Search

This paper focuses on macroeconomics in undergraduate agricultural economics curricula. We briefly review some of what leaders in the agricultural economics and economics professions, macroeconomics teachers, and textbook authors say about what is important, what should be taught and learned in modern undergraduate macroeconomics courses. We also report on a survey of faculty of agricultural economics departments who have responsibility for undergraduate instruction in 50 U.S. agricultural economics undergraduate programs. The surveys provide information on the current status of economics courses in their programs and the relative importance of different macroeconomic subjects to students in undergraduate agricultural economics. W hile most of the research and teaching in agricultural economics has historically been more closely associated with microeconomics than macroeconomics, there has been a significant increase in the interest in the latter branch of economics in agricultural economics textbooks and journals in the past two decades. Professor G. Edward Schuh's address to the 1976 meeting of the American Agricultural Economics Association (AAEA) may be regarded as a seminal event in the Association's move toward giving more attention to macroeconomics. He closed his talk with these words: It is now almost an imperative that we give strong macroeconomic training to students, that we challenge them to know more about world agriculture and world economic development, and that we develop a research capability that will enable us to provide useful analytical and empirical inputs into the policy-making process and to effectively discharge larger educational responsibilities to U.S. citizens. Our challenge will be to do this without weakening the microeconomic work that is so much a part of tradition and that can serve so well in developing the macroeconomic theory and in doing the

In this paper we report on what “sustainable agriculture” means to farmers who seek to develop more sustainable farming systems. Group interviews were conducted with two groups of sustainable farmers in Kansas to learn how they developed their respective approaches, the kinds of parameters they have used to evaluate success and progress, and what other evaluation tools would be helpful to them. For the farmers we interviewed, the central meaning of sustainable agriculture is its holistic approach to assets management. It also means an alternative perspective on what constitutes success in farming. While economic considerations are important, they are balanced by other considerations such as environmental quality, quality of life, and the contributions the farmers can make to their communities. Sustainable agriculture also means an approach to agriculture that entails “thinking risks” as much as financial risks. Lastly, sustainable agriculture means whole farm planning; the farmers we interviewed were more interested in applying whole-farm planning principles based on their local knowledge, than in evaluation tools based on the expert knowledge of researchers and other scientists. The implications of what sustainable agriculture means to these farmers for research and educational programs are discussed.

The tradeoffs between economic profitability and environmental impacts of five cropping systems being used by farm managers in northeast Kansas were examined. The Erosion/Productivity Impact Calculator (EPIC) was used to estimate potential crop yields, nitrate (NO3) contamination, and soil erosion from the cropping systems. Prices and enterprise budget data were combined with the crop yields simulated by EPIC to calculate annual net returns for each system. The tradeoff between net returns and environmental contaminants were evaluated using a Chance Constrained Programming (CCP) model. The overall results of the CCP models, including targets for all contaminants, indicated that the alternative cropping system of wheat and grain sorghum was preferred to the traditional system, which also includes corn and soybeans. An alfalfa-wheat-soybean rotation generally was preferred when the contaminant targets were restricted to NO3 runoff and soil erosion. The results also imply that financial incentives a...

In 1993, a survey was mailed to elicit the opinions of active farmers about on-farm research (OFR), to determine their preferences for collaborative OFR, and their attitudes about research station‐based research. The samples were derived from three groups of farmers: those on a list kept by the Kansas Agricultural Statistics (KAS) office, members of the Kansas Farm Management Association (KFMA), and those on the mailing list of the Kansas Rural Center (KRC), an organization with an explicit commitment to sustainable agriculture. Our results found that most farmers engaged in OFR, either on their own initiative or in collaboration with outside groups. The majority of farmers expressed a desire to cooperate to a greater extent in OFR and a willingness to contribute resources and time to aid in that effort. Another notable result was the willingness of farmers to consult, and share information concerning OFR with other farmers. Differences were found between the KRC sample compared with the KAS and KFMA samples in that OFR related work was particularly important to farmers with an explicit sustainable agriculture orientation, who tended to be less convinced of the usefulness of research station‐based research and the research activities of commercial firms. Kansas Rural Center farmers wanted more say in the design and implementation of such OFR than did the KAS and KFMA farmers. Our findings support the conclusion that every effort should be made to involve farmers as partners in the research process rather than as someone for whom research is done.

On-farm research (OFR) has increased in popularity in the U.S. in recent years due to heightened interest in sustainability issues, the likely decline in resources available for agricultural research, and increasing pressures for accountability and responsiveness to state and local needs. Information relating to OFR was obtained from 431 commercial Kansas farmers. Data were analyzed to determine the degree of OFR being implemented, and three models were estimated to identify which farmer/farm characteristics influenced its implementation. The results indicate that OFR is commonly implemented, and that several farm/farmer characteristics are related to the degree of OFR initiated. It is proposed that to maximize the return from externally initiated OFR, there would be merit in focusing attention on farms/farmers with those characteristics.

