Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-12T22:13:20.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economic Incentives for PST Adoption by Midwest Hog Producers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

James W. Richardson ,
David P. Anderson ,
Derrell S. Peel  and
Mike Phillips
James W. Richardson
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University Department of Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State University U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment
David P. Anderson
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University Department of Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State University U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment
Derrell S. Peel
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University Department of Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State University U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment
Mike Phillips
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University Department of Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State University U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A whole-farm simulation model is used to analyze the impacts of PST adoption on representative farms in Missouri and Indiana. Farmers who do not adopt experience lower average annual net cash farm incomes than adopters. Lower feed prices and/or an average PST/feed response decrease the incentive to adopt. Payment of a 5 percent carcass merit premium (CMP) and/or higher grain prices greatly increase the economic incentive to adopt.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , December 1993 , pp. 95 - 105
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1993

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

Etherton, T.D. “Emerging Agricultural Technology: Porcine Somatotropin.” Paper Prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, Congress of the United States, November 28, 1989.Google Scholar
Etherton, T.D., Wiggins, J.P., Chung, C.S., Evock, C.M., Rebhun, J.F., and Walton, P.E.. “Stimulation of Pig Growth Performance by Porcine Growth Hormone and Growth Hormone - Releasing Factor.” J. Anim. Sci., 63(1986): 1389–1399.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Etherton, T.D., Wiggins, J.P., Evock, C.M., Chung, C.S., Rebhun, J.F., Walton, P.E., and Steele, N.C. “Stimulation of Pig Growth Performance by Porcine Growth Hormone: Determination of the Dose-Response Relationship.” J. Anim. Sci., 64(1987): 433–443.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goodland, R.D., Nellsen, J.L., Hines, R.H., Kropf, D.H., Thaler, R.C., Schricker, B.R. and Fitner, G.E.. “The Effects of Porcine Somatotropin (PST) and Dietary Lysine on Growth Performance and Carcass Characteristics of Finishing Swine.” J. Anim. Sci., 66(1988, Suppl. 1): 95.Google Scholar
Halter, A.N. and Dean, G.W.. “Use of Simulation in Evaluating Management Policies Under Uncertainty: Application to a Large Scale Ranch.” J. of Farm Econ. 47(1965):557–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivy, R.E., Baldwin, C.D., Wolfram, G.W., and Margin, D.E.. “Effects of Various Levels of Recombinant Porcine Growth Hormone (rpGH) Injected Intramusularly in Barrows.” J. Anim. Sci., 63(1986 Suppl. 1): 218.Google Scholar
Kliebenstein, J., Buhr, , and Hayenga, M.. “Economic Impacts of Technology Adoption: The Case of PST.” Feedstuffs, January 8, 1990.Google Scholar
Law, A.M. and Kelton, W.D.. Simulation Modeling and Analysis. McGraw-Hill Book Company. New York, 1982.Google Scholar
Lemieux, C.M. and Wohlegenant, M.K.. “Ex Ante Evaluation of the Economic Impact of Agricultural Biotechnology: The Case of Porcine Somatotropin.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 71(1989): 903–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemieux, C.M. and Richardson, J.W.. “Economic Impacts of Porcine Somatotropin on Midwest Hog Producers.” North Central J. Agr. Econ., 11(1989): 171–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemieux, C.M., Richardson, J.W. and Smith, E.G.. “Impacts of Farm Policy on Economic Payoff and Adoption of New Technology: The Case of Porcine Somatotropin (PST).” Paper presented at Western Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Honolulu, Hawaii, July 1988.Google Scholar
Lins, D.A. “An Empirical Comparison of Simulation and Recursive Linear Programming Firm Growth Models.” Agr. Econ. Res., 21(1969): 7–12.Google Scholar
McLaren, D.G., Grebner, G.L., Bechtel, P.J., McKeith, F.K., Novakofski, J.E., Eastes, R.A., Jones, R.W., Dalymple, R.H.. “Effect of Graded Levels of Natural Porcine Somatotropin (PST) on Growth Performance of 57 to 103 kg Pigs.” J. Anim. Sci., 65(1987, Suppl. 1): 245.Google Scholar
Meisinger, D.J. “Potential Economic Impact of Carcass Modifiers.” J. Anim. Sci., 67(1989): 2150–2154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peel, D. “Aggregate Livestock Market Impacts of PST Adoption.” A.E. Paper 9358, Department of Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State University, May 1993.Google Scholar
Peel, D. “A Dynamic Econometric-Simulation Model of the U.S. Livestock Industry.” University of Illinois, Department of Agricultural Economics, Ph.D. Dissertation, 1989.Google Scholar
Penson, J.B. Jr. and Chen, D.T.. “Design and Application of COMGEM for Farm Policy Analysis.” Chapter 8 in Large Scale Modeling of Agriculture Sector. Iowa State University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
Richardson, J.W. and Condra, G.D.. “Farm Size Evaluation in the El Paso Valley: A Survival/Success Approach.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 63(1981): 430–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, C Robert. “A Description of AGSIM, and Econometric-Simulation Model of Regional Crop and National Livestock Production in the United States.” Staff Paper ES89-1, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, January 1989.Google Scholar