• No results found

Farm Level Projections of the Impacts of Payment Limitations: Revised

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Farm Level Projections of the Impacts of Payment Limitations: Revised"

Copied!
32
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

AFPC Briefing Paper 03-2

June 2003

Farm Level Projections of the Impacts

of Payment Limitations: Revised

Department of Agricultural Economics

Department of Agricultural Economics

Texas Agricultural Experiment Station

Texas Agricultural Experiment Station

Texas Cooperative Extension

Texas Cooperative Extension

Texas A&M University

Texas A&M University

College Station, Texas 77843

College Station, Texas 77843--21242124 Telephone: (979) 845 Telephone: (979) 845--59135913 Fax: (979) 845 Fax: (979) 845--31403140 http://www.afpc.tamu.edu http://www.afpc.tamu.edu

Agricultural & Food Policy Center

(2)

AFPC Briefing Series

The briefing series is designed to facilitate presentation by AFPC related to requests for specific policy impact analyses. The materials included in this package are intended only as visual support for an oral presentation. The user is cautioned against drawing extraneous conclusions from the material. In most AFPC welcomes comments and discussions of these results and their

implications. Address such comments to: Agricultural and Food Policy Center Department of Agricultural Economics 2124 TAMUS

Texas A&M University

College Station, TX 77843-2124 or call 979-845-5913.

(3)

Farm Level Projections of the Impacts

of Payment Limitations: Revised

AFPC Briefing Paper 03-2

James W. Richardson

Joe L. Outlaw

J. Marc Ralston

Brian K. Herbst

David P. Anderson

June 2003

(4)

Farm Level Projections of the

Farm Level Projections of the

Impacts of Payment Limitations

Impacts of Payment Limitations

Payment Limit Commission Public Workshop

Washington, D.C.

June 17, 2003

Dr. James W. Richardson

Agricultural and Food Policy Center

Texas A&M University

(5)

Assumptions for Analysis

Assumptions for Analysis

¾

Continuation of 2002 Farm Bill through 2007

¾

FAPRI January 2003 Baseline provides:

9

Average annual prices

9

Inflation rates for purchased inputs and land

9

Interest rates

¾

Historical yield and price risks used to incorporate risk.

¾

Farms assumed to borrow all operating capital.

(6)

Representative Crop Farms

Representative Crop Farms

Rice Wheat Rice Cotton Wheat Feed Grain Cotton Cotton Feed Grain Cotton Cotton Rice Rice Wheat Wheat Wheat Feed Grain Feed Grain Feed Grain Feed Grain

Rice Feed Grain

Cotton Feed Grain Rice Cotton Rice Cotton Cotton Cotton Rice Cotton Rice Cotton Cotton Cotton Cotton

(7)

Probability of Representative Feed Grain Farms Exceeding CCP, DP,

and LDP Limits Assuming One or Three Entity Rule for 2003-2007.

SCG3500 SCG1500 TNG2400 TNG900 TXBG2700 TXBG2000 TXNP7000 TXNP1750 MONG2050 MOCG3630 MOCG1700 NEG1300 NEG900 IAG4200 IAG2750 IAG1350 Farm Name 13.6 100 31.3 45.2 100 92.7 2.6 0.4 14.3 1.5 3.8 29.0 100 50.8 47.0 100 67.8 0.2 7.5 0.1 7.8 3.2 24.1 100 26.1 5.0 6.0 1.1 19.8 100 24.0 43.2 100 62.2 1.4 19.9 100 21.3 4.2 --(%) --(%) --LDP DP CCP LDP DP CCP

Three Entity Rule One Entity Rule

1) Values are the average probability of exceeding the specified limit over 2003-2007. 2) One Entity Rule assumes limits of: $65,000 CCP, $40,000 DP, and $75,000 LDP. 3) Three Entity Rule assumes limits of: $130,000 CCP, $80,000 DP, and $150,000 LDP.

(8)

Probability of Representative Wheat Farms Exceeding CCP, DP, and

LDP Limits Assuming One or Three Entity Rule for 2003-2007.

