Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-03T10:32:01.692Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Generation and distribution of productivity gains in beef cattle farming: Who are the winners and losers between 1980 and 2015?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 October 2018

P. Veysset ,
M. Lherm ,
J. P. Boussemart  and
P. Natier
P. Veysset*
Affiliation:
Université Clermont Auvergne, INRA, VetAgro Sup, UMR Herbivores, F-63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
M. Lherm
Affiliation:
Université Clermont Auvergne, INRA, VetAgro Sup, UMR Herbivores, F-63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
J. P. Boussemart
Affiliation:
Université Lille, CNRS, IESEG School of Management, UMR 9221-LEM, F-59000 Lille, France
P. Natier
Affiliation:
Université Lille, CNRS, IESEG School of Management, UMR 9221-LEM, F-59000 Lille, France
*
†E-mail: patrick.veysset@inra.fr
Get access

Abstract

Surplus accounting is a method for evaluating trends in how a firm’s productivity factors (intermediate inputs, capital, land, labour) are performing and how the productivity gains are redistributed between agents in the economy. Here the surplus accounting method was applied on a database of 164 Charolais-area suckler cattle farms running from 1980 to 2015. Over this 36-year period – with differences per sub-period – the cumulative productivity surplus (PS) increased at a low rate of +0.17%/year (i.e. cumulative volume of outputs produced increased slightly more than cumulative volume of inputs used). This timid increase in PS is linked to the constant expansion in labour productivity whereas other factor productivities have shrunk. The observable period-wide macrotrends are that commercial farm businesses struggle to protect their revenues, we also observe a slight fall in input prices, land rent and financing costs, and a huge climb in direct support-policy payments. The bulk of the cumulative economic surplus has been captured downstream – 64% downstream of the cattle value chain as a drop in prices, and 22% downstream of other value chains (chiefly cereals). It emerges that the productivity gains in beef cattle farming mostly benefit the downstream value chain (packers–processors, distributors and consumers), whereas it is mainly government money backing this drop in prices of agricultural output. Here we see the principal of the 1992 ‘MacSharry’ reform at work, with a transfer from the taxpayer through direct support-policy payments through to the consumer via lower prices. The simple fact that farmers’ incomes are stagnating is a clear indication that they are net losers in this distribution of productivity gains, despite the improvement in labour factor productivity.

Keywords

efficiencyfarm economicslivestock farmsbeef sectorsurplus account
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 13 , Issue 5 , May 2019 , pp. 1063 - 1073
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2018 

