USDA Programs Research Articles

Economic Adjustment to Sustainable Agriculture: Discussion

Daberkow and Reichelderfer (DR) have provided a stimulating review of some of the issues surrounding low-input agriculture (LIA). I agree with their basic assumption that current levels of adoption of LIA by U.S. farmers are based upon private profit-maximizing behavior. Furthermore, I agree with their conclusion that . .. removal or modification of commodity program incentives would likely have the most dramatic short-term influence on the feasibility of LIA systems. However, DR's arguments would be strengthened by a more complete theoretical explanation of the relationship of commodity programs to input use. Conceptually, commodity programs can increase agrichemical use and discourage LIA by (a) biasing the output mix toward chemical-intensive crops and (b) encouraging growers to apply more agrichemicals per acre than they would in the absence of commodity programs. Major USDA program crops do receive heavy agrichemical applications. Fleming (p. 127) reports federal support programs are focused on four crops that account for at least 65% of all agrichemical use: corn, cotton, wheat, and soybeans. The share of total U.S. nitrogen, phosphate, and potash devoted to corn, cotton, wheat, and soybeans grew from 42% in 1964 to 62% in 1985 (Vrooman). Microeconomic principles suggest that increasing the effective returns for agrichemical-intensive program crops will direct resources toward these crops at the expense of nonprogram crops. Dixon, Dixon, and Miranowski, cited by DR, estimated that least-cost free market production during 1965 could have satisfied output demands with one-half the pesticide use observed under prevailing government policies. An important point made by DR is that factor-factor substitution is inextricably tied to output-output adjustment in the transition to LIA. As market forces or changes in government policies encourage changes in the output mix, adjustments involve not only substituting nonprogram crops on land that previously grew program crops but continuing to grow program crops on the same land in less intensive rotations.

Prospects for Fundamental Change in Farm and Food Programs: Discussion

Dobson and Gardner have approached the topic of changes in policy from different points of view. However, they reach somewhat similar conclusions about the possibility of change in U.S. policy. Dobson began with the premise that there are strong forces behind the status quo and concluded that USDA programs will remain highly resistant to In the present political and economic environment, 'fine tuning' of existing legislation . .. seems more likely to occur than fundamental change. Gardner, on the other hand, started with the assumption that there is a need for change in U.S. agricultural policy. He notes that of broad support for change is informal but pervasive. But, in conclusion, he states that substantive change would plausibly be expected were it not for the fortuitous appearance of the greatest incentive for change confronting the federal government in 1985, the prospect of a $150-$200 billion budget deficit in economic upswing. I doubt the administration would agree with his use of the word fortuitous in describing the budget deficit. However, I agree with his observation that budgetary problems will be a force for change in agricultural policy. Dobson developed interesting list of seven factors contributing to the resistance to change in programs. I have no disagreement with his list or with his assessment about the changing strength of these variables in recent years. However, I think there are at least five variables that are contributing pressure for change in agricultural policy. Moreover, the importance of all five of these variables has increased during the past five to ten years. (a) Welfare of families relative to urban families. One is hard pressed to argue that as a group families are economically disadvantaged relative to urban families. In fact, there may be more millionaire farmers than any other working segment of the population. Gardner noted that there is broad support for the conclusion that farm programs should not redistribute income to people whose incomes are above those of the average consumer/taxpayer. Existing programs have been producing this undesirable result. Increased public understanding about the structure of agriculture will sharpen public criticism of this result of programs. (b) Shortage of proof that there are beneficial effects of existing programs. This is the converse of Dobson's second point that there is shortage of evidence about the negative impacts of programs. I suggest that in the future benefit/cost ratios of programs will be a stronger argument in support of change than the lack of damage/cost ratios will provide in support of the status quo. (c) The continued expansion of massive surplus stocks, particularly of dairy products. The maintenance of these stocks is both unnecessary and expensive. The magnitude of these stocks far exceeds anything needed for price stabilization. The magnitude of these surpluses will make it increasingly difficult to justify existing programs. (d) Added interest and activity of new players in the policy game. Livestock producers and agribusiness firms have recognized that programs can have a significant impact on their bottom line and are becoming more active participants in the policy formation process. The impact these new players will have on policy is uncertain. They may stimulate major changes or they may fragment efforts to the point that no changes will occur. (e) Expanded rhetoric by the administration and others that major changes in programs are necessary. The administration at least gives a lot of lip service to the need for Dobson noted that an administration wishing to change legislation in fundamental ways must be willing to veto unacJ. Bruce Bullock is a professor and Chairman, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Missouri.

‘Pioneer’ Elm

Abstract The American elm, Ulmus americana L., has proven itself to be particularly well adapted to urban environments. Unfortunately, Dutch elm disease, caused by the fungus Ceratocystis ulmi (Buism.) C. Moreau, has limited use of this species. The ‘Pioneer’ hybrid elm is a product of a USDA program to develop disease resistant elm clones which can be planted as substitutes for American elm.

Friedman Heads USDA Program for Historic Preservation

Friedman Heads USDA Program for Historic Preservation

SENSORY PROFILING OF CANNED BONED CHICKEN:COMPARISONS OF RETAIL, SCHOOL LUNCH, AND MILITARY CANNED BONED CHICKEN

ABSTRACTThe lack of domestic retail markets and poor quality and acceptance have hampered the optimum use of spent fowl (old laying hens) as a highly nutritious, inexpensive, and convenient food. Major outlets for canned boned chicken have been developed through USDA and military food programs. The purpose of this study was to compare canned boned chicken products (USDA, military, and retail) using Quantitative Descriptive Analysis (QDA) techniques. In general, USDA school lunch products were characterized as having more ground and shredded meat constituents than the retail or military products. School lunch products were also less tender and cohesive, quicker to breakdown on mastication, less juicy, more off‐flavored, and less desirable than the retail and military products. Through factor analysis and calculations of factor scores, the original set of 12 numbers to characterize a product was reduced to four numbers that revealed the extent to which products exhibited attributes represented by the factors. All USDA and military products met their minimum specifications for proximate composition and yield. However, USDA school lunch products varied in ranges of moisture, fat, protein, and drained weight.

Comprehensive evaluation of fatty acids in foods. VIII. Finfish

Recent (since 1960) data on the lipid content and fatty acid composition of fish were surveyed as part of the continuing USDA program to provide information on the nutrient composition of foods. Tabulated values of total lipid and fatty acids in finfish are presented. The most prominent fatty acids occurring in finfish are palmitic (C16:0), C18:1 (in some species C20:1 and C22:1), and the highly polyunsaturated C20:5 and C22:6. The general nutritional value of finfish is discussed. Two measures of polyunsaturation are presented for some commercially important domestic finfish: the total amount of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PFA) and the relative degree of polyunsaturation (PI).