1.5 COW5440 COW3000 0.2 KSNW2800 0.1 7.2 100 KSNW4300 0.1 4.8 100 KSCW4000 KSCW1385 4.9 28.0 100 15.8 NDW6250 0.5 NDW2180 1.8 100 12.3 100 32.7 WAW4675 0.9 WAW1725 --(%) --(%) --LDP DP CCP LDP DP CCP Farm Name

Three Entity Rule One Entity Rule

1) Values are the average probability of exceeding the specified limit over 2003-2007. 2) One Entity Rule assumes limits of: $65,000 CCP, $40,000 DP, and $75,000 LDP. 3) Three Entity Rule assumes limits of: $130,000 CCP, $80,000 DP, and $150,000 LDP.

(9)

Probability of Representative Cotton Farms Exceeding CCP, DP, and

LDP Limits Assuming One or Three Entity Rule for 2003-2007.

21.4 58.5 95.2 GAC1700 3.2 30.6 86.5 NCC1500 22.6 100 90.8 51.6 100 98.7 ALC3000 34.5 100 91.1 55.0 100 98.9 TNC4050 0.5 21.5 100 84.1 TNC1900 84.5 100 99.6 96.9 100 100 ARC5000 8.5 44.6 100 92.9 LAC2640 25.5 59.5 53.8 100 98.0 TXMC3500 32.1 100 93.8 58.8 100 99.0 TXEC5000 7.2 37.2 35.1 100 94.9 TXPC2500 25.0 100 85.5 48.3 100 98.4 TXVC4500 34.9 100 92.1 60.5 100 99.1 TXCB5500 1.8 18.1 TXCB1850 0.1 TXBC1400 2.4 TXRP2500 6.3 34.8 100 87.7 TXSP3745 1.3 21.9 TXSP2239 66.5 100 99.6 74.5 100 99.7 CAC9000 19.3 77.7 50.0 100 97.4 CAC2400 --(%) --(%) --LDP DP CCP LDP DP CCP Farm Name

Three Entity Rule One Entity Rule

1) Values are the average probability of exceeding the specified limit over 2003-2007. 2) One Entity Rule assumes limits of: $65,000 CCP, $40,000 DP, and $75,000 LDP. 3) Three Entity Rule assumes limits of: $130,000 CCP, $80,000 DP, and $150,000 LDP.

(10)

Probability of Representative Rice Farms Exceeding CCP, DP, and

LDP Limits Assuming One or Three Entity Rule for 2003-2007.

80.7 100 95.6 97.3 100 100 MSR4735 67.8 100 52.3 95.1 100 99.5 MOER4000 84.8 100 70.1 95.9 100 100 MOWR4000 78.1 100 54.0 95.5 100 99.8 ARHR3000 8.4 61.2 100 ARWR1200 69.8 100 27.0 92.7 100 99.8 ARSR3640 51.9 100 89.9 100 99.6 LANR2500 0.3 36.2 100 LASR1200 76.7 100 94.4 100 99.8 TXER3200 16.3 65.1 100 TXBR1650 64.5 100 92.5 100 99.7 TXR3774 2.1 42.9 100 TXR1553 58.8 100 69.7 100 99.8 CACR1420 50.6 100 66.5 100 99.3 CABR1365 68.6 100 99.7 77.9 100 100 CAR2365 9.0 39.5 100 CAR424 --(%) --(%) --LDP DP CCP LDP DP CCP Farm Name

Three Entity Rule One Entity Rule

1) Values are the average probability of exceeding the specified limit over 2003-2007. 2) One Entity Rule assumes limits of: $65,000 CCP, $40,000 DP, and $75,000 LDP. 3) Three Entity Rule assumes limits of: $130,000 CCP, $80,000 DP, and $150,000 LDP.

(11)

Number of Payment Limits Necessary to Minimize Chance of

Exceeding CCP, DP, or LDP Limit for Feed Grain Farms, 2003-2007.

