IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/apecpp/v35y2013i2p296-321.html

Differences between Livestock and Crop Producers' Participation in Nutrient Trading

Author

Listed:
  • Stacy Sneeringer

Abstract

Descriptions of agricultural producers' participation in nutrient trading schemes generally refer to crop producers reducing nutrient run-off from fields to generate credits. However, livestock producers may participate differently than crop producers because some are regulated as Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), and because agricultural producers generating manure face different costs of reducing nutrient application (and therefore generating credits) from those only using fertilizer. These differences may affect nutrient reduction credit prices and the supply of agriculturally supplied credits, thereby raising the costs to non-agricultural operations of meeting water quality goals. We examine how CAFO laws interact with nutrient trading requirements. We model trading participation by farm type and then simulate trading participation by applying the model to 2007 Census of Agriculture data. Copyright 2013, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Stacy Sneeringer, 2013. "Differences between Livestock and Crop Producers' Participation in Nutrient Trading," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 35(2), pages 296-321.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:apecpp:v:35:y:2013:i:2:p:296-321
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/aepp/ppt010
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Ribaudo, Marc & Savage, Jeffrey & Aillery, Marcel P., 2014. "An Economic Assessment of Policy Options To Reduce Agricultural Pollutants in the Chesapeake Bay," Economic Research Report 171880, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    2. Sneeringer, Stacy, 2016. "Comparing Participation in Nutrient Trading by Livestock Operations to Crop Producers in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed," Economic Research Report 249772, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    3. Sneeringer, Stacy & Key, Nigel D., 2013. "Effects of CAFO Regulations on Livestock Producers’ Behaviors," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 151430, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Caela O'Connell & Marzieh Motallebi & Deanna L. Osmond & Dana L. K. Hoag, 2017. "Trading on risk: The moral logics and economic reasoning of North Carolina farmers in water quality trading markets," Economic Anthropology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 4(2), pages 225-238, June.

    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:apecpp:v:35:y:2013:i:2:p:296-321. 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.