IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/agecon/v13y1995i2p137-148.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Implications of alternative environmental policies on phosphorus loading from poultry litter

Author

Listed:
  • Ramu Govindasamy
  • Mark J. Cochran

Abstract

Degraded groundwater, impaired swimming, fishing, algae and weed problem are often associated with eutrophication from phosphorus (P) loadings in surface and groundwater. The concentrated growth of poultry industry and over application of litter on pasture lands may lead to excessive nutrient loadings in surface and groundwater. The Cooperative Extension Service recommendation suggests that no poultry litter should be applied if the soil test P exceeds 300 pounds per acre, irrespective of the marginal costs and benefits associated with one more unit of litter application on that piece of land. The objective of this paper is to model the economics of P loadings from poultry litter and analyze the policy implications of Cooperative Extension Service's recommendation on quantity restriction on litter applications with empirical evidence. The results indicate that there exists significant difference in the marginal values of soil between different soil series, indicating that the permit system can achieve the target at a lesser cost. In particular, the society as a whole can gain $2.7 per acre by allocating the litter to soil series 16 instead of soil series 20, provided that the contribution towards groundwater contamination from these two acres are the same.

Suggested Citation

  • Ramu Govindasamy & Mark J. Cochran, 1995. "Implications of alternative environmental policies on phosphorus loading from poultry litter," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 13(2), pages 137-148, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:agecon:v:13:y:1995:i:2:p:137-148
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1574-0862.1995.tb00383.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.1995.tb00383.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1574-0862.1995.tb00383.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Govindasamy, Ramu & Huffman, Wallace, 1993. "Efficiency of U.S. conservation-compliance program," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 8(2), pages 173-185, February.
    2. Govindasamy, Ramu & Cochran, Mark J., 1995. "The Feasibility of Poultry Litter Transportation from Environmentally Sensitive Areas to Delta Row Crop Production," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(1), pages 101-110, April.
    3. Baumol,William J. & Oates,Wallace E., 1988. "The Theory of Environmental Policy," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521322249, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Richard J. Thomas & Emmanuelle Quillérou & Naomi Stewart, 2013. "The rewards of investing in sustainable land management," Working Papers hal-01954823, HAL.
    2. Jones, Kezelee Q. & D'Souza, Gerard E., 2001. "Trading Poultry Litter At The Watershed Level : A Goal Focusing Application," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 30(1), pages 1-10, April.
    3. Mitchell, David M. & Willett, Keith, 2012. "Modeling Transactions Costs in a Regional Transferable Discharge Permit System for Phosphorus Runoff," Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, Mid-Continent Regional Science Association, vol. 42(2), pages 1-13.
    4. Johansson, Robert C. & Gowda, Prasanna H. & Mulla, David J. & Dalzell, Brent J., 2004. "Metamodelling phosphorus best management practices for policy use: a frontier approach," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 63-74, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mitchell, David M. & Willett, Keith, 2012. "Modeling Transactions Costs in a Regional Transferable Discharge Permit System for Phosphorus Runoff," Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, Mid-Continent Regional Science Association, vol. 42(2), pages 1-13.
    2. Thurow, Amy Purvis & Holt, John, 1997. "Induced Policy Innovation: Enivronmental Compliance Requirements For Dairies In Texas And Florida," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 29(1), pages 1-20, July.
    3. Chia-Ying Chang & Chien-Chieh Huang & Ping Wang, 2000. "Fight Fire with Fire: A Model of Pollution and Growth with Cooperative Settlement," Vanderbilt University Department of Economics Working Papers 0010, Vanderbilt University Department of Economics.
    4. Kotchen, Matthew J. & Salant, Stephen W., 2011. "A free lunch in the commons," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 245-253, May.
    5. Murty, Sushama & Russell, R. Robert, 2010. "On modeling pollution-generating technologies," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 931, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    6. Frans P. Vries & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Incentive-Based Policy Design for Pollution Control and Biodiversity Conservation: A Review," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(4), pages 687-702, April.
    7. Herwig Immervoll & Cathal O’Donoghue & Jules Linden & Denisa Sologon, 2023. "Who pays for higher carbon prices?: Illustration for Lithuania and a research agenda," OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers 283, OECD Publishing.
    8. Yu-Bong Lai, 2004. "Trade liberalization, consumption externalities and the environment," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 17(5), pages 1-9.
    9. Ni, Jinlan & Wei, Chu & Du, Limin, 2015. "Revealing the political decision toward Chinese carbon abatement: Based on equity and efficiency criteria," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 609-621.
    10. Costantini, Valeria & Mazzanti, Massimiliano, 2012. "On the green and innovative side of trade competitiveness? The impact of environmental policies and innovation on EU exports," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 132-153.
    11. Hochman, Oded & Rausser, Gordon C. & Arnott, Richard J, 2008. "Pollution And Land Use: Optimum And Decentralization," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt6hg02091, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    12. Christoph Böhringer & Carolyn Fischer & Nicholas Rivers, 2023. "Intensity-Based Rebating of Emission Pricing Revenues," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 10(4), pages 1059-1089.
    13. Kumbhakar, Subal C. & Badunenko, Oleg & Willox, Michael, 2022. "Do carbon taxes affect economic and environmental efficiency? The case of British Columbia’s manufacturing plants," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    14. Giancarlo Giudici & Massimiliano Guerini & Cristina Rossi-Lamastra, 2019. "The creation of cleantech startups at the local level: the role of knowledge availability and environmental awareness," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 52(4), pages 815-830, April.
    15. Grüll, Georg & Taschini, Luca, 2011. "Cap-and-trade properties under different hybrid scheme designs," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 107-118, January.
    16. Olivier Deschenes & Kyle C. Meng, 2018. "Quasi-Experimental Methods in Environmental Economics: Opportunities and Challenges," NBER Working Papers 24903, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Na Li Dawson & Kathleen Segerson, 2008. "Voluntary Agreements with Industries: Participation Incentives with Industry-Wide Targets," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(1), pages 97-114.
    18. repec:ilo:ilowps:292066 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Wallace E. Oates & Wallace E. Oates, 2004. "A Reconsideration of Environmental Federalism," Chapters, in: Environmental Policy and Fiscal Federalism, chapter 7, pages 125-156, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    20. Sam Fankhauser & Cameron Hepburn, 2009. "Carbon markets in space and time," GRI Working Papers 3, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    21. McGinty Matthew & de Vries Frans P, 2009. "Technology Diffusion, Product Differentiation and Environmental Subsidies," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 9(1), pages 1-27, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:agecon:v:13:y:1995:i:2:p:137-148. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iaaeeea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.