Alternative Farm Bills: Impacts on Minnesota Farms
With the current federal farm bill set to expire at the end of September this year, many proposals have been made to redesign the next bill. The objectives of this study are to compare the current policy with major proposed alternatives and estimate the potential payments of farmers under each of the alternatives. The alternative policies are compared in two ways. First a historical comparison of crop revenue and estimated government payments for individual farms are made under each proposal from 2002-2005. In a second comparison, projections of crop revenue and government payments are made using historical yields for each farm, county, and nation; historical price data; statistical distributions of the yields and prices including averages, standard deviations, and correlations; and each proposal's rules for calculating payments. For yields, deviations from the yield trend are used. In three of the four years and on average, the American Soybean Association (ASA) proposal has higher payments and thus higher total gross revenue compared to current policy and the other three proposals. Since the ASA proposal raises both loan rates and target prices, the higher payments should be expected. The proposed USDA policy is estimated to have a slightly higher average government payment and total gross revenue compared to current policy, but it is not higher than current policy in each year. Lower total payments under the National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) proposal are due to higher than average revenues during 2002-05. The revenue insurance proposal does not create any indemnity payments in 2002-05 again due to the higher revenues in these years. Projections of potential revenue also show the ASA proposal to have higher estimated payments. Average government payments are estimated to be slightly higher under current policy compared to USDA's and NCGA's proposals. Since federal budget concerns may not allow the higher payments under the ASA proposal, the choice between the USDA and NCGA proposal may hinge on the level of administrative costs which would appear to be lower with the USDA proposal since it is based on one national estimate of revenue versus many county and individual calculations under the NCGA proposal. The potential use of multi-commodity revenue insurance will hinge on either the ability to provide additional support in fixed direct payments and green payments and larger federal budget concerns.
|Date of creation:||2007|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: 231ClaOff Building, 1994 Buford Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55108-6040|
Phone: (612) 625-1222
Fax: (612) 625-6245
Web page: http://www.apec.umn.edu
More information through EDIRC
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:umaesp:7315. 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)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.