As organic-inorganic fertilization (that is, reducing chemical fertilizer and increasing organic fertilizer) has many advantages, such as realizing the fertilizer utilization of agricultural waste and reducing the application of chemical fertilizer at the same time, it has become an agricultural environmental protection measure actively advocated by many countries, and the Chinese government has also promoted it as a new agricultural planting technology. However, in order to prevent the formation of new pollution, it is necessary to transform farm manure into higher quality and safer commercial organic fertilizer. However, due to the high price, high labor intensity and poor economic benefits of commercial organic fertilizer, farmers′ application enthusiasm is restricted. As a result, the Chinese government proposes to provide farmers with reasonable subsidies for the application of organic fertilizer. At the same time in accordance with the principle of "who benefits, who compensates", conservationists can also obtain benefits through the transaction of ecological products. Subsidy standard is a key scientific issue in the design of commercial organic fertilizer subsidy policy, which is related to the enthusiasm of subsidy objects and the affordability of subsidy subjects. It is generally believed that the opportunity cost, as the lower limit of the subsidy standard, is the method with the highest subsidy benefit. In agricultural ecological compensation, the opportunity cost is often measured by the different utilization value of land and human resources.
Firstly, under the conditions that the agricultural planting use of the land remains unchanged, the crop planting system remains unchanged, other planting technologies except fertilization remain unchanged, and fertilization can only be selected between organic-inorganic fertilization and single fertilization of chemical fertilizer, the opportunity cost of organic-inorganic fertilization is defined. Then, a micro-economic dynamic subsidy standard theoretical model for commercial organic fertilizer is established by using the cost-benefit analysis method. The theoretical model points out the core train of thought and key steps to improve the subsidy benefit of commercial organic fertilizer. Then, taking meeting the common concerns and objective reality of the government and farmers as the starting point, avoiding the unpredictable factors, unmeasurable components and complex factors that are difficult to calculate accurately in the theoretical model, an operational and executive subsidy standard calculation model is established. Finally, taking the rice wheat rotation experiment with organic-inorganic fertilization as an example, the application of the theory and calculation model was explained.
At the same time, under the condition of stable output of agricultural products, the fertilization cost of reducing chemical fertilizer by 30% and 50% and increasing organic fertilizer is about 1.5 times and 2 times of that of single chemical fertilization; among the increased fertilization costs, the actual purchase price of fertilizer, transportation and miscellaneous expenses of organic fertilizer and field fertilization costs account for 55.7%, 7.3% and 37% respectively; the amount of organic fertilizer applied per unit area of cultivated land doubled, and the subsidy per ton of organic fertilizer increased by only 0.1 times; the agricultural products with 50% reduction of chemical fertilizer and increased application of organic fertilizer have a series of data such as the best input-output ratio. These data are of great significance for in-depth understanding of the key links of improving commercial organic fertilizer subsidies. The establishment of corresponding supporting systems, organizations and services can also help realizing the "government + society" joint compensation at the same time, so as to realize the stable yield and income growth of farmers with organic-inorganic fertilization.
According to the above research conclusions, in order to improve the subsidy benefits of commercial organic fertilizer and realize social participation compensation, this study puts forward the following policy suggestions: (1) Efforts should be made to reduce the market price of commercial organic fertilizer through improving production process and expanding production scale. (2) The linkage mode of raw materials, production and consumption of organic fertilizer should be established to reduce the transportation and miscellaneous expenses of organic fertilizer. (3) Mechanical fertilization should be popularized as soon as possible. (4) Establish a dynamic adjustment mechanism for the subsidy standard of commercial organic fertilizer. (5) Create conditions for the realization of "government + society" joint compensation.
Key words
commercial organic fertilizer /
subsidy standard /
model /
opportunity cost /
social participation
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
References
[1] 农业部、国家发展改革委、财政部、住房和城乡建设部、环境保护部、科学技术部．关于推进农业废弃物资源化利用试点的方案[R]．2016.8.11.
[2] 农业部. 到2020年化肥使用量零增长行动方案[R]．2015.2.17.
[3] 中共中央 国务院.乡村振兴战略规划（2018-2022年）[R]．2018.9.26.
[4] Subehia S K, Sepehya S, Rana S S, et al. Long-term effect of organic and inorganic fertilizers on rice (oryza
sativa L.) –wheat (triticum asetivum L.) yield, and chemical properties of an acidic soil in the western
Himalayas[J].Experimental Agriculture, 2013, 49(3):382–394.
[5] 陈帅君,边嘉宾,丁得亮,崔晶.不同有机肥处理对水稻品质和食味的影响[J].中国稻米,2016,22 (4):
42-45.
