Characteristics and Production Costs of U.S. Corn Farms, Including Organic, 2010

Foreman, Linda F.

doi:10.2139/ssrn.2506625

Cited by 12 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A probability-weighting method is applied to the ARMS II survey so that the sum of the surveyed corn fields across farms equals the corn acres planted reported by the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. Data from the ARMS II survey were from 2250 corn producers located in the 19 surveyed states (Foreman, 2014). In 2010, questions addressing corn residue management were included in the ARMS II corn production practices and costs report survey (pp.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Corn Residue Use by Livestock in the United States

Schmer

Brown²,

Jin

et al. 2017

Agricultural & Env Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Corn Residue Use by Livestock in the United States

Schmer

Brown²,

Jin

et al. 2017

Agricultural & Env Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In fact, the testing of soil nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K) has declined since 1996, despite the relatively constant fertilizer application area and amounts of fertilizer applied ( Figure 2). The examination of three reports for 1996, 2001 and 2010 [40][41][42] on characteristics of corn production costs showed that N fertilizer was applied to almost 100% of the planted area. Amounts have remained steady at an average of 158 kg N/treated hectare with corn accounting for 46% of the US fertilizer consumption in 2010 [43].…”

Section: Soil Testing Trendsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Amounts have remained steady at an average of 158 kg N/treated hectare with corn accounting for 46% of the US fertilizer consumption in 2010 [43]. In the 1996 ARMS survey of the US Corn Belt states, an area comprising over half of all corn producers and producing 70% of all US corn, only 14% of farms tested soil for N, with just over half of those farms using the recommended level [41]. ARMS surveys (conducted every five years), like the AU surveys, by confining responses to soil testing to the previous or current year in a particular field, could be underestimating participation in soil testing for those farmers not soil testing during that period.…”

Section: Soil Testing Trendsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are Australian and United States Farmers Using Soil Information for Soil Health Management?

Bruyn

Andrews

2016

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Soil health is an essential requirement of a sustainable, functioning agroecosystem. Tracking soil health to determine sustainability at the local level largely falls to farmers, even though they often lack access to critical information. We examine farmers' participation in gathering soil information at the farm and paddock scale over the last two decades in Australia and the United States, by reviewing national-level reporting of farmer use of soil testing and farm planning as well as qualitative research on farmer perspectives. The level of participation in soil testing and farm planning has remained stable in the last two decades, with only 25% and 30% of landholders, respectively, participating nationally, in either country. The review revealed national-level reporting has a number of limitations in understanding farmers' use of soil information and, in particular, fails to indicate the frequency and intensity of soil testing as well as farmer motivation to test soil or what they did with the soil information. The main use of soil testing is often stated as "determining fertilizer requirements", yet data show soil testing is used less commonly than is customary practice. In Australia and in the United States, customary practice is three and half times more likely for decisions on fertilizer application levels. The rhetoric is heavy on the use of soil testing as a decision tool, and that it guides best practices. However, given that only a quarter of farmers are soil testing, and doing so infrequently and in low densities, the level of information on soil health is poor. While farmers report consistent monitoring of soil conditions, few have consistent records of such. In contrast to the information on the poor state of soil health, there is strong farmer interest in procuring soil health benefits through changes in farm practices such as conservation tillage or cover crops, even if they are unable to demonstrate these soil health benefits through soil testing. Many farmers report the use of observation in lieu of laboratory testing. Finally, we point to the need for soil information to include observational indicators to best allow a blend of traditional extension strategies with digital technology to create communities of interest in soil management. This would transcend the boundaries between those with expertise and those with experience in soil health management.

show abstract

“…We therefore base our simulations on a farm with approximately 17,067 acres, where 50 acres are devoted to wind power generation infrastructure and the remainder is allocated to corn production. The average price of an acre in Ohio in 2012 was US$ 4,460 (USDA, 2014), and an acre produced about 166 bushels of corn, on average (Foreman, 2014).…”

Section: Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Counterfactual comparisons of investment options for wind power and agricultural production in the United States: Lessons from Northern Ohio

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We analyze potential efficiency gains in wind power projects by comparing counterfactual investment decisions in two different scenarios under a real options framework. The first scenario is a standard wind power investment, where the investor rents the land from local farms. In the second scenario, the wind power investor buys the land and commercializes both electricity and crop production, thus shortening the revenue risk through the diversification. Both scenarios have a waiting option, with the wholesale prices leading the installation decision. We model the electricity price as a mean reverting process with jumps and with different jumping probabilities for the different seasons of the year. Corn prices follow a mean reverting process. The waiting flexibility was modeled as a bundle of European options. The results indicate that the waiting option is exercised in 100% of our simulations in both scenarios, suggesting the still important role of government policies to stimulate wind power. More importantly, in more than 90% of the simulations, the second scenario brought value to the investment. Furthermore, net present values are more sensitive to reductions in capital costs than electricity prices. These results can form the basis for more effective policies for the wind power sector.

show abstract

Characteristics and Production Costs of U.S. Corn Farms, Including Organic, 2010

Cited by 12 publications

References 7 publications

Corn Residue Use by Livestock in the United States

Corn Residue Use by Livestock in the United States

Are Australian and United States Farmers Using Soil Information for Soil Health Management?

Counterfactual comparisons of investment options for wind power and agricultural production in the United States: Lessons from Northern Ohio

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About