Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/nswprr/28010.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Northern Tablelands Whole-Farm Linear Program for Economic Evaluation of New Technologies at the Farm-Level

Author

Listed:
  • Alford, Andrew R.
  • Griffith, Garry R.
  • Cacho, Oscar J.
Abstract
The benefits of evaluating a new technology in a whole-farm context using a linear programming framework are well known. Linear programming allows the joint evaluation of concurrent farm activities, while considering the costs and returns of all enterprises and any resource adjustments imposed by adoption of the technology. This Report provides a rationale for and description of a whole-farm linear programming model that can be used for the economic evaluation of new technologies that are applicable to beef/sheep grazing farms typical of the Northern Tablelands of New South Wales. In this farming system, the whole-farm focus incorporates various aspects of the pasture base, resource constraints and sheep and cattle interactions. An overview of economic tools that are available to assess technologies at the farm level is provided first, listing some of the major benefits and limitations of each of these various techniques. A representative farm for the selected farming system is then developed and a whole-farm linear program based on this representative farm is described in some detail. A series of modelling experiments is undertaken to examine variations of the base model and their impact on the resulting technology evaluation. An example technology, involving the genetic improvement of beef cattle for improved feed efficiency (NFE), is evaluated. The optimal farm plan for a "typical" (single) year is generated, given the objective of maximising farm total gross margin. Three enterprises are selected: 1,108 first-cross ewes, 1,732 Merino wethers and a beef herd of 127 cows producing 18 month old heavy feeder steers (HFS) at 448kg liveweight and excess heifers sold as 9 month old weaners. For this farm plan, the annual operating budget shows a total gross margin for the farm of $86,191. The optimal farm plan for the representative farm is found to be sensitive to relatively small changes in input or output prices and production parameters. Only small improvements in a number of the individual enterprise gross margins would result in them displacing the currently selected enterprises. These results suggest relatively similar profitability levels between these sheep and beef enterprises. This would be anticipated given that all the enterprises described in this report were identified by local experts as being common in the Northern Tablelands. Further, the relatively small differences in enterprise profitability when viewed in a whole farm context also reflect the similar resources that each of the enterprises require, making them readily substitutable. For new technologies that have dynamic attributes, measuring the cashflow over time becomes important. Genetic traits in ruminants that have long biological lags are such technologies. This means that a single-year equilibrium model will be unable to effectively measure the costs of introducing the new technology over time. In the case of the NFE technology in beef cattle, any herd expansion that is possible as a result of the trait is measured by the opportunity cost of heifer sales forgone that are instead retained to increase the breeding herd. These herd dynamics can be represented explicitly within a multi-period version of a whole-farm LP model. The NFE cow enterprise is offered to the model, with the initial sheep enterprises set the same as the base case (1,108 prime lamb producing ewes, 1,732 19-micron Merino wethers). The model again selects 127 HFS producing cows in the first year, but the new optimal farm plan is to invest in the new technology by purchasing NFE-superior bulls in successive years and expanding the cow herd while concurrently decreasing the scale of the Merino wether enterprise. Substitution of Merino wethers for NFE cows occurs up to year 12 after which additional breeding cows are possible from their increasing net feed efficiency alone. There is an increase in cow numbers of 12.6 per cent by year 25, which equates to an improvement in the NPV per breeding cow per year over the base herd of $5.02, using a 5 per cent discount rate. Other experiments reported include adding constraints for fixed costs, family drawings and an overdraft facility; alternate discount rates for the NPV calculations; alternate terminal values for the livestock assets at the end of the simulation period; and a post-optimality risk analysis. This study has highlighted several additional benefits of evaluating a technology in a whole-farm multi-period linear programming framework. First, apart from determining the type and size of the optimal farm enterprise mix and the optimal value of the objective function, whole-farm multi-period linear programming also provides important additional information including shadow costs and prices and constraint slacks, and how they change over time. Shadow costs of activities show how sensitive the optimal farm enterprise mix is to changes in the gross margins of alternate farm activities not included in the current farm plan. The shadow prices for resources indicates how much a farm manager could pay for additional units of a limiting resource, for example, additional labour. Second, in terms of the specific NFE technology examined in this report, it would appear that there may well be regions where such feed efficiencies may be of greater benefit due to particularly large variations in pasture growth patterns throughout the year. The Northern Tablelands with its recognised winter feed deficit may be one such area. This information may be of benefit to researchers in extending the NFE technology to farmers. Third, the deterministic multi-period version of the model highlighted the impact of the inclusion of overhead and capital constraints in the modelling process in determining the potential adoption of a technology by a farm manager. The availability and cost of capital is shown to influence the extent to which the NFE technology may be adopted by an individual farm business. Fourth, from a modelling perspective, the effect of uncertain terminal values and the bearing that they have on measuring the level of adoption of a new technology is an area for further investigation. Finally, the impact of risk was assessed in this study post-optimally by the inclusion of stochastic output prices in the optimal whole farm budgets. This is an area for further research, including the potential of alternate modelling techniques such as MOTAD programming or stochastic dynamic programming. However due to size constraints, such approaches may necessitate trade-offs in terms of the detail of whole-farm models to which they are applied.