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

Ash, A, Hunt, L, McDonald, C, Scanlan, J, Bell, L, Cowley, R, Watson, I, McIvor, J and MacLeod, N 2015. Boosting the productivity and profitability of northern Australian beef enterprises: exploring innovation options using simulation modelling and systems analysis. Agricultural Systems 139, 50–65.Google Scholar
Ball, VE, Bureau, JC, Butault, JP and Nehring, R 2001. Levels of farm sector productivity: an international comparison. Journal of Productivity Analysis 15, 5–29.10.1023/A:1026554306106Google Scholar
Ball, VE, Bureau, JC, Nehring, R and Somwaru, A 1997. Agricultural productivity revisited. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79, 1045–1063.Google Scholar
Ball, VE, Butault, JP, Juan, CS and Mora, R 2010. Productivity and international competitiveness of agriculture in the European Union and the United States. Agricultural Economics 41, 611–627.Google Scholar
Bojnec, S and Latruffe, L 2013. Farm size, agricultural subsidies and farm performance in Slovenia. Land Use Policy 32, 207–217.Google Scholar
Boussemart, JP, Butault, JP and Ojo, O 2012. Generation and distribution of productivity gains in French agriculture. Who are the winners and the losers over the last fifty years? Bulletin USAMV, Horticulture 69, 55–67.Google Scholar
Burlaud, A and Dahan, L 1985. Global productivity surplus accounts. International Journal of Accounting Education and Research 21, 159–169.Google Scholar
Butault, JP and Réquillard, V 2012. L’agriculture et l’agroalimentaire français à la recherche d’une compétitivité perdue. INRA Sciences Sociales 4, 4.Google Scholar
Caves, DW, Christensen, LR and Diewert, WE 1982. Multilateral comparisons of output, input, and productivity using superlative index numbers. Economic Journal 92, 73–86.Google Scholar
CERC 1980. Productivité globale et comptes de surplus. Documents du CERC (Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts) 55/56, 3e-4e trim., Documentation française, Paris.Google Scholar
Charroin, T, Veysset, P, Devienne, S, Fromont, JL, Palazon, R and Ferrand, M 2012. Labour productivity and economy in herbivore rearing: concepts, analysis and stakes. INRA Productions Animales 25, 193–210.Google Scholar
Chatellier, V, Guyomard, H and Le Bris, K 2003. La production bovine dans l’Union européenne : entre économie de marché et politique de territoire. Déméter 2004, Ed. Armand Colin, Paris, pp. 67–177.Google Scholar
Christensen, LR 1975. Concepts and measurement of agricultural productivity. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 57, 910–915.Google Scholar
Diewert, WE 2003. Index number concepts, measures and decomposition of productivity growth. Journal of Productivity Analysis 19, 127–159.Google Scholar
Eurostat 2017. Price indices of agricultural products. Retrieved on 8 November 2017 from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/metadata/en/apri_pi_esms.htm.Google Scholar
Font-i-Furnols, M and Guerrero, L 2014. Consumer preference, behavior and perception about meat and meat products: an overview. Meat Science 98, 361–371.Google Scholar
FranceAgriMer 2016. Observatoire de la formation des prix et des marges des produits alimentaires. Rapport au Parlement 2016, 262.Google Scholar
Gorton, M and Davidova, S 2004. Farm productivity and efficiency in the CEE applicant countries: a synthesis of results. Agricultural Economics 30, 1–16.10.1111/j.1574-0862.2004.tb00172.xGoogle Scholar
Keating, BA, Carberry, PS, Bindraban, PS, Asseng, S, Meinke, H and Dixon, J 2010. Eco-efficient agriculture: concepts, challenges, and opportunities. Crop Science 50, 109–119.Google Scholar
Kendrick, JW and Sato, R 1963. Factor prices, productivity and economic growth. American Economic Review 53, 973–1004.Google Scholar
Latruffe, L 2010. Competitiveness, productivity and efficiency in the agricultural and agri-food sectors. OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers 30, OECD Publishing.http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5km91nkdt6d6-en.Google Scholar
Latruffe, L, Balcombe, K, Davidova, S and Zawalinska, K 2005. Technical and scale efficiency of crop and livestock farms in Poland: does specialization matter? Agricultural Economics 32, 281–296.Google Scholar
Morrison Paul, C, Nehring, R, Banker, D and Somwaru, A 2004. Scale economies and efficiency in U.S. agriculture: are traditional farms history? Journal of Productivity Analysis 22, 185–205.10.1007/s11123-004-7573-1Google Scholar
Mosheim, R and Knox Lovell, CA 2009. Scale economies and inefficiency. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 91, 777–794.Google Scholar
Rizov, M, Pokrivcak, J and Ciaian, P 2013. CAP subsidies and productivity of the EU farm. Journal of Agricultural Economics 64, 537–557.Google Scholar
Soteriades, AD, Faverdin, P, Moreau, S, Charroin, T, Blanchard, M and Stott, AW 2016. An approach to holistically assess (dairy) farm eco-efficiency by combining life cycle analysis with data envelopment analysis models and methodologies. Animal 10, 1899–1910.Google Scholar
Verbeke, W, Pérez-Cueto, FJA, de Barcellos, MD, Krystallis, A and G. Grunert, KG 2010. European citizen and consumer attitudes and preferences regarding beef and pork. Meat Science 84, 284–292.Google Scholar
Veysset, P, Benoit, M, Laignel, G, Bébin, D, Roulenc, M and Lherm, M 2014a. Analysis and determinants of the performances evolution of sheep for meat and suckler cattle farms in less favoured areas from 1990 to 2012. INRA Productions Animales 27, 49–64.Google Scholar
Veysset, P, Lherm, M, Bébin, D, Roulenc, M and Benoit, M 2014b. Variability in greenhouse gas emissions, fossil energy consumption and farm economics in suckler beef production in 59 French farms. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 188, 180–191.10.1016/j.agee.2014.03.003Google Scholar
Veysset, P, Lherm, M, Roulenc, M, Troquier, C and Bébin, D 2015. Productivity and technical efficiency of suckler beef production systems: trends for the period 1990 to 2012. Animal 9, 2050–2059.Google Scholar