involvement in agriculture, to estimate their effects on the relative economic attractiveness of “sustainable” and “conventional” farming systems. The mandatory supply control approach, through strict acreage limitations on program crops, represents a strong government role in commodity supply management. The Normal Crop Acreage approach, on the other hand, allows farmers greater flexibility in deciding what crops to grow. We used economic models of five pairs of case study farms in different agroclimatic areas of South Dakota, covering corn-soybean, spring wheat, and winter wheat growing regions. Mandatory restrictions on the planted acreage of “program” crops, including soybeans, were found to favor the conventional systems, because they induced high prices for crops that predominate in conventional systems, especially com, soybeans, and wheat. In principle, however, mandatory acreage controls could require compliance with certain sustainable agriculture practices. Normal Crop Acreage (NCA) proposals can encourage greater use of sustainable farming systems. Where conventional corn and soybean production is relatively profitable, as in parts of eastern South Dakota, NCA options by themselves appear insufficient to induce changeovers to sustainable cropping systems. In wheat growing areas of northern and western South Dakota, however, where the two systems oflen are about equally profitable, NCA policies could promote sustainable systems, particularly if deficiency payments are not reduced for harvesting legumes and other non-program crops on NCA base. To have this positive effect, NCA policies must be introduced gradually and structured to limit adverse effects on the markets for legumes and other non-program crops that are important in sustainable rotations.

Keywords

agricultural policyNormal Crop Acreageplanting flexibilitycrop rotationssustainable agriculture
Type
Other Feature Articles
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , September 1992 , pp. 122 - 128
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

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.Becker, D.L., and Dobbs, T.L.. 1990. Implications of a mandatory supply control program for sustainable agriculture in South Dakota. Economics Research Report 90–6. Economics Dept., South Dakota State Univ., Brookings.Google Scholar
2.Becker, D.L., Dobbs, T.L., and Taylor, D.C.. 1990. Crop enterprise and principal rotation budgets for sustainable farms in South Dakota. Economics Research Report 90–2. Economics Dept, South Dakota State Univ., Brookings.Google Scholar
3. Center for Agricultural and Rural Development. 1989. Summary of the FAPRI baseline, September 22, 1989 (“The rainbow book”). Iowa State Univ., Ames.Google Scholar
4.Cole, J.D., and Dobbs, T.L.. 1990. Crop enterprise and whole-farm budgets for “conventional” farming systems in five areas of South Dakota. Economics Research Report 90–3. Economics Dept., South Dakota State Univ., Brookings.Google Scholar
5.Dobbs, T.L., and Becker, D.L.. 1991. Farm program flexibility options and sustainable agriculture. Economics Research Report 91–9. Economics Dept., South Dakota State Univ., Brookings.Google Scholar
6.Dobbs, T.L., and Cole, J.D.. 1992. Potential effects on rural economies of conversion to sustainable farming systems. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 7:70–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Dobbs, T.L., Leddy, M.G., and Smolik, J.D.. 1988. Factors influencing the economic potential for alternativefarming systems: Case analyses in South Dakota. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 3(1):26–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Dobbs, T.L., Becker, D.L., and Taylor, D.C.. 1991. Sustainable agriculture policy analyses: South Dakota on-farm case studies. Farming Systems Research-Extension 2(2): 109–124.Google Scholar
9.Faeth, P., Repetto, R., Kroll, K., Dai, Q., and Helmers, G.. 1991. Paying the farm bill: U.S. agricultural policy and the transition to sustainable agriculture. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
10.Hertel, T.W. 1990. Ten truths about supply control. In K. Allen (ed). Agricultural Policies in a New Decade. Resources for the Future and National Planning Association, Washington, D.C. pp. 153–169.Google Scholar
11.Knutson, R.D., Smith, E.G., Richardson, J.W., Penson, J.B. Jr., Hughes, D.W., Paggi, M.S., Yonkers, R.D., and Chen, D.T.. 1987. Policy alternatives for modifying the 1985 farm bill. Bull. 1561. Agric, and Food Policy Center, Texas A&M Univ., College Station.Google Scholar
12.Schnittker, J.A. 1990. Practical options for a 1990 farm bill. In K. Allen (ed). Agricultural Policies in a New Decade. Resources for the Future and National Planning Association, Washington, D.C. pp. 311–332.Google Scholar
13.Taylor, D.C., Dobbs, T.L., Becker, D.L., and Smolik, J.D.. 1989. Crop and livestock enterprises, risk evaluation, and management strategies on South Dakota sustainable farms. Economics Research Report 89–5. Economics Dept., South Dakota State Univ., Brookings.Google Scholar
14.U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. 1990. Farm bill: Proposal of the Administration. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
15.Westhoff, P., and Stephens, D.L.. 1990. An evaluation of planting flexibility options for the 1990 farm bill. Staff Report 3–90. Food and Agric. Policy Research Institute, Univ. of Missouri, Columbia, and Iowa State Univ., Ames.Google Scholar
16.Young, D.L., and Painter, K.M.. 1990. Farm program impacts on incentives for green manure rotations. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 5(3):99–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Young, C.E., Hyberg, B.T., Price, J.M., Huang, W.Y., Lee, C., Sharpies, J.S., and Dvoskin, D.. 1989. Economic effects of mandatory production controls. Agric. Economics Report 595. Economic Research Service, U.S. Dept. of Agric., Washington, D.C.Google Scholar