Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-p5m67 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-18T19:07:36.847Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Updating Corn Program Payment Yields: Are Farm Operators Differentially Affected?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Sharon Thayer ,
Carl Zulauf ,
Gary Schnitkey  and
Lynn Forster
Sharon Thayer
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, The Ohio State University
Carl Zulauf
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, The Ohio State University
Gary Schnitkey
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, The Ohio State University
Lynn Forster
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, The Ohio State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Crop yields which determine farm income deficiency payments have been frozen at 1981-1985 levels since 1986. Data from a longitudinal survey of Ohio farm operators are analyzed to evaluate whether updating payment yields will differentially affect farm operators. Results of the analysis imply that farm operators who operate larger farms, live in counties with higher yields, and have higher fertilizer and pesticide expenses per acre of corn will benefit more. In addition, low (high) existing payment yields are understated (overstated) relative to updated payment yields.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , October 1994 , pp. 236 - 241
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Cochrane, Willard W. The Development of American Agriculture: A Historical Analysis. University of Minnesota Press. 1979.Google Scholar
Glaser, Lewrene K. “Provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985 .” U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service Agriculture Information Bulletin #498. April 1986.Google Scholar
Griliches, Zvi. “Hybrid Corn: An Exploration in the Economics of Technological Change.” Econometrica. 25 (1957): 501–522.Google Scholar
Nelson, Frederick J. “Profile of Farms Benefiting from the 1982 Farm Commodity Programs.” U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Agriculture and Trade Analysis Division Staff Report #AGES 89-32. September 1989.Google Scholar
Ohio Agricultural Statistics Service. Ohio Agricultural Statistics and Ohio Department of Agriculture Annual Report. 1986–92.Google Scholar
Ohio State University Extension, The Ohio State University. Ohio Crop Enterprise Budgets: Grains—Forages. Multiple years.Google Scholar
Pindyck, Robert S., and Rubinfeld, Daniel L. Econometric Models and Economic Forecasts. Third Edition. McGraw-Hill, Inc. 1991.Google Scholar
Rogers, Everett M. Diffusion of Innovations. Third Edition. The Free Press. 1983.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. ASCS News #88-91. July 22, 1991.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. Ohio Notice #PA-86-22. March 3, 1986.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. “Economic Indicators of the Farm Sector: Costs of Production—Major Field Crops, 1990.” ECIFS 10-4. July 1992.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Public Affairs. “Farm Bill Issues, Background Facts.” May 1990.Google Scholar
U.S. House of Representatives. Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990. Report #101-916. October 22, 1990.Google Scholar