The use of United States' farm commodity programs in sustainable cash grain production systems: An economic case study

Abstract

Data from a long‐term farming systems trial of sustainable and conventional cash grain rotations are used to show the relative merits of participating in the government farm programs. These rotations were studied through use of 20‐year simulations of the 1990 Farm Program, the 1990 Farm Program with expanded flex provisions, and three proposals for the 1996 Farm Program, including one that closely resembles the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996. These different commodity programs provide a beneficial income safety net for farmers who have made the decisions to practice sustainable crop rotations. The benefits, however, are less than those for conventional farmers. Compared with conventional farmers, sustainable program participants face (1) restrictions in practicing their rotations, (2) reduced land values because of loss of base acreage, and (3) smaller income streams from reduced deficiency payments. Program alternatives that offer 100% flexibility allow sustainable farmers largely to avoid the first two problems; the 1996 act can provide a financial safety net for conventional farmers interested in converting to a more sustainable crop rotation.