West is to be commended for (1) the organization of his discussion, (2) the careful delineation of the research areas, (3) the thoroughness of his research and the excellent documentation of the research efforts of social scientists in treating the problem/s of the small-farm operator, and (4) the development of a means-end schema of “what is,” “what ought to be” with implications for future research, programs, and public policy.

As West indicates, there is need for a redefinition of small farm. The $20,000 gross sales limit is inadequate. Most definitions do not include the value added of products produced and consumed by the family. Some states, for example Florida, use figures much lower than $20,000 to characterize small farms. The distinction between full-time and part-time farmers and their incomes is not clearly delineated. A national concern should be the redefinition of the term, “small farm.” Heterogeneous characteristics of small farms should not inhibit the generation of profile information by geographic regions.

The study reported was motivated by a USDA study to develop complete quarterly models of supply and demand for a selected set of fresh salad vegetables. The acreage planted component enters recursively into both the acreage harvested and yield relations used in many of these models. Consequently, predictions of acreage planted are instrumental in predicting total supply and resulting market equilibrium solutions.

In modeling acreage planted over relevant seasons within four regions, various sources of information can be brought to bear. Obviously, data series on past plantings, costs, and prices provide the foundation of statistical estimation of an acreage response model. However, additional information from previous studies, economic theory, and subjective judgment on the part of the researcher also can be incorporated into the model through the use of the mixed estimation technique developed by Theil and Goldberger [8].

U.S. feeder cattle markets discriminate among a wide variety of animal characteristics such as weight, sex, breed, grade, and age. In recent years, concern has been expressed that price premiums paid for steers over heifers no longer reflect estimated differences in their feedlot performance or carcass value [2,8]. Another question is whether observed regional differences in steer-heifer price differentials are justified. The sources of feeder price differentials by sex are investigated and variations in these differentials across time and space dimensions are analyzed. The results provide preliminary evidence on the efficiency with which feeder markets establish price spreads.

Excessive soil acidity has long been recognized as one reason soils become unproductive, and liming to neutralize excess acidity has been practiced at least since the second century B.C. [5, p. 125]. Although liming has become a common practice, some researchers contend that farmers use too little lime [e.g., 5, p. 125].

Although lime is sometimes used to supply calcium or magnesium, it is principally used to neutralize soil acidity [3, p. 178], commonly measured by soil pH. Many agronomists agree that most crops require some lime if pH falls below 5.0 and that most require no lime if pH is 7.0 or higher [17, pp. 221–222]. When legumes supplied nitrogen for other crops in rotation, most lime recommendations were designed to raise soil pH to 6.5 or higher to accommodate the legumes. Now, however, nitrogen requirements for most crops are supplied from fertilizer, and some lime recommendations aim for pH levels somewhat below 6.5, at least for non-legumes such as corn and cotton.

Machinery costs are affected by inflation which, if not correctly considered, will bias cost estimates. Accurate estimates of machinery costs are essential in budgeting costs of crop production in farm policy programs, crop hedging decisions, and general cost of production research. Machinery decisions relating to replacement, size, and custom or leasing alternatives are also improved by realistic budgeting techniques.

The objective of this article is to examine appropriate adjustments for inflation in developing machinery costs through budgeting techniques. The authors attempt to demonstrate the adjustments necessary in both capital and traditional budgeting models to place cost estimates on a real basis. Capital budgeting is first compared with traditional budgeting. Next, by the use of a simple machinery example, the necessary adjustments to account for inflation are shown for a capital budgeting model that does not include income tax considerations. Similarly, the inflation adjustments are demonstrated for a traditional budgeting model that does not include income tax considerations. Finally, a capital budgeting model including income tax aspects is examined in reference to real and nominal after-tax cost estimates.

Writing about empirical tests of stock market efficiency, Fama et al. [2, p. 1] noted that

Hedging livestock historically has been practiced mainly by midwestern and Great Plains producers because they are the dominant force within the U.S. cattle industry. Likewise, futures contract definitions and delivery points have been tailored to the needs of these producers. Recent growth in the feeder cattle industry in the Southeast, and particularly in Florida, suggests that greater hedging use may be applicable to southeastern producers. Interest in expanding the usefulness of the feeder cattle contracts to these growth regions is indicated by the recently established delivery point in Montgomery [2].

