<
 
 
 
 
>
hide You are viewing an archived web page, collected at the request of United States Department of Agriculture using Archive-It. This page was captured on 20:03:04 Sep 02, 2011, and is part of the USDA Economic Research Service collection. The information on this web page may be out of date. See All versions of this archived page. Loading media information
Amber Waves cover, June 2007
Amber Waves: The Economics of Food, Farming, Natural Resources, and Rural America

June 2007

| United States Department of Agriculture | Economic Research Service
Search   GO!  
Current Issue
All Issues
spacer Amber Waves Home
  Feature Articles

Findings

Statistics
  About Amber Waves
  E-mail notices
   

Farm Bill Resources

ERS Newsroom

 

USDA's Economic Research Service

Ad: Print Edition
Click here to subscribe to Amber Waves
Read more about our awards

 

 


Print this page Print | E-mail this link E-mail | Bookmark & Share Bookmark/share | Translate this page Translate | Text only Text only | resize text smallresize text mediumresize text large

Data Feature Heading

Can Commodity Program Payments Encourage
Better Nutrient Management?

Photo:  Mahantango Creek watershed near Klingerstown, Pennsylvania
Since 1985, farmers’ and ranchers’ eligibility for commodity program payments and other Federal, agriculture-related payments has been contingent on their meeting certain soil and wetland conservation standards. On highly erodible cropland, for example, producers must apply an approved soil conservation system to maintain eligibility for government payments. ERS research indicates that this “conservation compliance” requirement could be responsible for up to 25 percent of the 1.2-billion-ton reduction in annual cropland soil erosion between 1982 and 1997.

Nutrient runoff from agriculture has been identified as a major contributor to water quality problems, and manure management issues have received considerable attention. However, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) estimates that commercial fertilizer applications are responsible for a substantial share of nutrient runoff, particularly nitrogen. In areas where USGS has found the highest level of nitrogen loads to surface water, roughly half of all nitrogen runoff is estimated to come from commercial fertilizer applications.

Can commodity program payments be further leveraged to obtain better nutrient management? The answer depends on the extent to which areas receiving these payments coincide with the location of nutrient runoff problems and whether payments are large enough to offset the cost of reducing runoff. ERS estimates that more than 80 percent of cropland acres with high or very high nitrogen runoff potential are on farms that receive commodity program payments. Moreover, the highest payments appear to flow to producers in areas where nitrogen runoff potential is greatest. Similar relationships are observed between commodity program payments and potential for phosphorus runoff to surface water and nitrogen leaching to groundwater.

Map: More than 80 percent of cropland with high or very high nitrogen runoff potential is on farms receiving commodity program payments

Are commodity program payments large enough to cover the costs of nutrient management and still provide the intended income support? The answer varies among farms. Where nitrogen runoff potential is highest, annual commodity program payments ranged from about $42 to more than $100 per cropland acre. Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) payments are the best available estimates of producers’ costs for implementing a nutrient management plan. Half of all annual nonlivestock EQIP payments (paid for up to 3 years) are $5 per acre or less, while 95 percent are $15 per acre or less. Buffer practices, such as filter strips, may be cost-effective for reducing surface runoff because they occupy only about 2.5 percent of a field. A grass filter strip costs an estimated $2.70 per cropland acre, on average, although costs vary considerably.

For many—but not all—crop farms with very high nutrient runoff potential, the cost of measures designed to reduce nutrient runoff would be modest compared with their commodity program payments. Moreover, additional nutrient management requirements would reduce net income support to producers by the cost of applying nutrient management practices or conservation buffers. On the whole, however, a nutrient management requirement might prove as effective in reducing nutrient runoff from cropland as conservation compliance has been in reducing erosion.

This finding is drawn from . . .

Environmental Compliance in U.S. Agricultural Policy: Past Performance and Future Potential, AER-832, USDA, Economic Research Service, June 2004.

You may also be interested in. . .

ERS Briefing Room on Conservation Policy.
ERS Briefing Room on Environmental Interactions with Agricultural Production.


printer iconPrinter-friendly format Download PDF version