Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-mnl9s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-22T14:33:47.689Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impacts of Within-Farm Soil Variability on Nitrogen Pollution Control Costs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Laura S. VanDyke ,
Darrell J. Bosch  and
James W. Pease
Laura S. VanDyke
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061
Darrell J. Bosch
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061
James W. Pease
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The effects of considering variable within-farm soil runoff and leaching potential on costs of reducing nitrogen losses are analyzed for a Virginia dairy. Manure applications may cause nitrogen losses through runoff and leaching because of factors such as uncertain nitrogen mineralization. Farmers can reduce nitrogen control costs by applying manure on soils with less nitrogen loss potential. Ignoring within-farm soil variability may result in overstating the farm's costs of reducing nitrogen losses.

Keywords

economic costslinear programmingmanurenitrogennutrient managementsimulationsoil variability

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , April 1999 , pp. 149 - 159
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1999

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

Abler, D.G. and Shortle, J.S.. “The Political Economy of Water Quality Protection from Agricultural Chemicals.” Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 20(1991): 53–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antle, J.M. and Just, R.E.. “Effects of Commodity Program Structure on Resource Use and the Environment.” Commodity and Resource Policies in Agricultural Systems, eds. Just, R.E. and Bockstael, N., pp. 97–128. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, M.P., Rushton, G., Honey, R., Dalziel, B.T., Lolonis, P., De, S., and Densham, P.. “Decision Support for Regionalization: A Spatial Decision Support System for Regionalization Service Delivery Systems.” Computers, Environment, and Urban Systems 15(1991):37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braden, J.B., Johnson, G.V., Bouzaher, A., and Miltz, D.. “Optimal Spatial Management of Agricultural Pollution.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 71(1989):404–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpentier, C.L. “Value of Information for Targeting Agro-Pollution Control: A Case Study of the Lower Susquenhanna Watershed.” PhD dissertation, Blacksburg, Virginia: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1996.Google Scholar
Carpentier, C.L., Bosch, D.J., and Batie, S.S.. “Using Spatial Information to Reduce Costs of Controlling Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 27(1998):72–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chesapeake Bay Program. 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement. Annapolis, Maryland: Chesapeake Bay Program Office, 1987.Google Scholar
Densham, P.J. “Spatial Decision Support Systems.” Geographical Information Systems: Principles and Applications, eds. Maguire, D.J., Goodchild, M.F., and Rhind, D.W., pp. 403–412. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1991.Google Scholar
Ellis, J.R., Hughes, D.W., and Butcher, W.R.. “Economic Modeling of Farm Production and Conservation Decision in Response to Alternative Resource and Environmental Policies.” Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 20(1991):98–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evanylo, G.K. “Mineralization and Availability of Nitrogen in Organic Waste-Amended Mid-Atlantic Soils.” Perspectives on Chesapeake Bay, 1994: Advances in Estuatine Science, eds. Nelson, S. and Elliot, P., pp. 77–103. Solomons Island, Maryland: Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee, Chesapeake Bay Program, 1994.Google Scholar
Fisher, T.R. and Butt, A.J.. “The Role of Nitrogen and Phosphorus in Chesapeake Bay Anoxia.” Perspectives on Chesapeake Bay, 1994: Advances in Estuarine Science, eds. Nelson, S. and Elliot, P., pp. 1–43. Solomons Island, Maryland: Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee, Chesapeake Bay Program, 1994.Google Scholar
Gorres, J.J., Opaluch, J.J., Gold, A.J., Besedina, H., and Conrad, J.. “Spatial Modeling of N-Leach-ing and the Economics of Aquifer Protection.” Clean Water-Clean Environment—21st Century. Team Agriculture—Working to Protect Water Resources. Conference Proceedings. Volume II: Nutrients, pp. 67–70. St. Joseph, Michigan: ASAE Publication 2-95, 1995.Google Scholar
Green, G., Sunding, D., Zilberman, D., and Parker, D.. “Explaining Irrigation Technology Choices: A Microparameter Approach.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78(1996): 1064–1072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harsh, S.B. “Decision Support Systems—Definitions and Overview.” Proceedings of the American Agricultural Economics Association: Extension Workshop on Maintaining Cutting Edge, eds. Mitchell, C.L. and Andersons, K.B., pp. 197–214. Stillwater, Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service, 1987.Google Scholar
Hochman, E. and Zilberman, D.. “Examination of Environmental Policies Using Production and Pollution Micro-Parameter Distributions.” Econometrica 46(1978):739–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hochman, E. and Zilberman, D.. “Two-Goal Environmental Policies Using Production and Pollution Micro-Parameter Distributions.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 6(1979):152–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansen, L.Production Functions: An Integration of Micro and Macro, Short Run and Long Run Aspects. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1972.Google Scholar
Opaluch, J.J. and Segerson, K.. “Aggregate Analysis of Site-Specific Pollution Problems: The Case of Groundwater Contamination from Agriculture.” Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 20(1991):83–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schnitkey, G.D. and Miranda, M.J.. “The Impact of Pollution Controls on Livestock-Crop Producers.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 18(1993):25–36.Google Scholar
Sharpley, A.N. and Williams, J.R., eds. EPIC: Erosion Productivity Impact Calculator. Volume I. Model Documentation Technical Bulletin No. 1768. Temple, Texas: United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 1990.Google Scholar
VanDyke, L.S. “Nutrient Management Planning on Virginia Livestock Farms: Impacts and Opportunities for Improvement.” M.S. thesis, Blacksburg, Virginia: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1997.Google Scholar
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. Nutrient Management Handbook. Richmond, Virginia: Division of Soil and Water Conservation, 1993.Google Scholar
Wade, J.D. and Heady, E.O.. “Controlling Nonpoint Sediment Sources with Cropland Management: A National Economic Assessment.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 59(1977): 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J.R. and Renard, K.G.. “Assessment of Soil Erosion and Crop Productivity with Process Model (EPIC).” Soil Erosion and Crop Productivity, eds. Follett, R.R. and Steward, B.A., pp. 68–103. Madison, Wisconsin: American Society of Agronomy, 1985.Google Scholar
Wischmeier, W.H. and Smith, D.D.. Predicting Rainfall Losses—a Guide to Conservation Planning. Agriculture Handbook No. 537. Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture, 1978.Google Scholar
Wossink, G.A.A., De Koeijer, T.J., and Renkema, J.A.. “Environmental-Economic Policy Assessment: A Farm Economic Approach.” Agricultural Systems 89(1992):421–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar