2014 Farm Bill: Historical Likelihood of County ARC and SCO Payments for Soybeans in Illinois
The farmdoc daily posts on May 8th and May 15th analyzed the County Ag Risk Coverage (ARC) and Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) programs created in the 2014 Farm Bill. County ARC is one of the optional commodity programs available to producers of eligible program crops, while SCO is an optional insurance program which supplements the producer’s underlying individual plan of insurance. Both programs have “shallow loss” coverage designs: payments are triggered when actual revenues or yields fall below a specific guarantee, and are capped at a percentage of the value of the guarantee (details on the new commodity program options can be found in farmdoc daily February 20, 2014; details on SCO can be found in farmdoc daily February 27, 2014 and April 24, 2014; all posts in our continuing series on the 2014 Farm Bill can be accessed here). Today’s post extends the historical analysis of County ARC and SCO to soybeans in Illinois. Since the decision to use the County ARC (or Individual ARC) program limits the producer’s eligibility to use SCO, analysis comparing these programs should be useful in making program decisions.
Further Discussion of the Supplemental Coverage Option
A previous article (farmdoc daily February 27, 2014) provided an initial look at the Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) in the new farm bill. This article continues that discussion with further analysis of the statutory language authorizing the program and additional examples illustrating its expected operation. The examples in our earlier article on SCO assumed the example farm’s crop insurance APH yield was the same as the expected county yield. The examples below illustrate how SCO could work for farms whose APH yields differ from the expected county yield.
Agriculture and Intellectual Property Rights: Economic, Institutional and Implementation Issues in Biotechnology
1: Introduction, V Santaniello et al. 2: Patent and Other Private Legal Rights for Biotechnology Inventions (Intellectual Property Rights - IPR), D D Evenson, P.L.L.C., Washington, USA 3: Intellectual Property Rights of Plant Varieties and of Biotechnology in the European Union, V Santaniello 4: Intellectual Property Rights under the Convention on Biological Diversity, W Lesser, Cornell University, USA 5: An Economic Approach to Identifying An `Effective Sui Generis System' for Plant Variety Protection Under TRIPS, W Lesser 6: Recent Intellectual Property Rights Controversies and Issues at the CGIAR, S H Bragdon, IPGRI, Rome, Italy 7: Economics of Intellectual Property Rights for Agricultural Technology, R E Evenson 8: The Market Value of Farmers' Rights, R Mendelsohn, Yale University, USA 9: International Crop Breeding in a World of Proprietary Technology, B D Wright, University of California, USA 10: Knowledge Management and the Economics of Agricultural Biotechnology, D Zilberman and C Yarkin, University of California, USA and A Heiman, Hebrew University, Israel 11: Comparing Allocation of Resources in Public and Private Research, S Lemarie, Universite Pierre-Mendes, Grenoble, France 12: Biotechnology Inventions: What Can We Learn From Patents?, D K N Johnson, Wellesley College, Massachusetts, USA and V Santaniello 13: Biotechnology Inventions: Patent Data Evidence, A Zohrabyan, Yale University, USA and R E Evenson 14: Property Rights and Regulations for Transgenic Crops in North America, G Carlson and M Marra, North Carolina State University, USA 15: Intellectual Property Rights, Canola and Public Research in Canada, P W B Phillips, University of Saskatchewan, Canada