年度饲料生产者的双重用途保险:比较风险管理方案

IF 1.5 Q3 AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY
Natalie A. Graff, Bart L. Fischer, Henry L. Bryant, David P. Anderson
{"title":"年度饲料生产者的双重用途保险:比较风险管理方案","authors":"Natalie A. Graff, Bart L. Fischer, Henry L. Bryant, David P. Anderson","doi":"10.1108/afr-08-2022-0096","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to evaluate the Dual Use (DU) Option – a crop insurance policy created by the 2018 Farm Bill – relative to other policies available to dual-purpose annual forage producers. The new policy combines existing rainfall-based policies for annual forage crops and multi-peril policies for grain, allowing coverage for multiple crop uses on the same acres during the same growing season.Design/methodology/approachThe paper uses a simulation model to examine crop insurance choices for a typical Texas dual-purpose wheat farm. The certainty equivalent (CE) of wealth is used to rank choices within and between three insurance plans and to analyze the effects of those choices over a range of producer risk aversion levels and for three cases of yield expectations.FindingsThe DU Option is more preferred as risk aversion increases, but it is not universally preferred. Therefore, while the policy can be a viable risk management tool, certain restrictions may be limiting its effectiveness.Practical implicationsThe findings of this paper can help explain farm-level decision making related to dual-purpose annual forage crop insurance program choices.Originality/valueThis paper contributes to the literature by documenting a new crop insurance program made available in the 2018 Farm Bill and provides insights into producers' possible choices by evaluating extensive scenarios.","PeriodicalId":46748,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural Finance Review","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dual use insurance for annual forage producers: comparing risk management alternatives\",\"authors\":\"Natalie A. Graff, Bart L. Fischer, Henry L. Bryant, David P. Anderson\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/afr-08-2022-0096\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to evaluate the Dual Use (DU) Option – a crop insurance policy created by the 2018 Farm Bill – relative to other policies available to dual-purpose annual forage producers. The new policy combines existing rainfall-based policies for annual forage crops and multi-peril policies for grain, allowing coverage for multiple crop uses on the same acres during the same growing season.Design/methodology/approachThe paper uses a simulation model to examine crop insurance choices for a typical Texas dual-purpose wheat farm. The certainty equivalent (CE) of wealth is used to rank choices within and between three insurance plans and to analyze the effects of those choices over a range of producer risk aversion levels and for three cases of yield expectations.FindingsThe DU Option is more preferred as risk aversion increases, but it is not universally preferred. Therefore, while the policy can be a viable risk management tool, certain restrictions may be limiting its effectiveness.Practical implicationsThe findings of this paper can help explain farm-level decision making related to dual-purpose annual forage crop insurance program choices.Originality/valueThis paper contributes to the literature by documenting a new crop insurance program made available in the 2018 Farm Bill and provides insights into producers' possible choices by evaluating extensive scenarios.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46748,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Agricultural Finance Review\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Agricultural Finance Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/afr-08-2022-0096\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Agricultural Finance Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/afr-08-2022-0096","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文的目的是评估双重用途(DU)选项- 2018年农业法案创建的作物保险政策-相对于双重用途年度饲料生产商可用的其他政策。新政策结合了现有的以降雨量为基础的年度饲料作物政策和粮食多险种政策,允许在同一生长季节,在同一英亩土地上覆盖多种作物用途。设计/方法/方法本文使用一个模拟模型来考察德克萨斯州一个典型的双重用途小麦农场的作物保险选择。财富的确定性当量(CE)用于对三个保险计划内部和之间的选择进行排序,并分析这些选择在一系列生产者风险厌恶水平和三种收益预期情况下的影响。发现随着风险厌恶的增加,DU选项更受欢迎,但并非普遍受欢迎。因此,虽然该政策可能是一种可行的风险管理工具,但某些限制可能会限制其有效性。本文的研究结果有助于解释与双重用途年度饲料作物保险计划选择相关的农场层面决策。原创性/价值本文通过记录2018年农业法案中提供的一项新的作物保险计划,为文献做出了贡献,并通过评估广泛的情景,为生产者的可能选择提供了见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Dual use insurance for annual forage producers: comparing risk management alternatives
PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to evaluate the Dual Use (DU) Option – a crop insurance policy created by the 2018 Farm Bill – relative to other policies available to dual-purpose annual forage producers. The new policy combines existing rainfall-based policies for annual forage crops and multi-peril policies for grain, allowing coverage for multiple crop uses on the same acres during the same growing season.Design/methodology/approachThe paper uses a simulation model to examine crop insurance choices for a typical Texas dual-purpose wheat farm. The certainty equivalent (CE) of wealth is used to rank choices within and between three insurance plans and to analyze the effects of those choices over a range of producer risk aversion levels and for three cases of yield expectations.FindingsThe DU Option is more preferred as risk aversion increases, but it is not universally preferred. Therefore, while the policy can be a viable risk management tool, certain restrictions may be limiting its effectiveness.Practical implicationsThe findings of this paper can help explain farm-level decision making related to dual-purpose annual forage crop insurance program choices.Originality/valueThis paper contributes to the literature by documenting a new crop insurance program made available in the 2018 Farm Bill and provides insights into producers' possible choices by evaluating extensive scenarios.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Agricultural Finance Review
Agricultural Finance Review AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
18.80%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: Agricultural Finance Review provides a rigorous forum for the publication of theory and empirical work related solely to issues in agricultural and agribusiness finance. Contributions come from academic and industry experts across the world and address a wide range of topics including: Agricultural finance, Agricultural policy related to agricultural finance and risk issues, Agricultural lending and credit issues, Farm credit, Businesses and financial risks affecting agriculture and agribusiness, Agricultural policies affecting farm or agribusiness risks and profitability, Risk management strategies including the use of futures and options, Rural credit in developing economies, Microfinance and microcredit applied to agriculture and rural development, Financial efficiency, Agriculture insurance and reinsurance. Agricultural Finance Review is committed to research addressing (1) factors affecting or influencing the financing of agriculture and agribusiness in both developed and developing nations; (2) the broadest aspect of risk assessment and risk management strategies affecting agriculture; and (3) government policies affecting farm profitability, liquidity, and access to credit.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信