The Farm Diversification Discount

This article estimates the effect of diversification on farm values, where farms are valued relative to the median specialized farm having the same enterprise. Using data from the Agricultural Resource Management Study, the estimated diversification discount in agriculture is similar to the discount found for corporate firms. The results show that diversified crop/livestock farms had a diversification discount of 5.8% in comparison with specialized crop or livestock farms from 1999 to 2001. Commodity diversified farms had a diversification discount of 9.4% in comparison with commodity specialized farms.     

Technical efficiency and impact of environmental regulations in farrow-to-finish swine production in Taiwan

This article demonstrates how technical efficiency and the impact of environmental regulations of Taiwanese farrow‐to‐finish swine production can be estimated in the presence of undesirable outputs. The issue of measuring technical efficiencies while considering undesirable outputs has been addressed by past studies. But the proper method of including undesirable outputs has always been a subject of debate. This article develops a data envelopment analysis (DEA)‐based model that includes undesirable outputs. The technologies of desirable output production and undesirable output control are considered simultaneously. This allows one to transform undesirable output into desirable output, whereby a traditional Shephard distance function can be used to measure technical efficiencies. An approach to measuring the impacts due to environmental regulations is then derived. Empirical results show that larger farms are more technically efficient than small‐sized farms, but no clear conclusions can be reached for the measures of regulatory impact among farms with different sizes. On average, the sample farms incurred an opportunity cost due to environmental regulations equivalent to 9.8% of market value. Opportunity costs rise with efficiency.     

Crop management,labour organization,and marketing: three key issues for improving sustainability in organic vegetable farming

Most market-garden farms that have converted to organic farming (OF) in the last few decades in France are small and diversified. Larger farms usually specialize in a few vegetable species and frequently face technical and economic problems when they convert to organics. Diversifying production may be a means of increasing sustainability due to larger crop rotations and varied marketing outlets, but it has various implications on farm management, especially labour organization and marketing. In the present study, we examined how an acceptable degree of species diversification can act as a lever to develop organic vegetable production by combining sociologist and agronomist points of view. Multidisciplinary surveys of 30 market-garden farms varying in usable surface area and degrees of crop diversification were carried out. Consequences on crop management, labour organization and skills, and marketing implications were described, and farm sustainability was assessed. Specialized farms of the sample had a rather industrial organization of labour and marketing and benefited from economy of scale to produce vegetables. But in the long term, they may suffer from low agronomical sustainability because of narrow crop rotations and intensive crop management. Diversified farms were more sustainable according the criteria studied, but they suffered from the extremely complex management of cropping systems. These results are discussed on both the farm and territorial levels. Collective marketing initiatives and social networks might help reach an acceptable degree of species diversification at the farm level. Potential innovative organizations are identified, which could facilitate the transition to OF.     

Crop diversification in Thailand: Status,determinants, and effects on income and use of inputs

Following the national policy, the Department of Agriculture of Thailand has implemented a crop diversification program in several provinces of the country. This study, which was conducted in Nakhon Pathom Province, analyzed the extent of crop diversification and its determinants using primary information collected from 245 farm households using a structured questionnaire, and from selected farmer leaders and agricultural development officials. The study also assessed the effects of crop diversification on income and the inputs used. The findings of the study revealed that nearly three fourths of the land is still being used for rice mono-cropping, indicating little success in the promotion of the crop diversification program. Paddy fields, including farms for cultivating rice under mono-cropping and diversified system, still account for 90% of the total farmland in the country. The limited impact of the program on the farming sector is attributed primarily to the variation in land and labor resources available at the farmers’ disposal as well as soil suitability. The farmers’ attendance in training and interaction with farmer groups are the other influential factors. Although cropping diversification has provided attractive financial return particularly to the small farmers, it has also accelerated the use of inorganic fertilizers and pesticides. Broad policy instruments are therefore suggested for the effective implementation of future crop diversification programs in Thailand and perhaps elsewhere in Southeast Asia.     