Suggested Citation

  • Alford, Andrew R. & Griffith, Garry R. & Cacho, Oscar J., 2003. "A Northern Tablelands Whole-Farm Linear Program for Economic Evaluation of New Technologies at the Farm-Level," Research Reports 28010, New South Wales Department of Primary Industries Research Economists.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:nswprr:28010
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.28010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/28010/files/er030013.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.28010?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Griffith, G. R. & Vere, D. T. & Bootle, B. W., 1995. "An integrated approach to assessing the farm and market level impacts of new technology adoption in Australian lamb production and marketing systems: The case of large, lean lamb," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 175-198.
    2. Trapp, James N., 1989. "The Dawning of the Age of Dynamic Theory: Its Implications for Agricultural Economics Research and Teaching," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 21(1), pages 1-11, July.
    3. Jean-Paul Chavas, 1994. "Production and Investment Decisions Under Sunk Cost and Temporal Uncertainty," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(1), pages 114-127.
    4. Pannell, D. J., 1999. "On the estimation of on-farm benefits of agricultural research," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 123-134, August.
    5. Griffith, G.R. & Alford, A.R., 2002. "The US Cattle Cycle and its Influence on the Australian Beef Industry," Australasian Agribusiness Review, University of Melbourne, Department of Agriculture and Food Systems, vol. 10, pages 1-15, June.
    6. Freer, M. & Moore, A. D. & Donnelly, J. R., 1997. "GRAZPLAN: Decision support systems for Australian grazing enterprises--II. The animal biology model for feed intake, production and reproduction and the GrazFeed DSS," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 77-126, May.
    7. Farquharson, Robert J., 1991. "A Farm Level Evaluation of a New Twinning Technology in Beef Cattle," Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 59(01), pages 1-21, April.
    8. Anderson, Jock R. & Dillon, John L. & Hardaker, Brian, 1977. "Agricultural Decision Analysis," Monographs: Applied Economics, AgEcon Search, number 288652, November.
    9. Anderson, Jock R. & Feder, Gershon, 2007. "Agricultural Extension," Handbook of Agricultural Economics, in: Robert Evenson & Prabhu Pingali (ed.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 44, pages 2343-2378, Elsevier.
    10. J. Brian Hardaker & Louise H. Patten & David J. Pannell, 1988. "Utility‐Efficient Programming For Whole‐Farm Planning," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 32(2-3), pages 88-97, 08-12.
    11. Moore, A. D. & Donnelly, J. R. & Freer, M., 1997. "GRAZPLAN: Decision support systems for Australian grazing enterprises. III. Pasture growth and soil moisture submodels, and the GrassGro DSS," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 55(4), pages 535-582, December.
    12. Trapp, James N., 1989. "The Dawning Of The Age Of Dynamic Theory: Its Implications For Agricultural Economics Research And Teaching," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 21(1), pages 1-11, July.
    13. Jean-Marc Boussard, 1971. "Time Horizon, Objective Function, and Uncertainty in a Multiperiod Model of Firm Growth," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 53(3), pages 467-477.
    14. Alford, Andrew R. & Griffith, Garry R. & Davies, Lloyd, 2003. "Livestock Farming Systems in the Northern Tablelands of NSW: An Economic Analysis," Research Reports 28005, New South Wales Department of Primary Industries Research Economists.
    15. Pannell, David J. & Malcolm, Bill & Kingwell, Ross S., 2000. "Are we risking too much? Perspectives on risk in farm modelling," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 23(1), pages 69-78, June.
    16. Just, Richard E., 1993. "Discovering Production and Supply Relationships: Present Status and Future Opportunities," Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 61(01), pages 1-30, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mounter, Stuart W. & Griffith, Garry R. & Piggott, Roley R. & Fleming, Euan M. & Zhao, Xueyan, 2007. "Composition of the National Sheep Flock and Specification of Equilibrium Prices and Quantities for the Australian Sheep and Wool Industries, 2002-03 to 2004-05," Research Reports 37664, New South Wales Department of Primary Industries Research Economists.
    2. Alford, Andrew R. & Griffith, Garry R. & Cacho, Oscar J., 2003. "Farm-level Economic Evaluation of Net Feed Efficiency in Australia’s Southern Beef Cattle Production System: A Multi-period Linear Programming Approach," 2003 Conference (47th), February 12-14, 2003, Fremantle, Australia 57826, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    3. Alford, Andrew R. & Griffith, Garry R. & Davies, Lloyd, 2003. "Livestock Farming Systems in the Northern Tablelands of NSW: An Economic Analysis," Research Reports 28005, New South Wales Department of Primary Industries Research Economists.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Griffith, Garry & Alford, Andrew & Davies, Llyod & Herd, Robert & Parnell, Peter & Hegarty, Roger, 2004. "An Assessment of the Economic, Environmental and Social Impacts of NSW Agriculture’s Investment in the Net Feed Efficiency R,D&E Cluster," Research Reports 280780, New South Wales Department of Primary Industries Research Economists.
