Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-mwwwr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-23T19:34:17.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Swine Breeding Systems: A Stochastic Evaluation with Implications for Emerging Technology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2017

Raymond E. Massey  and
Joseph E. Williams
Raymond E. Massey
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics at the University of Nebraska
Joseph E. Williams
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics at Oklahoma State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The after-tax net present value for 27 swine breeding systems composed of Duroc, Hampshire, and Yorkshire breeds were simulated and ordered using stochastic dominance analysis. The concept of the value of information was expanded to develop the concept of the willingness to pay to adopt a new technology. For producers not currently using the dominant system, estimates of the allowable present value cost of adoption are reported and used to explain diverse production practices.

Keywords

stochasticemerging technologiesswine

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , July 1991 , pp. 227 - 235
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1991

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

Anderson, Jock R., Dillon, John L. and Brian Hardaker, J.. Agricultural Decision Analysis. Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1977.Google Scholar
Bailey, D.V., Brorsen, B.W., and Richardson, J.W.. “Dynamic Stochastic Simulation of Daily Cash and Futures Cotton Prices.”So. J. Agr. Econ., 16(1984):199–222.Google Scholar
Clements, Alvin M., Mapp, Harry P. and Eidman, Vernon R.. “A Procedure for Correlating Events in Farm Finn Simulation Models.” Oklahoma State Univ. Exp. Sta. Bull. No. T-131, Stillwater, OK, 1971.Google Scholar
Duffy, P.A., Richardson, J.W., and Smith, E.G.. “The Effects of Alternative Farm Programs and Levels of Price Variability on Different Size Farms.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AAEA, Ithaca, NY, 1984.Google Scholar
Edwards, William M., van der Sluis, Grytsje T., and Stevermyer, Emmett J.. “Determinants of Profitability in Farrow-to-Finish Swine Production.” North Cent. J. Agr. Econ., 11(1989): 17–25.Google Scholar
Fleming, Bill. “PRV: Why Wait?” National Hog Farmer. June 15, 1990. pp. 26–29.Google Scholar
Johnson, R.K., and Omtvedt, I.T.. “Evaluation of Purebreds and Two-Breed Crosses in Swine: Reproductive Performance.” Anim. Sci., 37(1973): 1279–1288.Google Scholar
Johnson, R.K., Omtvedt, I.T. and Walters, L.E.. ”Comparison of Productivity and Performance for Two-Breed and Three-Breed Crosses in Swine.” J. Anim. Sci., 46(1978):69–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, R.K., Omtvedt, I.T. and Walters, L.E.. “Evaluation of Purebreds and Two-Breed Crosses in Swine: Feedlot Performance and Carcass Merit.” J. Anim. Sci., 37(1973): 18–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Robert P., and Robison, Lindon J.. “Risk Efficiency Models.” Risk Management in Agriculture, Chapter 6. Barry, Peter J., Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1984.Google Scholar
Massey, Raymond E., “A Stochastic Evaluation of Swine Breeding Schemes and Management Strategies.” Ph.D. dissertation, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, 1990.Google Scholar
Massey, Raymond E., Williams, Joseph E., Huhnke, Raymon L., and Lace, William D.. “An Economic Analysis of a 140 Sow Farrow-to Finish Swine Operation in Oklahoma.” Oklahoma State Univ. Exp. Sta. Bull. B-788, Stillwater, OK, Jan., 1990.Google Scholar
Meyer, J. “Choice Among Distribution.” J. Econ. Theory, 14(1977):326–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Dale. “Seedstock Sales Profile.” National Hog Farmer. Sept. 15,1989, pp. 52–58.Google Scholar
Mjelde, James W., and Cochran, Mark J.. “Obtaining Lower and Upper Bounds on the Value of Seasonal Climate Forecasts as a Function of Risk Preferences.” West J. Agr. Econ., 13(1988): 285–293.Google Scholar
Patrick, George F., and Rao, Ananth S.. “Crop Insurance's Role in Risk Management on Hog-Crop Farms.” North Cent. J. Agr. Econ., 11(1989):1–10.Google Scholar
Plain, Ronald Lee. “Adaptive Planning Under Price Uncertainty in Swine Production.” Ph.D. dissertation, Oklahoma State University, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pratt, J.W. “Risk Aversion in the Small and in the Large.” Econometrica, 32(1964): 122–136.Google Scholar
Richardson, J.W., Lemieux, C.M., and Nixon, C.J.. “Entry into Farming: The Effects of Leasing and Leverage and Firm Survival.” So. J. Agr. Econ., 15(1983): 139–145.Google Scholar
Richardson, J.W., and Nixon, C.J.. “Description of FL1PSIM V: A General Firm Level Policy Simulation Model.” Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. No. B-1528, College Station, TX, July 1986.Google Scholar
Richardson, J.W., and Nixon, C.J.. “The Economic Recovery Act of 1981: Impacts on Farmers' Liquidity, Equity, and Growth.”. J. Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers, 46(1982): 10–15.Google Scholar
US Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Prices. Washington: Agricultural Statistics Board, 1959-1988.Google Scholar
US Department of Agriculture. Livestock Detailed Quotations. Oklahoma City: Livestock and Seed Division, 1959-1988.Google Scholar
Wilson, E.R., and Johnson, R.K.. “Comparison of Mating Systems with Duroc, Hampshire and Yorkshire Breeds of Swine for Efficiency of Swine Production.” J. Anim. Sci., 52(1981):26–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, E.R., and Johnson, R.K.. “Comparison of Three-Breed and Backcross Swine for Litter Productivity and Postweaning Performance.” J. Anim. Sci., 52(1981):18–25.Google Scholar
Wilson, Paul N., and Eidman, Vernon R.. “Dominant Enterprise Size in the Swine Production Industry.”Am. J. Agr. Econ., 67(1985):280–288.Google Scholar