Effects of subsidized crop insurance on crop choices

This study focuses on how subsidized crop insurance affects crop choices. Crop insurance may change farm investments by reducing risks and providing subsidies. First, actuarially fair insurance reduces risks in crop production and marketing, holding the expected return constant. Second, insurance subsidies encourage farms to purchase crop insurance, which increases the expected return to insured risky crops. Farms also have many self‐insurance mechanisms such as crop diversification or working off the farm. We derive conditions under which (1) unsubsidized and actuarially fair crop insurance or (2) insurance premium subsidies lead to more investment in a risky higher return crop. We then examine the role of self‐insurance for these conditions. The impact of premium subsidies is decomposed into a direct profit effect and an indirect coverage effect. These effects are explained by substitutions between market insurance and self‐insurance and between a risky crop and a safe crop. We discuss each effect as a combination of subsidy and risk effects. Numerical illustrations show that an insurance subsidy has a larger impact on risky crop investments compared to that of an input subsidy when farms are more risk‐averse and have high costs of self‐insurance. The framework provides a novel way to evaluate subsidized crop insurance programs.     

The Sharing of Risks and Returns in Prairie Special Crops: A Transaction Cost Approach

The markets for special crops in western Canada are not yet mature. A farmer faces a choice of either signing a production contract with a buyer prior to planting the crop or selling the crop after harvest to a limited number of buyers. This paper examines both methods using a transaction cost approach. The evidence suggests that neither method will lead to an efficient level of investment in the production of special crops. As a result, the full potential for diversification into special crops may not have been realized in western Canada.     

Unpacking a crop diversity hotspot: farmer practice and preferences in Northern Malawi

Crop diversity is a key principle of sustainable food production systems. Yet, inter and intra specific diversification is declining in many regions of the world. In Northern Malawi, a participatory action research project (Soils Food and Healthy Communities) has conducted agroecological co-learning with farmers for over a decade, providing an opportunity to explore farmer management, crop choice and variety selection practices. Farmers who participate receive seed for 0.10 ha of on-farm testing for one growing season and then decide whether to continue to grow the crop. Cropping system diversity, management practices and traits associated with crops grown and lost were assessed through interviews with 198 farm households (757 fields). We found an average of 1.3 species per field and 4.0 crops per farm. This is almost twice the level of diversity in other reports from Malawi smallholder farms. Farmers cited a wide range of preferred groundnut variety traits, as well as concerns (namely, high labour requirements). Both modern and local maize varieties are being grown and those retained were often associated with early maturity or preferred grain quality traits such as storability. Overall, farmers at this Northern Malawi agroecology education site are growing diverse crop mixtures that include traditional as well as modern varieties of maize and groundnut.     

Did the Federal Crop Insurance Reform Act Alter Farm Enterprise Diversification?

We estimate how much United States farms changed enterprise diversification in response to a marked increase in crop insurance coverage brought about by the 1994 Federal Crop Insurance Reform Act, which substantially increased insurance subsidies. The analysis exploits farm‐level panel census data to compare farm‐specific changes in enterprise diversification over time. By examining diversification decisions of the same farms over time, we control for time‐invariant unobserved individual heterogeneity. We then use pooled cross‐sectional data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Resource Management Survey to estimate the relationship between farm diversification and average returns. We find that the insurance subsidies caused a modest increase in enterprise specialisation and production efficiency. Estimated efficiency gains are far less than the subsidies.     

Cost and environmental efficiency of rice farms in South Korea

We examine cost and nutrient use efficiency of farms and determine the cost to move farms to nutrient‐efficient operation using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) with a dataset of 96 rice farms in Gangwon province of South Korea from 2003 to 2007. Our findings show that improvements in technical efficiency would result in both lower production costs and better environmental performance. It is, however, not costless for farms to move from their current operation to the environmentally efficient operation. On average, this movement would increase production costs by 119% but benefit the water system through an approximately 69% reduction in eutrofying power (EP). The average estimated cost of each EP kg of aggregate nutrient reduction is approximately one thousand two hundred won. For technically efficient farms, there is a trade‐off between cost and environmental efficiency. We also find that the environmental performance of farms varies across farms and regions. We suggest that agri‐environmental policies should be (re)designed to improve both cost and environmental performance of rice farms.     