    2. Alford, Andrew R. & Griffith, Garry R. & Cacho, Oscar J., 2003. "Farm-level Economic Evaluation of Net Feed Efficiency in Australia’s Southern Beef Cattle Production System: A Multi-period Linear Programming Approach," 2003 Conference (47th), February 12-14, 2003, Fremantle, Australia 57826, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    3. Wallace, Garry E. & Samsul Huda, A.K., 2005. "Using climate information to approximate the value at risk of a forward contracted canola crop," AFBM Journal, Australasian Farm Business Management Network, vol. 2(1), pages 1-9.
    4. Graham R. Marshall & Kevin A. Parton & G.L. Hammer, 1996. "Risk Attitude, Planting Conditions And The Value Of Seasonal Forecasts To A Dryland Wheat Grower," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 40(3), pages 211-233, December.
    5. Pannell, David J. & Nordblom, Thomas L., 1998. "Impacts of risk aversion on whole-farm management in Syria," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 42(3), pages 1-21.
    6. Sannikova, Marina & Bukusheva, Raushan, 2007. "Instruments Reducing Climatic Risk for Russian Agriculture," 101st Seminar, July 5-6, 2007, Berlin Germany 9271, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Alford, Andrew & Garcia, S.C. & Farina, Santiago & Fulkerson, Bill, 2009. "An Economic Evaluation of the FutureDairy Complementary Forage Rotation System – Using Whole Farm Budgeting," Research Reports 280787, New South Wales Department of Primary Industries Research Economists.
    8. Mullen, John D., 2001. "An Economic Persective On Land Degradation Issues," Research Reports 27999, New South Wales Department of Primary Industries Research Economists.
    9. Apland, Jeffrey & Hauer, Grant, 1993. "Discrete Stochastic Programming: Concepts, Examples And A Review Of Empirical Applications," Staff Papers 13793, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    10. Hardaker, J. Brian & Lien, Gudbrand D., 2003. "Stochastic Efficiency Analysis With Risk Aversion Bounds: A Simplified Approach," Working Papers 12954, University of New England, School of Economics.
    11. Passmore, J.G. & Brown, Colin G., 1991. "Analysis Of Rangeland Degradation Using Stochastic Dynamic Programming," Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 35(2), pages 1-27, August.
    12. Alford, Andrew R. & Griffith, Garry R. & Davies, Lloyd, 2003. "Livestock Farming Systems in the Northern Tablelands of NSW: An Economic Analysis," Research Reports 28005, New South Wales Department of Primary Industries Research Economists.
    13. Alford, Andrew & Garcia, S.C. & Farina, Santiago & Fulkerson, Bill, 2009. "An Economic Evaluation of the FutureDairy Complementary Forage Rotation System - Using Cost Budgeting," Research Reports 280786, New South Wales Department of Primary Industries Research Economists.
    14. Anderson, Kim B. & Mapp, Harry P., Jr., 1996. "Risk Management Programs In Extension," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 21(1), pages 1-8, July.
    15. Serrao, Amilcar & Coelho, Luis, 2004. "Cumulative Prospect Theory: A Study Of The Farmers' Decision Behavior In The Alentejo Dryland Region Of Portugal," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20245, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    16. Thamo, Tas & Addai, Donkor & Kragt, Marit E. & Kingwell, Ross S. & Pannell, David J. & Robertson, Michael J., 2019. "Climate change reduces the mitigation obtainable from sequestration in an Australian farming system," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(4), October.
    17. Gomez-Limon, Jose Antonio & Riesgo, Laura & Arriaza Balmón, Manuel, 2003. "Multi-Criteria Analysis Of Factors Use Level: The Case Of Water For Irrigation," 2003 Annual Meeting, August 16-22, 2003, Durban, South Africa 25836, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Nasca, J.A. & Feldkamp, C.R. & Arroquy, J.I. & Colombatto, D., 2015. "Efficiency and stability in subtropical beef cattle grazing systems in the northwest of Argentina," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 85-96.
    19. Parton, Kevin A., 2009. "Agricultural Decision Analysis: The Causal Challenge," 2009 Conference (53rd), February 11-13, 2009, Cairns, Australia 48150, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    20. Acs, Szvetlana & Berentsen, Paul B.M. & Huirne, Ruud & van Asseldonk, Marcel, 2009. "Effect of yield and price risk on conversion from conventional to organic farming," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(3), pages 1-19.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:nswprr:28010. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aenswau.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.