Farm-Level Analysis of Risk Management Proposals, March 2000

This paper presents a detailed report of the representative farm analysis (summarized in FAPRI Policy Working Paper #01-00). At the request of several members of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the U.S. Senate, we have continued to analyze the impacts of the Farmers’ Risk Management Act of 1999 (S. 1666) and the Risk Management for the 21st Century Act (S. 1580). Earlier analysis reported in FAPRI Policy Working Paper #04-99 concentrated on the aggregate net farm income and government outlay impacts. The representative farm analysis is conducted for several types of farms, including both irrigated and non-irrigated cotton farms in Tom Green County, Texas; dryland wheat farms in Morton County, North Dakota and Sumner County, Kansas; and a corn farm in Webster County, Iowa. We consider additional factors that may shed light on the differential impacts of the two plans. 1. Farm-level income impacts under alternative weather scenarios. 2. Additional indirect impacts, such as a change in ability to obtain financing. 3. Implications of within-year price shocks. Our results indicate that farmers who buy crop insurance will increase their coverage levels under S. 1580. Farmers with high yield risk find that the 65 percent coverage level maximizes expected returns, but some who feel that they obtain other benefits from higher coverage will find that the S. 1580 subsidy schedule significantly lowers the cost of obtaining the additional coverage. Farmers with lower yield risk find that the increased indemnities from additional coverage will more than offset the increase in producer premium. In addition, because S. 1580 extends its increased premium subsidy percentages to revenue insurance products, farmers will have an increased incentive to buy revenue insurance. Differences in the ancillary benefits from crop insurance under the baseline and S. 1580 would be driven by the increase in insurance participation and buy-up. Given the same levels of insurance participation and buy-up, the ancillary benefits under the two scenarios would be the same.

Managing Soybean for High Yield, 2007

Producers continually strive for high yielding soybeans. The state-wide average yield for Iowa is now more than 50 bu./acre. The “yield plateau” reported by many producers does not exist, and is a perception largely brought on by misuse of an oversimplified management system. High yielding soybeans are achieved through improved and targeted management decisions. Improved agronomic decisions for soybeans are critical since soybean is very sensitive to stresses that influence soybean growth, development and yield.

In-Street Yield to Pedestrian Sign Application in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2003

Vehicle-pedestrian crashes are a major concern for highway safety analysts. Research reported by Hunter in 1996 indicated that one-third of the 5,000 vehicle-pedestrian crashes investigated occurred at intersections, and 40 percent of those were at non-controlled intersections (Hunter et al. 1996). Numerous strategies have been implemented in an effort to reduce these accidents, including overhead signs, flashing warning beacons, wider and brighter markings on the street, and advanced crossing signs. More recently, pedestrian-activated, in-street flashing lights at the crosswalk and pedestrian crossing signs in the traffic lane have been investigated. Not all of these strategies are recognized as accepted practices and included in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), but the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is supportive of experimental applications that may lead to effective technology that helps reduce crashes.