Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-20T15:07:11.668Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lessons Learned in the Southern Region after the First Year of Implementation of the New Commodity Programs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2015

Jody Campiche  and
Wes Harris
Jody Campiche
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK
Wes Harris
Affiliation:
Public Policy, Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA
Get access

Abstract

The development of the commodity programs in the 2008 Farm Bill involved the origination of two complex revenue support initiatives. The two new programs, Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE) and Supplemental Revenue Assurance (SURE), expanded the risk management tool kit of agricultural producers. The SURE program is a permanent disaster assistance program, whereas the ACRE program is a revenue-based commodity program offered as an alternative to the price-based Direct and Counter-Cyclical Program (DCP) created in the 2002 Farm Bill. For the 2009 signup, only 7.7% of eligible U.S. farms enrolled in the ACRE program. In the southern region, three states had no farms electing ACRE and four others had less than 50. Excluding Oklahoma, less than 1% of all farms in 13 southern states made the ACRE election.

Keywords

farm policyFood Conservation and Energy Act of 2008Average Crop Revenue Election Program (ACRE)Supplemental Revenue Assistance (SURE)Q1
Type
Invited Paper Sessions
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 42 , Issue 3 , August 2010 , pp. 491 - 499
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2010

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

Aakre, D.G., Haugen, R.H., and Swenson, A.L. Staff Paper AAE 07003. Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics, North Dakota State. Fargo, ND: Base Revenue Protection and Revenue Countercyclical Programs for Corn in North Dakota, March 2007a.Google Scholar
Aakre, D.G., Staff Paper AAE 07005. Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics, North Dakota State University. Fargo, ND: Base Revenue Protection and Revenue Countercyclical Programs for Soybeans in North Dakota, March 2007b.Google Scholar
Aakre, D.G., Staff Paper AAE 07004. Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics, North Dakota State University. Fargo, ND: Base Revenue Protection and Revenue Countercyclical Programs for Spring Wheat in North Dakota, March 2007c.Google Scholar
Babcock, B., and Hart, C. “County Revenue Counter-Cyclical Proposal.” Iowa Ag Review IKSpring 2005):1–3, 11.Google Scholar
Barnaby, G.A. “Expected ACRE Payments Update with NASS Yields.” Ag Manager, Kansas State University Research and Extension, March 2010a. Internet site: www.agmanager.info/crops/insurance/risk_mgt/rm_pdflO/AB_MYA_Wt-price_04-08-10.pdf (Accessed April 29, 2010).Google Scholar
Barnaby, G.A. “Should Basic Underwriting Rules be Applied to ACRE and SURE?” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 42,3(2010b):517–35.Google Scholar
Coble, K.H., and Miller, J.C. “The Devil's in the Details: Why a Revenue-Based Farm Program is No Panacea.” Mississippi State University, Department of Agricultural Economics, Staff Report 2006-01, March 2006.Google Scholar
Dicks, M., and Anderson, K. “Analysis of Revenue Assurance Proposals.” Western Economics Forum 6(Fall 2007):15–27.Google Scholar
Higgins, L.M., Richardson, J.W., Outlaw, J.L., and Raulston, J.M. “Farm Level Impacts of a Revenue Based Policy in the 2007 Farm Bill.” Selected paper prepared for presentation at the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Portland, OR, July 29-August 1, 2007.Google Scholar
National Corn Grower's Association. “National Farm Security Act Proposal.” Farm Policy Issue Brief, Washington, DC, December 2006.Google Scholar
Olson, K.D., and DalSanto, M.R. “Alternative Farm Bills: Impacts on Minnesota Farms.” Staff Paper P07-5. St. Paul, MN: Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, April 2007.Google Scholar
Richardson, J.W., and Outlaw, J.L. AFPC Briefing Paper 07-3. Agricultural and Food Policy Center, Texas A&M University. College Station, TX: Comparison of the Counter Cyclical Payment Program to a Proposed Counter Cyclical Revenue Program, March 2007.Google Scholar
Thomas, S.E., Coble, K.H., and Miller, J.C. “The Effect of Changing Government Subsidy Programs: An Analysis of Revenue at the Farm Level.” Selected paper prepared for presentation at the Southern Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Mobile, AL, February 4-6, 2007.Google Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture. U.S. Department of Agriculture's 2007 Farm Bill Proposals. Washington, DC: Report to Congress, 2007.Google Scholar
U.S. Congress (2008). Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. H.R. 2419.Google Scholar
Zulauf, C. “Integrated Farm Revenue Proposal (IFRP).” Basic Concepts in Ohio's Country Journal (December 2004):12.Google Scholar
Zulauf, C. “Comparison of Revenue Proposals.” Ohio State University, Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Developmental Economics, May 2007.Google Scholar
Zulauf, C. “Comparison: Average Crop Revenue's (ACRE) Variable Payment Program with Revenue Counter-Cyclical Program (RCCP).” Ohio State University, Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Developmental Economics, Report AEDE-RP97-08, January 2008.Google Scholar
Zulauf, C, Schnitkey, G., and Langemeier, M. “ACRE, Crop Insurance, and SURE: Interactions and Overlap for U.S. Midwest Crops.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 42,3(2010):501–15.Google Scholar