Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T19:34:31.443Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Soil Erosion, Intertemporal Profit, and the Soil Conservation Decision

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2016

Angelos Pagoulatos ,
David L. Debertin  and
Fachurrozi Sjarkowi
Angelos Pagoulatos
Affiliation:
University of Kentucky
David L. Debertin
Affiliation:
University of Kentucky
Fachurrozi Sjarkowi
Affiliation:
University of Kentucky
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study developed an intertemporal profit function to determine optimal conservation adoption strategies under alternative scenarios with respect to crop prices, relative yields, discount rates, and other assumptions. Special emphasis was placed on determining from the analysis when the switchover from conventional to soil-conserving practices should take place. Technological change was incorporated by allowing crop yields to vary over time. Our analysis thus provides a new, more precise measurement of the cumulative net benefit differential. The optimal period for switchover from conventional to soil-conserving practices was found to vary depending on the assumptions made about corn prices and discount rates. Empirical results were based on an erosion damage function (EDF) for Western Kentucky corn production.

Keywords

soil conservationtechnical changebenefit/cost analysisintertemporal decisionmakingtechnologyadoptionno-till
Type
Submitted Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , December 1989 , pp. 55 - 62
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1989

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

Ball, V.E. “Output, Input, and Productivity Measurement in U.S. Agriculture, 1948-1979.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 67(1985):475–486.Google Scholar
Burt, O.R. “Farm Level Economics of Soil Conservation in the Palouse Area of the Northwest.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 63(1981): 83–92.Google Scholar
Crosson, P.R., and Stout, A.T.. Productivity Effects of Cropland Erosion in the United States. Washington D.C. Resources for the Future, 1982.Google Scholar
Epplin, F.M., Tice, T.F., and Lee, L.K.. “A Comparison of Economies of Size for Conventional and Conservation Tillage System.” Paper presented at the AAEA Annual Meetings, Ithaca, New York. August 1984.Google Scholar
Frye, W.W., and Phillips, S.H.. “How to Grow Crops with Less Energy.” In Cutting Energy Costs, The 1980 Yearbook of Agriculture, USDA, 1980.Google Scholar
Griliches, Z. “The Sources of Measured Productivity Growth: U.S. Agriculture, 1940-60.” J. Pol. Econ., 71(1963): 331–346.Google Scholar
Johnson, L.C. “Soil Loss Tolerance: Fact or Myth?” J. Soil Water Conserv., 42(1987): 155–160.Google Scholar
King, A.D. “Progress in No-till.” J. Soil Water Conserv., 38(1983): 160–161.Google Scholar
Lingard, J. and Rayner, A.J.. “Productivity Growth in Agriculture: A Measurement Framework.” J. Agr. Econ., 26(1975): 87–104.Google Scholar
Maglaby, R. Gadsby, D., Colacicco, D., and Thigpen, J.. “Trends in Conservation Tillage Use.” J. Soil Water Conserv., 40(1985): 274–276.Google Scholar
Mueller, D.H., Klemme, R.M., and Dariel, T.C.. “Short- and Long-Term Cost Comparisons of Soil Conventional and Conservation Tillage Systems in Corn Production.” J. Soil Water >Conserv., 40(1985): 466–469.Google Scholar
Pagoulatos, A. Debertin, D.L., and Sjarkowi, F.. “Soil Erosion and Yield Uncertainty in Soil Conservation Decision.” Agricultural Economics Research Report 45. Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Kentucky. May 1987.Google Scholar
Phillips, R.E., Blevins, R.L., Thomas, G.W., Frye, W.W., and Phillips, S.H.. “No-Tillage Agriculture.” Science, 208(1980): 1108–1113.Google Scholar
Sharp, B.M.H., and Bromley, D.W.. “Agricultural Pollution: The Economics of Coordination.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 61(1979): 591–600.Google Scholar
Shurley, W.D., Moore, C.L. Sr., and Trimble, R.L.. “1985 Kentucky Field Crop and Forage Budget Estimates.” Agr. Econ. Ext. No. 55. University of Kentucky. April 1985.Google Scholar
Solow, R.M. “Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function.” Rev. Econ. Stat, 39(1957): 312–320.Google Scholar
Taylor, D. “Evaluating the Long-Run Impacts of Soil Erosion and Net Farm Income in the Palouse Annual Cropping Region of the Pacific Northwest.” Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. of Agr. Economics, Washington State University. 1981.Google Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture. Conservation Tillage; Things to Consider. Washington D.C. 1985.Google Scholar
Walker, D.J. “Erosion Damage Function to Evaluate Erosion Control Economics.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 64(1982): 690–698.Google Scholar
Walker, D.J., and Young, D.L.. “The Effect of Technical Progress on Erosion Damage and Economic Incentives for Soil Conservation.” Land Economics, 62(1986): 83–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, D.L., Taylor, D.B., and Papendick, R.I.. “Separating Erosion and Technology Impacts on Winter Wheat Yields in the Palouse: A Statistical Approach.” Amer. Soc. Agr. Engineers, Proceedings of a Conference on Erosion and Soil Productivity. 1985.Google Scholar