Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55b6f6c457-dz7l6 Total loading time: 0.211 Render date: 2021-09-27T08:18:15.024Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Trade-Off Analysis of Herbicide Withdrawals on Agricultural Production and Groundwater Quality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Shiping Liu
Affiliation:
Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Gerald A. Carlson
Affiliation:
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina
Dana L. Hoag
Affiliation:
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado
Get access

Abstract

This study examines the trade-off between agricultural production and groundwater contamination potential for ten potential herbicide cancellations. Theoretical and empirical models are developed for estimating losses in consumer and producer benefits in the agricultural commodity market and changes in groundwater quality. Using com and soybean production in the southeastern Coastal Plain as a study area, the analysis concludes that (1) effects of herbicide cancellations on groundwater quality can be very significant; (2) a cancellation does not guarantee groundwater quality improvement; (3) effects of a multiple cancellation are different from the summation of the effects of independent cancellations; and (4) weed density has a very strong effect on losses to farmers and consumers from cancellations, but output demand and supply elasticities do not.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1995

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.)

References

Aller, L., Bennet, T., Lehr, J. H. and Petty, R.. “DRASTIC: A System To Evaluate the Pollution Potential of Hydrogeologie Setting by Pesticide.” pp. 141158 in Evaluation of Pesticides in Groundwater (eds. Garner, W. Y., Honeycutt, R. C., and Nigg, H. N.), American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bâtie, S., Cox, W., and Diebel, P.. Managing Agrichemical Contamination of Ground Water: State Strategies. Capital Resources Policy Studies, Center for Policy Research, National Governors' Association, Washington, D.C, State Policy Report 1989.Google Scholar
Bouzaher, A., Lakshminarayan, P. G., Carriquiry, A., Gassman, P., Shogren, J. F., and Cabe, R.. “Evaluating Regional Ground- and Surface-Water Quality: An Application of Metamodeling.” Paper presented at AAEA Annual Meetings. Baltimore, MD, August 9-12, 1992.Google Scholar
Carlson, G. A. and Wetzstein, M. E.. “Pesticides and Pest Management.” pp. 268318 in Agricultural and Environmental Resource Economics (eds., Carlson, G. A., Zilberman, D. and Miranowski, J. A.), Oxford University Press: New York, 1993.Google Scholar
Cheng, H. H. and Koskinen, W. C., “Processes and Factors Affecting Transport of Pesticides to Ground Water.” pp. 213 in Evaluation of Pesticides in Groundwater (eds., Garner, W. Y., Honeycutt, R.C. and Nigg, H. N.), American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coble, D. H. and Möllensen, D. A.. “The Threshold Concept and Its Application to Weed Science.Weed Technology. 6(1992): 191–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danielson, L. E., Carlson, G. A., Liu, S., Weber, J. B., Warren, R. L.. Ground Water Contamination and Costs of Pesticide Restrictions in the Southeastern Coastal Plain. Water Resources Research Institute, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, November, 1993.Google Scholar
Ferguson, W. L., Moffitt, L. J., and Davis, R. M.. “Short-Run Welfare Implication of Restricting Fungicide Use in Vegetable Production.J. of Agribusiness. 8(1992): 4150.Google Scholar
Gardiner, W. H., Roningen, V. O., and Liu, K.. Elasticities in the Trade Liberalization Database. Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington, DC, 1989.Google Scholar
Gardner, B. L.The Economics of Agricultural Policies. Macmillan Publishing Corporation: New York. 1987.Google Scholar
Gianessi, L. P., Kopp, R. J. and Puffer, C. A.. “Regulating Pesticide Use: Social Costs, Policy Targeting and Economic Incentives.” Resources for the Future Discussion Paper QE89-21. Washington, D.C, 1989.Google Scholar
Gianessi, L. P., Kopp, R. J., Kuch, P., Puffer, C., and Torla, R.. “Welfare Implications of Restricted Triazine Herbicide Use in the Chesapeake Bay Region”. Marine Res. Econ. 5(1988): 243–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griliches, Z.Hybrid Corn: An Exploration in the Economics of Technical Change.Econometrica. 25(1957): 501–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gustafson, D.Groundwater Ubiquity Score: A Simple Method for Assessing Pesticide Leachability.Environ. Toxicol, and Chem. 8(1989): 339–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, C. R. and Zilberman, D.. “Pest Externalities from Agricultural Inputs.Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 71(1989): 692702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helling, C. S. and Gish, T. J.. “Soil Characteristics Affecting Pesticide Movement into Ground Water.” pp. 1438 in Evaluation of Pesticides in Groundwater (eds., Garner, W. Y., Honeycutt, R. C. and Nigg, H. N.) American Chemical Society. Washington, D.C, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoag, D. L. and Hornsby, A. G.. “Coupling Groundwater Contamination to Economic Returns when Applying Farm Pesticides.J. Environ. Quality 21(1992): 579–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Housenger, J. E.Decision Making in the Risk-Benefit Assessment Process at EPA.” pp. 1519 in Proceedings of the National Pesticide Impact Assessment Workshop (ed., Stephen Toth, J. Jr.), Raleigh, NC, February, 1992.Google Scholar
Jennings, A. L.Components of an EPA Pesticide Benefits Assessment.” pp. 6164 in Proceedings of the National Pesticide Impact Assessment Workshop (ed. Toth, Stephen J. Jr.), Raleigh, NC, February, 1992.Google Scholar
