The Conservation Reserve Program in the Presence of a Working Land Alternative: Implications for Environmental Quality, Program Participation, and Income Transfer, August 2005

The United States has invested large sums of resources in multiple conservation programs for agriculture over the past century. In this paper we focus on the impacts of program interactions. Specifically, using an integrated economic and bio-physical modeling framework, we consider the impacts of the presence of working land programs on a land retirement for an important agricultural region—the Upper Mississippi River Basin (UMRB). Compared to a land retirement only program, we find that the presence of a working land program for conservation tillage results in significantly lower predicted signups for land retirement at a given rental rate. We also find that the presence of both a large working land and land retirement program can result in more environmental benefits and income transfers than a land retirement only program can achieve.

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.

Production of renewable polymers from crop plants

Plants produce a range of biopolymers for purposes such as maintenance of structural integrity, carbon storage, and defense against pathogens and desiccation. Several of these natural polymers are used by humans as food and materials, and increasingly as an energy carrier. In this review, we focus on plant biopolymers that are used as materials in bulk applications, such as plastics and elastomers, in the context of depleting resources and climate change, and consider technical and scientific bottlenecks in the production of novel or improved materials in transgenic or alternative crop plants. The biopolymers discussed are natural rubber and several polymers that are not naturally produced in plants, such as polyhydroxyalkanoates, fibrous proteins and poly-amino acids. In addition, monomers or precursors for the chemical synthesis of biopolymers, such as 4-hydroxybenzoate, itaconic acid, fructose and sorbitol, are discussed briefly

Student Health Facility Revenue Bond Funds, Iowa State University of Science and Technology, Independent Auditor's Report, Financial Statements and Supplemental Information, June 30, 2005

State University Audit Report

A-1A Supplemental Security Income Program, September 2005

Supplemental Security Income Program

F-1 Food Assistance Program State Summary, September 2005

The Food Assistance Monthly Participation Report is a monthly summary of Food Assistance program participation, Statewide and for each Iowa county. Breakouts are reported for participants also in the FIP program, those only receiving Food Assistance, and those that are receiving economic assistance under other programs (primarily Medicaid). This report may also be known as the F-1 Report.

A-1 Monthly Public Assistance Statistical Report Family Investment Program, September 2005

Monthly Public Assistance Statistical Report Family Investment Program

2006-2010 Iowa Transportation Improvement Program

This document provides the planned investments in Iowa's transportation system for the five-year period of 2006-2010. It encompasses aviation, railroads, rivers, trails, state parks and institutional roads, roadways, and public transit.

Memorial Union Revenue Bond Funds, Iowa State University of Science and Technology, Independent Auditor's Reports, Financial Statements, June 30, 2005

State University Audit Report

Telecommunication Facilities Revenue Bond Funds, Iowa State University of Science and Technology, Independent Auditor's Report, Financial Statements and Supplemental Information, June 30, 2005

State University Audit Report

Utility System Revenue Bond Funds, Iowa State University of Science and Technology, Independent Auditor's Report, Financial Statements and Supplemental Information, June 30, 2005

State University Audit Report

Regulated Materials Facility Revenue Bond Funds, Iowa State University of Science and Technology, Independent Auditor's Reports, Financial Statements, June 30, 2005

State University Audit Report

Parking System Revenue Bond Funds, Iowa State University of Science and Technology, Independent Auditor's Report, Financial Statements and Supplemental Information, June 30, 2005

State University Audit Report

Recreational Facility Revenue Bond Funds, Iowa State University of Science and Technology, Independent Auditor's Report, Financial Statements and Supplemental Information, June 30, 2005

State University Audit Report

Indoor Multipurpose Use and Training Facility Revenue Bond Funds, Iowa State University of Science and Technology, Independent Auditor's Report, Financial Statements and Supplemental Information, June 30, 2005

State University Audit Report