Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T13:22:39.243Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Empirical Measures of Risk for Selected Field and Horticultural Crops*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Gene A. Mathia
Gene A. Mathia*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics and Business, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Farm planning and enterprise selection have been studied by agricultural economists for many years. Detailed methodology has been developed to analyze the economic situation of farm firms and to project optimum combinations of resources used in producing selected enterprise activities. Programming techniques have been used extensively. They provided planning guidelines, with quality dependent on availability of data and completeness of the programming format.

One area of concern arising from many programming efforts is that resource utilization and, ultimately, enterprise selection do not accurately project the general patterns of production observed in a specific area. Furthermore, there is little observable indication that farmers tend to move toward the programming solution. This problem is apparent when more variable enterprises are programmed with traditionally less variable enterprises. The more variable enterprises are frequently indicated to be profitable in the programming solutions, but farmers are not very interested in growing them.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , July 1976 , pp. 115 - 122
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1976

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.)

Footnotes

*

Journal series paper 4943, North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station, Raleigh, North Carolina.

References

[1] Carter, H. O. and Dean, G.W.. “Income, Price and Yield Variability for Principal California Crops and Cropping Systems,” Hilgardia, University of California, Volume 30, No. 6, Berkeley, 1960.Google Scholar
[2] Duloy, J. H. and Norton, R. D.. “CHAC: A Programming Model for Mexican Agriculture,” Multi-Level Planning: Case Studies in Mexico, eds. Goreuv, L. and Manne, A., pp. 1–59, New Holland Publishing Co., 1973.Google Scholar
[3] Mathia, Gene. “Measurement of Price, Yield and Sales Variability Indexes for Selected North Carolina Crops,” Economics Research Report No. 36, Department of Economics and Business, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, 1975.Google Scholar
[4] Nieuwoudt, W. L., Bullock, J. B. and Mathia, G. A.. “An Economic Evaluation of Alternative Peanut Policies,” Forthcoming article in American Journal of Agricultural Economics, (August 1976 issue).Google Scholar
[5] Simmons, R. L. and Pomareda, C.. “Equilibrium Quantity and Timing of Mexican Vegetable Exports,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 57(1975):472–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6] Tintner, Gerhard. The Variate Difference Method, Bloomington, Indiana: Principia Press, Inc. Google Scholar
[7] Tintner, Gerhard. Econometrics, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1952.Google Scholar
[8] U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Statistics, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
[9] U.S. Department of Agriculture. Crop Production, Statistical Bulletins 109, 290 and 384, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
[10] U.S. Department of Agriculture. Farm Production, Farm Disposition and Value of Specified Field Crops, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
[11] U.S. Department of Agriculture. Field Crops, Production, Farm Use, Sales and Value, Annual Series, 1960-1973, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
[12] U.S. Department of Agriculture. Potatoes, Statistical Bulletin 122 and Potatoes and Sweet Potatoes, Statistical Bulletins 190, 291, and 490 and Sweet Potatoes, Statistical Bulletin 237, Crop Reporting Board, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
[13] U.S. Department of Agriculture. Tobacco Statistics, Agricultural Marketing Service, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
[14] U.S. Department of Agriculture. Vegetables for Fresh Market, Statistical Bulletins 126, 212, 300, 412, 495 and other annual reports, Statistical Reporting Service, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
[15] U.S. Department of Agriculture. Vegetables for Processing, Statistical Bulletins 132, 210, 299, 411 and selected annual reports, Statistical Reporting Service, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar