Farm Programs, Pesticide Use, and Social Costs

Richardson, James W.

doi:10.1017/s0081305200011365

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…By taking land out of production, they reduce soil erosion and chemical use on those acres. Yet, they can encourage more input use on the remaining acres [Richardson, 1973;Offutt and Shoemaker, 1990]. Base acreage restrictions can also discourage the use of crop rotations to break pest cycles and provide carryover nitrogen, leading to subsequently more insecticide and fertilizer use [Reichelderfer and Phipps, 1988;Council of Economic Advisers, 1995].…”

Section: Moore Et Al [1991]mentioning

confidence: 99%

How federal farm programs affect water use, quality, and allocation among sectors

Frisvold

2004

Water Resources Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

[1] This article examines the effects of U.S. federal farm programs on agricultural water use, water quality, and the allocation of water between agriculture and other sectors of the economy. Agriculture is central to policy debates over how to allocate water between competing uses and how to control water pollution. Agriculture accounts for 80% of U.S. consumptive use of freshwater and has been identified as the largest contributor to nonpoint source water pollution. Over the last 20 years, agricultural policy reforms have greatly reduced, though not eliminated, incentives to overuse water and chemical inputs and have improved targeting of conservation programs to achieve environmental benefits. Recent changes provide greater incentives for voluntary reallocation of water from agriculture to other uses. The 2002 farm bill reverses some reforms, increasing some distortionary subsidies, while shifting conservation program priorities from environmental to income transfer objectives.

show abstract

Section: Moore Et Al [1991]mentioning

confidence: 99%