Crossbreeding in commercial hog operations is widely practiced and has increased substantially in recent years. Perhaps the most important positive feature of crossbreeding is heterosis, i.e., the performance of crossbred progeny is superior to the average performance of the parents. In addition, producers have much wider options in breeding for desired carcass traits and sire and dam characteristics when blending breeds than when making genetic selection within any single breed. The costs to the firm are primarily managerial because of the necessity of buying replacements, frequently rotating boar breed, or maintaining miniherds to produce replacements for the breeding herd. Over the long run there is also a potential cost to the industry of reducing the number of purebred lines from which the crossbreds are derived and thus slowing genetic improvements within breeds.

Achieving optimal use of wildlife resources is a classic problem in natural resource economics. Ciriacy-Wantrup argued that wildlife resources are a case of a fugitive resource for which private property rights cannot easily be defined and therefore government policy may be necessary to obtain optimal use [5, pp. 141–145]. Land use planning is one area of government policy in which limited attention has been given to management of wildlife resources. One reason for the neglect may be the lack of emphasis on estimating the value of wildlife recreation experiences associated with particular land uses. An exception is the work of Martin, Tinney, and Gum [16] who did not look at marginal land use changes but did consider the termination of all cattle ranching in Arizona and its effect on recreational and agricultural economic surpluses.

Cotton producers in the Lower Rio Grande Valley (LRGV) of Texas face continuing economic pressures arising from increasing costs of productive inputs, yield-reducing infestations of insecticide-resistant pests, and often adverse climatic conditions. The input price increases in the LRGV are similar to those in other production regions of the U.S. However, insect problems arising from the LRGV climate are unique. LRGV farmers have been unable to control late-season tobacco bud-worm infestations which often reach damaging levels when beneficial insects are destroyed by insecticide treatments for boll weevils [3]. These late-season insect infestations are a result of the predominantly excessive rainfalls which occur during the harvest months of August and September. Moreover, high rainfall during harvest reduces both the quality and level of cotton yields [1].

Government control of tobacco production through output restrictions and price supports began with the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933. The primary goals of the program through the years have been to stabilize tobacco prices and to improve farm income. The tobacco program came under public scrutiny after the U. S. Surgeon General's Report on Smoking and Health in 1964 [11] and the report this year [12]. Critics charge that tobacco production policies of the U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare are inconsistent or even in direct opposition. These issues present a policy dilemma. A theoretical framework is devised for analyzing social costs of the tobacco program and application of the framework to current policy issues is examined.

In recent years, extremely variable price movements have caused a high degree of price risk in the cattle industry. Cattle producers who chose to accept this price risk at the correct time had extraordinary gains, whereas those who accepted this risk at the improper time had returns below cost of production. Hedging offers the cattle producer an excellent opportunity to transfer a portion of the price risk to another party. Selective transfer of the risk can both increase the magnitude of returns and decrease their variance [1, 2, 4]. The family of technical tools called oscillators, one of the most useful tools employed by commodity traders [6, p. 34], was used to develop hedging strategies for feeder cattle.

The interregional transfer of agricultural research results has long been recognized by sociologists and economists [10, pp. 524–526]. The first major economic study in this area was reported in 1957 by Griliches [7]. However, many economists have failed to account for this type of transfer in estimating rates of return for agricultural research investment at the state level. A possible explanation for the failure to account for this transfer is that many analyses at the state level are modeled after national studies. Though researchers estimating a national rate of return may not feel a need to account for interregional transfers, these transfers clearly cannot be ignored at the state or regional levels. Latimer and Paarlberg [9] and Bauer and Hancock [2] estimated aggregate production functions for states and had difficulty finding a statistically significant relationship between research expenditures within the state and agricultural output. Bauer and Hancock finally estimated a lagged relationship that is in conflict with other conceptual and empirical models. Latimer and Paarlberg concluded that research is so pervasive that there are no measurable differences in levels of farm income attributable to differences in research inputs by states [9, p. 239]. More recently, Bredahl and Peterson [3] examined the differences in rates of return to cash crops, dairy, poultry, and livestock research among states. These estimates are appropriate if agricultural research results are limited by state boundaries. The interregional transfer of agricultural research results needs to be taken into account in estimating the returns to agricultural research at a regional level.

