Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T16:29:18.540Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of Risk Averse Behavior on Fertilizer Demand for Tame Forages*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

C. Richard Shumway  and
Tesfaye Gebremeskel
C. Richard Shumway
Affiliation:
Texas A&M University
Tesfaye Gebremeskel
Affiliation:
Texas A&M., Texas Southern University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The importance of risk in affecting production decisions is amply attested in the economics literature. Recent investigation of the influence of risky alternatives on supply relations has included both econometric analyses and programming studies. Hazell and Scandizzo suggest that when risk aversion is present, the slope of the supply schedule (i.e., with price plotted on the vertical axis) is expected to be greater than that for a risk-neutral supply schedule.

In spite of considerable interest in the supply implications of risk aversion, little empirical attention has been given to its effects on factor demand. The authors attempt to do so, and examine the applicability of Hazell and Scandizzo's supply assertion to factor demand.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , July 1978 , pp. 51 - 57
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1978

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.)

Footnotes

*

Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Article No. 14032.

References

[1]Behrman, J. R.Supply Response in Underdeveloped Agriculture, North Holland: Amsterdam, 1968.Google Scholar
[2]Freebairn, J. W. and Rausser, G. C.. “Effects of Changes in the Level of U.S. Beef Imports,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Volume 57, 1975, pp. 676–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Freund, R. J. “The Introduction of Risk into a Programming Model,” Econometrica, Volume 24, 1956, pp. 253–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Ever, G. W. “Evaluation of Cool Season Annuals for Forage Production in Southeast Texas,” Texas Agricultural Experiment Station PR-3248, October 1973.Google Scholar
[5]Ever, G. W. “Small Grain Dry Matter Yields at the Texas A&M University Agricultural Research and Extension Center at Beaumont, 1971-1972,” Mimeographed, TAMUAREC, Beaumont.Google Scholar
[6]Gebremeskel, Tesfaye. “Cow-Calf Production and Marketing Decisions in East Texas: Application of Risk Constrained Linear Programming and Statistical Decision Theory,” Ph.D. thesis, Texas A&M University, 1977.Google Scholar
[7]Gebremeskel, Tesfaye, Shumway, C. R., and Riewe, M. E.. “Profit Potential and Risks in Forage-Beef Production, Texas Gulf Coast,” mimeographed, Texas A&M University, 1978.Google Scholar
[8]Hazell, P. B. R. “A Linear Alternative to Quadratic and Semivariance Programming for Farm Planning under Uncertainty,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Volume 53, 1971, pp. 53–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]Hazell, P. B. R. and Scandizzo, P. L.. “Market Intervention Policies When Production Is Riskey,” American Journal ofAgricultural Economics, Volume 57,1975, pp. 641–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]Hazell, P. B. R. and Scandizzo, P. L.. “Farmers' Expectations, Risk Aversion, and Market Equilibrium Under Risk,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Volume 59, 1977, pp. 204–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11]Just, R. E. “An Investigation of the Importance of Risk in Farmers' Decisions,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Volume 56, 1974, pp. 14–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12]Lin, W., Dean, G. W., and Moore, C. V.. “An Empirical Test of Utility vs. Profit Maximization in Agricultural Production,” Amerian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Volume 56, 1974, pp. 497–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13]Maddox, L. A.Nutrient Requirements of the Cow and Calf, Texas Agricultural Extension Service B-1044, 1974.Google Scholar
[14]National Academy of Science, National Research Council, Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle, 4th Edition, Washington, D.C., 1970.Google Scholar
[15]Riewe, M. E. “Forage and Animal Production Programs for Southeast Texas,” Chapter 11 in Holt, E. C. and Lewis, R. D., eds., Grasses and Legumes in Texas—Development, Production, and Utilization, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Monograph 6, January 1976.Google Scholar
[16]Shumway, C. R. and Chang, A. A.. “Linear Programming Versus Positively Estimated Supply Functions: An Empirical and Methodological Critique,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Volume 59, 1977, pp. 344–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[17]Simmons, R. L. and Pomareda, C.. “Equilibrium Quantity and Timing of Mexican Vegetable Exports,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Volume 57, 1975, pp. 472–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[18]Texas Agricultural Extension Service. Texas Crop Budgets, Texas A&M University, MP-1927.Google Scholar
[19]Traill, B.Incorporation of Risk Variables in Econometric Supply Response Analysis, Cornell Agricultural Economics Staff Paper No. 76-27, August 1976.Google Scholar
[20]U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Statistics, Washington, D.C., 1972, 1976.Google Scholar
[21]U.S. Department of Agriculture. “Livestock Detailed Quotations, San Antonio Market, 1955-1974,” Agricultural Marketing Service, unpublished data.Google Scholar
[22]Whitson, R. E., Parks, D. L., and Herd, D. B.. “Effects of Forage Quality Restrictions on Optimal Production Systems Determined by Linear Programming,” Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Volume 8, No. 2, 1976, pp. 1–4.Google Scholar