The Impact of Pasture Insurance on Farmland Values

Ifft, Jennifer; Wu, Shang; Kuethe, Todd

doi:10.1017/s1068280500005505

Cited by 20 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Conversely, Uzea et al (2014) revealed that risk management tools did not increase debt use. Ifft et al (2014) showed that farm value increased when fields are insured. Kuethe and Morehart (2012) proved that crop insurance improved farmlevel profit in the USA while Zhao et al (2016) did not demonstrate such effect in China.…”

Section: Two Widely Used Risk Management Instruments: Crop Insurance and Pesticidesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…More specifically, we use difference-in-differences methods and propensity score matching because these methods allow simulating a controlled experiment (Antonakis et al 2010). They have already been used in the literature to measure the effects of crop insurance on debt use (Ifft et al 2015), on profit (Kuethe and Morehart 2012;Zhao et al 2016), and on farm value (Ifft et al 2014). Using this method, we propose to test whether crop insurance purchase has or does not have a negative influence on pesticide expenses and to compare the observed trend with non-insured farmers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How does crop insurance influence pesticide use? Evidence from French farms

Enjolras

Aubert

2020

Rev Agric Food Environ Stud

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this paper is to examine how crop insurance influences pesticide use, the two decisions being strategic for risk management at the farm scale. To that aim, the paper implements propensity score matching, difference-in-differences models, and a combination of these two methods in order to compare two similar populations of insured and non-insured farmers. Using data from the Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN), we consider French farms which cultivate field crops and quality wine-growing, the two main productions that participate the most to crop insurance and that use intensively pesticides. The analysis is performed between 2008 and 2012 given a strategic change in the crop insurance system in 2010 that strongly incites farmers to purchase crop insurance with private companies. At the same time, pesticide use was progressively discouraged through public policies. Estimations show that while pesticide use decreases for all crops, the purchase of crop insurance policies has no impact for field crops and quality wine-growing. Meanwhile, the land allocated to each crop within the farm changes. These results question a possible substitutability, for some productions, between crop insurance and pesticides as risk management tools.

show abstract

Section: Two Widely Used Risk Management Instruments: Crop Insurance and Pesticidesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How does crop insurance influence pesticide use? Evidence from French farms

Enjolras

Aubert

2020

Rev Agric Food Environ Stud

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In all other years of this study, the TAEP partial-cost reimbursement program did not significantly affect the price of bulls. This implies that the majority of the $1,200 TAEP partial-cost reimbursement payment was retained by cow-calf producers and not passed along to purebred seed stock producers in the form of higher Ifft, Wu, and Kuethe (2014) observed for pastureland values sold that were eligible for subsidies. The two years when the TAEP payment increased bull prices were the first year of the cost reimbursement payment for bull genetics through TAEP (2006) and when cattle prices were historically high (2015).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Price Determinants of Performance-Tested Bulls over Time

Boyer

Campbell

Griffith

et al. 2019

J. Agric. Appl. Econ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We estimate the values of bull phenotypic traits, performance measurements, and expected progeny differences (EPDs) over time using bull sale data from an auction in Tennessee from 2006 to 2016. Moreover, we determine how a state partial-cost reimbursement program for bulls with certain EPDs affects bull sale price. Purebred seed stock producers in this region should focus on selling large, fast-growing, mature bulls that produce lighter calves for reduced calving stress. The state cost-share payment did not significantly increase bull prices in most years, meaning this payment was retained by cow-calf producers in most years.

show abstract

“…While the scale of the programme and its importance have increased over the last 5 years, only a few studies have investigated the RI-PRF programme (e.g. Yu et al 2019;Westerhold et al 2018;Diersen et al 2015;Ifft et al 2014;Nadolnyak and Vedenov 2013). To our knowledge, there is no study that investigates observed patterns in participants' choices of which 2-month intervals to insure.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Participation patterns of the rainfall index insurance for pasture, rangeland and forage programme

Goodrich

Vandeveer

2019

Geneva Pap Risk Insur Issues Pract

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using a novel policyholder-level data set, we analyse participants’ choices of 2-month index intervals in the Rainfall Index for Pasture, Rangeland and Forage (RI-PRF) insurance programme. We first provide a conceptual model that illustrates participation patterns of the rainfall index insurance. We then connect these predicted patterns to some empirical evidence from the policyholder-level data set, which is a subset of data provided by the USDA Risk Management Agency for all RI-PRF participants in Nebraska and Kansas during the years 2013–2017. Because the correlations between forage yield and precipitation and the expected premium subsidy vary by month, different degrees of risk aversion may predict distinctively different choices of the 2-month intervals. Using cluster analysis, we group the participants with similar allocation patterns across the 2-month intervals. We observe that the number of participants displaying relatively low levels of risk aversion increase over time. We connect this to the fact that premium subsidies and producer returns associated with non-growing season (risk-increasing) months are often greater than those for growing season (risk-reducing) months, and this has important implications for policy design. Our findings suggest that more research in this area could assist policymakers in keeping the RI-PRF programme in line with its objective of reducing risk for livestock producers.

show abstract

The Impact of Pasture Insurance on Farmland Values

Cited by 20 publications

References 22 publications

How does crop insurance influence pesticide use? Evidence from French farms

How does crop insurance influence pesticide use? Evidence from French farms

Price Determinants of Performance-Tested Bulls over Time

Participation patterns of the rainfall index insurance for pasture, rangeland and forage programme

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About