Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T04:43:43.682Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Regional Impacts of Federal Milk Marketing Order Policy Alternatives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

William A. Schiek
William A. Schiek*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University
Get access

Abstract

Impacts of alternative federal milk marketing policies which result in reduced fluid (Class I) milk prices were assessed using a simulation model of the U.S. dairy industry. Results indicated that milk production, farm milk prices and producer revenues were significantly reduced in the Southern and Northeast regions of the country under some options. The regional shares of total U.S. milk production were not significantly altered from those which would exist under a continuation of the current policy.

Type
Articles
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , October 1994 , pp. 207 - 217
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 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

Anderson, G. “Orders Need Reform … Here's How Far We'll Go to Get It.” Hoard's Dairyman, September 25, 1992.Google Scholar
Babb, E.M. Competitive Geographic Price Structure for Fluid Milk Markets. Staff Paper No. 400, Food and Resource Economics Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, November 1990.Google Scholar
Babb, E.M., Boynton, R.D., Dobson, W.D., and Novakovic, A.M. “Milk Marketing Orders.” in Federal Marketing Programs in Agriculture: Issues and Options, eds. Armbruster, W.J., Henderson, D.R. and Knutson, R.D. Danville, IL: Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc., 1983, Ch.6, pp. 159–97.Google Scholar
Bradley, G.H., Brown, G.G., and Graves, G.W. “Design and Implementation of Large Scale Primal Transshipment Algorithms.” Management Science, 24 (1977): 1–34.Google Scholar
Engle, R.F. and Granger, C.W.J. “Co-integration and Error Correction: Representation, Estimation and Testing.” Econometrica, 55 (1987): 251–76.Google Scholar
Francis, W.G. and Novakovic, A.M. Summary of Proposals for the 1990 Hearing on the Federal Milk Market Order Program. Briefing Paper No. 9, National Institute for Livestock and Dairy Policy, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, July 1990.Google Scholar
Forest, H.L. “Statement Before the Subcommittee on Diary and Poultry, Committee on Agriculture.” Presented to the Subcommittee on Dairy and Poultry, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, July 17, 1979.Google Scholar
French, C.E. and Kehrberg, E.W. “The Midwest—Eastern Seaboard Conflict of Interest in the Production and Distribution of Milk: The Comparative Advantage Aspects.” Journal of Farm Economics, 42 (1960): 1297–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, J. and Harris, H. “Alternative Order Provisions to Facilitate Orderly Movement of Milk to Fluid Markets.” Paper No. 22 in Dairy Policy for the 1990 Farm Bill: Issues and Options, Department of Agricultural Economics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 1990.Google Scholar
Jesse, E.V. and Babb, E.M. “Major Issues for the 1990 Hearing on the Federal Milk Marketing Order Program.” Paper No. 21 in Dairy Policy for the 1990 Farm Bill: Issues and Options, Department of Agricultural Economics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 1990.Google Scholar
Judge, G., Hill, R.C., Griffiths, W.E., Lutkepohl, H., and Lee, T. Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Econometrics. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1988.Google Scholar
McDowell, H., Fleming, A., and Fallert, R. Federal Milk Marketing Orders: An Analysis of Alternative Policies. Washington, DC: Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, September 1988.Google Scholar
McDowell, H., Fleming, A.M., and Spinelli, F. U.S. Milk Markets Under Alternative Federal Pricing Policies. Washington, DC: Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, November 1990.Google Scholar
Novakovic, A.M., Babb, E.M., Martella, D.R., and Pratt, J.E. An Economic and Mathematic Description of the Dairy Market Policy Simulator (Model A). Agricultural Economics Research 80-21, Department of Agricultural Economics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, September 1980.Google Scholar
Novakovic, A.M., Babb, E.M., Banker, D.E., Martella, D.R., Pratt, J.E., Schiek, W.A., and Wu, Chun-Yin. 1988 Base Data for the Dairy Market Policy Simulator. Staff Paper SP91-29, Food and Resource Economics Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, August 1991.Google Scholar
Novakovic, A.M. and Jacobson, R. “Federal Order Class I Prices Under a Multiple Base Point System.” Paper No. 16 in Dairy Policy for the 1990 Farm Bill: Issues and Options, Department of Agricultural Economics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 1990.Google Scholar
Novakovic, A.M. and Pratt, J.E. Geographic Price Relationships Under Federal Milk Marketing Orders. Agricultural Economics Research 91-8, Department of Agricultural Economics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, September 1991.Google Scholar
Schiek, W.A. “Factors Affecting Regional Structure in the U.S. Dairy Industry.” Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Florida, August 1991.Google Scholar
Schiek, W.A. Regional Farm Structure Impacts of Bovine Somatotropin Adoption. Staff Paper No. 94-16, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, August 1994.Google Scholar
Schwart, R.B. Jr., Holt, J., Outlaw, J., and Richardson, J.W. “The Impact of Alternative Federal Order Structures on Typical Dairy Farms.” Texas Extension Service, Texas A&M University, February 1992.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Federal Milk Market Order Statistics for August 1985. Washington, DC: Agricultural Marketing Service, December 1985.Google Scholar
Veloce, W. and Zellner, A. “Entry and Empirical Demand and Supply Analysis for Competitive Industries.” Journal of Econometrics, 30 (1985): 459–71.Google Scholar