Douglas L. Young

Risk Preferences of Agricultural Producers: Their Use in Extension and Research

The specific objectives of this paper are: (1) to review and critically evaluate the current state of knowledge on risk preference measurement methods and empirical results for individual agricultural producers and (2) to suggest directions for future research and extension applications requiring information on risk preferences of individual producers. The Implications of aggregate (industry) risk preferences as in risk supply response studies will not be included in this review.

Risk Perceptions and Management Responses: Producer-Generated Hypotheses For Risk Modeling

Farm level risk analyses have used price and yield variability almost exclusively to represent risk. Results from a survey of 149 agricultural producers in 12 states indicate that producers consider a broader range of sources of variability in their operations. Significant differences exist among categories with respect to the importance of the sources of variability in crop and livestock production. Producers also used a variety of management responses to variability. There were significant difference among categories in the importance given to particular responses and their use of them. These results have implications for research, extension, and policy programs.

Economics of Alternative No-Till Spring Crop Rotations in Washington's Wheat–Fallow Region

till cropping controls soil erosion, builds soil quality, and reduces machinery wear and fuel consumption comWinter wheat [Triticum aestivum L.] (WW)–summer fallow (SF) pared with tillage-based systems. More diverse cropping is the dominant cropping system in the low-precipitation ( 300 mm annual) region of the inland Pacific Northwest (PNW), USA. Intensystems than WW–SF also offer opportunities for weed, sive tillage during SF often leaves soil vulnerable to wind erosion. disease, and insect control (Papendick and Parr, 1996; While no-till cropping is well known for wind erosion control benefits, Withers et al., 1999). previous research in the inland PNW showed that annual no-till hard Nationwide, the advantages of annual cropping in semired spring wheat (HRSW) trailed WW–SF in profitability by

HOW DO FARMERS WHO ADOPT MULTIPLE CONSERVATION PRACTICES DIFFER FROM THEIR NEIGHBORS

113 arid regions have led to substantial adoption. Farmers ha 1 yr 1. Our objective was to assess the agronomic and economic in the USA reduced SF acreage by 43% from 1964 to feasibility of alternative no-till spring grain and oilseed rotations in 1997, with the largest reductions in the Great Plains (Smith a 5-yr experiment near Ritzville, WA. Spring crops were soft white and Young, 2000). In 2000, about 36% of total U.S. cropwheat (SW), barley [Hordeum vulgare L.] (SB) yellow mustard [Brasland was in conservation till or no-till whereas in Washsica hirta Moench] (YM), and safflower [Carthamus tinctorius L.] ington State, it was only 23% (CTIC, 2001). In east(SAF) grown in three rotation sequences. Net returns from WW–SF on 10 neighboring farms during the 5-yr period averaged

An agronomic and economic comparison of a conventional and a low-input cropping system in the Palouse

21.52 ha 1 central Washington and north-central Oregon, where yr 1. The most profitable no-till spring cropping sequence was continannual precipitation ranges from 150 to 300 mm and uous SW, which averaged net returns of

ECONOMICALLY OPTIMAL NITROGEN FERTILIZATION FOR YIELD AND PROTEIN IN HARD RED SPRING WHEAT

12.11 ha 1 yr 1, equivalent to WW–SF cropping is practiced on 1.5 million ha, even WW–SF and much more competitive than previous HRSW results. minimum tillage is rare. In Adams County, WA, where No-till SW–SB and a 4-yr rotation of SAF–YM–SW–SW averaged this study is located, conservation tillage is practiced on

Incorporating Risk Aversion into Dynamic Programming Models

12.10 and

Mitigating the Effects of Multicollinearity Using Exact and Stochastic Restrictions: The Case of an Aggregate Agricultural Production Function in Thailand

31.45 ha 1 yr 1, respectively. Although all no-till spring only 17% of the cropland (CTIC, 2001). crop rotations had higher annual income variability than WW–SF, Farmers in the WW–SF region are slow to adopt conpositive net returns for continuous SW is the first economic good news servation tillage SF despite conclusive research showing for continuous annual cropping using no-till in the low-precipitation environmental benefits with no agronomic (Schillinger, region of the inland PNW. 2001) or economic (Janosky et al., 2002) disadvantages compared with intensive tillage SF. Concerns about economic risk and profitability appear to be a barrier to adopP for economic and environmental benefits tion of reduced-tillage systems (Juergens et al., 2001). is a driving force in the gradual shift by dryland Few farmers in the PNW low-precipitation region farmers to adopt reduced-till and no-till farming methpractice continuous annual cropping (CTIC, 2001). Two ods. Despite several associated environmental probrecent multiyear experiments in Washington compared lems, WW–SF is the dominant cropping system in the lowprofitability of no-till HRSW in 150-mm (Benton County) precipitation zone of the inland PNW because it proand 290-mm (Adams County) precipitation zones. In vides agronomic and economic advantages (Leggett et Benton County, 1997–2002 net returns over total costs al., 1974). Farmers and bankers appreciate time-proven before government farm payments averaged

Farmers' demand for weather-based crop insurance contracts: the case of maize in south africa

109 ha 1 grain yield and income stability of WW–SF and the yr 1 for annual no-till HRSW and

Cost Effectiveness and Equity Aspects of Soil Conservation Programs in a Highly Erodible Region

14 ha 1 yr 1 for system’s relatively uniform seasonal demands on farm WW–SF (Young, 2002a). In Adams County from 1996– machinery and labor. 2002, the values were