Vietnam's Agriculture: Processes of Rich Peasant Accumulation and Mechanisms of Social Differentiation

Vietnam's agrarian transition is reviewed and, against the World Bank view that land markets in Vietnam have been pro-poor, it is suggested that access to land has become stratified within specific provinces, districts and communes. Aggregate data and field research both demonstrate that the technical coefficients of production differ between farms when grouped according to a proxy for wealth, and that this is correlated with productivity per unit of land. It is therefore argued that there are emerging differences between farms that reflect divergence in the scale of production. At the same time, when grouped according to wealth there are differences between farms in terms of crop mix, the degree of market integration, and the extent of rural diversification. Holistic examination of the evidence suggests that Vietnam has an emergent group of rich peasants with relatively larger landholdings, amounts of capital stock, and use of hired labour-power; and higher yields per unit of land, a greater degree of market integration, and more marked productive diversification. This class can be set beside a numerically preponderant class of relatively small peasants, with smaller landholdings and amounts of capital, a heavier reliance on family labour, lower yields per unit of land, and less market integration and diversification. The evidence further demonstrates the rapid growth of a class of rural landless who are largely separated from the means of production, who survive by intermittently selling their labour, and who are the poorest segment of rural society.     

Editorial - Decision rules, government rules, and the costs of vegetation protection in New South Wales