Jury, W. A., Focht, D. and Farmer, W. J.. “Evaluation of Pesticide Groundwater Pollution Potential from Standard Indices of Soil-Chemical Adsorption and Biodegradation.J. Environ. Quality 16(1987): 422–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Just, R. E., Hueth, D. L. and Phillips, M.. “Benefits Estimates for MANEB.” Unpublished paper, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 1987.Google Scholar
Kennedy, R., Lowrey, R., Bernstein, A., Rueter, F., Cole, H., and Smyth, H. F.. “A Benefit Cost System for Chemical Pesticides.” Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA-540/9-76-001, Strategic Studies Unit, Washington, D.C, 1975.Google Scholar
Kopp, R. J. and Krupnick, A. J.. “Agricultural Policy and the Benefits of Ozone Control.Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 69(1987): 956–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lichtenberg, E. and Zilberman, D.. “The Welfare Economics of Regulation in Revenue-Supported Industries: The Case of Price Supports in U.S. Agriculture.Amer. Econ. Rev. 76(1986): 1135-1141.Google Scholar
Liu, S.Estimating the Effects of Herbicide Withdrawals on Agricultural Production and Groundwater Quality.” Unpublished Ph.D Thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 1993.Google Scholar
Liu, S. and Carlson, G. A.. “Production Quality Information and Regulation of Pesticide Residues in Food.” Paper presented at AAEA annual Meetings, Baltimore, MD, August 9-12, 1992.Google Scholar
Liu, S. and Carlson, G. A.. “Ex Ante Estimation of Pesticide Substitutes from a Pesticide Withdrawal.” Unpublished Paper, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 1994.Google Scholar
Modena, S. A., Wilkerson, G. G. and Coble, H. D.. “HERB Version 3.0 User's Manual.” Research Report 131, Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 1991.Google Scholar
National Agricultural Pesticide Impact Assessment Program (NAPIAP), 1993. The Importance of Pesticide and Other Pest Management Practices in U.S. Cotton Production, NAPIAP Report, Number l-CA-93, USD A, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
National Governors's Association (NGA). “Agriculture and Water Quality.” Washington, D.C, 1989.Google Scholar
National Research Council. Regulating Pesticides in Food: the Delaney Paradox, Washington, D.C, National Academy Press, 1987.Google Scholar
Nielsen, Elizabeth G. and Lee, Linda K.., 1987. The Magnitude and Costs of Ground Water Contamination from Agricultural Chemicals: A National Perspective. Agricultural Economic Report No. 576, Resources and Technology Division, USDA, ERS, Washington D.C. October.Google Scholar
North Carolina Agricultural Statistics, 1979-1990. North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Raleigh, NC.Google Scholar
North Carolina School of Agriculture and Life Sciences. 1992 North Carolina Agricultural Chemicals Manual. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.Google Scholar
Osteen, C. D.Commodity and Chemical Assessments.” pp. 659–60 in Proceedings of the National Pesticide Impact Assessment Workshop (ed., Stephen Toth, J. Jr.), Raleigh, NC, February, 1992.Google Scholar
Osteen, C. and Kuchler, F.. “Pesticide Regulatory Decisions: Production Efficiency, Equity and Interdependence.Agribusiness 3(1987);307–22.3.0.CO;2-1>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, E. D., Knutson, R. D., Taylor, C. R. and Penson, J. B.. “Impacts of Chemical Use Reduction on Crop Yields and Costs.” Agricultural and Food Policy Center, Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 1990.Google Scholar
Stemeroff, M., Groenewegen, J. and Krystynak, R.. “The Benefits of 2,4-D: An Economic Assessment.Canadian Farm Econ. 23(1993):319.Google Scholar
Strobel, M.et al.An Examination of the Spatial and Intertemporal Aspects of Basis Determination.” NCR-134 Conference on Applied Price Analysis. Chicago, IL, 1992.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. R., Lacewell, Ronald D. and Talpaz, Hovav. “Use of Extraneous Information with an Econometric Model to Evaluate Impacts of Pesticide Withdrawals.W.J. Agr. Econ. 4(1979): 17.Google Scholar
U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Economic Research Service, “Inputs, Situation and Outlook Report.” Washington, D.C, selected years.Google Scholar
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Agricultural Chemicals in Ground Water: Proposed Pesticide Strategy.” Washington, D.C: Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, 1987.Google Scholar
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Pesticide Wellwater Survey. Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C, 1990.Google Scholar
Weber, J.B.Potential Problems for North Carolina Ground Water from Herbicides: A Ranking Index”, Proceedings of Weed Science Society, North Carolina 8(1990): 3046.Google Scholar
Weber, J. B. and Warren, R. L.. “Herbicide Behavior in Soils: A Pesticide/Soil Ranking System for Minimizing Ground Water Contamination,” Proceedings of Northeastern Weed Science Society, 47(1993): 144–57.Google Scholar
Wilkerson, G.C., Modena, S. A. II.Coble, D.. “HERB: Decision Model for Postemergence Weed Control in Soybean.Agrori. J. 83(1991): 413–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Trade-Off Analysis of Herbicide Withdrawals on Agricultural Production and Groundwater Quality
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Trade-Off Analysis of Herbicide Withdrawals on Agricultural Production and Groundwater Quality
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Trade-Off Analysis of Herbicide Withdrawals on Agricultural Production and Groundwater Quality
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *