Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:48:06.141Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Improving Environmental Quality in South Florida through Silvopasture: An Economic Approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

G. Andrew Stainback ,
Janaki R.R. Alavalapati ,
Ram K. Shrestha ,
Sherry Larkin  and
Grace Wong
G. Andrew Stainback
Affiliation:
School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
Janaki R.R. Alavalapati
Affiliation:
School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
Ram K. Shrestha
Affiliation:
School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
Sherry Larkin
Affiliation:
Food and Resource Economics, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
Grace Wong
Affiliation:
Conservation International, Washington, DC
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A dynamic optimization model is used to compare the profitability of silvopasture with traditional cattle ranching in south Florida. Silvopasture can reduce phosphorus runoff from cattle ranching—a major environmental concern for Lake Okeechobee and the Everglades. Silvopasture can also sequester carbon, thereby offsetting global climate change. The effectiveness of phosphorus runoff taxes and carbon sequestration payments for inducing landowners to adopt silvopasture is investigated. We find that phosphorus taxes alone would not induce landowners to adopt silvopasture. However, payments to landowners to sequester carbon, alone or in conjunction with phosphorus runoff taxes, can make silvopasture financially competitive with traditional ranching.

Keywords

carbon sequestrationcattle ranchingFaustmann modelglobal climate changephosphorus runoffsilvopastureslash pinetaxQ57Q23
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 36 , Issue 2 , August 2004 , pp. 481 - 489
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2004

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

Alavalapati, J.R.R., Stainback, G.A., and Carter, D.R.. “Restoration of the Longleaf Pine Ecosystem on Private Lands in the US South: An Ecological Economic Analysis.” Ecological Economics 40(2002):411–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birdsey, R.A. “Carbon Storage for Major Forest Types and Regions in the Conterminous United States.” Forest and Global Change: Volume II, Forest Management Opportunities for Mitigating and Adapting to Climate Change. Sampson, R.N. and Hair, D., eds., pp. 1–25. Washington, DC: American Forests, 1996.Google Scholar
Boggess, C.F., Flaig, E.G., and Fluck, R.C.. “Phosphorus Budget-Basin Relationships for Lake Okeechobee Tributary Basins.” Ecological Engineering 5(1995):143–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capece, J.C., Fanning, M.D., Campbell, K.L., Graetz, D.A., and Portier, K.M.. “Optimization of Best Management Practices for the Beef Cattle Ranching in the Lake Okeechobee Basin: Progress Report #4.” University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 1999.Google Scholar
Clason, T.R. “Economic Implications of Silvipas-tures on Southern Pine Plantations.” Agroforestry Systems 29(1995):227–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felton, E.R.Cattle and Timber in South Florida. Internet site: http://jrm.library.arizona.edu/data/1961/146/5felt.pdf (Accessed March 10, 2003).Google Scholar
Grado, S.C., Hovermale, C.H., and St. Louis, D.J.. “A Financial Analysis of a Silvopasture System in Southern Mississippi.” Agroforestry Systems 53,3(2001):313–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, R., and Havens, K.. 1999. “Lake Okeechobee Action Plan.” Lake Okeechobee Issue Team for the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Working Group, West Palm Beach, FL, 1999.Google Scholar
Huang, H.F., and Kronrad, G.D.. “The Cost of Sequestering Carbon on Private Forest Lands.” Forest Policy and Economics 2(2001):133–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). “Climate Change 2001: Impact, Adaptation and Vulnerability.” Contribution of Working Group II to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001.Google Scholar
Lundgren, G.K., Conner, J.R., and Pearson, H.A.. “An Economic Analysis of Forest Grazing on Four Timber Management Situation.” Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 7(1983):119–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienaar, L.V., and Rheney, J.W.. “Modeling Stand Level Growth and Yield Response to Silvicultural Treatments.” Forest Science 41(1995):629–38.Google Scholar
Rizzardi, K. “Translating Science into Law: Phosphorus Standards in the Everglades.” Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law 17(2001):149–68.Google Scholar
Ruhl, J.B. “Three Questions for Agriculture and the Environment.” Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law 17(2002):395–408.Google Scholar
Rummell, R.S. “Beef Cattle Production and Range Practices in South Florida.” Southern Forest and Range Experiment Station. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Asheville, North Carolina, 1957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stainback, G.A., and Alavalapati, J.R.R.. “Economic Analysis of Slash Pine Forest Carbon Sequestration in the Southern U.S.” Journal of Forest Economics 8(2002):105–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mart-South, Timber. The Norris Foundation. Athens, GA: University of Georgia, 2002.Google Scholar
Wolters, G.L. “Southern Pine Overstories Influence Herbage Quality.” Journal of Range Management 26(1973):423–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yin, R., Pienaar, L.V., and Aronow, M.E.. “The Productivity and Profitability of Fiber Farming.” Journal of Forestry 96(1998):3–18.Google Scholar
Zinkhan, F.C., and Mercer, D.E.. “An Assessment of Agroforestry Systems in the Southern U.S.A.” Agroforestry Systems 35(1997):303–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar