IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/canjag/v55y2007i3p349-364.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Vertical Economies and the Structure of U.S. Hog Farms

Author

Listed:
  • Azzeddine Azzam
  • Cari S. Skinner

Abstract

Scale economies are often touted as the factor behind the trend in the structure of the U.S. hog industry toward fewer and larger hog farms. However, since hog production is multistage and farms either integrate or separate the stages, the appropriate measures are multistage economies. In theory, a smaller and, presumably, high‐cost operation, by the standards of single stage/output scale economies, may still be cost‐competitive if it enjoys multistage economies — that is if vertical scope economies more than offset stage‐specific scale diseconomies. Whether that holds in practice remains heretofore unexplored in the agricultural economics literature. Using a unique data set on hog farms in the U.S. Midwest, we estimate a multistage cost function and provide the first‐ever estimates of multistage economies, stage‐specific economies, and vertical scope economies in hog production. Les économies d'échelle sont souvent soupçonnées d'être le facteur qui influence la tendance observée dans la structure de l'industrie porcine aux États‐Unis, soit des porcheries moins nombreuses mais de plus grande taille. Cependant, comme la production porcine est une production à plusieurs stades et que les producteurs peuvent choisir d'intégrer ces stades ou d'exploiter un seul stade, les mesures appropriées sont les économies d'échelle liées aux stades multiples. En théorie, une petite porcherie, qui a probablement des coûts élevés selon les critères des économies d'échelle liées à un seul stade, peut tout de même être concurrentielle quant aux coûts si elle profite des économies d'échelle liées aux stades multiples, c'est‐à‐dire si les économies de gamme verticales font plus que compenser les déséconomies d'échelle liées à un seul stade. La vérification de cette théorie dans la pratique demeure, jusqu'ici, inexploitée dans la littérature agroéconomique. En utilisant un ensemble de données sur des porcheries situées dans le Midwest américain, nous avons estimé une fonction de coût lié aux stades multiples et nous présentons les premières estimations d'économies d'échelle liées aux stades multiples, d'économies d'échelle liées à un seul stade et d'économies de gamme verticales dans la production porcine.

Suggested Citation

  • Azzeddine Azzam & Cari S. Skinner, 2007. "Vertical Economies and the Structure of U.S. Hog Farms," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 55(3), pages 349-364, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:canjag:v:55:y:2007:i:3:p:349-364
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-7976.2007.00096.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7976.2007.00096.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1744-7976.2007.00096.x?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. McBride, William D. & Key, Nigel D., 2003. "Economic And Structural Relationships In U.S. Hog Production," Agricultural Economic Reports 33971, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    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. Sabine Duvaleix-Tréguer & Carl Gaigné, 2016. "On the nature and magnitude of cost economies in hog production," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 47(4), pages 465-476, July.
    2. Mayen, Carlos D. & Balagtas, Joseph Valdes & Alexander, Corinne E., 2009. "Vertical Economies of Scope for Organic and Conventional Dairy Farms in the United States," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49409, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Larue, Solène & Latruffe, Laure, 2009. "Agglomeration externalities and technical efficiency in French pig production," Working Papers 210403, Institut National de la recherche Agronomique (INRA), Departement Sciences Sociales, Agriculture et Alimentation, Espace et Environnement (SAE2).
    4. Duvaleix-Treguer, Sabine & Gaigne, Carl, 2012. "Cost Economies in Hog Production: Feed prices matter," Working Papers 125261, Structure and Performance of Agriculture and Agri-products Industry (SPAA).
    5. Ryota Nakatani, 2024. "Food companies' productivity dynamics: Exploring the role of intangible assets," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 40(1), pages 185-226, January.
    6. Tsakiridis, Andreas & Hanrahan, Kevin & Breen, James & Wallace, Michael & O’Donoghuea, Cathal, 2016. "Feed substitution and economies of scale in Irish beef production systems," 149th Seminar, October 27-28, 2016, Rennes, France 244769, European Association of Agricultural 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. Li Yu & Peter F. Orazem, 2014. "O-Ring production on U.S. hog farms: joint choices of farm size, technology, and compensation," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 45(4), pages 431-442, July.
    2. Yu, Li & Hurley, Terrance M. & Kliebenstein, James B. & Orazem, Peter F., 2012. "Firm Size, Technical Change, and Wages in the Pork Sector, 1990-2005," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 37(2), pages 1-17, August.
    3. Ahearn, Mary Clare & Banker, David E. & MacDonald, James M., 2003. "Price And Nonprice Terms In U.S. Agricultural Contracts," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 21947, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    4. Timothy A. Wise, "undated". "Identifying the Real Winners from U.S. Agricultural Policies," GDAE Working Papers 05-07, GDAE, Tufts University.
    5. Key, Nigel D., 2004. "Manure Application Standards and EQIP Payments: The Distribution of Economic and Environmental Costs and Benefits across US Hog Farms," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 19937, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    6. Elanor Starmer & Aimee Witteman & Timothy A. Wise, "undated". "Feeding the Factory Farm: Implicit Subsidies to the Broiler Chicken Industry," GDAE Working Papers 06-03, GDAE, Tufts University.
    7. Ronald Rich, 2008. "Fecal free: Biology and authority in industrialized Midwestern pork production," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 25(1), pages 79-93, January.
    8. MacDonald, James M. & Perry, Janet E. & Ahearn, Mary Clare & Banker, David E. & Chambers, William & Dimitri, Carolyn & Key, Nigel D. & Nelson, Kenneth E. & Southard, Leland W., 2004. "Contracts, Markets, and Prices: Organizing the Production and Use of Agricultural Commodities," Agricultural Economic Reports 34013, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    9. William D. McBride & Nigel Key & Kenneth H. Mathews, 2008. "Subtherapeutic Antibiotics and Productivity in U.S. Hog Production," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 30(2), pages 270-288.
    10. Love, Erin & Thilmany, Dawn, 2022. "Price Transmission and Asymmetry in the Colorado Potato Supply Chain," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 53(3), November.
    11. Yu, Li & Hurley, Terrance & Kliebenstein, James & Orazem, Peter, 2012. "A test for complementarities among multiple technologies that avoids the curse of dimensionality," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 116(3), pages 354-357.
    12. Somwaru, Agapi & Zhang, Xiaohui & Tuan, Francis C., 2003. "China'S Hog Production Structure And Efficiency," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22003, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    13. Key, Nigel D. & McBride, William D., 2008. "Do Production Contracts Raise Farm Productivity? An Instrumental Variables Approach," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 37(2), pages 1-12.
    14. Diejun Huang & Qiuzhuo Ma & Liangyu Feng & Xiaowei Wen & Hua Li, 2018. "Applying Data Mining to China’s Swine Farming Industry: A Compromise Perspective of Economic, Environmental and Overall Performances," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-26, July.
    15. Nigel Key, 2005. "How much do farmers value their independence?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 33(1), pages 117-126, July.
    16. Elanor Starmer & Timothy A. Wise, "undated". "Living High on the Hog: Factory Farms, Federal Policy, and the Structural Transformation of Swine Production," GDAE Working Papers 07-04, GDAE, Tufts University.
    17. Michael G. Hogberg & Kellie Curry Raper & James F. Oehmke, 2009. "Banning subtherapeutic antibiotics in U.S. swine production: a simulation of impacts on industry structure," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(3), pages 314-330.
    18. Jeffrey Ohlmann & Philip Jones, 2011. "An integer programming model for optimal pork marketing," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 190(1), pages 271-287, October.
    19. Key, Nigel D. & McBride, William D. & Mosheim, Roberto, 2006. "Decomposition of Total Factor Productivity Change in the U.S. Hog Industry, 1992-2004," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21323, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    20. Abler, David G., 2004. "Multifunctionality, Agricultural Policy, and Environmental Policy," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 33(1), pages 1-10, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:bla:canjag:v:55:y:2007:i:3:p:349-364. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/caefmea.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.