IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/uersib/396453.html

Risk Management Practices on U.S. Farms and Ranches, 1996–2020

Author

Listed:
  • Baldwin, Katherine L.
  • Miller, Noah
  • Todd, Jessica E.

Abstract

This report summarizes the utilization of agricultural risk management strategies by U.S. farms between 1996 and 2020, using data from the Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS). The risk management strategies considered in this report fall into four categories: (1) on-farm strategies, such as income and production diversification, and storage; (2) market-based tools, including Federal Crop Insurance, marketing and production contracts; (3) other Government programs producers use for managing risk, including countercyclical-type programs and disaster programs; and (4) strategies to manage longer term strategic risk, including investments in farm improvements and succession planning. Results show that although some broad trends in risk management strategy utilization between 1996 and 2020 can be identified, these overall dynamics are often associated with factors related to farm size or commodity specialization. For the classes of strategies examined, results indicate that holding savings, engaging in off-farm employment, and purchasing insurance other than Federal Crop Insurance (such as private single-peril (e.g., hail or fire) policies, liability insurance, or property insurance) are the most frequently used strategies among all farms.

Suggested Citation

  • Baldwin, Katherine L. & Miller, Noah & Todd, Jessica E., 2026. "Risk Management Practices on U.S. Farms and Ranches, 1996–2020," Economic Information Bulletin 396453, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:uersib:396453
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.396453
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/396453/files/EIB-296.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.396453?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. Chenxin Leng & Wanglin Ma & Jianjun Tang & Zhongkun Zhu, 2020. "ICT adoption and income diversification among rural households in China," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(33), pages 3614-3628, June.
    2. Frederic Ang & Simon M. Mortimer & Francisco J. Areal & Richard Tiffin, 2018. "On the Opportunity Cost of Crop Diversification," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(3), pages 794-814, September.
    3. Timo Sipiläinen & Anni Huhtala, 2013. "Opportunity costs of providing crop diversity in organic and conventional farming: would targeted environmental policies make economic sense?," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 40(3), pages 441-462, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Tsiboe, Francis & Zhao, Hongxi & Turner, Dylan & Chakravorty, Rwit & Davis, Walker & Steinbach, Sandro, 2026. "Crop Insurance Penetration in the United States, 2025," ARPC Report 404304, North Dakota State University.
    2. Tsiboe, Francis, 2026. "The Anatomy of Crop Insurance Policies and What U.S. Produces Chose, 2025," ARPC Report 404916, North Dakota State University.

    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. Seifert, Stefan & Wolff, Saskia & Hüttel, Silke, 2024. "Eco-efficiency in the agricultural landscape of North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 220(C).
    2. Silvio Franco & Barbara Pancino & Angelo Martella & Tommaso De Gregorio, 2022. "Assessing the Presence of a Monoculture: From Definition to Quantification," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-10, September.
    3. Fateh Mamine & M’hand Farès, 2020. "Barriers and Levers to Developing Wheat–Pea Intercropping in Europe: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-19, August.
    4. Färe, Rolf & Zelenyuk, Valentin, 2020. "Profit efficiency: Generalization, business accounting and the role of convexity," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    5. Zhen Zhong & Yiming Zhang & Jian Zhang & Mingming Su, 2025. "How information and communication technologies contribute to rural tourism resilience: evidence from China," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 25(6), pages 4559-4594, December.
    6. Shi, Zheng, 2023. "The impact of regional ICT development on job quality of the employee in China," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(6).
    7. François Bareille & Pierre Dupraz, 2020. "Productive Capacity of Biodiversity: Crop Diversity and Permanent Grasslands in Northwestern France," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(2), pages 365-399, October.
    8. Sueyoshi, Toshiyuki & Yuan, Yan & Goto, Mika, 2017. "A literature study for DEA applied to energy and environment," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 104-124.
    9. Kristiaan Kerstens & Ignace Van de Woestyne, 2021. "Cost functions are nonconvex in the outputs when the technology is nonconvex: convexification is not harmless," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 305(1), pages 81-106, October.
    10. Kunxi Nie & Yueji Zhu, 2025. "Internet access, female’s non-farm employment, and income effects: insights from China," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 13(1), pages 1-29, December.
    11. Ma, Wanglin & Vatsa, Puneet & Zheng, Hongyun & Rahut, Dil Bahadur, 2022. "Nonfarm employment and consumption diversification in rural China," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 582-598.
    12. Wanglin Ma & Puneet Vatsa & Hongyun Zheng & Yanzhi Guo, 2022. "Does online food shopping boost dietary diversity? Application of an endogenous switching model with a count outcome variable," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 10(1), pages 1-19, December.
    13. Melga Meta Ntsoane & Jorine Tafadzwa Ndoro & Ntombovuyo Wayi-Mgwebi, 2025. "Multivariate Probit Model Analysis of the Factors Influencing Smallholder Farmers’ Choice of ICT Tools: A Case Study of Mpumalanga, South Africa," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-26, August.
    14. Oluwarotimi Ayokunnu Owolabi & Adedayo Oluseun Adedeji & Busayo Aderounmu & Asa-Ruth Oboko Oku & Toun Ogunbiyi, 2023. "Do Information and Communications Technology (ICT) and financial development contribute to economic diversification? Evidence from sub-Saharan Africa," Journal of Economic Structures, Springer;Pan-Pacific Association of Input-Output Studies (PAPAIOS), vol. 12(1), pages 1-18, December.
    15. Lin, Yang & Hu, Ruifa & Zhang, Chao & Chen, Kevin, 2022. "The role of public agricultural extension services in driving fertilizer use in rice production in China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    16. Bostian, Moriah B. & Herlihy, Alan T., 2014. "Valuing tradeoffs between agricultural production and wetland condition in the U.S. Mid-Atlantic region," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 284-291.
    17. Cai, Yi & Sun, Yucheng & Qi, Wene & Yi, Famin, . "Impact of smartphone use on production outsourcing: evidence from litchi farming in southern China," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 25(4).
    18. Xilong Jiang & Guanyi Yin & Yi Lou & Shuai Xie & Wei Wei, 2021. "The Impact of Transformation of Farmers’ Livelihood on the Increasing Labor Costs of Grain Plantation in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-18, October.
    19. Xiaoxia Li, 2022. "Research on the Development Level of Rural E-Commerce in China Based on Analytic Hierarchy and Systematic Clustering Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-18, July.
    20. Areal, Francisco J. & Jones, Philip J. & Mortimer, Simon R. & Wilson, Paul, 2018. "Measuring sustainable intensification: Combining composite indicators and efficiency analysis to account for positive externalities in cereal production," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 314-326.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:uersib:396453. 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/ersgvus.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.