Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T10:33:18.726Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Performance of Risk-Income Models Outside the Original Data Set

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2016

Joseph Atwood ,
Larry J. Held ,
Glenn A. Helmers  and
Myles J. Watts
Joseph Atwood
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Auburn University
Larry J. Held
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Wyoming
Glenn A. Helmers
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Nebraska
Myles J. Watts
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Economics, Montana State University
Get access

Abstract

Selected risk programming solutions (i.e., profit maximization, Target-MOTAD, and MOTAD) are tested in an economic environment outside the data set from which they were developed. Specifically, solutions are derived from either a longer 10-year (1965-74) or shorter 6-year estimation period (1969-74), and then, they are tested for consistent risk-income characteristics over a later 10-year period (1975-84). Risk solutions estimated from earlier periods perform well in the later test period in spite of different economic conditions between time periods. However, favorable performance may be related to the specific example used in this analysis. Further testing for other farm situations is needed before general conclusions can be reached.

Keywords

model testingMOTADTarget-MOTADrisk programming
Type
Submitted Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , December 1986 , pp. 113 - 124
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1986

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

Agee, D. E..“Costs of Producing Crops, Worland Area, Wyoming 1981-82.” Bui. 644R, Agr. Ext. Serv., Div. Agr. Econ., University of Wyoming, 1981.Google Scholar
Brink, L. and McCarl, B.. “The Trade-off Between Expected Return and Risk Among Corn Belt Farmers.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 60,2(1978):259–263.Google Scholar
Jones, C. T..“Effects of Sample Size on MOTAD and Target-MOTAD Solutions.” Unpublished M.S. Thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics and Economics, Montana State University; March, 1984.Google Scholar
Lin, W., Dean, G. W., and Moore, C. V.. “An Empirical Test of Utility vs. Profit Maximization in Agricultural Production.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 56,3(1974):497–508.Google Scholar
Tauer, L. W..“Target-MOTAD.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 65,3(1983):606–610.Google Scholar
Watts, M. J., Held, L. J., and Helmers, G. A.. “A Comparison of MOTAD to Target-MOTAD.” Can. J. Agr. Econ., 32(1984):175–186.Google Scholar
Wyoming Agricultural Statistics. Wyoming Crop and Livestock Reporting Service; Cheyenne, Wyoming.Google Scholar