IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Estimating Soil Erosion and Fuel Use Changes and Their Monetary Values with AGSIM: A Case Study for Triazine Herbicides

  • Mitchell, Paul D.

    (University of WI)

This technical report describes a method to use the AGSIM policy model to estimate changes in soil erosion and diesel fuel consumption for tillage that result from agricultural policy changes. This report uses triazine herbicides as a case study to explain the development of the method and illustrate its use. The method assumes farmers shift their adoption of different tillage systems as a result of the agricultural policy being examined. Based on these shifts in tillage adoption rates, changes in farmer costs, erosion rates, and consumption of diesel fuel for tillage occur. The changes in farm costs are used as input by AGSIM, along with other changes in costs and/or yields due to the agricultural policy being examined. Based on these inputs, AGSIM then projects crop acreage and prices, as well as changes in consumer surplus, that would occur as a result of the policy. Based on projected crop acreage changes, the method estimates changes in soil erosion and consumption of diesel fuel for tillage, as well as the monetary value of soil erosion changes and the carbon dioxide emission changes resulting from the fuel use changes. As an illustration of the method, this report presents an updated assessment of the benefits of triazine herbicides to the U.S. economy. For the base year of 2009, this assessment finds that triazine herbicides provide total benefits to the U.S. economy of $3.8 to $4.8 billion per year. Because the triazine herbicides increase the total supply of corn and sorghum, which decreases grain prices, most of these benefits accrue to consumers, especially the livestock and ethanol industries that are major users of corn. These consumer benefits are the sum of the benefits flowing to everyone along the supply chain--livestock farmers, processors and handlers, distributors, retailers, and final consumers. Triazine herbicides also reduce the use of tillage for crop production and the conversion of land to crop production, which reduces soil erosion from U.S. cropland by 56 to 85 million tons per year. Based on these reductions, triazine herbicides provide $210 to $350 million per year in benefits from reduced soil erosion as part of this total benefit to the U.S. economy. In addition, triazine herbicides reduce consumption of diesel fuel for tillage by 18 to 28 million gallons per year, implying a decrease in carbon dioxide emissions of 180,000 to 280,000 metric tons per year. This total benefit of $3.8 to $4.8 billion is a lower bound on the full value of triazine herbicides to the U.S. economy, because several benefits are not accounted for in this assessment. Among the most substantial benefits missing from this assessment are estimates of the resistance management benefits of triazine herbicides for other herbicides and crops, environmental benefits other than reduced soil erosion, and the benefits to crops not modeled by AGSIM (e.g., sweet corn, sugarcane, citrus, grapes, and other fruits and nuts).

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by University of Wisconsin, Agricultural and Applied Economics in its series Staff Paper Series with number 563.

in new window

Date of creation: Nov 2011
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ecl:wisagr:563
Contact details of provider: Postal:
427 Lorch Street, Madison, WI 53706-1503

Phone: 608-262-8966
Fax: 608-262-4376
Web page:

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.:

as in new window
  1. Craig Osteen & Fred Kuchler, 1987. "Pesticide regulatory decisions: Production efficiency, equity, and interdependence," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 3(3), pages 307-322.
  2. Schaub, John R., 1991. "Economic Impacts Of Chemical Use Reduction On The South: Discussion," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 23(01), July.
  3. Fuglie, Keith O., 1999. "Conservation Tillage And Pesticide Use In The Cornbelt," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 31(01), April.
  4. repec:ecl:wisagr:564 is not listed on IDEAS
  5. Terry M. Dinan & Michael Salassi & Craig Simons, 1991. "Farm-level impacts of recent and proposed environmental regulations on selected farm types," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(2), pages 115-133.
  6. Ribaudo, Marc & Hurley, Terrance M., 1997. "Economic And Environmental Effects Associated With Reducing The Use Of Atrazine: An Example Of Cross-Disciplinary Research," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 29(01), July.
  7. Tauer, Loren W., 1988. "The economic impact of future biological nitrogen fixation technologies," Working Papers 7271, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
  8. Robert Taylor, C., 1994. "Deterministic versus stochastic evaluation of the aggregate economic effects of price support programs," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 44(4), pages 461-473.
  9. Isabelle Huault & V. Perret & S. Charreire-Petit, 2007. "Management," Post-Print halshs-00337676, HAL.
  10. Tegtmeier, Erin M & Duffy, Michael, 2004. "External Costs of Agricultural Production in the United States," Staff General Research Papers 12659, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  11. Taylor, C. Robert & Penson, John B., Jr. & Smith, Edward G. & Knutson, Ronald D., 1991. "Economic Impacts Of Chemical Use Reduction On The South," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 23(01), July.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ecl:wisagr:563. 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: ()

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.