Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T09:11:02.800Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factors Influencing the Adoption of Breeding Technologies in U.S. Hog Production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Jeffrey M. Gillespie ,
Christopher G. Davis  and
Noro C. Rahelizatovo
Jeffrey M. Gillespie
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA
Christopher G. Davis
Affiliation:
Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C
Noro C. Rahelizatovo
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA
Get access

Abstract

An important aspect of structural change in the U.S. hog industry has been the adoption of breeding technology. The adoption of each of four breeding technologies, weekly farrowing, intensive breeding, terminal crossbreeding, and artificial insemination, in U.S. hog production is analyzed using multivariate probit analysis. Results suggest that diversification, whether the producer raised breeding stock, debt and asset levels, and producer's education influence adoption rate. Larger, more risk-averse producers were more likely to adopt technology. Producers who rated the quality of labor available as higher were more likely to adopt management-intensive technologies.

Keywords

hog industrymultivariate probittechnology adoptionN51Q12
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , April 2004 , pp. 35 - 47
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2004

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

Anderson, D.P., Wilson, P.N., and Thompson, G.D.. “The Adoption and Diffusion of Level Fields and Basins.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 24,1(July 1999):186–203.Google Scholar
Basarir, A. “Multidimensional Goals of Farmers in the Beef Cattle and Dairy Industries.” Ph.D. dissertation, Louisiana State University, January 2002.Google Scholar
Bock, R.D., and Gibbons, R.D.. “High Dimensional Multivariate Probit Analysis.” Biometrics 52(1996):1183–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boehlje, M. “Alternative Models of Structural Change in Agriculture and Related Industries.” Agribusiness 8,3(May 1992):219–31.3.0.CO;2-T>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardona, H. “Analysis of Policy Alternatives in the Implementation of a Coastal Non-point Pollution Control Program for Agriculture.” Ph.D. dissertation, Louisiana State University, August 1999.Google Scholar
Caswell, M.F., and Zilberman, D.. “The Choices of Irrigation Technology in California.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 67(May 1985):224–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chib, S., and Greenberg, E.. “Analysis of Multivariate Probit Models.” Biometrika 85(1998):347–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cochrane, W.Farm Prices: Myth and Reality. St. Paul: University of Minnesota Press, 1958.Google Scholar
Dillman, D.A. “The Design and Administration of Mail Surveys.” Annual Review of Sociology 17(1991):225–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorfman, J.H. “Modeling Multiple Adoption Decisions in a Joint Framework.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78(August 1996):547–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fausti, S.W., and Gillespie, J.M.. “A Comparative Analysis of Risk Preference Elicitation Procedures Using Mail Survey Results.” Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Western Agricultural Economics Association, Vancouver, Canada, July 2000.Google Scholar
Feder, G. “Adoption of Interrelated Agricultural Innovations: Complementarity and the Impacts of Risk, Scale, and Credit.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 64(1982):94–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feder, G., Just, R.E., and Zilberman, D.. “Adoption of Agricultural Innovations in Developing Countries.” Economic Development and Cultural Change 30(January 1985):59–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandez-Cornejo, J., Beach, E.D., and Huang, W.-Y.. “The Adoption of IPM Techniques by Vegetable Growers in Florida, Michigan and Texas.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 25,1(July 1994):158–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, K., Hurt, C., and Hale, J.. “Chapter 2: Comparison of Production Systems.” Positioning Your Pork Operation for the 21” Century. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue Cooperative Extension Service, Purdue University, 1995.Google Scholar
Gillespie, J.M., and Fulton, J.R.. “Entry, Exit and Changes in the Size of Hog Production Firms in the U.S.: A Markov Chain Analysis.” Agribusiness 17(Fall 2001):557–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillespie, J.M., Karantininis, K., and Storey, G.G.. “The Expansion and Evolution of Vertical Coordination in the Quebec Hog Industry.” Review of Agricultural Economics 19,2(Fall-Winter 1997):350–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, W.H.LIMDEP Version 7.0 User's Manual, Revised Edition. New York: Econometric Software, Inc., 1998.Google Scholar
Greene, W.H.Econometric Analysis. 4th Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2000.Google Scholar
Griliches, Z. “Hybrid Corn: An Exploration in the Economics of Technological Change.” Econometrica 25,4(October 1957):501–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, N.L., and Ruttan, V.W.. “The Diffusion of Livestock Breeding Technology in the U.S.: Observations on the Relationship Between Technical Change and Industry Structure.” Journal of Agribusiness 15,1(Spring 1997):19–35.Google Scholar
Jones, D., Hurt, C., and Hale, J.. “Chapter 13: Throughput and Near Optimum Conversion.” Positioning Your Pork Operation for the 21” Century. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue Cooperative Extension Service, Purdue University, 1995.Google Scholar
Kuhlers, D.L., Jungst, S.B., and Little, J.A.. “An Experimental Comparison of Equivalent Terminal and Rotational Crossbreeding Systems in Swine: Pig Performance.” Journal of Animal Science 72(1994):2578–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marra, M.C, and Carlson, G.A.. “Agricultural Technology and Risk, Chapter 15.” The Role of Risk in Agriculture. Just, R. and Pope, R., eds. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publications, 2002.Google Scholar
Marra, M.C., Hubbell, B.J., and Carlson, G.A.. “Information Quality, Technology Depreciation, and Bt Cotton Adoption in the Southeast.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 26,1(July 2001):158–75.Google Scholar
Perrin, R., and Winkleman, D.. “Impediments to Technical Progress on Small Versus Large Farms.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 58(1976):888–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rauniyar, G.P., and Goode, EM.. “Technology Adoption on Small Farms.” World Development 20(February 1992):275–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reimund, D.A., Martin, J.R., and Moore, C.V.. Structural Change in Agriculture: The Experience for Broilers, Fed Cattle, and Processing Vegetables. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economics and Statistics Service, Technical Bulletin No. 1648, 1981.Google Scholar
Singleton, W., and Schinckel, A.. “Chapter Eight: Artificial Insemination and Genetics.” Positioning Your Pork Operation for the 21” Century. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue Cooperative Extension Service, Purdue University, 1995.Google Scholar
Smale, M., and Heisey, P.W.. “Simultaneous Estimation of Seed-Fertilizer Adoption Decisions: An Application to Hybrid Maize in Malawi.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 43(May-June 1993):353–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soule, M.J. “Soil Management and the Farm Typology: Do Small Family Farms Manage Soil and Nutrient Resources Differently than Large Family Farms?” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 30,2(October 2001):179–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zepeda, L. “Adoption of Capital Versus Management Intensive Technologies.” Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 38(April 1990):457–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar