Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T05:33:01.054Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Seed and Farm Characteristics on Cottonseed Choice: A Choice-Based Conjoint Experiment in the Mississippi Delta

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Swagata “Ban” Banerjee ,
Darren Hudson  and
Steven W. Martin
Swagata “Ban” Banerjee
Affiliation:
Delta Research and Extension Center, Mississippi State University, Stoneville, MS
Darren Hudson
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS
Steven W. Martin
Affiliation:
Delta Research and Extension Center, Mississippi State University, Stoneville, MS
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Producers' preferences for cottonseed with respect to price, seed type, yield, and fiber quality are examined by a willingness-to-pay approach via mail surveys. Results indicate a positive willingness to pay (WTP) for technology relative to conventional cottonseed, and WTP increases with the level of technology. Yield and quality also show a positive WTP. Larger farms have a higher WTP for technology, and farms with more farm labor have a lower WTP for technology. These results suggest economies of size in technology adoption (biotechnology is not size-neutral) and that labor and biotechnology are direct substitutes.

Keywords

biotechnologyconjoint analysisconjoint (choice) experimentcottonfarm laborfarm sizefiber qualitywillingness to pay (WTP)D24Q12Q16
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 39 , Issue 3 , December 2007 , pp. 657 - 669
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2007

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

Adamowicz, W., Louviere, J., and Williams, M.. “Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26(1994):271-92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adamowicz, W., Swait, J., Boxali, R., Louviere, J., and Williams, M.. “Perception versus Objective Measures of Environmental Quality in Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Models of Environmental Valuation.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 32(1997):65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adamowicz, W., Boxali, R., Williams, M., and Louviere, J.. “Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80(1998):64–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, C. “Export-Driven Market Reflects Instability.” Cotton Grower 41,7(July 2005):22.Google Scholar
Anonymous. “U.S. Fiber Advantages.” Cotton Grower Plus 19,2(November 2004):17.Google Scholar
Anonymous. “The 2005 Cotton Grower Acreage Survey.” Cotton Grower 41,1(January 2005):19–21.Google Scholar
Ayidiya, S., and McClendon, M.. “Response Effects on Mail Surveys.” Public Opinion Quarterly 54(1990):229-47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banerjee, S.B., and Martin, S.W.. “Summary of Precision Farming Practices and Perceptions of Mississippi Cotton Producers: Results from the 2005 Southern Precision Farming Survey.” Mississippi State: Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station Bulletin 1157, June 2007.Google Scholar
Beggs, S., Cardell, S., and Hausman, J.. “Assessing the Potential Demand for Electric Cars.” Journal of Econometrics 16(1981):1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ben-Akiva, M., and Lerman, S.R.. Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1985.Google Scholar
Carlsson, F., and Martinsson, P.. “Do Hypothetical and Actual Marginal Willingness to Pay Differ in Choice Experiments?” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 41(2001):179-92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cleveland, O. “More Export Dependent.” Cotton Grower 41,4(April 2005):26.Google Scholar
Dillman, D.A.Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York, NY: John-Wiley & Sons, 1978.Google Scholar
El-Osta, H.S., and Johnson, J.D.. Determinants of Financial Performance of Commercial Dairy Farms. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Technical Bulletin 1859, 1998.Google Scholar
El-Osta, H.S., and Morehart, M.J.. “Technology Adoption Decisions in Dairy Production and the Role of Herd Expansion.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 28(1999):84–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandez-Cornejo, J., Daberkow, S., and McBride, W.D.. “Decomposing the Size Effect on the Adoption of Innovations: Agrobiotechnology and Precision Farming.” Paper presented at the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, August 5-8, 2001.Google Scholar
Hudson, D., and Hite, D.. “Producer Willingness to Pay for Precision Application Technology: Implications for Government and the Technology Industry.” Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 51(2003):39–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, D., and Lusk, J.L.. “Risk and Transactions Cost in Contracting: Results from a Choice-Based Experiment.” Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization 2(February 2004):1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, D., Gallardo, K., and Hanson, T.. “Hypothetical (Non)Bias in Choice Experiments: Evidence from Freshwater Prawns.” Mississippi State, MS: Mississippi State University Department of Agricultural Economics Working paper, 2004.Google Scholar
Jayne, T., Rubey, L., Lupi, F., Tschirley, D., and Weber, M.. “Estimating Consumer Response to Food Market Reform Using State Preference Data: Evidence from Eastern and Southern Africa.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78(1996):820-24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kausik, U. “India—A Global Textile Giant.” Cotton Farming 49,10(October 2005):5.Google Scholar
