Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-ckgrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-19T05:19:47.712Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Derivation of economic weights from profit equations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

E. W. Brascamp ,
C. Smith  and
D. R. Guy
E. W. Brascamp
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Genetics, University of Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JN
C. Smith
Affiliation:
AFRC Animal Breeding Research Organisation, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JQ
D. R. Guy
Affiliation:
Meat and Livestock Commission, PO Box 44, Queensway House, Bletchley, Milton Keynes MK2 2EF
Get access

Abstract

The economic weights derived from profit equations depend on the base used for the evaluation. Thus different relative economic weights are obtained per unit of investment, per breeding female, per individual or per unit of product. This has led to uncertainty and confusion about appropriate economic weights in livestock improvement, and to apparent differences in interests between the investor, the farmer and the consumer. It is shown here that if the profit equation has a zero outcome, or the profit equation is transformed by setting its outcome to zero by considering profit as a cost of production (so called ‘normal profit’ in economics), then the relative economic weights are the same for all bases of evaluation. It is argued that this is the appropriate basis to determine economic weights.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 40 , Issue 1 , February 1985 , pp. 175 - 179
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1985

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Dickerson, G. E. 1976. The choice of selection objectives in meat-producing animals. In Meat Animals: Growth and Productivity (ed. Lister, D., Rhodes, D. N., Fowler, V. R. and Fuller, M. F.), pp. 449–462. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickerson, G. E. 1978. Animal size and efficiency: basic concepts. Anim. Prod. 27: 367–379.Google Scholar
Goddard, M. E. 1983. Selection indices for non-linear profit functions. Theor. appl. Genet. 64: 339–344.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
James, J. 1983. Economic aspects of developing breeding objectives: general considerations. In Future Developments in the Genetic Improvement of Animals (ed. Barker, J. S. F., Hammond, K. and McClintock, A. E.), pp. 107–116. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Moav, Rom. 1973. Economic evaluation of genetic differences. In Agricultural Genetics (ed. Moav, Rom), pp. 319–352. John Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Moav, Rom. and Hill, W. G. 1966. Specialised sire and dam lines. IV. Selection within lines. Anim. Prod. 8: 375–390.Google Scholar
Moav, Rom. and Moav, J. 1966. Profit in a broiler enterprise as a function of egg production of parent stocks and growth rate of their progeny, fir. Poult. Sci. 7: 5–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stainer, A. W. and Hague, D. C. 1980. A Textbook of Economic Theory. 5th ed. Longmans, London.Google Scholar
Tess, M. W., Bennett, G. L. and Dickerson, G. E. 1983. Simulation of genetic changes in life cycle efficiency of pork production. III. Effects of management systems and feed prices on importance of genetic components. J. Anim. Sci. 56: 369–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verduyn, J. J., Vleeming, H. and Droge, H. 1983. [Pigs — 1982: farm economic studies on reproduction and growth.] Rep. Agric. Econ. Res. Inst. (LEI), The Hague, No. 3. 123.Google Scholar