Economic Research Report最新文献

{"title":"Household Food Security in the United States in 2017","authors":"","doi":"10.22004/AG.ECON.291966","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.291966","url":null,"abstract":"An estimated 88.2 percent of U.S. households were food secure throughout the entire year in 2017, meaning they had access at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members. The remaining households (11.8 percent) were food insecure at least some time during the year, including 4.5 percent with very low food security, meaning that at times the food intake of one or more household members was reduced and their eating patterns were disrupted because the household lacked money and other resources for obtaining food. Declines from 2016 in food insecurity overall and in very low food security were statistically significant. The rate of food insecurity declined from 12.3 percent in 2016, and very low food security declined from 4.9 percent, continuing downward trends. Among children, changes from 2016 in food insecurity and very low food security were not statistically significant. Children and adults were food insecure in 7.7 percent of U.S. households with children in 2017, versus 8.0 percent in 2016. Very low food security among children was 0.7 percent in 2017, essentially unchanged from 2016. In 2017, the typical food-secure household spent 23 percent more on food than the typical food-insecure household of the same size and household composition. About 58 percent of food-insecure households participated in one or more of the three largest Federal food and nutrition assistance programs (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps); Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); and the National School Lunch Program) during the month prior to the 2017 survey.","PeriodicalId":348588,"journal":{"name":"Economic Research Report","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124002836","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Design Issues in USDA’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Looking Ahead by Looking Back","authors":"V. Oliveira, Mark A. Prell, L. Tiehen, D. Smallwood","doi":"10.22004/AG.ECON.276253","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.276253","url":null,"abstract":"The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)—formerly, the Food Stamp Program—provides low-income participants with electronic benefits that are used like debit cards to purchase eligible food items in authorized retail food stores. Over the program’s long history, policymakers have implemented numerous changes in program design in response to the political, economic, and budgetary environment. Even though SNAP is a mature program, a number of issues continue to arise, such as whether to change SNAP to a block grant program, what types of foods program benefits should cover, and whether benefit amounts and program accessibility are adequate. This report examines the evolution of SNAP—highlighting the effects on the program of major policy and economic changes—to shed light on why the program takes its current form. The report also examines several current issues—each of which has been raised multiple times in the past—and identifies tradeoffs between various program design features. By providing historical and analytical perspective on major program design issues, this report looks ahead by looking back.","PeriodicalId":348588,"journal":{"name":"Economic Research Report","volume":"121 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129329037","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Trade Liberalization in International Dairy Markets: Estimated Impacts","authors":"S. Langley, A. Somwaru, M. Normile","doi":"10.22004/AG.ECON.7214","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.7214","url":null,"abstract":"A partial-equilibrium, multiple-commodity, multiregion model of agricultural policy and trade is used to simulate the effects of changes in domestic and trade policy on dairy production, consumption, prices, and trade. Simulations using the ERS-Penn State Trade model analyze the effects of separately and concurrently relaxing domestic income and price supports, and import restrictions and export subsidies, with special attention to tariff-rate and milk production quotas. Modeling results indicate that liberalization would reduce world dairy product supplies and increase the value of dairy trade.","PeriodicalId":348588,"journal":{"name":"Economic Research Report","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125647806","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Relationship Between Patronizing Direct-to-Consumer Outlets and a Household’s Demand for Fruits and Vegetables","authors":"H. Stewart, D. Dong","doi":"10.22004/AG.ECON.276254","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.276254","url":null,"abstract":"Farmers markets, roadside stands, and other direct-to-consumer (DTC) outlets can be an important sales channel for small farmers. However, it is unclear what, if any, impact shopping at DTC outlets has on consumer food-purchase behavior. This study uses the National Household Food Acquisition and Purchase Survey to investigate the relationship between buying fruits and vegetables at DTC outlets and spending on these food groups by U.S. households. While American households are found to patronize DTC outlets infrequently, on average, study results show that encouraging them to do so more frequently could lead to higher levels of fruit and vegetable spending across all outlets types—including both DTC and non-direct retailers.","PeriodicalId":348588,"journal":{"name":"Economic Research Report","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121571378","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"An equilibrium displacement model of the Australian beef industry.","authors":"Xueyan Zhao, J. Mullen, G. Griffith, W. Griffiths, R. Piggott","doi":"10.22004/AG.ECON.28007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.28007","url":null,"abstract":"Around $100 million has been spent annually on R&D and promotion in the Australian red meat industries in recent years. The R&D investments are made throughout the production, processing and marketing chain in both the grass and grain finished sectors. Promotion investments are made in both export and domestic markets. Despite this large investment of industry and government funds there is great uncertainty about the returns from these investments. Not only is it unclear what the total industry returns are but it is even less clear how producers and the community benefit from the many alternative investment options. Hence, it is unclear how funds should be allocated between these alternatives. Zhao (1999) addressed these issues in research for her PhD degree from the University of New England. An important component of this research was the development of an equilibrium displacement model of the Australian beef industry. The objective of this Report is to thoroughly document the model and the procedures followed in defining the price, quantity and market parameters (supply, demand and substitution elasticities) used in the model. The results of the base run are also reported. Twelve investment scenarios were considered relating to 1% shifts in the relevant supply or demand curves due to new technologies in individual sectors and promotion in export or domestic markets. For each scenario, total returns in terms of economic surplus gains and the distribution of total returns among individual groups, namely, among cattle producers, feedlotters, processors, exporters, retailers and domestic and overseas consumers, were estimated. Producers and domestic consumers were shown to be the main beneficiaries in all scenarios. The results indicated that, in general, producers receive larger benefit shares from on-farm research than from off-farm research. They also receive significantly larger shares from export marketing research and promotion than from domestic marketing research and promotion. In general, while they should prefer research investments over domestic promotion, they gain as large or even larger shares from export promotion than from various research scenarios.","PeriodicalId":348588,"journal":{"name":"Economic Research Report","volume":"92 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115447514","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Changes in Eating Patterns and Diet Quality Among Working-Age Adults, 2005-2010","authors":"Jessica E Todd","doi":"10.22004/AG.ECON.262214","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.262214","url":null,"abstract":"The recession of 2007-09, the deepest of the postwar period, has had large and long- lasting effects. Using data from the 2005-10 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, this study compares a number of measures of food intake and diet quality for the cohort of working-age adults born between 1946 and 1985. During the period, consumption of food away from home (FAFH) declined, as measured by total daily calories, share of daily calories, and the number of FAFH meals and snacks. At the same time, diet quality improved slightly, with a lower share of calories coming from fat and saturated fat and with less cholesterol and more fiber consumed. Regression analysis indicates, however, that the decline in FAFH consumption explains less than 20 percent of the improvements in diet quality. Increased consumer preferences for nutritious foods and greater use of nutrition information during food shopping also likely led to improvements in diet quality over this period. ----- Errata: On May 13, 2014 the note to Table 5 in “Changes in Eating Patterns and Diet Quality Among Working-Age Adults, 2005-2010,” was revised. It stated that household income relative to the poverty line was included in the regressions that were reported in the table, but in fact this variable was not included in the regression. The estimates in the table did not change.","PeriodicalId":348588,"journal":{"name":"Economic Research Report","volume":"42 9","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"113986198","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Economic Effects and Responses to Changes in Honey Bee Health","authors":"P. Ferrier, R. Rucker, W. Thurman, M. Burgett","doi":"10.22004/AG.ECON.276245","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.276245","url":null,"abstract":"Since 2006, winter losses of managed honey bee colonies in the United States have averaged 28.7 percent, approximately double the 15.0-percent historical rate. These elevated losses have raised concerns that agricultural and food supply chains will suffer disruptions as pollination services become more costly and less available. Despite higher winter loss rates, U.S. honey bee colony numbers have remained stable or risen since 1996, with loss rates showing no correlation with yearly changes in the number of U.S. colonies but being positively correlated with the rate of colony additions. Among pollinated crops, almonds and plums have had the largest increases in pollination service fees, rising about 2.5 and 2.4 times, respectively, in real (inflation-adjusted) terms since the early 1990s, with the largest portion of the increase occurring between 2004 and 2006. For other pollinated crops, real fees have risen at an average rate of 2-3 percent