1

3 3 3 SCG3500 1 1 1 SCG1500 2 1 1 TNG2400 1 1 1 TNG900 1 1 1 TXBG2700 1 1 1 TXBG2000 4 3 4 TXNP7000 1 1 1 TXNP1750 1 1 1 MONG2050 2 2 2 MOCG3630 1 1 1 MOCG1700 1 1 1 NEG1300 1 1 1 NEG900 3 3 3 IAG4200 2 2 2 IAG2750 1 1 1 IAG1350

LDP

DP

CCP

Farm Name

1Probability of exceeding payment limit less than 10% if the farm is organized to obtain the specified number of

(12)

Number of Payment Limits Necessary to Minimize Chance of

Exceeding CCP, DP, or LDP Limit for Wheat Farms, 2003-2007.

1

1 1 1 COW5440 1 1 1 COW3000 1 1 1 KSNW2800 1 2 1 KSNW4300 1 2 1 KSCW4000 1 1 1 KSCW1385 2 2 2 NDW6250 1 1 1 NDW2180 2 3 2 WAW4675 1 1 1 WAW1725

LDP

DP

CCP

Farm Name

1Probability of exceeding payment limit less than 10% if the farm is organized to obtain the specified number of

(13)

Number of Payment Limits Necessary to Minimize Chance of

Exceeding CCP, DP, or LDP Limit for Cotton Farms, 2003-2007.

1

3 1 2 GAC1700 2 1 2 NCC1500 3 3 3 ALC3000 4 3 3 TNC4050 2 2 2 TNC1900 8 5 5 ARC5000 2 2 2 LAC2640 4 2 3 TXMC3500 4 3 4 TXEC5000 2 2 3 TXPC2500 4 3 3 TXVC4500 4 3 4 TXCB5500 2 1 1 TXCB1850 1 1 1 TXBC1400 1 1 1 TXRP2500 2 2 2 TXSP3745 2 1 1 TXSP2239 10 9 11 CAC9000 3 2 3 CAC2400

LDP

DP

CCP

Farm Name

1Probability of exceeding payment limit less than 10% if the farm is organized to obtain the specified number of

(14)

Number of Payment Limits Necessary to Minimize Chance of

Exceeding CCP, DP, or LDP Limit for Rice Farms, 2003-2007.

1

6 4 3 MSR4735 5 4 3 MOER4000 7 4 3 MOWR4000 6 4 3 ARHR3000 2 2 1 ARWR1200 5 4 3 ARSR3640 4 3 2 LANR2500 2 2 1 LASR1200 6 4 2 TXER3200 3 2 1 TXBR1650 5 4 2 TXR3774 2 2 1 TXR1553 7 5 2 CACR1420 6 3 2 CABR1365 12 7 4 CAR2365 2 2 1 CAR424

LDP

DP

CCP

Farm Name

1Probability of exceeding payment limit less than 10% if the farm is organized to obtain the specified number of

(15)

Summary and Conclusions

Summary and Conclusions

¾

Across all farms, reducing number of eligible limits per operation

impacts:

9

Feed grain and wheat farms

DP limits most restrictive

LDP limit affects more farms

9

Cotton and rice farms

All three types limiting, LDP slightly lower probability than DP and CCP, but

affects almost all farms

¾

Current entity structures on the majority of AFPC representative

farms do not restrict payments for CCP and DP

¾

Counting certificate redemption toward LDP limit would adversely

impact 11 of 16 rice farms, 7 cotton farms, and 1 feed grain farm

¾

Additional analysis indicates (see handout):

9

Cotton and rice representative farms could benefit marginally

from shifting cash rental arrangements to share rents

¾

When it matters, it matters a lot in terms of increased chances of

(16)

Appendix Table 1. Characteristics of Panel Farms Producing Feed Grains

245 730 1,150 415 804 325 TXBG2700 0 2,100 1,400 1,327 3,526 1,400 SCG3500 0 1,000 846 450 1,115 500 SCG1500 900 900 1,080 712 1,873 600 TNG2400 550 200 450 246 555 150 TNG900 1,800 0 1,350 413 642 200 TXBG2000 5,850 0 4,280 2,081 2,527 1,150 TXNP7000 1,590 0 880 551 497 160 TXNP1750 500 500 900 587 2,714 1,050 MONG2050 2,030 0 1,650 809 4,104 1,600 MOCG3630 560 120 825 445 2,689 1,020 MOCG1700 416 624 871 466 1,391 260 NEG1300 360 360 600 320 1,099 180 NEG900 420 2,940 2,100 1,411 3,815 840 IAG4200 1,345 1,025 1,375 726 1,866 380 IAG2750 290 820 675 422 1,025 240 IAG1350

(acres)

(acres)

(acres)

($1,000)

($1,000)

(acres)

Share

Rent

Cash Rent

Feed Grain

Gross

Receipts

Assets

Owned

Land

Farm

Name

(17)

Appendix Table 2. Characteristics of Panel Farms Producing Wheat

3,625 0 1,900 534 1,752 1,815 COW5440 1,863 0 1,125 297 1,097 1,137 COW3000 1,705 1,460 2,000 646 1,701 1,135 KSNW4300 1,080 550 935 313 1,121 1,170 KSNW2800 3,200 300 2,845 591 1,539 500 KSCW4000 900 0 928 166 672 485 KSCW1385 0 4,450 2,700 1,236 2,655 1,800 NDW6250 634 1,270 700 351 578 276 NDW2180 1,850 700 3,042 1,058 3,939 2,125 WAW4675 907 300 1,035 455 1,334 518 WAW1725

(acres)

(acres)

(acres)

($1,000)

($1,000)

(acres)

Share

Rent

Cash Rent

Wheat

Gross

Receipts

Assets

Owned

Land

Farm

Name

(18)

Appendix Table 3. Characteristics of Panel Farms Producing Cotton

225 1,050 1,000 707 1,607 225 NCC1500 0 1,190 1,020 1,293 1,980 510 GAC1700 2,430 570 2,075 1,379 1,670 0 ALC3000 2,440 610 2,670 1,676 3,669 1,000 TNC4050 838 837 915 711 1,532 225 TNC1900 4,000 0 1,800 2,506 3,746 1,000 ARC5000 2,640 0 1,498 930 1,007 0 LAC2640 1,575 1,575 1,750 1,068 839 350 TXMC3500 4,360 0 4,300 1,101 1,065 640 TXEC5000 625 625 1,184 1,140 1,651 1250 TXPC2500 3,375 225 2,387 942 1,837 900 TXVC4500 5,250 25 2,750 1,370 1,175 225 TXCB5500 1,490 0 925 554 900 360 TXCB1850 1,250 0 150 289 552 150 TXBC1400 2,100 0 1,240 269 414 400 TXRP2500 2,095 0 2,625 843 1,402 1,650 TXSP3745 1,569 0 1,616 653 751 670 TXSP2239 0 2,250 4,500 10,887 15,437 6,750 CAC9000 250 750 1,000 2,215 4,682 1,000 CAC2400

(acres)

(acres)

(acres)

($1,000)

($1,000)

(acres)

Share

Rent

Cash Rent

Cotton

Gross

Receipts

Assets

Owned

Land

Farm

Name

(19)

Appendix Table 4. Characteristics of Panel Farms Producing Rice

0 4,735 1,335 1,670 1,612 0 MSR4735 1,250 750 1,500 1,212 3,155 1,000 ARHR3000 740 100 600 495 1,673 360 ARWR1200 2,184 0 1,742 1,236 4,315 1,456 ARSR3640 1,820 780 1,334 1,412 4,605 1,400 MOER4000 1,000 1,000 2,000 1,505 5,586 2,000 MOWR4000 500 750 1,000 977 2,186 1,250 LANR2500 1,150 0 660 361 326 50 LASR1200 2,880 0 1,280 1,063 964 320 TXER3200 770 770 550 459 622 110 TXBR1650 2,199 1,575 1,589 917 882 0 TXR3774 572 852 450 355 459 129 TXR1553 504 504 1,278 894 2,054 412 CACR1420 542 308 1,000 694 2,565 515 CABR1365 892 704 2,240 1,644 3,272 769 CAR2365 212 0 400 280 856 212 CAR424

(acres)

(acres)

(acres)

($1,000)

($1,000)

(acres)

Share

Rent

Cash Rent

Rice

Gross

Receipts

Assets

Owned

Land

Farm

Name

(20)

Appendix Table 5. Probability of Representative Feed Grain Farms Exceeding a Three

Entity CCP, DP, and LDP Payment Limit With and Without Cash Rent, 2003-2007.

