Analysis Of The U.S. Commodity Loan Program With Marketing Loan Provisions
Over the next several years, crop prices are projected to be below to slightly above commodity loan rates. As a result, marketing loan benefits to farmers, in the form of loan deficiency payments and marketing loan gains from the commodity loan program, are likely to continue to be sizeable. The level of realized per-unit revenues facilitated by marketing loans exceeds commodity loan rates, thereby raising expected net returns to farmers. Model simulations show that the loan program can raise total acreage planted to major field crops, generally increasing levels of domestic use and exports while lowering crop prices. Cross-commodity effects of supply response to relative returns (including marketing loan benefits), however, result in acreage shifts among competing crops, which can lead to reductions in plantings of some crops in some years. Most impacts occur in the years when there are marketing loan benefits, with little effect in subsequent years when prices rise high enough to eliminate marketing loan benefits. The livestock sector benefits from these outcomes because of generally lower feed costs.
|Date of creation:||2001|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: 1400 Independence Ave.,SW, Mail Stop 1800, Washington, DC 20250-1800|
Web page: http://www.ers.usda.gov/
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Westcott, Paul C. & Hoffman, Linwood A., 1999. "Price Determination for Corn and Wheat: The Role of Market Factors and Government Programs," Technical Bulletins 33581, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
- Salathe, Larry E. & Price, J. Michael & Gadson, Kenneth E., 1982. "The Food and Agricultural Policy Simulator," Agricultural Economics Research, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, issue 2.