Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T22:19:00.245Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Genetic and Economic Impact of the University of Arkansas's Rice Breeding Program: 1983-2007

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2015

L. Lanier Nalley ,
Karen A. Moldenhauer  and
Nate Lyman
L. Lanier Nalley
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR
Karen A. Moldenhauer
Affiliation:
University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture Rice Research and Extension Center, Stuttgart, AR
Nate Lyman
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study estimates the proportion of rice yield increase in University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture's (UofA) released rice cultivars that are attributable to genetic improvements through the University's breeding program. Test plot data from eight UofA experiment stations were used to quantify the yield increases and potential yield growth decreases over time. In addition to quantifying the yield and yield variance evolution at the UofA, this study also calculates the economic benefits of the UofA rice breeding program. Results indicated that by releasing modern rice cultivars, the UofA rice breeding program increased average producer yield by 0.68 bu/ac annually. During the last decade, 1997-2007, the average annual economic benefits were 34.3 million (2007) dollars. When accounting for the spillover of UofA rice varieties to neighboring states the average annual economic benefit of the breeding program increases to 46.7 million (2007) dollars.

Keywords

economic impact of technological changeJust and Popepublic rice breedingO13O32Q16
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 43 , Issue 1 , February 2011 , pp. 131 - 142
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2011

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

Alston, J.M., Norton, G.W., and Pardey, P.G. Science under Scarcity: Principles and Practice for Agricultural Research and Evaluation and Priority Setting. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
Arrow, K. “The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing.” The Review of Economic Studies 29(1962):155–73.10.2307/2295952Google Scholar
Barkley, A. “Kansas Wheat Breeding: An Economic Analysis.” Report of Progress 793. Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service, October 1997.Google Scholar
Brennan, J.P. “Measuring the Contribution of New Varieties to Increasing Wheat Yields.” Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics 52(1984):175–95.Google Scholar
Brennan, J.P. “An Analysis of the Economic Potential of Some Innovations in a Wheat Breeding Programme.” Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics 33(1989a):48–55.10.1111/j.1467-8489.1989.tb00480.xGoogle Scholar
Brennan, J.P. “An Analytical Model of a Wheat Breeding Program.” Agricultural Systems 31(1989b):349–66.10.1016/0308-521X(89)90034-6Google Scholar
Byerlee, D., and Traxler, G. “National and International Wheat Improvement Research in the Post-Green Revolution Period: Evolution and Impacts.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 77(1995):268–78.10.2307/1243537Google Scholar
Feyerherm, A.M., Paulsen, G.M., and Sebaugh, J.L. “Contribution of Genetic Improvement to Recent Wheat Yield Increases in the USA.” Agronomy Journal 76(1984):985–990.10.2134/agronj1984.00021962007600060027xGoogle Scholar
Huffman, W.E., and Evenson, R.E. Science for Agriculture: A Long-Term Perspective. 2nd ed. Ames, IA: Blackwell Publishing, 2006.Google Scholar
Just, R., and Pope, R. “Production Function Estimation and Related Risk Considerations.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 61(1979):276–84.10.2307/1239732Google Scholar
Marasas, C, Smale, M., and Singh, R. The Economic Impact of Productivity Maintenance “Research: Breeding for Rust Resistance in Modem Wheat.” Agricultural Economics 29(2003):253–63.10.1111/j.1574-0862.2003.tb00162.xGoogle Scholar
Nalley, L., Barkley, A., and Chumley, F. “The Impact of the Kansas Wheat Breeding Program on Wheat Yields, 1911-2005.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 40(2008):913–25.Google Scholar
Nalley, L., Barkley, A., Crespi, J., and Sayre, K. “The Impact of the CIMMYT Wheat Breeding Program: An Economic Welfare Analysis.” Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development. 5(2008):11–16.Google Scholar
Salmon, S.C. “Analysis of Variance of Longtime Variety Tests of Wheat.” Agronomy Journal 43(1951):562–70.10.2134/agronj1951.00021962004300110009xGoogle Scholar
Slaton, N. Rice Production Handbook. Little Rock: The University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service, 2001.Google Scholar
Tassey, G. “Methods for Assessing the Economic Impacts of Government R&D.” NIST Planning Report 03-1. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), U.S. Department of Commerce, 2003.Google Scholar
Traxler, G., Flack-Zepeda, J., Ortiz, J.-Monasterio, and Sayre, K. “Production Risk and the Evolution of Varietal Technology.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 77(1995):1–7.10.2307/1243883Google Scholar
University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service (CES). “Arkansas Rice Performance Trials (ARPT), ‘Rice Data’”. Various years, 1996-2007, Little Rock, Arkansas.Google Scholar