Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T14:27:35.767Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Decomposition of Total Factor Productivity Change in the U.S. Hog Industry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2015

Nigel Key ,
William McBride  and
Roberto Mosheim
Nigel Key
Affiliation:
Economic Research Service in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC
William McBride
Affiliation:
Economic Research Service in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC
Roberto Mosheim
Affiliation:
Economic Research Service in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The U.S. hog industry has experienced dramatic structural changes and rapid increases in farm productivity. A stochastic frontier analysis is used to measure hog enterprise total factor productivity (TFP) growth between 1992 and 2004 and to decompose this growth into technical change and changes in technical efficiency, scale efficiency, and allocative efficiency. Productivity gains over the 12-year period are found to be explained almost entirely by technical progress and by improvements in scale efficiency. Differences in TFP growth rates in the Southeast and Heartland regions were found to be explained primarily by differences in farm size growth rates.

Keywords

hog productionscale efficiencystochastic frontiertechnical changetotal factor productivity growthD24Q12
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 40 , Issue 1 , April 2007 , pp. 137 - 149
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2008

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

Aillery, M., Gollehon, N., Johansson, R., Kaplan, J., Key, N., and Ribaudo, M. Managing Manure to Improve Air and Water Quality. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Economic Research Report. No. 9, September, 2005.Google Scholar
Battese, G.E., and Coelli, T.J. “Frontier Production Functions, Technical Efficiency and Panel Data: With Application to Paddy Farmers in India.” Journal of Productivity Analysis 3(1992):153–69.Google Scholar
Brummer, B., Glauben, T., and Thijssen, G. “Decomposition of Productivity Growth Using Distance Functions: The Case of Dairy Farms in Three European Countries.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 84,3(August 2002):628–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coelli, T.J., Estache, A., Perelman, S., and Trujillo, L. A Primer on Efficiency Measurement for Utilities and Transport Regulators. Washington, DC: The World Bank, 2003.Google Scholar
Coelli, T.J., Rao, D., O’Donnell, C.J., and Battese, G.E. An Introduction to Efficiency and Productivity Analysis, 2nd ed. New York: Springer, 2005.Google Scholar
Kaplan, J., Johansson, R., and Peters, M. “The Manure Hits the Land: Economic and Environmental Implications When Land Application of Nutrients is Constrained.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86,3(2004):688–700.Google Scholar
Kellogg, R., Lander, C., Moffitt, D., and Gollehon, N. Manure Nutrients Relative to the Capacity of Cropland and Pastureland to Assimilate Nutrients: Spatial and Temporal Trends for the United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service and Economic Research Service, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Key, N., and McBride, W. The Changing Economics of U.S. Hog Production. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Economic Research Report, No. 52, December, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onal, H., Unnevehr, L., and Bekric, A. “Regional Shifts in Pork Production: Implication for Competition and Food Safety.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 82(2000):968–78.Google Scholar
Orea, L. “Parametric Decomposition of a Generalized Malmquist Productivity Index.” Journal of Productivity Analysis 18(2002):5–22.Google Scholar
Ribaudao, M., Gollehon, N., Aillery, M., Kaplan, J., Johansson, R., Agapoff, J., Christensen, L., Breneman, V., and Peters, M. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Manure Management for Water Quality: Costs to Animal Feeding Operation of Applying Nutrients to Land. Agricultural Economic Report, No. 824, 2003.Google Scholar
Roe, B., Irwin, E.G., and Sharp, J.S. “Pigs in Space: Modeling the Spatial Structure of Hog Production in Traditional and Nontraditional Production Regions.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 84,2(May 2002):259–78.Google Scholar
Rowland, W., Langemeier, M., Schurle, B., and Featherstone, A. “A Nonparametric Efficiency Analysis of a Sample of Kansas Swine Operations.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 30,1(July 1998):189–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharma, K., Leung, P., and Zaleski, H. “Productive Efficiency of the Swine Industry in Hawaii: Stochastic Frontier vs. Data Envelopment Analysis.” Journal of Productivity Analysis 8(1997):447–59.Google Scholar
Tonsor, G., and Featherstone, A.M. “Heterogeneous Production Efficiency of Specialized Swine Producers.” Selected working paper prepared for presentation at the Southern Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meetings Orlando, FL, February 5-8, 2006.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Meat Price Spreads. Internet site: www.ers.usda.gov/Data/meatpricespreads/ (Accessed January 23, 2008).Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. Hogs and Pigs, various issues.Google Scholar