Governments regularly spend public funds to purchase environmental amenities. They might purchase land to add to the public estate, pay to fence stock out of endangered native forest, or offer stewardship payments as incentives to conservation. Governments also regularly introduce policies to achieve environmental goals, even though these policies impose costs on firms, households or farms. The basic decision rule, to maximise environmental benefits from a given budget, in all these cases is received wisdom within the economics profession. In the case of purchase of land to add to the public estate:Maximise environmental benefits by purchasing land in descending order of the ratio of benefit to cost until the budget is exhausted.More generally, funds should be allocated to individual activities within a programme in order of the decreasing ratio of benefits to costs until the budget is exhausted. This rule can be applied when benefits can be measured in any monetary or non-monetary quantitative index. In the case of conservation of vegetation, it can be applied relatively simply in the field when vegetation types and land values can be mapped jointly through GIS techniques.This simple decision rule is not always followed by government agencies that manage environmental programmes. Consider the protection of native vegetation, which is defined to include native forest, native woodland and native grassland. To meet international obligations to protect this kind of environment, most countries must involve private landholders in conservation because there are insufficient government reserves to meet the international commitments. Indeed, most countries have already introduced many policies to encourage private landholders to protect native vegetation on their forests and farms.The New South Wales state government, in Australia, has introduced the Native Vegetation Conservation Act (1998) to ensure that private landholders protect vegetation. The Act constrains farmers to retain all the native forest, native woodland, and native grassland, on their land irrespective of the costs to them. Farmers can then apply for consent to clear and crop this land, but consent is rarely granted in full and often not at all. The Act is consistent with a decision rule of “maximise-benefits-only” - protect all vegetation irrespective of the costs to those who have to conserve it.Constraints of this kind will inevitably lead to a loss of income and land value when they restrict the farm enterprises, and so will impose opportunity costs on the farmer. There is already ample published evidence on the sizes of these costs - from publications of the relevant state agency itself, consultants' reports, farmer submissions and independent research. For example, in a large region in the northwest of New South Wales, where land could be cropped very productively:- some farmers bear only small losses (a quarter lose less than five per cent of their potential income),- some farmers bear very large losses (another quarter lose more than half of their potential income),- the overall losses of income per farm are high (an average loss of almost 30 per cent of potential income across the region), and- the losses are highest for those who have already conserved most woodland.Consider now the problem of reducing these costs by applying the benefit-cost rule as opposed to the maximise-benefits-only rule that has led to this position. There are three economic decision rules that might be used to rank projects or activities.The benefit-cost rule: Impose the constraint on the farm with the highest ratio of environmental benefit per dollar of opportunity cost first, then on the farm with the next highest ratio, etc., until the environmental goal is met. And so maximise the ratio of benefits to opportunity costs.The benefit-only rule: Impose the constraint on the farm with the highest environmental benefits first, then on the farm with the next highest benefits, etc., until the environmental goal is met. And so maximise benefits.The cost-only rule: Impose the constraint on the farm with the lowest opportunity costs first, then the next lowest cost, etc, until the environmental goal is met. And so minimise opportunity costs.But do these rules normally lead to different outcomes? If the “budget” or willingness to impose opportunity costs were large enough, all three would lead to the same outcome because constraints would be imposed on all suitable land. Otherwise the outcomes differ - that is the different rules lead to different levels of environmental benefit from the imposition of a given level of opportunity cost (or from the expenditure of a given budget).Both the benefit-only and cost-only rules lead to inefficiencies (see Babcock et al (1997) and Wu et al (2000) for a discussion of the associated statistical issues). Benefit-only targeting leads to the retirement of highly-productive land from agricultural uses - which is a major reason why opportunity costs are often high when native vegetation is conserved under the Act in New South Wales. The cost-only rule can lead to the reservation or purchase of land with few environmental benefits, even though expenditure or opportunity cost is minimised.A comparison of the benefit-cost rule and the benefit-only rule in the northwest of New South Wales illustrates the problem. The region is potentially highly-productive crop land but large areas of it are presently covered by native forest and woodland which cannot now be cleared. Much of this vegetation is under various degrees of threat even though it is not rare or endangered. The farm is the unit of assessment under the Act, so is used in the example. Benefits are measured as the percentages of species that are saved on each farm when its vegetation is protected rather than cleared to crops. The total benefit is the aggregate of percentage species saved across the farms - again following the present administration of the Act. The opportunity costs are measured as the losses in land value because land cannot now be cleared due to the Act.The comparison of the two rules indicates substantial savings with the benefit-cost rule. For example, 90 per cent of the total benefits can be obtained by imposing 93 per cent of the total opportunity costs with the benefit-only rule, and by imposing only 54 per cent of the total opportunity costs with the benefit-cost rule. The benefit-cost rule saves 39 per cent of the total costs at this level of benefits. Again, 80 cent of the total benefits can be obtained by imposing 86 per cent of the total opportunity costs with the benefit-only rule, but by imposing only 46 per cent of the total opportunity costs with the benefit-cost rule. The benefit-cost rule saves 40 per cent of costs at this level of benefits.While such results can only be indicative of the magnitudes, they do serve to highlight the inefficiencies of decision rules used by government agencies. In New South Wales, the Native Vegetation Conservation Act imposes high opportunity costs on farmers, partly because it is implemented through a high-cost decision rule. Now that suitable GIS technology, vegetation maps, and spatial land value data, are becoming available, these costs can be lowered with a more rational decision rule to guide choices in the field.The environmental goal is not at issue, but the cost of achieving it is. We can identify who bears the opportunity costs of environmental conservation, and often value the magnitude of these costs. Now we can also reduce the levels of these costs with the use of the benefit-cost decision rule.Jack SindenAgricultural and Resource EconomicsUniversity of New EnglandArmidale, New South WalesReferencesBabcock Bruce A, Lackshminarayan PG, Wu JunJie and Silberman D (1997) “Targeting Tools for the Purchase of Environmental Amenities”, Land Economics, 73, 325-339.Wu JunJie, Adams Richard M., Zilberman David, and Bruce Babcock (2000) “Targeting Resource Conservation Expenditures”, Choices, Second Quarter, 2000, 3-8.     

The economics of land fragmentation in the north of Vietnam*

Land fragmentation, where a single farm has a number of parcels of land, is a common feature of agriculture in many countries, especially in developing countries. In Vietnam, land fragmentation is common, especially in the north. For the whole country, there are about 75 million parcels of land, an average of seven to eight plots per farm household. Such fragmentation can be seen to have negative and positive benefits for farm households and the community generally. Comparative statics analysis and analysis of survey data have led to the conclusion that small‐sized farms are likely to be more fragmented, and that fragmentation had a negative impact on crop productivity and increased family labour use and other money expenses. Policies which allow the appropriate opportunity cost of labour to be reflected at the farm level may provide appropriate incentives to trigger farm size change and land consolidation. Policies which tip the benefits in favour of fewer and larger plots, such as strong and effective research and development, an active extension system and strong administrative management, may also lead to land consolidation.     