Kinnucan, H., Hatch, U., Molnar, J., and Venkateswaran, M.. “Scale Neutrality of Bovine Somatotropin: Ex Ante Evidence from the Southeast.” Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics 22(1990):1–12.Google Scholar
Kuchler, F., and Offutt, S.. “Review of book ‘Technology, Public Policy, and the Changing Structure of American Agriculture’ by U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 68(August 1986):764-66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhfeld, W., Tobias, R., and Garratt, M.. “Efficient Experimental Design with Marketing Research Applications.” Journal of Marketing Research 31(1994):545-57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krinsky, I., and Robb, A.L.. “On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities.” Review of Economics and Statistics 64(1986):715-19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lancaster, K. “A New Approach to Consumer Theory.” Journal of Political Economy 74(1966):132-57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lange, M. “Global Leadership in Promotion.” Cotton Farming 49,11 (November 2005):13.Google Scholar
Layton, D.F., and Brown, G.. “Heterogeneous Preferences Regarding Global Climate Change.” Review of Economic Statistics 82(2000):616-24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loureiro, M.L., and Hine, S.. “Discovering Niche Markets: A Comparison of Consumer Willingness to Pay for Local (Colorado Grown), Organic, and GMO-Free Products.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 34(2002):477-87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Louviere, J.J., Hensher, D.A., and Swait, J.D.. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lusk, J.L., and Hudson, D.. “Willingness-to-Pay Estimates and Their Relevance to Agribusiness Decision Making.” Review of Agricultural Economics 26,2(2004):152-69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lusk, J.L., and Norwood, B.. “Effect of Experimental Design on Choice-Based Conjoint Valuation Estimates.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87(August 2005):771-85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lusk, J.L., and Schroeder, T.C.. “Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86(May 2004):467-82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lusk, J.L., Roosen, J., and Fox, J.A.. “Demand for Beef from Cattle Administered Growth Hormones or Fed Genetically Modified Corn: A Comparison of Consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85(February 2003):16–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lusk, J.L., Moore, M., House, L., and Morrow, B.. “Influence of Brand Name and Type of Modification on Consumer Acceptance of Genetically Engineered Corn Chips: A Preliminary Analysis.” International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 4(2002):373-83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mark, D.R., Lusk, J.L., and Daniel, M.S.. “Recruiting Agricultural Economics Graduate Students: Student Demand for Program Attributes.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86(February 2004):175-84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, J., and Moffitt, R.. “The Uses of Tobit Analysis.” Review of Economics and Statistics 62(1980):318-21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFarlane, B., and Garland, R.. “A Comparison of Mail and Face-to-Face Survey Methods: New Zealand Health Professionals.” Marketing Bulletin 5(1994):71–82.Google Scholar
Moore, W., and Holbrook, M.. “Conjoint Analysis on Objects with Environmentally Correlated Attributes: The Questionable Importance of Representative Design.” Journal of Consumer Research 16(1990):490-97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nalley, L.L., Hudson, D., Rogers, R.W., Martin, J.W., and Herring, J.L.. “In-Store Evaluation of Consumer Willingness to Pay for ‘Farm-Raised’ Pre-Cooked Roast Beef: A Case Study.” Journal of Agribusiness 22(2004):163-73.Google Scholar
Revelt, D., and Train, K.. “Mixed Logit with Repeated Choices: Households’ Choices of Appliance Efficiency Level.” Review of Economics and Statistics 80(1998):647-57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roe, B., Boyle, K., and Tiesl, M.. “Using Conjoint Analysis to Derive Estimates of Compensating Variation.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 31(1996):145-59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, E.M.Diffusion of Innovations, 4th ed. New York: The Free Press, 1995.Google ScholarPubMed
Tobin, J. “Estimation of Relationships for Limited Dependent Variables.” Econometrica 26(1958):29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Train, K.E. “Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences Over People.” Land Economics 74(1998):230-39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unterschultz, J., Quarainie, K.K., Veeman, M., and Kim, R.B.. “South Korean Hotel Meat Buyers’ Perceptions of Australian, Canadian, and U.S. Beef.” Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 46(1998):53–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. “Cotton: National Statistics.” Internet site: http://www.nass.usda.gov/Data_and_Statistics/index.asp (Accessed August 16, 2006a).Google Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. “2002 Census of Agriculture: Mississippi State and County Data.” Internet site: http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/volumel/ms/st28_1_055_055.pdf (Accessed August 16, 2006b).Google Scholar
Wardman, M. “A Comparison of Revealed Preferences and Stated Preference Models of Travel Behavior.” Journal of Transportation and Economic Policy, 1988):71–91.Google Scholar