Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:17:56.799Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reducing Nutrient Application Rates for Water Quality Protection in Intensive Livestock Areas: Policy Implications of Alternative Producer Behavior

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2017

William T. McSweeny  and
James S. Shortle
William T. McSweeny
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology at Penn State University
James S. Shortle
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology at Penn State University
Get access

Abstract

High rates of commercial fertilizer and animal manure application on cropland have been identified as an important cause of ground and surface water degradation in many areas of the country. Suggested remedies are often based on the idea that fertilization levels are economically irrational for the individual farmer. The received wisdom is that farmers could simultaneously improve their own economic well being and reduce the degradation of the ground and surface waters by fertilizing only to meet crop nutrient needs. Rather than assuming that farmers act irrationally, this study examines the fertilization problem on a mixed crop-livestock farm from the perspective of a risk-averse farmer coping with two key uncertainties: crop yield response to nitrogen applications and the nitrogen content of manure. The effects on fertilization decisions by such a farmer of various policy prescriptions for reducing surface and ground water pollution are examined. The results underscore the importance of understanding producer behavior for the design of economically sound policy.

Type
Research Article
Information
Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , April 1989 , pp. 1 - 11
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

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.)

Footnotes

The authors wish to express their thanks to two anonymous reviewers whose comments helped shape the final draft. Journal Series No. 8141 of the Pennsylvania Agricultural Experiment Station.

References

Abdalla, Charles W., Beegle, Douglas B., and McSweeny, William T. “Policy Choices: Animal Agriculture and Groundwater Control.” Farm Economics. Penn State Cooperative Extension, University Park, Pennsylvania, March/April 1987.Google Scholar
Bohm, P. and Russell, C. S. Comparative Analysis of Alternative Policy Instruments. Chapt. 10 in Kneese, A. V. and Sweeny, J. W., et.s. Handbook of Natural Resource and Energy Economics. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1985.Google Scholar
Charnes, A. and Cooper, W. “Chance Constrained Programming.” Management Science. 6 (1959): 73–79.Google Scholar
Crowder, Bradley M. and Young, C. Edwin Managing Farm Nutrients: Tradeoffs for Surface- and Ground-Water Quality. Agricultural Economic Report Number 583 United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, D.C., January 1988.Google Scholar
de Janvry, A. “Optimal Levels of Fertilization under Risk: The Potential for Corn and Wheat Fertilization under Alternative Price Policies in Agriculture.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 54 (1972): 1–10.Google Scholar
Fox, Richard H. and Piekielek, William P. Response of Corn to Nitrogen Fertilizer and the Prediction of Soil Nitrogen Availability with Chemical Tests in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 843, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, April 1983.Google Scholar
Hazell, Peter B. R. and Norton, Roger D. Mathematical Programming Analysis for Economic Analysis in Agriculture. New York: Macmillan Publishers, 1986.Google Scholar
House, Robert, Ogg, Clayton, Clayton, Kenneth, and Johnson, James. USDA Conservation Incentives Study. Staff Report No. AGEB20104, USDA, ERS, NED, Washington, D.C., January 1982.Google Scholar
Judge, George R., Griffith, William E., Hill, R. Carter, and Lee, Tsoung-Chao. The Theory and Practice of Econometrics. John Wiley and Sons: New York, 1980.Google Scholar
Kashmanian, Richard, Downing, Donna, Jaksch, John and Podar, Mahesh. “A Cost Effective Approach to Managing Nonpoint/Point Source Phosphorus Loadings: A Case Study of the Chesapeake Bay.” Paper presented at the Eighth Biennial International Estuarine Research Federation Conference, Durham, New Hampshire, 1985.Google Scholar
Katoka, S. “A Stochastic Programming Model.” Econometrica. 31 (1963): 181–196.Google Scholar
Lin, William, Dean, G. W., and Moore, C. V. “An Empirical Comparison of Utility versus Profit Maximization.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 56 (1974)497–508.Google Scholar
Lindley, J. A. and Johnson, D. W. Quality of Live stock Manure in North Dakota. North Dakota Research Report 107, North Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station, Fargo, North Dakota, November 1987.Google Scholar
Murtaugh, Bruce A. and Saunders, Michael A. MINOS 5.0 USER'S GUIDE. Systems Optimization Laboratory SOL 83–20, Department of Operations Research, Stanford University, Stanford, California, December 1983.Google Scholar
Paris, Quirino and Easter, Christopher D. “A Programming Model with Stochastic Technology and Prices: The Case of Australian Agriculture.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 67 (1985): 120–129.Google Scholar
Pope, Roulon D. and Kramer, Randall A. “Production Uncertainty and Factor Demand for the Competitive Firm.” Southern Economic Journal. 46 (1979): 489–501.Google Scholar
Roy, A. D. “Safety-First and Holding of Assets.” Econometrica. 20 (1952): 431–449.Google Scholar
Shackle, G. L. S. Decision, Order, and Time in Human Affairs. London: Cambridge University Press, 1969.Google Scholar
Shortle, James S. and Dunn, James W. The Relative Efficiency of Alternative Agricultural Source Pollution Control Policies. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 68 (1986): 668–677.Google Scholar
Swartz, Paul O. “Nutrients: The Missing Link.” Presented paper at the Costal Society Meeting, New Orleans, October 13, 1986.Google Scholar
Telser, L. G. “Safety-First and Hedging.” Review of Economic Studies. 23 (1955): 1–16.Google Scholar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Chesapeake Bay Program—A Framework for Action. Draft manuscript, Washington, D.C., 1983.Google Scholar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water Program Operations. Report to Congress: Nonpoint Pollution in the U.S. January 1984.Google Scholar
Van Boheemen, P. J. M. “Extent, Effects, and Tackling of a Regional Manure Surplus: A Case Study for a Dutch Region.” in Animal Manure on Grassland and Fodder Crops. Fertilizer or Waste, Van Der Meer, H. G., Urwin, R. J., Van Dijk, T. A., and Ennuk, G. C., Eds. Proceedings of an international symposium, Waggeningen, The Netherlands 31 Aug-3 Sept. 1987, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordreet 1987.Google Scholar
Young, C. Edwin, Alwang, Jeffrey A., and Crowder, Bradley M. Alternatives for Dairy Manure Management. Staff Report AGES860442, USDA, ERA, NRED, Washington, D.C., July 1986.Google Scholar
Young, C. E. and Magelby, R. S. “Agricultural Pollution Control Implications From The RCWP Program.” Water Resources Bulletin 23 (1987): 701–707.Google Scholar