Impact of contract farming on yield,costs and profitability in low‐value crop: evidence from a low‐income country

Lentils, a low‐value and highly nutritious crop, are Nepal's largest pulse cash crop. However, the majority of the nation's smallholders produce lentils on very small plots of land. The large gap in lentil yields between Nepal and other lentil‐producing countries underscores the importance of improving yields and income of smallholders. When it comes to the financial viability of small farms, particularly in developing countries, and globalisation, contract farming (CF) may prove useful in achieving efficiency and profitability in smallholder lentil farms in Nepal. This study employs the propensity score matching approach to examine the effects of the adoption of CF on yields, profitability and costs of smallholder lentil farms in Nepal. Findings from this study reveal that contrary to popular belief, CF adoption by lentil producers in Nepal has a positive and significant effect on per‐hectare revenues, profits and yield and a negative impact on variable and transportation costs. The study finds that only very smallholder lentil farms (0.01‐0.05 ha) benefit from CF.     

Reducing nutrient loads from dairy farms: a bioeconomic model with endogenous feeding and land use

Growth trends of animal farming pose a threat to water quality around the world. To find cost‐efficient means to reduce nutrient loads from agriculture, detailed information on the abatement measures need to be incorporated in bioeconomic models. This study presents a theoretical framework that covers both animal and crop operations on farms. It describes the farmer decision making problem and incorporates nonlinear functions to capture the economic and biological aspects of the problem. The model is applied to Finnish dairy farms. The abatement cost functions are derived for nitrogen and phosphorus. Results indicate that abatement measures on fields should precede dietary changes.     

Developing farm-specific marginal abatement cost curves: Cost-effective greenhouse gas mitigation opportunities in sheep farming systems

Growing demand for agricultural produce, coupled with ambitious targets for greenhouse gas emissions reduction present the scientific, policy and agricultural sectors with a substantial mitigation challenge. Identification and implementation of suitable mitigation measures is driven by both the measures’ effectiveness and cost of implementation. Marginal abatement cost curves (MACCs) provide a simple graphical representation of the abatement potential and cost-effectiveness of mitigation measures to aid policy decision-making. Accounting for heterogeneity in farm conditions and subsequent abatement potentials in mitigation policy is problematic, and may be aided by the development of tailored MACCs. Robust MACC development is currently lacking for mitigation measures appropriate to sheep systems. This study constructed farm-specific MACCs for a lowland, upland and hill sheep farm in the UK. The stand-alone mitigation potential of six measures was modelled, against real farm baselines, according to assumed impacts on emissions and productivity. The MACCs revealed the potential for negative cost emissions’ abatement in the sheep industry. Improving ewe nutrition to increase lamb survival offered considerable abatement potential at a negative cost to the farmers across all farms while, lambing as yearlings offered negative cost abatement potential on lowland and upland farms. The results broadly advocate maximising lamb output from existing inputs on all farm categories, and highlight the importance of productivity and efficiency as influential drivers of emissions abatement in the sector. The abatement potentials and marginal costs of other measures (e.g. reducing mineral fertiliser use and selecting pasture plants bred to minimise dietary nitrogen losses) varied between farms, and this heterogeneity was more frequently attributable to differences in individual farm management than land classification. This has important implications for the high level policy sector as no two farms are likely to benefit from a generic one size fits all approach to mitigation. The construction of further case-study farm MACCs under varying farm conditions is required to define the biophysical and management conditions that each measure is most suited to, generating a more tailored set of sector-specific mitigation parameters.     

