Suchergebnisse

Can a single program support farm income and encourage producers to adopt environmentally sound farming practices? While simple in concept, attempting to roll the farm income support features of existing commodity programs and conservation payments into a single program raises questions. Exactly how would farm commodity and conservation payments be combined? What difference would it make for environmental gain and farm income support? This report approaches the questions in two ways. First, spending patterns in existing commodity and conservation programs are analyzed to determine the extent to which producers who are currently receiving commodity payments also receive conservation payments. Then, a number of hypothetical program scenarios are devised and analyzed to estimate how emphasis on current income support recipients would differ from a combined program that focuses on achieving cost-effective environmental gain. The results show that policymakers face significant tradeoffs between environmental (conservation) objectives and farm income support objectives in designing a program that provides both income support and environmental gain

AbstractMuch of agricultural and agri‐environmental policy is concerned with influencing the behavior of farmers in adopting new practices. An ability to understand and predict adoption of practices is useful for agricultural policy in several ways, including assessing additionality, selecting policy mechanisms, targeting policy to practices, farmer types or regions, and assessing likely policy success. Clear thinking about adoption is sometimes clouded by ambiguous and inconsistent language. We suggest a number of terms that are more specific than "adoption." Research needs include collection of long‐term data sets on adoption of a variety of practices, understanding what determines continuous, sustained adoption of conservation practices and a better understanding of why adoption varies between farms.

Also available on the World Wide Web. Chapters are in Adobe Acrobat pdf files. Report summary and complete report are also available. ; "This report examines the business, operator, and household characteristics of farms that have adopted certain conservation-compatible practices, with and without financial assistance from government conservation programs. The analysis finds that attributes of the farm operator and household and characteristics of the farm business are associated with the likelihood that a farmer will adopt certain conservation-compatible practices and the degree to which the farmer participates in conservation programs. For example, operators of small farms and operators not primarily focused on farming are less likely to adopt management-intensive conservation-compatible practices and to participate in working-land conservation programs than operators of large enterprises whose primary occupation is farming." ; Mode of access: Internet.

AbstractWetland protection is an issue of ongoing debate. Although it is widely agreed that wetland loss to agriculture has been declining in recent decades, the role of policy remains contentious. We analyze the effect of changes in wetland delineation rules that were proposed but rejected by Congress during the 1996 farm bill debate. Our research combines detailed, site‐specific information on wetlands with a broader model of the agricultural economy. Using site‐specific data, we analyze the potential agricultural profitability of a representative sample of actual wetlands. We estimate wetland acreage that would have been exempted from swampbuster and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act under the proposed delineation changes, the acreage of exempted wetland that could be profitably converted to crop production, and the associated commodity price, crop acreage, and farm income effects. We find that up to 82.7 million wetland acres would be exempted under the proposed delineation changes, of which as many as 12 million acres could be profitably converted to crop production. This conversion would have a dampening effect on commodity price and farm income. We conclude that (a accurately estimating the effect of resource policy depends critically on detailed information on resource quality and (b) commodity price and farm income effects imply that all agriculture producers—not only those who could expand cropland acreage through wetland drainage—have a stake in wetland policy.