Hostname: page-component-669899f699-tzmfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-26T00:38:29.634Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Technology Adoption Decisions in Dairy Production and the Role of Herd Expansion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Hisham S. El-Osta  and
Mitchell J. Morehart
Hisham S. El-Osta
Affiliation:
USDA-Economic Research Service, 1800 M St. NW FL4, Washington, DC 20036-5831
Mitchell J. Morehart
Affiliation:
USDA-Economic Research Service, 1800 M St. NW FL4, Washington, DC 20036-5831
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Technology adoption in dairy production allows for higher milk yield and lower per-unit costs. The importance of herd expansion and other factors to adoption was examined using a multinomial logit model and data from the USDA's 1993 Farm Costs and Returns Survey. Predicted probabilities of adoption were used to simulate the effect of herd expansion on milk production. Results identified age, size, and specialization in dairy production as important in increasing the likelihood of adopting a capital-intense technology. Education and size of operation positively impacted the decision to adopt a management-intense technology. Age, education, credit reserves, size, and increased usage of hired labor positively influenced the decision to adopt a combined capital- and management-intense technology.

Type
Articles
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , April 1999 , pp. 84 - 95
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ahearn, Mary C., Perry, Janet E., and El-Osta, Hisham S. 1993. The Economic Well-Being of Farm Operator Households, 1988–90. Agr. Econ. Report No. 666, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department Agr. (January).Google Scholar
Albrecht Don, E. and Murdock, Steve H. 1990. The Sociology of U.S. Agriculture-An Ecological Perspective. Iowa State University Press. Ames, Iowa.Google Scholar
Amemiya, Takeshi. 1981. “Qualitative Response Models: A Survey.” J. Econ. Lit. 19(December): 1483–1536.Google Scholar
Barlett, Peggy F. 1984. “Microdynamics of Debt, Drought, and Default in South Georgia.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 66(December): 836–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, Peter J. 1981. “Agricultural Lending by Commercial Banks.” Agr. Finance Rev. 41(July): 28–40.Google Scholar
Batte, Marvin T., Jones, Eugene, and Schnitkey, Gary D. 1990. “Computer Use by Ohio Commercial Farmers.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 72(November): 935–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellamy, Donald. 1992. “Educational Attainment of Farm Operators.” In Agricultural Income and Finance-Situation and Outlook Report. AFO-45, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agr. (May).Google Scholar
Barham, Bradford L., Chavas, Jean-Paul, and Klemme, Richard. 1994. “Low Capital Dairy Strategies in Wisconsin: Lessons From a New Approach To Measuring Profitability.” University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural Economics Staff Paper Series, Staff Paper No. 381, (October).Google Scholar
Cochrane, Willard W. 1965. The City Man's Guide to the Farm Problem. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN.Google Scholar
Cochrane, Willard W. 1979. The Development of Agriculture: A Historical Analysis. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN.Google Scholar
Conlin, Bernard J. 1993. Managing $10 Milk Prospectives on Dairy Inputs. (October). Online. Available http://www.inform.umd.edu/EdRes/TopicAgrEnv/ndd/business/MANAGIND_DAIRY_INPUTS_AND_OUTPUTS.html. Accessed May 1997.Google Scholar
Dixon, Bruce L., Ahrendsen, Bruce L., and Barry, Peter. 1993. “Explaining Loan Pricing Differences Across Banks: Use of Incidentally Truncated Regression.” Arg. Finance Rev. 53: 15–27.Google Scholar
Dubman, Robert. 1997. “Parameter Estimation and Inference in USDA's Farm Costs and Returns Survey: Statistical and Program Documentation,” Unpublished Report. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.Google Scholar
El-Osta, Hisham S. and Johnson, James D. 1998. Determinants of Financial Performance of Commercial Dairy Farms. Tech. Bulletin No. 1859, Economic Research Service, U.S. Dept. Agr. (July).Google Scholar
Feder, Gershon and Slade, Roger. 1984. “The Acquisition of Information and the Adoption of New Technology.” Am. J. Agr. Econ. 66: 312–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuller, Wayne A., Kennedy, William, Schnell, Daniel, Sullivan, Gary, and Jin Park, Heon. 1986. PC CARP. Statistical Laboratory. Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.Google Scholar
Haden, Kimberly L. and Johnson, Larry A. 1989. “Factors Which Contribute to the Financial Performance of Selected Tennessee Dairies.” South. J. Agr. Econ. 21 (July): 105–112.Google Scholar
Hammond, Jerome W. 1994. “Trends in the Size Distribution of Dairy Farms in Minnesota and Wisconsin.” Staff Paper P94-27. University of Minnesota, (December).Google Scholar