tions of enterprises, the benefits of diversification, and farmer response to different farm programs. Studies comparing the risk of different cropping practices have required data on farm yield variability (Williams, Llewelyn, and Mikesell; Mikesell, Williams, and Long). Crop insurance studies have needed the data for developing appropriate crop insurance rates (Carriker et al.). In some of these studies, availability of farm-level yield variability data has been a major problem. Frequently, other data have been used because they were the only data available. In particular, county-level data or experiment station data have been used as substitutes for actual farm-level data (Rowell, Williams, and Hickman; Williams, Llewelyn and Barnaby; Marra and Carlson). The accuracy of these data sources in representing farm-level data is not known. Frequently, county-level variability in yield is assumed to be less than farm-level variability, because it is more aggregated. On the other hand, variability in yield from experiment station data is sometimes assumed to be greater than farm-level yield variability, because the plots are usually small. The issues of aggregation level (Eisgruber and Schuman) and the impact of aggregation on variability are implicit in these assumptions about county and experiment station variability relative to farm-level variability. Marra and Schurle have recently addressed the possibility that aggregation on a farm can also influence yield variability on the farm. The implications of yield variability on the farm being related to the number of acres of the crop, and thus in many cases to the size of the farm, are far reaching. Pope and Prescott addressed the issue of diversification and farm size, and identified the trade-off between risk reduction and possible economies of size in a particular activity. Robison and Barry also addressed diversification and specialization as strategies for managing risk. If yield variability is less for larger acreage, and thus larger farms, then large farms may have a business-risk advantage (ceterius paribus) over small farms; i.e., business-risk economies of size. Then, it would also follow that farms with larger acreage should pay lower premiums per acre for crop insurance, other things being equal. In addition, model modifications may need to be developed that recognize the impact of enterprise size on yield variability. Current risk models typically consider variability and enterprise size to be independent. The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) has recognized a need to offer different premiums for different size acreage. They began offering a financial incentive to combine smaller insurance units into larger insurance units in the mid to late 1980's. A crop insurance premium reduction of 10 percent has been allowed if an acreage of one crop owned by one entity in one county is insured as a total unit rather than as smaller segments. Unit subdivision is allowed by section or by irrigated or dryland practice with supporting historical yield records of planted Bryan Schurle is a Professor in the Department of Agricultural Economics at Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas. This work was supported in part by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation under agreement No. 92-EXCA-30203. The author thanks Jong-I Perng for her extensive computer work and patience throughout this project, Ken Harrison at FCIC for his provision of information and help, Art Barnaby and Barry Goodwin for help and review of previous manuscripts, three anonymous reviewers, and Ted Schroeder for his suggestions that improved the manuscript. Contribution No. 95-48-J from the Kansas

Field releases of the indigenous egg parasitoid Crayon pennsylvanicum (Ashmead) resulted in a 4-fold reduction in squash bug, Anasa tristis (De Geer), densities on ‘Jack-O-Lantern’ pumpkins in 1991. However, pest populations subjected to parasitoids were consistently higher, and fruit yields and quality lower, than on plants that were treated with the insecticide, esfenvalerate, When the squash bug-resistant ‘Green-Striped Cushaw’ was used, the difference in pest densities on parasitoid-released and insecticide-treated plants was only half of that observed on the susceptible cultivar. In 1992, under abnormally wet, cool conditions, squash bug densities were higher on insecticide-treated plants and lower on plants where parasitoids were released than in 1991. Fruit quality for both cultivars was substantially reduced in all treatments in 1992, The wet, cool conditions apparently had less of an effect on pest densities and fruit yields on resistant pumpkins than on susceptible pumpkins. The expected net income for insecticide-treated pumpkins was substantially lower in 1992 than in 1991. Where biological control and host plant resistance were combined, loss in expected net income in 1992 was considerably less than in 1991. Although costs associated with biological control were very high relative to the revenues, integrating biological control with host plant resistance may have some potential as an alternative management strategy.

The quantity of grain in storage has been exceptionally high through much of the early 1980s. As a result, the effect of insect activity on quality of grain that is stored for long periods of time has become a major concern. The purpose of this study was to analyze producer choices regarding treatments for control of insects in stored grain. A second degree stochastic dominance criterion was used to compare three treatments. In more than 80% of the comparisons, a protectant (malathion) was in the efficient set, which means that it could be selected by a risk-averse individual. In over 65% of the comparisons, a minimum treatment was in the efficient set. Treatment by fumigating was selected to remain in the efficient set in only 34% of the comparisons. Data from this study (before the implementation of the May 1988 regulations of the Federal Grain Inspection Service regarding insect infestation and insect-damaged kernels) suggest that elevator discounts were not consistent nor large enough to encourage farmers to incur large costs for controlling insects.

This study evaluates the economic competitiveness of a sample of Kansas farrow-to-finish operations by estimating relative firm efficiency using nonparametric mathematical programming techniques. Measures of technical, allocative, scale, economic, and overall efficiency are then related to farm characteristics to identify sources of efficiency. Results indicate that overall efficient farms produce a high quantity of pork per litter, produce a portion of their own feed grains, generate a large portion of their income from swine and other livestock enterprises, and have a lower debt-to-asset ratio.

This article uses historical farm level data to investigate relationships between business risk and farm characteristics. Farm characteristics examined are the enterprise mix, farm size, location of the farm, age of the operator, financial obligation of the farm, machinery investment, government program payments and a measure of returns to the operation. Many of these variables are significantly related to business risk, which suggests several possibilities for future research.

Microcomputers are finding application in a variety of forms in Colleges of Agriculture instruction programs. This paper reports on the experiences of faculty in developing and teaching an undergraduate computer applications course in Agricultural Economics. Student's perceptions of the usefulness of computer applications for selected career categories are reported as well. This includes their observation concerning the use of several commercial software packages.

An efficient frontier provides information concerning the tradeoff between risk and return in farm enterprise choice decisions. If mean-variance analysis is used, the frontier is efficient in the sense that it represents a series of farm enterprise combinations, each enterprise combination having minimum risk (variance of returns) for a specified level of return. Anderson, Dillon, and Hardaker provide a discussion of the different types of frontiers and the different methods of deriving them. Development of efficient frontiers is particularly helpful when the risk among enterprises varies substantially (Schurle and Erven). However, efficient frontiers do not provide information about nearoptimal enterprise combinations. According to Heady and Candler the optimum solutions in linear programming need not be optimum for other criteria. Since farmer's utility functions cannot be completely specified in terms of risk and returns, decision makers and researchers should be interested in