Shared more. Cited more. Safe forever.
    • advanced search
    • submit works
    • about
    • help
    • contact us
    • login
    View Item 
    •   MOspace Home
    • University of Missouri-Columbia
    • College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources (MU)
    • Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (MU)
    • Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute publications (MU)
    • View Item
    •   MOspace Home
    • University of Missouri-Columbia
    • College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources (MU)
    • Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (MU)
    • Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute publications (MU)
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.
    advanced searchsubmit worksabouthelpcontact us

    Browse

    All of MOspaceCommunities & CollectionsDate IssuedAuthor/ContributorTitleIdentifierThesis DepartmentThesis AdvisorThesis SemesterThis CollectionDate IssuedAuthor/ContributorTitleIdentifierThesis DepartmentThesis AdvisorThesis Semester

    Statistics

    Most Popular ItemsStatistics by CountryMost Popular AuthorsStatistics by Referrer

    Exploring Options for a New Farm Bill

    Adams, Gary Mitchell, 1965-
    Richardson, James W.
    View/Open
    [PDF] OptionsFarmBill.pdf (80.83Kb)
    Date
    2001-01
    Format
    Technical Report
    Metadata
    [+] Show full item record
    Abstract
    Before Congress debates another assistance package or the next farm bill, we should be evaluating alternative policy options. During the past year, FAPRI and AFPC were asked by Representative Charles Stenholm, ranking minority member of the House Agriculture Committee, to analyze the merits of alternative farm programs that would transfer $1, $2, or $3 billion per year (over and above the 1996 farm bill) to program crop producers (FAPRI-UMC Report 07-00). The farm program tools of interest were: a supplemental income protection program, higher marketing loan rates, and additional AMTA payments. The analysis of these options showed that even with $3 billion per year of payments it would not be sufficient to reduce the cash flow problem facing farmers (Smith and Richardson).
    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/10355/3174
    Collections
    • Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute publications (MU)

    Send Feedback
    hosted by University of Missouri Library Systems
     

     


    Send Feedback
    hosted by University of Missouri Library Systems