IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ajagec/v73y1991i1p184-193..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Farm Production Decisions Under Cross and Conservation Compliance

Author

Listed:
  • Dana L. Hoag
  • Herb A. Holloway

Abstract

The success of soil conservation compliance (CC) hinges on participation in commodity programs. Using mixed integer programming, the profitability of participation in commodity programs was examined on seventeen surveyed North Carolina farms. Without CC, cross compliance in commodity programs increased projected soil erosion by over 80% when participation increased from 30% to nearly 90%. With CC, erosion fell by two-thirds at the high participation level but decreased by only 1% with low participation. Individual farm acreage base and crop yield strongly affected the profitability of CC. Compliance is increasingly profitable on farms with more base acreage and higher yields.

Suggested Citation

  • Dana L. Hoag & Herb A. Holloway, 1991. "Farm Production Decisions Under Cross and Conservation Compliance," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 73(1), pages 184-193.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:73:y:1991:i:1:p:184-193.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2307/1242894
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Joyce Willock & Ian J. Deary & Gareth Edwards‐Jones & Gavin J. Gibson & Murray J. McGregor & Alistair Sutherland & J. Barry Dent & Oliver Morgan & Robert Grieve, 1999. "The Role of Attitudes and Objectives in Farmer Decision Making: Business and Environmentally‐Oriented Behaviour in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(2), pages 286-303, May.
    2. Dana L. Hoag & William E. Foster & Bruce A. Babcock, 1993. "Field-Level Measurement of Land Productivity and Program Slippage," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(1), pages 181-189.
    3. Doering, Otto & Smith, Katherine R., 2012. "Examining the Relationship of Conservation Compliance and Farm Program Incentives," C-FARE Reports 156624, Council on Food, Agricultural, and Resource Economics (C-FARE).
    4. Lichtenberg, Erik, 2002. "Agriculture and the environment," Handbook of Agricultural Economics, in: B. L. Gardner & G. C. Rausser (ed.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 23, pages 1249-1313, Elsevier.
    5. Wu, Shunxiang & Walker, David J. & Brusven, Merlyn A., 1997. "Economic And Environmental Impacts Of Planting Flexibility And Conservation 1990 Farm Bills For Future Farm Legislation," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 1-13, October.
    6. Gallagher, Paul W. & Dikeman, Mark & Fritz, John & Wailes, Eric & Gauthier, Wayne & Shapouri, Hosein, 2003. "Supply and Social Cost Estimates for Biomass from Crop Residues in the United States," ISU General Staff Papers 200304010800001493, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    7. Wu, Shunxiang & Walker, David J. & Brusven, Merlyn A., 1998. "The Efficiency And Effectiveness Of Conservation Compliance Under The 1996 Farm Bill," A.E. Research Series 305158, University of Idaho, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology.

    More about this item

    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:oup:ajagec:v:73:y:1991:i:1:p:184-193.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.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.