Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-sv6ng Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-19T08:27:09.344Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Return of the Threshing Ring? A Case Study of Machinery and Labor-Sharing in Midwestern Farms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2015

Georgeanne Artz ,
Gregory Colson  and
Roger Ginder
Georgeanne Artz
Affiliation:
Agricultural and Applied Economics and Truman School of Public Affairs, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO
Gregory Colson
Affiliation:
Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia, Athens, GA
Roger Ginder
Affiliation:
Economics, Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Machinery-sharing provides an alternative for smaller producers to obtain the efficiencies of large farming operations and remain competitive in an increasingly concentrated agricultural industry. This research uses a multiple case study design to examine the motivations for sharing equipment and labor among farms and to better understand how group members handle the transaction costs of sharing. Our case evidence finds that in addition to cost savings, access to reliable labor is an important motivation for participating in a sharing arrangement. Trust and frequent communication among group members helps to minimize the transaction costs incurred from sharing.

Keywords

machinery sharingtransaction costsfarm-level cooperationQ12Q13
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 42 , Issue 4 , November 2010 , pp. 805 - 819
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2010

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

Allen, D.W., and Lueck, D. “The Nature of the Farm.” The Journal of Law & Economics XLI (1998):343–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, D.W., and Lueck, D. “A Transaction Cost Primer of Farm Organization.” Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 48(2000):643–52.Google Scholar
Andersson, H., Larsén, K., Lagerkvist, C.J., Andersson, C., Blad, F., Samuelsson, J., and Skargren, P. “Farm Cooperation to Improve Sus-tainability.” Ambio 34(2005):383–87.Google Scholar
Artz, G., Edwards, W., and Olson, F. Farm Machinery and Labor Sharing Manual: Tools to Help You Evaluate Sharing Machinery and Labor as an Option in Your Farming Operation. NCFMEC-21. Ames, IA: MidWest Plan Service, 2009.Google Scholar
de Toro, A., and Hansson, P. “Machinery Cooperatives—A Case Study in Sweden.” Bio-systems Engineering 87(2004): 13–25.Google Scholar
Edwards, W. Machinery Management: Joint Machinery Ownership. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Extension, Pub. No. PM 1373, April 2001.Google Scholar
Gertler, M.E. “A Comparison of Agricultural Resource Management on Selected Group and Individual Farms in Saskatchewan.” MSc thesis, McGill University, Montreal, Canada, 1981.Google Scholar
Gertler, M.E., and Murphy, T. “The Social Economy of Canadian Agriculture: Family Farming and Alternative Futures.” Family Farming in Europe and America. Galeski, B. and Wilkening, E., eds. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1987.Google Scholar
Ginder, R., Artz, G., and Colson, G. “Alternative Approaches for Sharing Machinery, Labor and Other Resources Among Small- and Medium-Sized Producers.” Working paper, Dept. of Economics, Iowa State University, August 2004.Google Scholar
Groger, L.B. “Of Men and Machines: Co-operation among French Family Farmers.” Ethnology 20(1981):163–76.Google Scholar
Hall, B.H., and Khan, B. “Adoption of New Technology,” New Economy Handbook, North-Holland: Elsevier, 2003, pp. 229–49.Google Scholar
Hansmann, H. The Ownership of Enterprise. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
Harris, A., and Fulton, M. The CUMA Farm Machinery Co-operatives. Center for the Study of Co-operatives. University of Saskatchewan, 2000a.Google Scholar
Harris, A., and Fulton, M. Farm Machinery Co-operative: An Idea Worth Sharing. Center for the Study of Cooperatives. University of Saskatchewan, 2000b.Google Scholar
Johnson, N., and Ruttan, V. “Why Are Farms So Small?” World Development 22(1994):691–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, P.L., and Luzar, E.J. “Toward Methodological Inclusivism: The Case for Case Studies.” Review of Agricultural Economics 21(1999): 579–91.Google Scholar
Larsén, K. “Participation, Incentives and Social Norms in Partnership Arrangements Among Farms in Sweden.” Selected paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Agricultural Economics Association, Portland, OR. July:(2007):29–31.Google Scholar
Lawless, G., Cropp, R., and Harris, P. Cooperative Ownership Compared to Other Business Arrangements for Multi-Family Dairy Operations. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, Center for Cooperatives, Occasional Paper, No. 11, April 1996.Google Scholar
McBride, W. “Production Costs Critical to Farming Decisions.” Amber Waves 1(2003): 38–45.Google Scholar
NASS. 2009. Farm Production Expenses Annual Summary. Internet site: http://usda.mannlib. cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentlnfo.do?documentID=1066 (Accessed April 7, 2010).Google Scholar
Nielsen, V. “The Effect of Collaboration between Cattle Farms on the Labour Requirement and Machinery Costs.” Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 72(1999): 197–203.Google Scholar
Olmstead, A.L., and Rhode, P.W. “Beyond the Threshold: An Analysis of the Characteristics and Behavior of Early Reaper Adopters.” The Journal of Economic History 55,1(1995):27–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roe, J. “Value-Added What? Horizontal versus Vertical Expansion in Iowa Production Agriculture.” Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Agricultural Economics Association, Providence, RI, July 24-27, 2005.Google Scholar
Samuelsson, J., Larsen, K., Lagerkvist, C.J., and Andersson, H. “Risk, Return and Incentive Aspects on Partnerships in Agriculture.” Food Economics—Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section C. 5,April(2008): 14–23.Google Scholar
SAOS. “Co-operative Rural Business Rings Socio Economic Impact Study,” Ingliston, Scotland: SAOS, Ltd., March 2008.Google Scholar
Sexton, R., and Iskow, J. Factors Critical to the Success of Failure of Emerging Agricultural Cooperatives. Davis, CA: University of California-Davis, Gianini Foundation Information Series, Pub. No., 1988, pp. 88–93.Google Scholar
Sterns, J.A., Schweikhardt, D.B., and Peterson, H.C. “Using Case Studies as an Approach for Conducting Agribusiness Research.” International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 1(1998):311–27.Google Scholar
Stofferhn, C. “Individualism or Cooperation: Preferences for Sharing Machinery and Labor.” Journal of Cooperatives 18(2004):1–17.Google Scholar
Valentinov, V. “Why Are Cooperatives Important in Agriculture? An Organizational Economics Perspective.” Journal of Institutional Economics 3(2007):55–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varian, H. Microeconomic Analysis. 3rd ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1992.Google Scholar
Weness, E. “Sharing Farm Machinery.” University of Minnesota Extension. August 2001. Internet site: http://swroc.cfans.umn.edu/SWFM/Files/fin/sharing_machinery.htm (Accessed January 26, 2009).Google Scholar
Westgren, R., and Zering, K. “Case Study Research Methods for Firm and Market Research.” Agribusiness 14(1998):415–24.Google Scholar
Yin, R. Case Study Research Design and Methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2003.Google Scholar