Do cost-share programs increase cover crop use? Empirical evidence from Iowa

Abstract

Cover crops can generate both on-farm and water-quality benefits. However, their use in Iowa remains subdued, partly due to implementation costs faced by farmers. We tested the hypothesis that monetary incentives through cost-share programs are effective at increasing the area of farmland planted to cover crops in Iowa, as opposed to the alternative in which the participants of cost-share programs would have planted the same cover-crop acreage in the absence of payment. We found that cost-share payments induced a 15 percentage-point expansion in cover-crop acreage beyond what would have been planted in the absence of payment, among farmers who participated in cost-share programs. The estimated additionality rate was 54%, suggesting at least half of cost-share expenditures funded cover-crop acreage that would not have been planted without payment. Furthermore, we estimated the public cost to reduce nitrogen loads to Iowa waterways via cover crop, beyond what would have occurred in the absence of cost-share programs, to be $1.72–$4.70 lb−1 N ($3.79–$10.36 kg−1 N). Farmers absorbed about 70% of those costs as private losses, and cost-share payments offset the remaining 30%. Although the additionality rate estimated in this study is less than what has been found in other states, the cost-share programs in Iowa have been relatively cost-effective, due to their lower payment rate.

Are handloom micro-enterprises in India efficient? Estimation based on DEA and bootstrap truncated regression approach

“…The results of this study, as shown in Table 5, revealed the absence of any significant correlation between the entrepreneurs’ age and firms' TE. These result, however, is supported by the findings of Thapa (2015), Sawadgo and Plastina (2020) and Adnan et al (2021). One potential explanation in this study's context is that the activities' nature is similar for older and younger entrepreneurs.…”

Crop insurance participation and cover crop use: Evidence from Indiana county‐level data

“…Moving forward, it seems that focusing policy attention toward studying, strengthening, and/or implementing other policy mechanisms has a better chance to more immediately impact cover crop uptake. For instance, given the statistically significant effect of EQIP payments on cover crop adoption observed in past studies (Fleming, 2017;Lee & McCann, 2019;Lichtenberg, 2014;Mezzatesta et al, 2013;Sawadgo & Plastina, Forthcoming), it seems that improved targeting of cost-share and/or direct subsidy payments (as well as overall strengthening of these types of programs at the state or federal level) would have a more meaningful effect on cover crop adoption. Farm payments through carbon markets may also results in more meaningful impacts on cover crop use.…”

Incentive programs promote cover crop adoption in the northeastern United States

“…For example, farmers who were already using cover crops on at least 40 ha increased their average cropland with cover crops 52% from 158 to 240 ha during the period of program participation. Although we did not estimate additionality (i.e., adoption that would not have occurred in the absence of incentive programs), previous research on cover crop incentive programs estimated additionality rates ranging from 54% in Iowa (Sawadgo & Plastina, 2021) to 91% in Ohio (Messatesta et al, 2013). Most respondents who had participated in an incentive program were still actively enrolled in a program when the survey was completed.…”