31.3

50.8 24.0

--CCP

Cash & Share Rent

100 100 100 (%) DP 13.6 0.4 29.0 0.2 0.1 3.2 19.8 1.4 --LDP 7.7 29.0 0.2 3.2 5.2 0.2 --LDP 100 (%) DP 50.8 --CCP

Share Rent Only

SCG3500 SCG1500 TNG2400 TNG900 TXBG2700 TXBG2000 TXNP7000 TXNP1750 MONG2050 MOCG3630 MOCG1700 NEG1300 NEG900 IAG4200 IAG2750 IAG1350 Farm Name

(21)

Appendix Table 6. Probability of Representative Wheat Farms Exceeding a Three

Entity CCP, DP, and LDP Payment Limit With and Without Cash Rent, 2003-2007.

--CCP

Cash & Share Rent

100 (%) DP 0.1 0.1 4.9 1.8 --LDP COW5440 COW3000 KSNW2800 KSNW4300 KSCW4000 KSCW1385 1.1 NDW6250 NDW2180 1.2 WAW4675 WAW1725 --(%) --LDP DP CCP Farm Name

Share Rent Only

(22)

Appendix Table 7. Probability of Representative Cotton Farms Exceeding a Three

Entity CCP, DP, and LDP Payment Limit With and Without Cash Rent, 2003-2007.

90.8 91.1 99.6 59.5 93.8 37.2 85.5 92.1 99.6 77.7 --CCP

Cash & Share Rent

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 (%) DP 21.4 3.2 22.6 34.5 0.5 84.5 8.5 25.5 32.1 7.2 25.0 34.9 1.8 6.3 1.3 66.5 19.3 --LDP 12.3 GAC1700 0.4 NCC1500 19.8 100 88.8 ALC3000 32.4 100 89.0 TNC4050 TNC1900 84.5 100 99.6 ARC5000 8.5 LAC2640 20.3 27.4 TXMC3500 32.1 100 93.8 TXEC5000 4.8 18.5 TXPC2500 24.3 100 84.6 TXVC4500 34.8 100 92 TXCB5500 1.8 TXCB1850 TXBC1400 TXRP2500 6.3 TXSP3745 1.3 TXSP2239 65.3 100 99.6 CAC9000 14.8 CAC2400 --(%) --LDP DP CCP Farm Name

Share Rent Only

(23)

Appendix Table 8. Probability of Representative Rice Farms Exceeding a Three

Entity CCP, DP, and LDP Payment Limit With and Without Cash Rent, 2003-2007.

53.5 100 80.7 100 95.6 MSR4735 61.6 100 41.3 67.8 100 52.3 MOER4000 81.5 100 59.5 84.8 100 70.1 MOWR4000 74.0 100 78.1 100 54.0 ARHR3000 6.8 8.4 ARWR1200 69.8 100 27.0 69.8 100 27.0 ARSR3640 39.4 51.9 100 LANR2500 0.3 0.3 LASR1200 76.7 100 76.7 100 TXER3200 11.9 16.3 TXBR1650 38.6 100 64.5 100 TXR3774 0.6 2.1 TXR1553 55.8 100 58.8 100 CACR1420 47.7 100 50.6 100 CABR1365 67.4 100 99.5 68.6 100 99.7 CAR2365 9.0 9.0 CAR424 --(%) --(%) --LDP DP CCP LDP DP CCP Farm Name

Share Rent Only Cash & Share Rent

(24)

Appendix Table 9. Economic Impact of the Three Entity Payment Limitation on

Representative Feed Grain Farms vs. Restructuring with no Effective Limit, 2003-2007.

1-76 85-97 1-68 82-95 SCG3500 1-80 99-99 1-80 99-99 SCG1500 1-4 31-39 1-4 31-39 TNG2400 1-1 24-10 1-1 24-10 TNG900 1-87 99-98 1-87 99-98 TXBG2700 1-23 55-52 1-23 55-52 TXBG2000 1-9 38-51 1-2 26-34 TXNP7000 1-20 34-49 1-20 34-49 TXNP1750 1-7 34-39 1-7 34-39 MONG2050 1-1 22-9 1-1 22-9 MOCG3630 1-1 15-8 1-1 15-8 MOCG1700 1-6 44-28 1-6 44-28 NEG1300 1-12 55-76 1-12 55-76 NEG900 1-2 19-41 1-1 17-38 IAG4200 1-1 24-20 1-1 24-20 IAG2750 1-7 29-29 1-7 29-29 IAG1350 P(<RNW) P(Deficit) P(<RNW) P(Deficit) Farm Name

Effective Limit

No Payment Limit

(25)

Appendix Table 10. Economic Impact of the Three Entity Payment Limitation on

Representative Wheat Farms vs. Restructuring with no Effective Limit, 2003-2007.

1-1 7-13 1-1 7-13 COW5440 1-1 2-1 1-1 2-1 COW3000 1-6 33-34 1-6 33-34 KSNW4300 1-79 97-99 1-79 97-99 KSNW2800 1-1 2-1 1-1 2-1 KSCW4000 1-31 58-69 1-31 58-69 KSCW1385 1-1 29-28 1-1 29-28 NDW6250 1-34 50-34 1-34 50-34 NDW2180 1-1 19-26 1-1 19-25 WAW4675 1-1 7-24 1-1 7-24 WAW1725 P(<RNW) P(Deficit) P(<RNW) P(Deficit) Farm Name

Effective Limit

No Payment Limit

(26)

Appendix Table 11. Economic Impact of the Three Entity Payment Limitation on

Representative Cotton Farms vs. Restructuring with no Effective Limit, 2003-2007.

1-70 51-95 1-69 51-95 NCC1500 1-3 47-55 1-2 46-53 GAC1700 1-4 31-39 1-1 23-34 ALC3000 1-7 24-27 1-4 23-25 TNC4050 1-1 1-2 1-1 1-2 TNC1900 1-81 77-98 1-1 8-34 ARC5000 1-38 69-65 1-37 68-64 LAC2640 1-55 60-77 1-10 32-42 TXMC3500 1-83 99-98 1-4 60-36 TXEC5000 1-69 84-80 1-2 49-33 TXPC2500 1-81 98-99 1-15 58-60 TXVC4500 1-94 83-98 1-14 38-46 TXCB5500 1-10 39-43 1-10 39-43 TXCB1850 1-2 15-18 1-2 15-18 TXBC1400 1-37 60-72 1-37 60-72 TXRP2500 1-21 68-60 1-20 68-59 TXSP3745 1-7 18-44 1-7 18-44 TXSP2239 1-43 46-61 1-11 26-34 CAC9000 1-1 17-22 1-1 17-21 CAC2400 P(<RNW) P(Deficit) P(<RNW) P(Deficit) Farm Name Effective Limit No Payment Limit

(27)

Appendix Table 12. Economic Impact of the Three Entity Payment Limitation on

Representative Rice Farms vs. Restructuring with no Effective Limit, 2003-2007.

1-99 99-99 1-99 99-99 MSR4735 1-99 99-99 1-78 83-99 ARHR3000 1-99 99-99 1-99 99-99 ARWR1200 1-36 70-67 1-2 25-22 ARSR3640 1-81 77-92 1-3 41-46 MOER4000 1-99 99-99 1-53 49-76 MOWR4000 1-99 99-99 1-99 99-99 LANR2500 1-87 69-99 1-87 69-99 LASR1200 1-99 99-99 1-48 71-91 TXER3200 1-99 97-99 1-99 94-99 TXBR1650 1-98 99-99 1-36 51-84 TXR3774 1-99 99-99 1-99 99-99 TXR1553 1-99 99-99 1-99 99-99 CACR1420 1-99 99-99 1-85 94-97 CABR1365 1-99 99-99 1-83 70-93 CAR2365 1-96 99-99 1-94 99-99 CAR424 P(<RNW) P(Deficit) P(<RNW) P(Deficit) Farm Name

Effective Limit

No Payment Limit

(28)

Appendix Table 13. Impact of an Effective Three Entity Payment Limitation on Average

Annual Net Cash Farm Income for Representative Feed Grain Farms, 2003-2007.

64 21 217 85 8 75 477 145 189 377 212 141 101 428 274 115 ($1,000) Average No Payment

Limit Effective Limit ($1,000) 47 SCG3500 21 SCG1500 217 TNG2400 85 TNG900 8 TXBG2700 75 TXBG2000 385 TXNP7000 145 TXNP1750 189 MONG2050 376 MOCG3630 212 MOCG1700 141 NEG1300 101 NEG900 400 IAG4200 273 IAG2750 115 IAG1350 Average Farm Name

(29)

Appendix Table 14. Impact of an Effective Three Entity Payment Limitation on Average

Annual Net Cash Farm Income for Representative Wheat Farms, 2003-2007.

232 143 179 46 290 58 393 84 359 169 ($1,000) Average

Effective Limit

232 143 179 46 290 58 395 84 363 169 ($1,000) Average

No Payment Limit

COW5440 COW3000 KSNW4300 KSNW2800 KSCW4000 KSCW1385 NDW6250 NDW2180 WAW4675 WAW1725 Farm Name

(30)

Appendix Table 15. Impact of an Effective Three Entity Payment Limitation on Average

Annual Net Cash Farm Income for Representative Cotton Farms, 2003-2007.

82 174 369 520 333 97 96 98 17 74 20 -47 152 98 69 146 119 921 447 ($1,000) Average Effective Limit 83 177 437 614 333 636 99 264 283 183 243 227 153 98 69 148 119 2,002 463 ($1,000) Average No Payment Limit NCC1500 GAC1700 ALC3000 TNC4050 TNC1900 ARC5000 LAC2640 TXMC3500 TXEC5000 TXPC2500 TXVC4500 TXCB5500 TXCB1850 TXBC1400 TXRP2500 TXSP3745 TXSP2239 CAC9000 CAC2400 Farm Name

(31)

Appendix Table 16. Impact of an Effective Three Entity Payment Limitation on Average

Annual Net Cash Farm Income for Representative Rice Farms, 2003-2007.

-247 -110 51 175 96 -117 -48 39 -114 -14 -21 18 -491 -186 -872 -25 ($1,000) Average

Effective Limit

40 103 53 356 266 197 14 39 85 -9 119 18 -231 -36 -95 -22 ($1,000) Average

No Payment Limit

MSR4735 ARHR3000 ARWR1200 ARSR3640 MOER4000 MOWR4000 LANR2500 LASR1200 TXER3200 TXBR1650 TXR3774 TXR1553 CACR1420 CABR1365 CAR2365 CAR424 Farm Name

(32)

Definition of Output Variables

Definition of Output Variables

¾

Probability of Cash Flow Deficits

– chance that net cash farm income

is less than family living, taxes, principal payments, and machinery

replacement costs.

¾

Probability of Losing Real Net Worth

– chance that net worth, adjusted

for inflation, is less than net worth at the end of 2001.

References

Related documents

and how PI scores are used in states’ accountability systems. The central research questions are: 1) how many different elements or features are currently used for PI

However, a general ranking in terms of rate of heat extraction is as follows: Die casting (cold chamber), squeeze casting, centrifugal casting, slush casting, die casting

By doing so, they began to legitimize energy transitions in the early years of the energy transition in Germany, laid the economic and technological foundation which allowed

overemphasis on statist heritage in the research agenda on socialism and tourism. What has been forgotten is that socialism was, and remains, a much wider political movement. It

A linear second order partial differential equation in two variables, once classified as a hyperboric rrion, can always be reduced to the canonical

Kecelakaan konstitusi dimulai pada saat perubahan UUD 1945, karena saat itu belum disepakati mengenai pemilihan prseiden secara langsung, akhirnya dalam perubahan Kedua UUD

providing a network of institutions offering the proper range of degrees and opportunities in research and service to students and faculty.. The purpose of campus consolidation is

under effect of different doses of swine wastewater in the forest restoration area of the UFPR / Palotina Sector.. Averages followed by equal letters do not differ significantly