Comparing survey-based and programme-based yield data: implications for the U.S. Agricultural Risk Coverage-County programme

We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

One of the changes introduced by the U.S. 2018 Farm Bill in the Agricultural Risk Coverage-County (ARC-CO) programme is the requirement to use Risk Management Agency (RMA) programme-based data rather than National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) survey-based data. This study compares the NASS and RMA county yield data for the period 1991–2015 and finds no systematic differences between the two data sets. Additionally, using RMA or NASS yield data results in relatively small and statistically insignificant differences in the ARC-CO payments. The spatial disparities across neighbouring counties in ARC-CO payments are also similar, no matter whether NASS or RMA data are used.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Notes

  1. 1.

    From here on, NASS yield in this paper refers to NASS planted acre yield.

  2. 2.

    We drop the counties that have separate irrigated and non-irrigated yields but do not have information on corresponding acreages.

  3. 3.

    We do not use the time subscript to simplify the notation.

References

  1. AGWEB. 2016. Where did $7 billion in ARC-CO and PLC payments go? http://www.agweb.com/article/where-did-7-billion-in-arc-co-and-plc-payments-go-naa-ben-potter/. Accessed 30 Jan 2018.

  2. American Farm Bureau Federation. 2017. Farm bureau supports farm program fix. American Farm Bureau Federation, October 24. https://www.fb.org/newsroom/farm-bureau-supports-farm-program-fix. Accessed 5 June, 2019.

  3. Bulut, H., and K.J. Collins. 2014. Designing farm supplemental revenue coverage options on top of crop insurance coverage. Agricultural Finance Review 74 (3): 397–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Campiche, J., J. Outlaw, and H. Bryant. 2014. Agricultural act of 2014: Commodity programs. Choices. Quarter 2. http://choicesmagazine.org/choices-magazine/theme-articles/deciphering-key-provisions-of-the-agricultural-act-of-2014/agricultural-act-of-2014-commodity-programs. Accessed 5 June, 2019.

  5. Clayton, C. 2017. Declining ARC protection: Safety net needs changes in next farm bill to remain viable option for farmers. DTN Progressive Farmer, Oct 13, 2017. https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/news/world-policy/article/2017/10/13/safety-net-needs-changes-next-farm-2. Accessed 5 June, 2019.

  6. Dismukes, R., K. H. Coble, J. C. Miller, and E. O’Donoghue. 2013. The effects of area-based revenue protection on producers’ choices of farm-level revenue insurance. Paper presented at the 2013 Agricultural and Applied Economics Association annual meeting, Washington, D.C., August 4–6, 2013.

  7. Farm Service Agency, United States Department of Agriculture. 2016. Agriculture risk coverage and price loss coverage amendment 11. https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/1arcplc11.pdf. Accessed 5 June, 2019.

  8. Gerlt, S., and P. Westhoff. 2013. Analysis of the supplemental coverage option. In: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association symposium on “Crop insurance and the farm bill: A new paradigm in US Agricultural Policy”, Louisville, Kentucky.

  9. Glauber, J.W., and P. Westhoff. 2015. The 2014 farm bill and the WTO. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 97 (5): 1287–1297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Johansson, R., A. Effland, and K. Coble. 2017. Falling response rates to USDA crop surveys: Why it matters. farmdoc daily (7):9. Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, January 19, 2017.

  11. Paulson, N.D., J.D. Woodard, and B. Babcock. 2013. Modelling “shallow loss” crop revenue programs. Agricultural Finance Review 73 (2): 329–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. S.1998—115th Congress: ARC-CO Improvement Act (2017). https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/s1998. Accessed 5 June, 2019.

  13. Taylor, M.R., G.T. Tonsor, N.D. Paulson, B. Ellison, J. Coppess, and G.D. Schnitkey. 2017. Is it good to have options? The 2014 farm bill program decisions. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 39 (4): 533–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Theisse, K. 2017. Understanding the difference in ARC-CO payments. FarmProgress, March 31, 2017. https://www.farmprogress.com/farm-bill/understanding-difference-arc-co-payments. Accessed 5 June, 2019.

  15. U.S. Congress. Senate. 2017. Committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry. Commodities, credit, and crop insurance: Perspectives on risk management tools and trends for the 2018 farm bill: Hearings before the committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry. 115th Cong., 1st sess., July 25, 2017.

  16. Zulauf, C., G. Schnitkey, N. Paulson, and J. Coppess. 2017. Comparing NASS and RMA county yields for corn. farmdoc daily (7):202. Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, November 2, 2017.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiaofei Li.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, X., Shen, Z., Harri, A. et al. Comparing survey-based and programme-based yield data: implications for the U.S. Agricultural Risk Coverage-County programme. Geneva Pap Risk Insur Issues Pract 45, 184–202 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41288-019-00148-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Agricultural risk coverage
  • Farm policy
  • NASS
  • RMA