annually and do not show a marked increase since Colony Collapse Disorder appeared in 2006. For most crops other than almonds, the share of farmgate costs attributable to pollination service fees is less than 5 percent at the farm level and less than 1 percent at the retail level.","PeriodicalId":348588,"journal":{"name":"Economic Research Report","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126460729","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND-USE CHANGE: THE ROLE OF ECONOMICS AND POLICY","authors":"R. Lubowski, S. Bucholtz, R. Claassen, M. Roberts, J. Cooper, Anna i. Gueorguieva, R. Johansson","doi":"10.22004/AG.ECON.33591","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.33591","url":null,"abstract":"This report examines evidence on the relationship between agricultural land-use changes, soil productivity, and indicators of environmental sensitivity. If cropland that shifts in and out of production is less productive and more environmentally sensitive than other cropland, policy-induced changes in land use could have production effects that are smaller-and environmental impacts that are greater-than anticipated. To illustrate this possibility, this report examines environmental outcomes stemming from landuse conversion caused by two agricultural programs that others have identified as potentially having important influences on land use and environmental quality: Federal crop insurance subsidies and the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), the Nation's largest cropland retirement program. The report finds that lands moving between cultivated cropland and less intensive agricultural uses are, on average, less productive and more vulnerable to erosion than other cultivated lands, both nationally and locally. These lands are also associated with greater potential nutrient runoff and leaching compared with cultivated cropland nationally. Crop insurance subsidies and CRP have estimated effects on erosion and other environmental factors that are disproportionate to the acreage and production effects, but specific environmental impacts vary with the features of each program.","PeriodicalId":348588,"journal":{"name":"Economic Research Report","volume":"2013 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132040671","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Dedicated Energy Crops and Competition for Agricultural Land","authors":"R. Sands, S. Malcolm, Shellye Suttles, E. Marshall","doi":"10.22004/AG.ECON.252445","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.252445","url":null,"abstract":"Dedicated energy crops, such as switchgrass in the United States, have received much attention as potential renewable feedstocks for liquid fuels or bioelectricity; however, markets do not presently exist for large-scale use of this resource. This study examines three policy scenarios that could create a market for bioelectricity using dedicated energy crops: a subsidy for bioelectricity generation, a national Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), and a national cap-and-trade policy to limit carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Model results suggest that energy crops as a share of total cropland by region would be greatest in the Northern Plains, Southeast, and Appalachia. Even though the impact of energy crop production on land use across scenarios is similar by design, the impacts on other model outputs are quite different, including the mix of electricity-generating technologies, the price of electricity, CO2 emissions, and the cost relative to a no-policy reference scenario. For example, the price of electricity increases with cap-and-trade but declines with a bioelectricity subsidy. In all scenarios, U.S. CO2 emissions decrease relative to the reference scenario. Emissions reductions are greatest in the cap-and-trade scenario, but significant reductions are also obtained with an RPS.","PeriodicalId":348588,"journal":{"name":"Economic Research Report","volume":"14 4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129389890","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The 2014 Farm Act Agriculture Risk Coverage, Price Loss Coverage, and Supplemental Coverage Option Programs' Effects on Crop Revenue","authors":"Erik J. O'Donoghue, Ashley Hungerford, J. Cooper, T. Worth, M. Ash","doi":"10.22004/AG.ECON.262201","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.262201","url":null,"abstract":"The 2014 Farm Act provides eligible U.S. farmers with new commodity supports in the Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC), the Price Loss Coverage (PLC), and the Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) programs. These programs help producers with revenue losses generally not covered by traditional crop insurance policies. Interactions, both among these programs and between these programs and the Federal Crop Insurance (FCI) program, determine the nature and magnitude of support avail - able to producers. This report provides an analysis of these programs with a focus on how various combinations of the programs impact producer revenue and its variability, producer well-being, and expected program costs. The report finds that these programs’ effectiveness are influenced by historical prices, expected prices, and FCI coverage rates. High historic crop prices combined with low expected prices since the enactment of the 2014 Farm Act led to higher enrollment of producers in the ARC program in 2015 relative to that in the SCO program.","PeriodicalId":348588,"journal":{"name":"Economic Research Report","volume":"77 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122837900","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}