Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T04:22:33.149Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impacts of PST on Optimal Production and Marketing Decisions of a Grow-Finish Hog Farm Operation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Ramu Govindasamy ,
Donald J. Liu  and
James Kliebenstein
Ramu Govindasamy
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics & Rural Sociology, University of Arkansas
Donald J. Liu
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Iowa State University
James Kliebenstein
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Iowa State University
Get access

Abstract

This paper examines the impact of PST on the optimal production/marketing decisions of a grow-finish hog farm operation. The analysis evaluates PST from three angles: the feed efficiency effect, the leaner meat price effect, and the aggregate-supply-induced price effect. When limited to the feed efficiency effect only, the primary response to the new technology is to increase the animal turnover rate of the operation. When the leaner meat price effect is also included, marketing weight increases while turnover rate remains relatively unchanged. Additionally, if the increased aggregate supply depressed the market price by more than 10%, the benefits from improved feed efficiency and leaner meat will be completely dissipated. Aggregate price adjustments (reductions) of less than 10 percent maintained positive producer benefits resulting from improved feed efficiency and leaner meat.

Type
Articles
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , October 1993 , pp. 166 - 174
Copyright
Copyright © 1993 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

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

Boyd, R.D., et al. “Impact of Somatotropin on Growth Performance and Carcass Composition of Growing Swine.” Minnesota Nutrition Conference, Bloomington, MN, September 1987, pp. 161–72.Google Scholar
Brooke, A., Kendrick, D., and Meeraus, A. GAMS, A User's Guide. The Scientific Press: South San Francisco, 1988.Google Scholar
Chavas, J.P., Kliebenstein, J., and Crenshaw, T.D. “Modeling Dynamic Agricultural Production Response: The Case of Swine Production.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 67 (1985): 636–46.Google Scholar
Christian, L. Personal Conversations. (Professor of Animal Science, Iowa State University.)Google Scholar
Co-operative Extension Service, Estimated Livestock Returns, Iowa State University, 1989, M-1254.Google Scholar
Govindasamy, R., Liu, D., Kliebenstein, J. “Economic Impact of Porcine Somatotropin on a Farrow-to-Finish Hog Farm Operation.” Staff Paper No. 248, Department of Economics, Iowa State University, February 1993.Google Scholar
Holden, P. Personal Conversations. (Professor of Animal Science, Iowa State University.)Google Scholar
Kaiser, H.M., Scherer, C.W., and Barbano, D.M. “Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes Toward Bovine Somatotropin.” Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 21 (1992): 10–20.Google Scholar
Kaiser, H.M., and Tauer, L.W. “Impact of Bovine Somatotropin on U.S. Dairy Markets under Alternative Policy Options.” North Central Journal of Agricultural Economics 11 (1989): 59–73.Google Scholar
Kliebenstein, J., and Hillburn, . Comparing Pork Production Costs, Dept. of Economics, Iowa State University, 1991, Staff Paper Series No: 222.Google Scholar
Kliebenstein, J., Buhr, B., and Hayenga, M. “Economic Impact of Technology Adoption: The Case of PST.” Feed-stuffs 62 (1990): 16–31.Google Scholar
Lemieux, C.M., and Richardson, J.W. “Economic Impacts of Porcine Somatotropin on Midwest Hog Farmers.” North Central Journal of Agricultural Economics 11 (1989): 171–81.Google Scholar
Lemieux, C.M., and Wohlgenant, M.K. “Ex Ante Evaluation of the Economic Impact of Agricultural Biotechnology: The Case of Porcine Somatotropin.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 71 (1989): 903–14.Google Scholar
National Research Council, Nutrient Requirements of Swine, Ninth Revised Edition, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1988.Google Scholar
Stevermer, E.J. “1992 Iowa Swine Enterprise Summary.” Iowa State University Extension, EJS-206, ASB 1993.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Prices, various issues.Google Scholar