Table 4.3- Model Results with the Area-Yield Crop Insurance Program
|
Description |
Farm |
Farm |
Farm |
Farm |
Farm |
Farm |
Farm |
Farm |
Farm |
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 | |
|
Crop Activities | |||||||||
|
Barley |
154.8 |
43.8 |
19.8 |
66.6 |
82.3 |
67.8 |
99.7 | ||
|
Oats | |||||||||
|
Sunflower |
99.3 |
2.6 |
67.5 | ||||||
|
Oats/Vicia |
123.3 |
64.6 |
44.1 |
2.7 |
150.7 | ||||
|
Pastures |
754.4 |
442.0 |
113.9 |
270.0 |
120.0 |
758.1 | |||
|
Set-aside________ |
68.2 |
107.0 |
2.2 |
233.4 |
395.0 |
200.0 |
260.0 |
43.4 |
382.8 |
|
Total area_______ |
1200.0 |
660.0 |
180.0 |
570.0 |
600.0 |
200.0 |
260.0 |
1020.0 |
550.0 |
|
Livestock Activities | |||||||||
|
Beef cattle |
400 |
150 |
82 |
450 | |||||
|
Sheep__________ |
182 |
_____87 | |||||||
|
Farm Income | |||||||||
|
State of Nature 1 |
28 273 |
36 371 |
6 228 |
27 367 |
15 405 |
9 926 |
17 319 |
25 520 |
4 562 |
|
State of Nature 2 |
61 867 |
42 216 |
12 661 |
28 132 |
16 480 |
9 926 |
17 319 |
61 423 |
10 353 |
|
State of Nature 3 |
74 408 |
47 448 |
15 568 |
29 889 |
18 714 |
9 926 |
17 319 |
72 888 |
15 007 |
|
State of Nature 4 |
91 548 |
53 294 |
18 339 |
35 019 |
25 072 |
9 926 |
17 319 |
84 600 |
25 701 |
|
State of Nature 5 |
101 837 |
55 240 |
19 631 |
35 277 |
25 427 |
9 926 |
17 319 |
89 370 |
31 963 |
|
Indemnities | |||||||||
|
State of Nature 1 |
14 332 |
4 094 |
1 527 |
5 126 |
6 340 |
0 |
0 |
5 222 |
10 958 |
|
State of Nature 2 |
11 918 |
4 032 |
1 527 |
5 126 |
6 340 |
______0 |
______0 |
5 222 |
9 317 |
Notes: Crop activities in hectares, livestock activities in animal units and monetary values in Euros.
Source: Model Results for the Area-Yield Crop Insurance with Full Decoupling Payments
This model also analyzed other agricultural alternatives associated with the decrease of
the premium rate, assuming that the Portuguese government contribution would increase.
Model results show that crop production increases, while forage production and set-aside
area decrease.
Table 4.4 - Objective Function Values for Alternatives Agricultural Policies
|
Description |
Farm 1 |
Farm 2 |
Farm 3 |
Farm 4 |
Farm 5 |
Farm 6 |
Farm 7 |
Farm 8 |
Farm 9 |
|
Full Decoupling |
5.2916 |
5.6272 |
6.5627 |
4.2536 |
3.3402 |
4.8515 |
5.5393 |
5.7417 |
4.9544 |
|
Partial Decoupling |
5.2916 |
5.6272 |
6.5584 |
3.7267 |
2.9452 |
4.8515 |
5.5393 |
5.7417 |
4.9544 |
|
Insurance Program |
5.3333 |
5.6289 |
6.5736 |
4.2669 |
3.3810 |
4.8515 |
5.5393 |
5.7577 |
5.1393 |
Source: Model Results.
This paper ends with the analysis of the values of the objective function obtained for each
one of the studied agricultural policies. The analysis of the table 4.4 displays that the
21
More intriguing information
1. The name is absent2. Synchronisation and Differentiation: Two Stages of Coordinative Structure
3. The name is absent
4. Auctions in an outcome-based payment scheme to reward ecological services in agriculture – Conception, implementation and results
5. Using Surveys Effectively: What are Impact Surveys?
6. Asymmetric transfer of the dynamic motion aftereffect between first- and second-order cues and among different second-order cues
7. Valuing Access to our Public Lands: A Unique Public Good Pricing Experiment
8. From Aurora Borealis to Carpathians. Searching the Road to Regional and Rural Development
9. Optimal Tax Policy when Firms are Internationally Mobile
10. Disturbing the fiscal theory of the price level: Can it fit the eu-15?