IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/ksaesp/118171.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

An Economic Analysis of Soil Erosion Control and Low-Input Agriculture

Author

Listed:
  • Diebel, Penelope L.
  • Taylor, Daniel B.
  • Batie, Sandra S.
  • Heatwole, Conrad D.

Abstract

The Chesapeake Bay is a major water resource whose quality has been threatened by soil erosion and agrichemical contamination. The control of agricultural pollution of the Bay is one of the focal points of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay agreement formed by four states in the Bay's watershed (Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia). Among the suggested solutions is the promotion of low-input agricultural practices. However, some low-input practices also include frequent cultivations of the soil for non-chemical weed control practices, which may induce erosion. This analysis uses a case study approach to determine agricultural practice selection and potential erosion under different soil erosion constraints. A multi-period mathematical programming model was used to determine the preferred agricultural practices for a fanner maximizing net returns in Richmond County, Virginia. Richmond County is adjacent to the Rappahanock River and above the Columbia aquifer, major sources of fresh water for the Chesapeake Bay. A range of agricultural practices was available, including conventional and organic practices. Soil erosion and the level of chemical and nitrogen losses through sedimentation and leaching are discussed in this article. Soil erosion constraints were introduced that reduced erosion by 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 percent from current levels. These constraints were met without idled cropland, besides that enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program or Virginia's mandatory Buffer Strip Program. The results of this study illustrate that soil conservation policies and low-input practices produce few environmental tradeoffs between erosion control and the reduction of agrichemical pollution.

Suggested Citation

  • Diebel, Penelope L. & Taylor, Daniel B. & Batie, Sandra S. & Heatwole, Conrad D., 1992. "An Economic Analysis of Soil Erosion Control and Low-Input Agriculture," Staff Papers 118171, Kansas State University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:ksaesp:118171
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.118171
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/118171/files/93-03.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.118171?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Prato, Tony & Wu, Shunxiang, 1991. "Soil Conservation Benefits of Sustainable Cropping Systems," 1991 Annual Meeting, August 4-7, Manhattan, Kansas 271072, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    2. Frevert, Kathleen & Crowder, Bradley M., 1987. "Analysis Of Agricultural Nonpoint Pollution Control Options In The St. Albans Bay Watershed," Staff Reports 277943, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    3. Randall A. Kramer & William T. McSweeny & Robert W. Stavros, 1983. "Soil Conservation with Uncertain Revenues and Input Supplies," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 65(4), pages 694-702.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kozloff, Keith, 1990. "An Evaluation Of Options For Micro-Targeting Acquisition Of Cropping Rights To Reduce Nonpoint Source Water Pollution," Staff Papers 13610, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    2. Yang, Wanhong & Khanna, Madhu & Farnsworth, Richard & Onal, Hayri, 2003. "Integrating economic, environmental and GIS modeling to target cost effective land retirement in multiple watersheds," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 249-267, September.
    3. Sureshwaran, Suresh & Thompson, C. Stassen & Henry, Mark S. & Loyd, M.I., 1990. "Economic Surplus And The Distributional Consequences Of Deregulating Tobacco Production," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 22(2), pages 1-11, December.
    4. Prato, Anthony, 1989. "Economic Efficiency of Erosion and Water Pollution Control in an Agricultural Watershed," WAEA/ WFEA Conference Archive (1929-1995) 244967, Western Agricultural Economics Association.
    5. McCarl, Bruce A., 1986. "Innovations In Programming Techniques For Risk Analysis," Regional Research Projects > 1986: S-180 Annual Meeting, March 23-26, 1986, Tampa, Florida 271825, Regional Research Projects > S-180: An Economic Analysis of Risk Management Strategies for Agricultural Production Firms.
    6. Setia, Parveen & Letson, Dave, 1991. "Farm Level Impacts Of Improving Environmental Quality Under Risk," 1991 Annual Meeting, August 4-7, Manhattan, Kansas 271085, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    7. Gillespie, Jeffrey M. & Hatch, L. Upton & Duffy, Patricia A., 1990. "Effect Of The 1985 Farm Bill Provisions On Farmers' Soil Conservation Decisions," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 22(2), pages 1-11, December.
    8. Segarra, Eduardo & Kramer, Randall A. & Taylor, Daniel B., 1985. "A Stochastic Programming Analysis of the Farm Level Implications of Soil Erosion Control," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(2), pages 147-154, December.
    9. Shortle, James S., 1984. "The Use Of Estimated Pollution Flows In Agricultural Pollution Control Policy: Implications For Abatement And Policy Instruments," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 13(2), pages 1-9, October.
    10. Nielsen, Elizabeth G. & Miranowski, John A. & Morehart, Mitchell J, 1989. "Investments in Soil Conservation and Land Improvements: Factors Explaining Farmers' Decisions," Agricultural Economic Reports 308064, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    11. Bernard V. Tew & Donald W. Reid, 1987. "More Evidence On Expected Value-Variance Analysis Versus Direct Utility Maximization," Journal of Financial Research, Southern Finance Association;Southwestern Finance Association, vol. 10(3), pages 249-257, September.
    12. Shively, Gerald E., 2001. "Poverty, consumption risk, and soil conservation," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 267-290, August.
    13. Letson, David & Setia, Parveen P., 1994. "On-Farm Costos of Reducing environmental degradation under risk," Estudios Económicos, El Colegio de México, Centro de Estudios Económicos, vol. 9(2), pages 163-187.
    14. Willis, David B. & Whittlesey, Norman K., 1998. "The Effect Of Stochastic Irrigation Demands And Surface Water Supplies On On-Farm Water Management," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 23(1), pages 1-19, July.
    15. Martins, M.B. & Marques, C., 2006. "Is agricultural policy promoting a new role for farmers?: A case study," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 28(8), pages 847-860, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Land Economics/Use;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:ksaesp:118171. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/daksuus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.