Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-16T01:59:27.079Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Nonparametric Efficiency Analysis for a Sample of Kansas Swine Operations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

William W. Rowland ,
Michael R. Langemeier ,
Bryan W. Schurle  and
Allen M. Featherstone
William W. Rowland
Affiliation:
Andersen Consulting, Kansas City, Missouri
Michael R. Langemeier
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas
Bryan W. Schurle
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas
Allen M. Featherstone
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas
Get access

Abstract

This study evaluates the economic competitiveness of a sample of Kansas farrow-to-finish operations by estimating relative firm efficiency using nonparametric mathematical programming techniques. Measures of technical, allocative, scale, economic, and overall efficiency are then related to farm characteristics to identify sources of efficiency. Results indicate that overall efficient farms produce a high quantity of pork per litter, produce a portion of their own feed grains, generate a large portion of their income from swine and other livestock enterprises, and have a lower debt-to-asset ratio.

Keywords

cost frontierfarrow-to-finishminimum efficient scaleoverall efficiency
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , July 1998 , pp. 189 - 199
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1998

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

Banker, R.D., Charnes, A., and Cooper, W.W.. “Some Models for Estimating Technical and Scale Inefficiencies in Data Envelopment Analysis.” Manage. Sci. 30(September 1984):1078–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W., and Rhodes, E.. “Measuring the Efficiency of Decision Making Units.” Eur. J. Operational Res. 2(1978):429-44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chava, J.P., and Aliber, M.. “An Analysis of Economic Efficiency in Agriculture: Nonparametric Approach.” J. Agr. and Appl. Econ. 18(July 1993):1–16.Google Scholar
Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., and Lovell, C.A.K.. The Measurement of Efficiency of Production. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Featherstone, A.M., Mintert, J., and Goering, S.R.. “The Kansas Agricultural Economy: Trends and Perspectives.” Kansas Bus. Rev. 17(1993):9–17.Google Scholar
Foster, K., Hurt, C., and Hale, J.. “Comparison of Production Systems.” In Positioning Your Pork Operation for the 21st Century, ed., Hurt, C.. Pub. No. ID-210, Purdue Cooperative Extension Service, West Lafayette IN, July 1995.Google Scholar
Hurt, C. “Industrialization in the Pork Industry.” Choices (4th Quarter 1994):9–13.Google Scholar
Kansas Department of Agriculture. Kansas Farm Facts. Topeka KS, various issues, 1992-94.Google Scholar
Rhodes, V.J. “The Industrialization of Hog Production.” Rev. Agr. Econ. 17(May 1995):107-17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhodes, V.J., and Grimes, G.. “Structure of U.S. Hog Production: A 1992 Survey.” Agr. Econ. Rep. No. 1992-3, University of Missouri, Columbia, 1992.Google Scholar
Rowland, W.W. “A Nonparametric Efficiency Analysis for a Sample of Kansas Swine Operations.” Unpub. M.S. thesis, Kansas State University, Manhattan, 1996.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service. Agricultural Prices. Washington DC: U.S.Government Printing Office. Various issues, 1992-94.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce. 1992 Census of Agriculture. USDC/Bureau of the Census. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1994.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce. Survey of Current Business. USDC/Bureau of Economic Analysis, Washington DC. Various issues, 1992-94.Google Scholar