Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T07:14:15.010Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exploring Options for a New Farm Bill

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Gary M. Adams  and
James W. Richardson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Three farm programs to increase support by $6 billion per year are analyzed. Higher marketing loan (ML), higher AMTA payments, and Modified Supplemental Income (SIP) program are evaluated at the sector and farm levels. At the sector level impacts on supply, demand, and price are modest with acreage shifts of less than two million acres. At the farm level SIP was preferred by cotton farms and higher ML was preferred by farms producing soybeans. Higher AMTA payments were preferred by 3 of 11 farms. Overall, SIP was ranked first or second by 10 of 11 representative farms.

Type
Invited Paper Sessions
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , August 2001 , pp. 261 - 270
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2001

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

Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI). FAPRI 2000 U.S. Agricultural Outlook. Staff Report 1-00, Iowa State University, January 2000.Google Scholar
Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI). The 1—2—3 Scenarios: An Analysis of Safety Net Alternatives. FAPRI-UMC Report 07-00, University of Missouri, July 2000.Google Scholar
The Food and Fiber Letter. A publication of Sparks Companies, Inc., October 2, and November 6, 2000.Google Scholar
Richardson, J.W. and Nixon, C.J. “Description of FLIPSIM: A General Firm Level Policy Simulation Model.” Bulletin 1528, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, July 1986.Google Scholar
Richardson, J.W., Klose, S.L., and Gray, A.W. “An Applied Procedure for Estimating and Simulating Multivariate Empirical (MVE) Probability Distributions in Farm-Level Risk Assessment and Policy Analysis.” Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics 32, 2(August 2000):299–315.Google Scholar
Richardson, J.W., Schumann, K., Feldman, P. “Si-metar: Simulation for Excel to Analyze Risk.” Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University, Mimeo, September 2000.Google Scholar
Smith, E.G. and Richardson, J.W. “Impacts of Alternative Price and Income Support Programs on Economic Viability of Representative Grain and Cotton Farms.” AFPC Briefing Report, July 2000.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Communications News Release. “USDA to Provide $2.8 Billion in Loss Assistance.” Release 0450.98, Washington, DC, October 1998.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Communications News Release. “Glickman Extends Sign-up for Crop Loss Disaster Assistance Program to April 9.” Release 0090.99, Washington, DC, March 1999.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Communications News Release. “USDA Providing Record Assistance to Farmers.” Release 0348.00, Washington, DC, October 2000.Google Scholar