HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Nail, E. L. Articles by Schillinger, W. F. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Nail, E. L. Articles by Schillinger, W. F. Agricola Articles by Nail, E. L. Articles by Schillinger, W. F. Related Collections Economics Dryland Cropping Systems Soil Conservation

Economic Analysis

Government Subsidies and Crop Insurance Effects on the Economics of Conservation Cropping Systems in Eastern Washington

^a School of Economic Sciences, Hulbert Hall 103, Washington State Univ., Pullman, WA 99164-6210
^b Dep. of Crop and Soil Sciences, Washington State Univ., Dryland Research Station, P.O. Box B, Lind, WA 99341

^* Corresponding author (dlyoung{at}wsu.edu)

Received for publication January 5, 2006. Government subsidies and crop insurance indemnities provide important support for many U.S. farmers. Economists often justify omitting government subsidies when comparing cropping systems because subsidies were decoupled from production in the 1996 Farm Bill. However, coupled loan deficiency payments (LDPs) were continued in the 1996 and 2002 Farm Bills for grains and were extended to several pulses and oilseeds in the 2002 Farm Bill. Furthermore, crop insurance premiums and indemnity payments have always been coupled to production. This paper calculates the impacts of including government subsidies and crop insurance on the results of two long-term cropping systems experiments in eastern Washington. Both studies compared the agronomic and economic feasibility of annual cropping no-till systems with traditional tillage-based winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)–summer fallow (WW–SF). Net returns for WW–SF exceeded those for most annual no-till systems in both experiments. No government subsidies or insurance impacts were included in previous analyses of these cropping systems. The present analysis shows that including government subsidies and crop insurance effects does not alter the profitability rankings of the annual no-till vs. WW–SF cropping systems in these experiments. However, including crop insurance indemnities did slightly alter the rankings of the three most profitable no-till systems in one experiment. The exclusion of government subsidies and crop insurance from previous research on conservation cropping systems in eastern Washington produced relatively sound economic rankings. To test the generality of this conclusion, similar comparisons would be required with other crops and in other regions.

Abbreviations: HHH, Horse Heaven Hills • HRS, hard red spring wheat • HWS, hard white spring wheat • LDP, loan deficiency payment • NR, net returns • SAF, safflower • SB, spring barley • SWS, soft white spring wheat • SWW, soft white winter wheat • WW-SF, winter wheat–summer fallow • YM, yellow mustard