Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-4hvwz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-25T19:58:07.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Farm Programs, Pesticide Use, and Social Costs*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

James W. Richardson
James W. Richardson*
Affiliation:
Oklahoma State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Environmentalists attack agricultural pesticides because of adverse drift effects during application, run-off into streams and persistence in the environment. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has banned DDT and currently is considering cancellation of its registration of mirex, 2,4,5,-T, and dieldrin.

Emotionalism rather than economics appears to be guiding environmental groups in their fight against pesticides. As agriculture's pesticide use comes under more and more pressure from the public, U.S. farm programs are likely to come under attack because they may have encouraged farmers to substitute pesticides for cropland. The “farm program” for the past decade has restricted acres planted and supported prices of agricultural products. Acreage controls encourage farmers to substitute variable inputs for limited cropland to take advantage of support prices.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , December 1973 , pp. 155 - 163
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1973

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.)

Footnotes

*

Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station Journal Article No. J-2750

References

[1]Edwards, William F., Economic Externalities in the Agricultural Use of Pesticides and an Evaluation of Alternative Policies, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Florida, 1969.Google Scholar
[2]Farris, D. E., and Sprott, J. M., Economic and Policy Implications Associated with Pollution from Agricultural Chemicals, Texas Agri. Exp. Sta., Technical Article No. 8999,1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Farris, D. E., and Sprott, J. M., “Economic and Policy Implications of Pollution from Agricultural Chemicals,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 53: 661–662, Nov. 1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4] Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972, 86 Stat. 973, Oct. 21, 1972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Griliches, Zvi, “Estimates of the Aggregate Agricultural Production Function from Cross-Sectional Data,” Journal of Farm Economics, 45: 419–428, May, 1963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Headley, J. C, “Productivity of Agricultural Pesticides,” Economic Research on Pesticides for Policy Decision-Making, Proceedings of a Symposium, Washington, D.C, April 27-29, 1970. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington: Gov. Print. Office, 1971, pp. 80–88.Google Scholar
[7]Ibach, D. B., Fertilizer Use in the United States, Agriculture Economics Report No. 92, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington: Gov. Print. Office, 1966.Google Scholar
[8]Lacewell, Ronald D., and Masch, William R., Economic Incentives to Reduce the Quantity of Chemicals Used in Agriculture. Texas Agr. Exp. Stat. Technical Article No. 9606, 1971.Google Scholar
[9]Richardson, James W., Enviro-Economic Analysis of Present and Alternative Methods of Pest Management on Selected Oklahoma Crops, unpublished M.S. thesis, Oklahoma State University, 1973.Google Scholar
[10]Schnittker, John A., Direction of Federal Farm Programs: Farm Program Alternatives. Presented at a Management Training and Development Conference, Bank for Cooperatives, Edwardsville, Illinois, May 9, 1970.Google Scholar
[11]Tweeten, Luther G., Foundations on Farm Policy. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1970.Google Scholar
[12]Tyner, Fred H., and Tweeten, Luther G., “A Methodology for Estimating Production Parameters,” Journal of Farm Economics, 47: 1462–1467, Dec. 1965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13]Tyner, Fred H., and Tweeten, Luther G., “Optimum Resource Allocation in U.S. Agriculture,” Journal of Farm Economics, 48: 613–631, Aug. 1966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14]United States Bureau of the Census, Annual Survey of Manufacturers. U.S. Department of Commerce. Washington: Gov. Print. Office, 1964-1969.Google Scholar
[15]United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Statistics 1971. Washington: Gov. Print. Office, 1971.Google Scholar
[16]United States Department of Agriculture, Changes in Farm Production and Efficiency. E.R.S. Statistical Bulletin No. 233, revised 1967. Washington: Gov. Print. Office, 1967.Google Scholar
[17]United States Department of Agriculture, Farm Income Situation E.R.S. Bulletin No. 216. Washington: Gov. Print. Office, July 1971.Google Scholar
[18]United States Department of Agriculture, The Balance Sheet of the Farming Sector. E.R.S. Information Bulletin No. 350, Jan. 1971.Google Scholar
[19]United States Department of Agriculture, 1971 Set-Aside Programs Annual Report: Cotton, Wheat, and Feed Grains. A.S.C.S., U.S.DA. Washington: Gov. Print. Office, 1972.Google Scholar
[20]United States Tariff Commission, Synthetic Organic Chemicals.Annual Report of United States Production and Sales of Pesticides and Related Products. Washington: Gov. Print. Office 1971 and earlier issues.Google Scholar
[21]Wilson, Stanley, and Billiagsley, Ray, Factor-Factor II Departmental Program and Model Documentation 71-3. Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, College Station, Texas, Jan. 1971.Google Scholar