Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-65tv2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-31T07:51:33.481Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Implications of Raising the Nonfat Solids Standards for Beverage Milk

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Larry Salathe  and
J. Michael Price
Larry Salathe
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture
J. Michael Price
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An econometric model of the dairy industry was used to estimate the effects on farmers, consumers, and taxpayers of nationwide adoption of the California nonfat solids standards for fluid milk. It was estimated that adoption of the California standards would raise farm-level milk prices by 1 to 5 percent in the short run and by 1 to 2 percent in the long run. The average retail price of fluid milk would rise by 9 to 13 cents per gallon. Dairy program costs fall under most scenarios, but could rise if surpluses fall to levels that would trigger increases in the support price.

Keywords

California standardsconsumersfluid milkfarm incomemilk pricesnonfat solidstaxpayer costs

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , December 1992 , pp. 197 - 209
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1992

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

Gadson, Kenneth E., Price, J. Michael, and Salathe, Larry E.. The Food and Agricultural Policy Simulator (FAPSIM): Structural Equations and Variable Definitions. Washington, DC: USDA ERS, Staff Rpt. No. AGES820506, May 1982.Google Scholar
Goold, J. “Minimum Component Standards Project for Fluid Milk.” League of California Milk Producers, Sacramento, CA, 1982.Google Scholar
Haidacher, Richard C., Blaylock, James R., and Myers, Lester. Consumer Demand for Dairy Products. Washington, DC: USDA ERS Agr. Econ. Rpt. No. 586, Mar. 1988.Google Scholar
Jacobson, R. E. “Case For and Against Higher SNF Standards for Fluid Products.” Paper presented at the 50th Dairy and Food Industry Conference, Ohio State University, Feb. 16, 1983.Google Scholar
Maes, L. A. “Minimum Standards and Component Pricing: The Handler's Viewpoint.” Paper presented at the Western Dairy Conference, Scottsdale, AZ, Apr. 1984.Google Scholar
Novakovic, Andrew, and Aplin, Richard. Some Findings on the Comparative Cost of Reconstituting Beverage Milk Products—Reconstitution vs. Fresh Milk Processing. Dept. Agr. Econ, A.E. Res. 81-15, Cornell Univ., Aug. 1981.Google Scholar
Salathe, Larry E., Price, J. Michael, and Gadson, Kenneth E.. “The Food and Agricultural Policy Simulator: The Dairy-Sector Submodel.” Agr. Econ. Res. 34.3(1982): 1–14.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. “ASCS Commodity Fact Sheet: 1990–91 Dairy Price Support Program.” Washington, DC: ASCS, July 1991.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Nationwide Adoption of the California Solids Standards for Fluid Milk Products: Issues and Impacts. Washington, D.C: ERS, Staff Report No. AGES840816, Aug. 1984.Google Scholar
U.S. House of Representatives. Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990. Washington, D.C: Report 101-916, U.S. GPO, 1990.Google Scholar
U.S. House of Representatives. Milk Inventory Management Act of 1991. H.R. 2837, July, 1991.Google Scholar