[6] Bing L,Kun H,Yali F, et al．Effect of combined application of organic fertilizer and chemical fertilizer in
different ratios on growth,yield and quality of fluecured tobacco[J].Asian Agricultural Research, 2017, 9(12):
43-46+51.
[7] 高菊生,黄晶,董春华,等.长期有机无机肥配施对水稻产量及土壤有效养分影响[J].土壤学报, 2014,3:314-
324.
[8] 邢鹏飞,高圣超,马鸣超等.有机肥替代部分无机肥对华北农田土壤理化特性、酶活性及作物产量的影
响[J].中国土壤与肥料,2016,3:98-104.
[9] 俞海,任勇.中国生态补偿:概念、问题类型与政策路径选择[J].中国软科学,2008.6:7-15.
[10] Tacconi L.Redefining Payments for environmental services[J]. Ecological Economics, 2012, 15: 29 -36．
[11] Engel S, Pagiola S, Wunder S. Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An
overview of the issues[J]. Ecological Economics, 2008, 65(4):663- 674．
[12] Pham T T, Campbell B M, Garnett S. Lessons for pro-poor payments for environmental services:An analysis
of projects in vietnam[J].The Asia Pacifc Journal of Public Administration,2009,31(2):117-133．
[13] Frank W, Martin D,Karin J, et al. A novel, spatiotemporally explicit ecological-economic modeling procedure
for the design of cost-effective agri-environment schemes to conserve biodiversity American[J]. Journal of
Agricultural Economics, 2016,98(2):489-512.
[14] Jeffrey M. Peterson Craig M. Smith John C. et al.Transaction costs in payment for environmental service
contracts[J]. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2015, 97(1):219-238.
[15] Farber S C, Costanza R, Wilson M A. Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services[J].
Ecological Economics, 2012, 41(3):375 -392．
[16] 杨欣,蔡银莺,张安录.农田生态补偿理论研究进展评述[J].生态与农村环境学报,2017,33(2): 104-113.
[17] Wünscher T, Engel S. International payments for biodiversity services : Review and evaluation of conservation
targeting approaches[J]. Biological Conservation, 2012,152: 222-230.
[18] 曾维军.基于农户意愿的减施化肥生态补偿研究[D].昆明理工大学博士论文,2014,3.
[19] 何可.农业废弃物资源化的价值评估及其生态补偿机制研究[D] .华中农业大学博士论文,2016,12.
[20] O′Shea L. An economic approach to reducing water pollution: Point and diffuse sources[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2002,282(23): 49-63.
[21] 李琪,王兴杰,王爱萍，等.农牧业生态补偿的国际比较及其借鉴[J].干旱区资源与环境,2018,6:1-10.
[22] Claassen R,Cattaneo A, Johansson R. Cost-effective design of agri-environmental payment programs: U.S.
experience in theory and practice[J]. Ecological Economics,2008,65(4):737-752.
[23] 李芳,冯淑怡,曲福田.发达国家化肥减量政策的适用性分析及启示[J].农业资源与环境学报,2017,34(1):
15-23.
[24] 马健,韩星. 日本协同推进环境保全型农业的举措及对我国的启示[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报(社会
科学版),2017,7:99-105.
[25] 王国华.日本农业环境政策体系分析与评价[J].世界农业,2014,2:92-96,100.
[26] 秦炳涛.日本生态农业发展策略探析[J]. 农业经济问题,2015. 6:104-109.
[27] 陈世芳,林锦宏,许家胜.台中区合理化施肥政策效益之分析[R].台中区农业改良场研究汇报，2014.124:
69-83.
[28] 农业农村部.对十三届全国人大一次会议第2357号建议的答复的函[R].2018.7.10.
[29] 刘洪涛,陈同斌,郑国砥等.有机肥与化肥的生产能耗、投入成本和环境效益比较分析-以污泥堆肥生产
有机肥为例[J].生态环境学报,2010,19(4): 1000-1003.
[30] 孙国跃,林玉娟,孙俊华.商品有机肥推广应用中存在的问题及对策建议[J].农业环境与发展,2013,1:26-29.
[31] 姚俭德,洪银银,王啟苗.宁国市商品有机肥生产现状与发展对策[J].安徽农学通报,2014,20(10): 61-62.
[32] 吴庆丰,柯美汉,李继福.商品有机肥配施氮肥对水稻产量及经济效益的影响[J].现代农业科技,2015,1:21-
22.
[33] 赵敬坤,范晓伟等.重庆市商品有机肥料生产现状与产业发展对策建议[J].农业科技通讯,2016,.8:15-18.
