Production technology option value: The case of rbST in Michigan

Agricultural Economics (United Kingdom)

Volumn 43, Issue SUPPL. 1, 2012, Pages 1-9

  Olynk, Nicole J ^a   Wolf, Christopher A ^b   Tonsor, Glynn T ^c  

^a PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Dairy farm management; Producer welfare; RbST, Technology; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS; AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION; AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY; DAIRY FARMING; DECISION MAKING; HORMONE; MILK PRODUCTION; WELFARE IMPACT; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

MICHIGAN; UNITED STATES;

BOVINAE;

EID: 84868532620     PISSN: 01695150     EISSN: 15740862     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1574-0862.2012.00615.x     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Adamowicz, W., Boxall, P., Williams, M., Louviere, J., 1998. Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: Choice experiments and contingent valuation. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 80, 64-75.
2. Alfnes, F., 2004. Stated preferences for imported and hormone-treated beef: Application of a mixed logit model. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 31, 19-37.
3. Barham, B., Foltz, J., Jackson-Smith, D., Moon, S., 2004. The dynamics of agricultural biotechnology adoption: Lessons from rbST use in Wisconsin, 1994-2001. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 86, 61-72.
4. Boxall, P.C., Adamowicz, W.L., 2002. Understanding heterogeneous preferences in random utility models: A latent class approach. Environ. Resour. Econ. 23, 421-446.
5. Britt, J.S., Thomas, R.C., Speer, N.C., Hall, M.B., 2003. Efficiency of converting nutrient dry matter to milk in Holstein herds. J. Dairy Sci. 86, 3796-3801.
6. Butler, L.J., 1999. The profitability of rBST on US dairy farms. AgBioForum 2, 111-117.
7. Cook-Mowery C., Olynk, N.J., Wolf, C.A., 2008. Farm-Level contracting for production process attributes: An analysis of rBST in milk production. J. Food Law Policy 4, 177-208.
8. Davis, C.G., Gillespie, J.M., 2007. Factors affecting the selection of business arrangements by U.S. hog farmers. Rev. Agric. Econ. 29, 331-348.
9. Dillman, D.A., 1999. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. John Wiley &Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ
10. Fetrow, J., 1999. Economics of recombinant bovine somatotropin on US dairy farms. AgBioForum 2, 103-110.
11. Foltz, J., Chang, H., 2002. The adoption and profitability of rBST on Connecticut dairy farms. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 84, 1021-1032.
12. Gillespie, J.M., Davis, C.G., Rahelizatovo, N.C., 2004. An evaluation of U.S. hog producer preferences toward autonomy. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 36, 575-590.
13. Hausman, J., Ruud, P., 1987. Specifying and testing econometric models for rank-ordered data. J. Econometr. 34, 83-104.
14. Hudson, D., Lusk, J., 2004. Activists and corporate behavior in food processing and retailing: A sequential bargaining game. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 29, 79-93.
15. Key, N., 2005. How much do farmers value their independence? Agric. Econ. 33, 117-126.
16. Krinsky, I., Robb, A.L., 1986. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev. Econ. Stat. 64, 715-719.
17. Kroger Co., 2007. Kroger to complete transition to certified rbST-free milk by early 2008. Available at: http://www.thekrogerco.com/corpnews/corpnewsinfo_pressreleases_08012007.htm. Accessed December 2008.
18. Lusk, J.L., Norwood, F.B, Pruitt, J.R., 2006. Consumer demand for a ban on antibiotic drug use in pork production. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 88, 1015-1033.
19. Lusk, J., Roosen, J., Fox, J., 2003. 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. Am. J. Agric. Econ., 85, 16-29.
20. Lusk, J.L., Schroeder, T.C., 2004. Are choice experiments incentive compatible? A test with quality differentiated beef steaks. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 86, 467-482.
21. Manski, Charles F., 1977. The structure of random utility models. Theory Decision 8, 229-254.
22. McBride, W., Short, S., El-Osta, H., 2004. The adoption and impact of bovine somatotropin on U.S. dairy farms. Rev. Agric. Econ. 26, 1-17.
23. Meijer., 2008. Meijer offers milk produced without artificial growth hormone. Available at: https://www.meijer.com/content/content_leftnav_manual.jsp?pageName=pr_meijer_milk. Accessed December 2009.
24. Morey, E.R., 1999. Two rums un cloaked: Nested-logit models of site choice and nested-logit models of participation and site choice. In: Herriges, J.A., Kling, C.L. (Eds.), Valuing Recreation and the Environment. Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA
25. Norwood, F.B., Luter, R., Massey, R., 2005. Asymmetric willingness-to-pay distributions for livestock manure. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 39, 431-448.
26. Norwood, F.B., Winn, C., Chung, C., Ward, C.E., 2006. Designing a voluntary beef checkoff. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 31, 74-92.
27. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle (Seventh Revised Edition), 2001. National Academy Press, Washington, DC
28. Ott, S.L., Rendleman, C.M., 2000. Economic impacts associated with bovine somatotropin (BST) use based on survey of US dairy herds. AgBioForum 3, 173-180.
29. Poe, G.L., Giraud, K.L., Loomis, J.B., 2005. Computation methods for measuring the difference in empirical distributions. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 87, 353-365.
30. Reuters, 2008. Wal-mart milk to have no artificial growth hormones. Available at: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2043485820080321. Accessed December 2009.
31. Revelt, D., and Train, K., 1998. Mixed logit with repeated choices: Households' choices of appliance efficiency level. Rev. Econ. Stat. 80, 647-657.
32. Roe, B., Sporleder, T.L., Belleville, B., 2004. Hog producer preferences for marketing contract attributes. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 86, 115-123.
33. Roseboro, K., 2007. Krogers decision to push away from GMO milk. The non-GMO report. Available at: http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/21410. Accessed December 2009.
34. Scarpa, R., Del Giudice, T., 2004. Market segmentation via mixed logit: Extra virgin olive oil in urban Italy. J. Agric. Food Ind. Organizat. 2, 1-18.
35. Schulz, L., Tonsor, G.T., 2010. Cow-calf producer preferences for voluntary traceability systems. J. Agric. Econ. 61, 138-162.
36. Small, K.A., Rosen, H.S., 1981. Applied welfare economics with discrete choice models. Econometrica 49, 105-130.
37. Stefanides, Z., Tauer, L., 1999. The empirical impact of bovine somatotropin on a group of New York dairy farms. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 81, 95-102.
38. Swait, J., Louviere, J., 1993. The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and use of multinomial logit models. J. Market. Res. 30, 305-314.
39. Tauer, L., 2001. The estimated impact of recombinant bovine somatotropin on New York dairy farms for the years 1994 through 1997. AgBioForum 2, 115-123.
40. Tonsor, G.T., Schroeder, T.C., Fox, J.A., Biere, A., 2005. European Preferences for Beef Steak Attributes. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 30, 367-380.
41. Tonsor, G.T., Olynk, N., Wolf, C., 2009. Consumer preferences for animal welfare attributes: The case of gestation crates. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 41, 713-730.
42. Train, K.E., 1998. Recreation demand models with taste differences over people. Land Econ. 74, 230-239.
43. Train, K.E., 2003. Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA
44. United States Department of Agriculture. QuickStats., 2009.
45. Wolf, C., 2007. Farm decisions related to rBST use in Michigan. Michigan Dairy Rev. 12, 1-6.
46. Wolf, C., Tonsor, G., Olynk, N., 2011. Understanding US consumer demand for milk production attributes. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 36, 326-342.