Huffman, Wallace E. 1977. “Allocative Efficiency: The Role of Human Capital.” Quart. J. Econ. 91(February): 59–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huffman, Wallace E. 1985. “Human Capital, Adaptive Ability, and the Distributional Implications of Agricultural Policy.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 67(May): 429–34.Google Scholar
Kinnucan, Henry, Hatch, Upton, Molnar, Joseph J., and Venkateswaran, Meenakshi. 1990. “Scale Neutrality of Bovine Somatotropin:Ex Ante Evidence From the Southeast.” So. J. Agr. Econ. 22(December): 1–12.Google Scholar
Just, Richard and Zilberman, David. 1983. “Stochastic Structure, Farm Size, and Technology Adoption in Developing Agriculture.” Oxford Economic Papers 35: 307–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamm, R. McFall Jr. 1982. “Investment in Agriculture: An Empirical Analysis.” Agr. Finance Rev. 42(October): 16–23.Google Scholar
Lin, Justin Yifu. 1991. “Education and Innovation Adoption in Agriculture: Evidence From Hybrid Rice in China.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 73(August): 713–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maddala, G.S. 1983. Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge: University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manchester, Alden C. and Blayney, Don P. 1997. The Structure of Dairy Markets-Past, Present, Future. Agr. Econ. Report No. 757, (September).Google Scholar
Matulich, Scott C. 1978. “Efficiencies in Large-Scale Dairying: Incentives for Future Structural Change.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 60(November): 642–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClelland, John. 1990. “Agricultural Technology Developments.” In The U.S. Farming Sector Entering the 1990's-Twelfth Annual Report on the Status of Family Farms. AIB-587, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agr. (June).Google Scholar
McFadden, Daniel. 1974. “The Measurement of Urban Travel Demand.” J. Public Econ. 3(November): 303–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFadden, Daniel. 1981. “Econometric Models of Probabilistic Choice.” In Structural Analysis of Discrete Data with Econometric Applications, edited by Manski, C.F. and McFadden, D. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Misra, S.K., Carley, D.H., and Fletcher, S.M. 1993. “Factors Influencing Southern Dairy Farmers’ Choice of Milk Handlers.” J. Agr. and Applied Econ. 25(July): 197–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Musser, Wesley N. and White, Fred C. 1975. “The Impact of Management on Farm Expansion and Survival.” South. J. Agr. Econ. 7(July): 63–69.Google Scholar
Negri, H. Donald and Brooks, Douglas H. 1990. “Determinants of Irrigation Technology Choice.” West. J. Agr. Econ. 15 (December): 213–23.Google Scholar
Nelson, Richard R. and Phelps, Edmund S. 1966. “Investment in Humans, Technological Diffusion, and Economic Growth.” Amer. Econ. Rev. 56(May): 69–75.Google Scholar
Perez, Agnes M. 1994. Changing Structure of U.S. Dairy Farms. Agr. Econ. Report No. 690, Economic Research Service, U.S. Dept. Agr. (July).Google Scholar
The Capital Times. 1998. Regulating Factory Farms. 1998. Online. Available http://www.thecapitaltimes.com/factfarm.htm. Accessed March 12 1998.Google Scholar
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). 1986. “Economic Impacts of Emerging Technologies and Selected Policies For Various Size Dairy Farms.” Technology, Public Policy, and the Changing Structure of American Agriculture. OTA-F-285, Washington, DC: U.S. Printing Office.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1994a. Economic Indicators of the Farm Sector: Costs of Production—Major Field Crops and Livestock and Dairy, 1991. ECIFS 11-3, (February).Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1994b. Agricultural Prices. National Agricultural Statistics Service. Washington, D.C., (March 30).Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1996a. Provisions of the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 1996a.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1996b. Agricultural Fact Book, 1996. Agr. Inf. Bulletin No. 729, Sept.Google Scholar
Warrick, Joby and Goodman, Peter S. 1998. “EPA Plans To Regulate Livestock Waste-Clean Water Act Would Be Applied.” The Washington Post (March 5): Pages A1 and A16.Google Scholar
Weersink, Alfons and Tauer, Loren W. 1990. “Regional and Temporal Impacts of Technical Change in the U.S. Dairy Sector.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 72(November): 923–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welch, F. 1970. “Education in Production.” J. Polit. Econ. 78(January/February): 35–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zepeda, Lydia. 1990a. “Predicting Bovine Somatotropin Use by California Dairy Farmers.” West. J. Agr. Econ. 15(July): 55–62.Google Scholar
Zepeda, Lydia. 1990b. “Adoption of Capital Versus Management Intensive Technologies.” Canad. J. Agr. Econ. 38(November): 457–69.Google Scholar
Zepeda, Lydia. 1994. “Simultaneity of Technology Adoption and Productivity.” J. Agr. Res. Econ. 19(July): 46–57.Google Scholar