IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Impact of Environmental Values on the Breakeven Price of Switchgrass


  • Debnath, Deepayan
  • Stoecker, Arthur L.
  • Epplin, Francis M.


This study estimates the farm-gate breakeven price of switchgrass relative to wheat in Oklahoma. The breakeven price of switchgrass is determined for two situations: when external consequences are ignored and when the environment costs of changes in soil erosion, fertilizer (nitrogen and phosphorous) runoff, and soil organic carbon are considered. Results suggest that the farm-gate breakeven price of switchgrass from the internal cost only perspective is higher than the cost if the value of the selected external consequences is considered. The potential environmental benefits are greater if highly erodible land is switched from annual cropping to switchgrass.

Suggested Citation

  • Debnath, Deepayan & Stoecker, Arthur L. & Epplin, Francis M., 2013. "Impact of Environmental Values on the Breakeven Price of Switchgrass," 2013 Annual Meeting, February 2-5, 2013, Orlando, Florida 142563, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:saea13:142563

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Rabotyagov, Sergey S. & Campbell, Todd & Jha, Manoj & Gassman, Philip W. & Arnold, Jeffrey G. & Kurkalova, Lyubov A. & Secchi, Silvia & Feng, Hongli & Kling, Catherine L., 2010. "Least Cost Control of Agricultural Nutrient Contributions to the Gulf of Mexico Hypoxic Zone," Staff General Research Papers Archive 31319, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    2. Johansson, Robert C. & Gowda, Prasanna H. & Mulla, David J. & Dalzell, Brent J., 2004. "Metamodelling phosphorus best management practices for policy use: a frontier approach," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 63-74, January.
    3. Campbell,Harry F. & Brown,Richard P. C., 2003. "Benefit-Cost Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521528986, March.
    4. Bergtold, Jason S. & Fewell, Jason E. & Williams, Jeffery R., 2011. "Farmers’ Willingness to Grow Sweet Sorghum as a Cellulosic Bioenergy Crop: A Stated Choice Approach," 2011 Annual Meeting, July 24-26, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 108068, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Roberts, David C. & Boyer, Tracy A. & Lusk, Jayson L., 2008. "Preferences for environmental quality under uncertainty," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(4), pages 584-593, July.
    6. Lawrence D. Mapemba & Francis M. Epplin & Charles M. Taliaferro & Raymond L. Huhnke, 2007. "Biorefinery Feedstock Production on Conservation Reserve Program Land," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 29(2), pages 227-246.
    7. Francis M. Epplin & Christopher D. Clark & Roland K. Roberts & Seonghuyk Hwang, 2007. "Challenges to the Development of a Dedicated Energy Crop," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(5), pages 1296-1302.
    8. Ribaudo, Marc & Delgado, Jorge & Hansen, LeRoy T. & Livingston, Michael J. & Mosheim, Roberto & Williamson, James M., 2011. "Nitrogen in Agricultural Systems: Implications for Conservation Policy," Economic Research Report 118022, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:

    1. Anand, Mohit & Duffy, Patricia & Bransby, David, 2017. "Will switchgrass as a bio-crop be adopted by the farmers?," 2017 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2017, Mobile, Alabama 252724, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.

    More about this item


    Agricultural Runoffs; Farm-gate Breakeven Price; Switchgrass; Soil Organic Carbon; Agribusiness; Environmental Economics and Policy; Land Economics/Use; Production Economics; Q24; Q42; Q51;

    JEL classification:

    • Q24 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Land
    • Q42 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Alternative Energy Sources
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:saea13:142563. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.