[34] 国务院办公厅.关于健全生态保护补偿机制的意见[R].2016.5.13.
[35] Kenneth M. Chomitz, Keith Alger, Timothy S. Thomas, et al. Opportunity costs of conservation in a Biodi-
versity hotspot：the case of southern Bahia[J].Envrionment and Development Economics,2005,10(3):293-
312.
[36] Nicolas Kosoy, et al. Payments for environmental services in watersheds: Insights from a comparative study of three cases in Central America[J].Ecological Economics, 2007, 61:446 -455.
[37] 高瑛,王娜,李向菲,王咏红. 农户生态友好型农田土壤管理技术采纳决策分析-以山东省为例[J].农业经
济问题, 2017,1:38-47.
[38] 赵润,高尚宾,万晓红.江苏省商品有机肥推广应用补贴方式调查与分析研究[J].农业环境与发展,2011,4:
100-108.
[39] 赵军,李勇,冉炜,沈标等.有机肥替代部分化肥对稻麦轮作系统产量及土壤微生物区系的影响[J].南京农
业大学学报,2016,39(4): 594-602.
[40] 2019年7月全国省（区、市）化肥零售价格汇总表[J].中国石油和化工经济分析,2019,9:70-72.
[41] 常熟市耕地质量保护站关于商品有机肥项目的招标公告[EB/OL]. [2019-01-08]. https://www.bidcenter.
com.cn/newscontent-65713396-1.html.
[42] 南京市公共资源交易中心江宁分中心2018年耕地质量提升与化肥减量增效示范县商品有机肥和配方肥-有机肥网上公开招标公告[EB/OL]. [2019-02-02]. http://www.njgp.gov.cn/cgxx/cggg/jzcgjg/201902/
t20190202_84523.html.
[43] 戴曲文,白洁瑞,储亚云等.机械化施肥对水稻产量及经济效益的影响[J]. 现代农业科技, 2019(14):11-14.
[44] 颜士敏,殷广德,刘林旺等.江苏水稻机械化施肥发展现状与对策[J].中国农技推广,2019,9:10-12.
[45] 张东伟,朱润身.试论农业技术推广体制的创新[J].科研管理,2006,27(3):141-145.
[46] Garciaa-Amado L R, Perez M R, et a1. Building ties: social capital network analysis of a forest Community
in a biosphere reserve in Chiapas Mexico[J]. Ecologyand Society, 2010,17(3):23-38．
[47] Bremer L L, Farley KA, Loperz-Carr D. What factors influence participation in payment for ecosystem ser-vices
programs?An evaluation of Ecuadors Socio Páramo program[J]. Land Use Policy, 2014, 1(36): 122-133.
[48] 聂倩.国外生态补偿实践的比较及政策启示[J].生态经济, 2014,7:156-160.
[49] Borner J, Wunder S, Wertz-Kanounnikoff S, et a1. Direct conservation payments in the brazilian ama-zon:scope
and equity implications[J]. Ecological Economics,2010,69(6):1272-1282.
[50] 吴乐,孔德帅,靳乐山.生态补偿有利于减贫吗？－基于倾向得分匹配法对贵州省三县的实证分析[J].农
村经济,2017,9:48-55.
[51] Coskuner-Balli G.,Sandikci O. The aura of new goods: How consumers mediate newness[J]. Journal of
Consumer Behaviour, 2014,13:122–130.
[52] 冯文婷,汪涛.数字的力量:品牌中数字大小对消费者态度的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2017,49(12): 1581-1589.
[53] Pena-Marin, J.,Bhargave, R. Lasting performance: Round numbers activate associations of stability and
increase perceived length of product benefits[J]. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2016,26(3):410-416.
[54] Yan, D. F. Numbers are gendered: The role of numerical precision[J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 2016,
43(2):303-316.
[55] 吴莹皓,蒋晶. 数字效应对消费者行为的影响及其心理机制[J].心理科学进展,2018, 26 (9): 1680–1688.
[56] 中华人民共和国国家发展和改革委员会.关于公布2019年小麦最低收购价格的通知[Z].发改价格[2018]1680号.
[57] 中华人民共和国国家发展和改革委员会.关于公布2019年稻谷最低收购价格的通知[Z].发改价格[2019]353号
[58] 赵庆,余梅,肖小虹.中国农业创新发展模式研究综述[J].科研管理,2020,41(3):256-263.
[59] 罗建利,郭红东,贾甫.技术获取模式、技术溢出和创新绩效:以农民合作社为例[J].科研管理，2019,40(5):
120-133.
PDF(369 KB)
