IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/aergaa/93807.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Production risks in Bulgarian peanut production

Author

Listed:
  • Ligeon, Carel
  • Jolly, Curtis M.
  • Bencheva, Nelly
  • Delikostadinov, Stanko
  • Puppala, Naveen

Abstract

As farmers in a transition economy search for new crop enterprises with a potential for income enhancement they are faced with increased risks in the process of resource allocation. It has been noted that biased estimation of production function estimates results from the lack of accountability of risks. Since peanut production in Bulgaria has increased at a varying rate since 1989 it is important that we examine the risks associated with input use. The data for this study were collected from farmers from 18 villages in the southern part of Bulgaria. A total of 205 farmers were surveyed for this study. Peanut yield in Bulgaria is positively related to the quantity of seed used, fungicide, manual labor, investment level and mechanized labor used. Peanut yield is negatively influenced by investment levels but positively by the increase of manual labor. The response of yield to quantity of seed used is elastic, and an addition of a kg of peanut seeds may increase yield by 32kg. However, as the quantity of seeds used per ha increases the risk is expected to increase, hence farmers may be cautious in increasing the quantity of seeds used. Investment capital, manual labor and mechanized labor are positively related to yield and there will be a reduction in yield if the optimal levels of those inputs are surpassed. Thus farmers may increase yield and production by augmenting the seeding rate, other factors remaining constant.

Suggested Citation

  • Ligeon, Carel & Jolly, Curtis M. & Bencheva, Nelly & Delikostadinov, Stanko & Puppala, Naveen, 2009. "Production risks in Bulgarian peanut production," Agricultural Economics Review, Greek Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 9(1), pages 1-8.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aergaa:93807
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.93807
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/93807/files/9_1_8.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.93807?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. Håkan Eggert & Ragnar Tveteras, 2004. "Stochastic Production and Heterogeneous Risk Preferences: Commercial Fishers' Gear Choices," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(1), pages 199-212.
    2. G. H. Wan & J. R. Anderson, 1990. "Estimating Risk Effects In Chinese Foodgrain Production," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(1), pages 85-93, January.
    3. Salvatore Di Falco & Jean-Paul Chavas, 2006. "Crop genetic diversity, farm productivity and the management of environmental risk in rainfed agriculture," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 33(3), pages 289-314, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Cornelis Gardebroek & María Daniela Chavez & Alfons Oude Lansink, 2010. "Analysing Production Technology and Risk in Organic and Conventional Dutch Arable Farming using Panel Data," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(1), pages 60-75, February.
    2. Kerri Brick & Martine Visser & Justine Burns, 2012. "Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence from South African Fishing Communities," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(1), pages 133-152.
    3. Genti Kostandini & Bradford F. Mills & Steven Were Omamo & Stanley Wood, 2009. "Ex ante analysis of the benefits of transgenic drought tolerance research on cereal crops in low‐income countries," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(4), pages 477-492, July.
    4. CARPENTIER, Alain & GOHIN, Alexandre & SCKOKAI, Paolo & THOMAS, Alban, 2015. "Economic modelling of agricultural production: past advances and new challenges," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement (RAEStud), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 96(1), March.
    5. Jesse Tack & David Ubilava, 2013. "The effect of El Niño Southern Oscillation on U.S. corn production and downside risk," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 121(4), pages 689-700, December.
    6. Asrat, Sinafikeh & Yesuf, Mahmud & Carlsson, Fredrik & Wale, Edilegnaw, 2010. "Farmers' preferences for crop variety traits: Lessons for on-farm conservation and technology adoption," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2394-2401, October.
    7. Lefebvre, Marianne & Midler, Estelle & Bontems, Philippe, 2020. "Adoption of environmentally-friendly agricultural practices with background risk: experimental evidence," TSE Working Papers 20-1079, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    8. Cecilia Bellora & Jean-Marc Bourgeon, 2014. "Agricultural Trade, Biodiversity Effects and Food Price Volatility," Working Papers hal-00969083, HAL.
    9. Finger, Robert & Buchmann, Nina, 2015. "An ecological economic assessment of risk-reducing effects of species diversity in managed grasslands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 89-97.
    10. Dörschner, T. & Mußhoff, O., 2014. "Does the Risk Attitude Influence and Farmers’ Willingness to Participate in Agri-Environmental Measures? – A Normative Approach to Evaluate Ecosystem Services," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 49, March.
    11. Lien, Gudbrand & Kumbhakar, Subal C. & Mishra, Ashok K. & Hardaker, J. Brian, 2022. "Does risk management affect productivity of organic rice farmers in India? Evidence from a semiparametric production model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 303(3), pages 1392-1402.
    12. Sundar, B. & Virmani, Vineet, 2013. "Attitudes towards Risk of Forest Dependent Communities - Evidence from Andhra Pradesh," IIMA Working Papers WP2013-12-01, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
    13. Bozzola, Martina & Smale, Melinda, 2020. "The welfare effects of crop biodiversity as an adaptation to climate shocks in Kenya," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    14. Gobillon, Laurent & Wolff, François-Charles, 2020. "The local effects of an innovation: Evidence from the French fish market," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    15. Linden McBride & Leah Bevis, 2019. "Working Paper 311 - Risk, Returns, and Welfare," Working Paper Series 2437, African Development Bank.
    16. Johnson, Ayana Elizabeth & Saunders, Daniel Kaiser, 2014. "Time preferences and the management of coral reef fisheries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 130-139.
    17. Thomas Slijper & Yann de Mey & P Marijn Poortvliet & Miranda P M Meuwissen, 2022. "Quantifying the resilience of European farms using FADN," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 49(1), pages 121-150.
    18. Prosper F. Bangwayo‐Skeete & Mintewab Bezabih & Precious Zikhali, 2012. "Crop biodiversity, productivity and production risk: Panel data micro‐evidence from Ethiopia," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 36(4), pages 263-273, November.
    19. McConnell, Kenneth E. & Price, Michael, 2006. "The lay system in commercial fisheries: Origin and implications," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 51(3), pages 295-307, May.
    20. Gelcich, Stefan & Edwards-Jones, Gareth & Kaiser, Michel J., 2007. "Heterogeneity in fishers' harvesting decisions under a marine territorial user rights policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 246-254, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural and Food Policy;

    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:ags:aergaa:93807. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/etagrea.html .

    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/etagrea.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.