Impact of farm management diversity on the environmental and economic performance of the wheat–maize cropping system in the North China Plain

To assess the attainable greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation potential from crop production in China's most important grain production region, the North China Plain (NCP), single farm environmental and economic performances of 65 winter wheat–summer maize (WW–SM) producing households were determined. The results revealed a huge heterogeneity among farms, with up to five times higher environmental impact of worst compared to best performing farms. Astonishingly no trade-off between productivity and sustainability could be identified in the region, with high-yield farms emitting no different amounts of GHGs per hectare compared to low-yield farms. Building on cluster analysis, with farms grouped according to their economic and environmental performance into ‘poor’, ‘fair' and ‘good’ producers, the regional GHG mitigation potential was estimated. Under the scenario assumption that all grain in the NCP is produced under ‘good’ production conditions, 21% and 7% of GHG could be mitigated in wheat and maize production, respectively. The study shows that in the NCP, exemplary for China's rapidly developing agricultural sector, the crop management skills of a substantial share of farmers could obviously not keep pace with the massive input intensification. Among others, farmer–farmer trainings are recommended to close the gap in crop production performance among producers.     

Assessing the Impacts of Pillar 1 and 2 Subsidies on TFP in French Crop Farms

This article analyses the impact of common agricultural policy (CAP) subsidies on total factor productivity using a FADN dataset of French crop farms between 1996 and 2003. We first estimate a production function using a system GMM approach and then recover farm‐level total factor productivity (TFP). Further, the impact of Pillar 1 and 2 subsidies on TFP is investigated and results show that several subsidies have a negative impact on productivity during the period covered in the dataset. CAP reforms have also had an impact on the relationship between subsidies and productivity.     

On the Role of Risk Versus Economies of Scope in Farm Diversification With an Application to Ethiopian Farms

This article investigates the economics of farm diversification. The analysis assesses economies of diversification using a certainty equivalent measure. It identifies two components: one associated with expected income, and one associated with risk exposure. This integrates two lines of research explored in previous literature: economies of scope and risk management. We examine the roles played by complementarity, scale and concavity effects in economies of diversification. The approach is applied to diversification decisions made on Ethiopian farms, with a focus on production uncertainty. The econometric analysis finds large complementarity benefits, providing incentives to diversify. But this is tempered by (non)‐concavity effects that provide incentives to specialise. The analysis also documents how risk affects diversification, including both variance and skewness effects. It provides new insights on economic tradeoffs between farm diversification and specialisation.     

Farm‐specific Adjustment Costs in Dutch Pig Farming

This paper develops a dynamic model of investment under rational expectations, assuming farm‐specific production technologies and adjustment cost structures. The model distinguishes regimes of negative, zero and positive investments and maintains that it is optimal for a farmer not to invest for a range of shadow prices, depending on thresholds for positive and negative investments. The model is applied to a rotating sample of Dutch pig farms over the period 1980–1996. Farm‐specific parameters of the adjustment cost function and production technology are obtained using Generalised Maximum Entropy estimation. Cluster analysis using the farm‐specific adjustment cost parameters indicates that five groups of farms with distinct adjustment cost structures can be identified. A tobit regression analysis is used to explain the impact of different socio‐economic factors on the size of the threshold between positive and negative investments.     

Household-level effects of China's Sloping Land Conversion Program under price and policy shifts

This study examined how agricultural households involved in China's Sloping Land Conversion Program (SLCP) could respond to expected changes in environmental and livestock policies and changing commodity prices. We calibrated a farm household model using 2009 survey data collected in northeast Gansu Province, China, and examined the responses of four different household groups. Household groups were distinguished based on the resources they possessed for either cropping, livestock husbandry or off-farm employment. We also calculated the opportunity cost of converting sloping land from grain crop production to perennial grass production and included the net value of the replacement crop in these calculations. Our model simulations indicated that subsistence-oriented households were most likely to participate in the SLCP, and that SLCP payment reductions could have large negative income effects for this group. Reductions in SLCP payments increased income inequality among households in the study area. Migration- and cropping-oriented households have fewer incentives to participate in the SLCP. With rising commodity prices, SLCP payments need to rise to avoid that subsistence-oriented households reconvert their land from perennial grasses to annual grain crops. Local government policies related to livestock production are being devised in Gansu as a method to lift incomes, and these policies could also have positive environmental benefits by increasing grass production on sloping land. The introduction of these livestock promotion policies had modest income effects but did not alter the area grown with grasses under the SLCP.