Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 323–340 | Cite as

Do farmers overuse nitrogen fertilizer to the detriment of the environment?

  • Satya N. Yadav
  • Willis Peterson
  • K. William Easter
Article

Abstract

Increasing use of nitrogen fertilizer in U.S. agriculture has led to nitrate contamination of water resources. The main objective of the study is to determine if the current use of nitrogen exceeds the profit-maximizing level, since reducing such discrepancy, if any, could raise farmers' profitability and enhance water quality making it a win-win situation. Specific objectives of the study, however, are two-fold. First, develop an appropriate methodology for estimation of an agronomic production function utilizing panel data with several treatments from experimental plots. Second, using experimental data from 1987 through 1990 for three farm sites in southeastern Minnesota, empirically estimate the production function and profit maximizing level of nitrogen application.

Our results show that both the current recommended rate, 150 1b/acre, and farmers' use, 176 1b/acre, of nitrogen exceed the profit maximizing level of nitrogen in the region. It is shown that the recommended rate needs to be revised and made more site or area specific rather than a general figure for the entire region. The study shows considerable residual nitrogen build-up in the soil profile, implying that farmers have been applying more nitrogen than could be utilized by corn plants. The later finding highlights the importance of soil testing for plant nutrients when making decisions on fertilizer application.

Key words

ground water contamination nitrate contamination nitrogen overuse profit maximization 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baumol, W.J. and W.E. Oates (1988),The Theory of Environmental Policy. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. De Janvry, A. (1972), ‘The Generalized Power Function’,American Journal of Agricultural Economics 54, 234–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Frank, M.D., B.R. Beattie, and M.E. Embleton (1990), ‘A Comparison of Alternative Crop Response Models’,American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72, 597–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ferguson, C.E. (1975)The Neo Classical Theory of Production and Distribution. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Griffin, R.C., J.M. Montgomery, and M.E. Rister (1987), ‘Selecting Functional Form in Production Function Analysis’,Western Journal of Agricultural Economics 12, 216–227.Google Scholar
  6. Grow, S.R. (1986),Water Quality in the Forestville Creek Karst Basin of Southeastern Minnesota. Unpublished M.S. thesis, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  7. Hallberg, G., R.D. Libra, and B.E. Hoyer (1985),Nonpoint Source Contamination of Groundwater in Karst Carbonate Aquifers in Iowa, Perspectives on Nonpoint Source Pollution, Proceedings of a National Conference, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  8. Heady, E.O. (1952),Economics of Agricultural Production and Resource Use. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  9. Heady, E.O. and J.L. Dillon (1961),Agricultural Production Functions. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Heady, E.O. and R.W. Hexem (1978),Water Production Functions for Irrigated Agriculture. Ames, Iowa: State University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Iversen, G.R. and H. Norpoth (1987),Analysis of Variance. Second edition, Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  12. Jannik, N.O., E.C. Alexander, Jr., and L.J. Landher (1991),The Sinkhole Collapse of the Lewiston, Minnesota Waste Water Treatment Facility Lagoon, Presented at the Proceedings of the Third Conference on Hydrogeology, Ecology, Monitoring, and Management of Groundwater in Karst Terrains, Clarion, Nashville, Tennessee, December.Google Scholar
  13. Johnson, P.R. (1953), ‘Alternative Functions for Analyzing a Fertilizer Yield Relationship’,Journal of Farm Economics 35, 519–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Johnson, S.L., G.M. Perry, and R.M. Adams (1989),Managing Groundwater Pollution From Agricultural Related Sources: An Economic Analysis, Final Technical Report Submitted to U.S. Geological Survey, Renton, VA by Dept. of Agricultural & Resource Economics, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.Google Scholar
  15. Lee, L. K. and E. G. Nielsen (1987), ‘The Extent and Costs of Ground Water Contamination by Agriculture’,Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 42, 243–248.Google Scholar
  16. Lentner, M. and T. Bishop (1986),Experimental Design and Analysis. Blacksburg, Virginia: Valley Book Company.Google Scholar
  17. Minnesota Department of Agriculture (1991),Minnesota Agricultural Statistics, P.O. Box 7068, 90 West Boulevard, St. Paul, MN 55107.Google Scholar
  18. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (1989),Minnesota Ground Water Protection Strategy, September.Google Scholar
  19. Olson, R.A. (1986),Agricultural Practices for Minimizing Nitrate Content of Ground Water, in Proceedings of Agricultural Impacts of Ground Water: A Conference, Omaha, Nebraska, August 11–13.Google Scholar
  20. Perrin, R. K. (1976), ‘The Value of Information and the Value of Theoretical Crop Response Research’,American Journal of Agricultural Economics 58, 54–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pye, V.I. (1983),Groundwater Contamination in the United States, Workshop on Groundwater Resources and Contamination in the United States (Summary and Papers), National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  22. Randall, G.W., J.L. Anderson, G.L. Malzer, and B.W. Anderson (1990),Impact of Nitrogen and Tillage Management Practices on Corn Production and Potential Nitrate Contamination of Ground Water in Southeastern Minnesota, Center for Agricultural Impacts on Water Quality, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  23. Rehm, G. and M. Schmitt. (1990),Fertilizer Recommendations for Agronomic Crops in Minnesota, Minnesota Extension Service, Report #AG-MI-3901, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  24. Spillman, W.J. (1923), ‘Application of the Law of Diminishing Returns to Some Fertilizer and Feed Data’,Journal of Farm Economics 5, 36–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. U.S. Department of Agriculture (1991),Agricultural Chemical Usage 1990: Field Crops Summary, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  26. Vroomen, H. (1989),Fertilizer Use and Price Statistics, Resource and Technology Division, ERS, USDA, Statistics Bulletin #780, p. 20.Google Scholar
  27. Wall, D., S.A. McGuire, and J.A. Magner (1989),Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment in the Garvin Brook Rural Clean Water Project Area, Division of Water Quality, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, St. Paul, Minnesota.Google Scholar
  28. Wall, D. (1991), ‘Nitrate in Groudwater-Existing Conditions and Trends’, inNitrogen in Minnesota Groundwater, Prepared for the Legislative Water Commission, December.Google Scholar
  29. Wild, A. and L.H.P. Jones (1988), ‘Minerzal Nutrition of Crop Plants’, Chapter 3, in A. Wild, ed.,Russell's Soil Condition and Plant Growth, New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  30. Yadav, S.N. (1994),Nitrate Contamination of Ground Water in Southeastern Minnesota: A Dynamic Model of Nitrogen Use, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Satya N. Yadav
    • 1
  • Willis Peterson
    • 2
  • K. William Easter
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Agricultural Economics & Rural SociologyUniversity of ArkansasFayettevilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Applied EconomicsUniversity of MinnesotaSt. PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations