CAR424 a 424-acre Sacramento Valley California (Sutter and Yuba Counties) moderate size rice farm that grew 400 acres of rice in 1994. The farm did not flex any crops and received all of its revenue from rice.

CAR1300 a 1,300-acre Sacramento Valley California (Sutter and Yuba Counties) large rice farm that grew 1,020 acres of rice in 1994. The farm flexed the NFA rice base acres to idle and generated all of its revenue from rice.

TXR1500 a 1,500-acre West of Houston, Texas (Wharton County) moderate size rice farm that grew 500 acres of rice in 1994. The farm flexed the NFA rice base acres to idle and received all of its total revenue from rice.

TXR3900 a 3,900-acre West of Houston, Texas (Wharton County) large rice farm that grew 1,300 acres of rice in 1994. The farm flexed the NFA rice base acres to idle and received about 99 percent of its total revenue from rice.

MOR1900 a 1,900-acre Southeastern Missouri (Butler County) moderate size rice farm with 510 acres of rice, 650 acres of corn, and 740 acres of soybeans planted in 1994. The farm flexed NFA rice base acres to corn and generated about 44 percent of its total revenue from rice.

MOR4000 a 4,000-acre Southeastern Missouri (Butler County) large rice farm with 1,020 acres of rice, 296 acres of cotton, 1,040 acres of corn, and 1,600 acres of soybeans planted in 1994. The farm flexed NFA rice base to corn and NFA cotton base acres to corn. The farm generated about 44 percent of its gross receipts from rice.

ARR1260 a 1,260-acre Arkansas (Poinsett County) moderate size rice farm that grew 616 acres of rice, 109 acres of wheat, and 544 acres of soybeans in 1994. The farm did not flex rice or wheat. The farm flexed NFA and OFA wheat acreage to rice. The farm generated about 76 percent of its revenue from rice.

LA1100 a 1,100-acre Louisiana (Jefferson Davis, Acadia, and Vermilion Parishes) moderate size farm that grew 500 acres of rice and 400 acres of soybeans in 1994. The farm did not flex rice to another crop and generated about 81 percent of its revenue from rice.

• If the current farm program was continued, the average net cash farm income for 6 of the 8 representative rice farms would be positive for the 1996-2003 period (Figure 9).
• With No Farm Program average annual net cash farm income over the 1996-2003 period is negative for 6 of the 8 rice farms (Figure 9). The amount of risk associated with average net cash farm income over the period 1996-2003 is more than doubled for all of the rice farms (Tables D15-D18).
• The average net cash farm incomes over the 1996-2003 period, for 6 of the 8 rice farms is lower under the Marketing Loan Only scenario than the Baseline (Figure 9). The relative and absolute variability in average net cash farm income for 1996-2003 is greater for the Marketing Loan option than for the Baseline (Tables D15-D18).
• Average changes in real ending net worth for the rice farms are negative for all three policy options except for the Baseline option on the moderate size Missouri farm (Figure 8).
• Based on the projected average net cash farm incomes and the changes in real net worth, 6 of the 8 rice farms would prefer the Baseline over the Marketing Loan Only option. The Marketing Loan Only option would in turn be preferred to the No Program because of the loss in net cash farm income and the increases in income risk associated with the No Program.
• Including risk in the farm level analysis resulted in the same policy preferences between the Baseline and the No Farm Program options as observed for the "normal" weather analyses. In the "normal" weather analyses, the Marketing Loan Only scenario was preferred over the Baseline by the two Missouri rice farms. Including the effects of risk makes the Marketing Loan Only option preferred in Arkansas and Louisiana and not preferred in Missouri. The large Texas rice farm indicated a marginal preference for the Marketing Loan Only option over the Baseline, when risk is included in the analysis. Overall, including risk did not change the original rankings for these three policy scenarios.