Irrigated crop production on the Texas High Plains accounts for more than 80 percent of the value of total crop production in the region. Total economic activity associated with crop production was estimated to be $2.18 billion in 1967 [11]. Because of the importance and contribution of irrigation to the regional economy, any significant adjustments in irrigation create repercussions throughout the region.

The price of natural gas within Texas is not subject to interstate regulations. Since 1973, dramatic increases in natural gas price (from $0.50 to more than $2.00/mcf) in the state have caused considerable concern about the economic feasibility of continued irrigation. Research was conducted to estimate the effect of continuing natural gas price increases on irrigation [8].

Agricultural transportation is often characterized by seasonal and cyclical traffic flows that unfavorably affect the logistical efficiency of the marketing system. Congestion problems arise in the truck-to-ship intermodal grain transfer system at the Port of Houston. Seasonal peaks in truck-delivered grain receipts create problems with efficient interfacing of the port elevators' grain-receiving capacity and truck arrival patterns. During peak volume periods, the elevators' receiving capacity is inadequate; long truck queues develop and congestion or waiting occurs. Queues of 3-4 miles are common during the peak receipt periods, whereas the facility may be idle for extended periods of off-peak time.

The food stamp program, as enacted into law in 1964, was intended to improve the diet of low income households, but whether the program resulted in a nutritional improvement remains a controversial question. Several studies have evaluated the nutritional impact of the food stamp program on participant households. In general, the study findings do not conclusively resolve the question of nutritional improvement for participant families. Studies of California families showed some nutritional improvements among food stamp recipients in comparison with nonrecipients [7, 8]. A study in Pennsylvania showed no nutritional improvements, except in temporary periods of cash shortage [9].

Many decisions made by farm producers are based on expectations. The process of formulating and incorporating these expectations into decision making is difficult when high variability occurs in product prices, crop yields, production costs, or other factors affecting net income. Farm producers may be influenced by a number of goals in selecting combinations of crops to produce and marketing outlets for the crops. Two goals generally held to be important to farm decision makers are maximization of net income and net income stability. Given the price, yield, and cost of production variability characteristics of a farm enterprise and these two goals of farm decision makers, a fundamental problem is to determine what combination of alternative marketing actions can best satisfy the two objectives. A systematic examination of the relationship between the level of net income and net income variability for combinations of marketing alternatives would aid farmers in deciding on marketing actions to attain these goals.

Few researchers have attempted to assess the impact of the Food Stamp Program (FSP) on both food expenditures and nutritional status [1, 3, 6]. Even fewer have evaluated the joint impact of income supplement programs, such as the FSP, and nutrition education programs, such as the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP), on the nutritional status of participating households [4, 10]. The purpose of this article is to (1) identify selected food group and corresponding nutrient intake responses associated with participation in the FSP and EFNEP, (2) simulate the nutritional impact of alternative policy mechanisms with joint FSP and EFNEP participation, and (3) explore policy implications for food and nutrition program planning.

In an article titled, “Application of Price Elasticities to Farm Policy Analysis,” Bateman and Stennis [1] present an intriguing analysis of the use of demand elasticities for U.S. farm policy in the world market perspective. They present two different approaches to demonstrate the importance of the world market to U.S. agriculture and conclude that unilateral reduction in production of U.S. farm products is not likely to enhance and to maintain farm income unless the farm commodities under consideration are almost perfectly inelastic in the world market and/or the U.S. is the only or dominant source of supply. The analyses are based on the estimated elasticities and the logic of economic deduction.

In recent years, producers in West Texas have sought alternatives to traditional field crops in an effort to maintain or increase farm income. Declining groundwater supplies available for irrigation and sharply increasing fuel costs have served to reduce returns from traditional field crops. Vegetables, which offer much higher average returns per acre, are one alternative to field crops. However, production of vegetable crops introduces some difficult problems. The price of most vegetables is very erratic from season to season and often within the same season. Though on the average the income received per acre from vegetables is much higher, the risk of loss due to low prices for vegetables is also much higher.