IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/joaaec/349013.html

A Stochastic Frontier Analysis to Examine Research Priorities for Genetically Engineered Peanuts

Author

Listed:
  • Affuso, Ermanno
  • Hite, Diane
  • Wilson, Norbert W.L.

Abstract

Pesticide applications are essential for peanut production to control insects, weeds, and other plant pathogens and for a profitable operation. We use a stochastic frontier analysis/primal system approach to test the hypothesis of the overuse of fungicides among peanut farmers. With nationally representative data available from the Agricultural and Resource Management Survey, we find evidence that U.S. peanut growers used excessive amounts of fungicides to prevent fungal infections. If those farmers adopt a new cultivar resistant to fungal pathogens, they could reduce the total cost of chemicals up to 36.2%. The reduction in fungicide use would have spillover environmental benefits.

Suggested Citation

  • Affuso, Ermanno & Hite, Diane & Wilson, Norbert W.L., 2015. "A Stochastic Frontier Analysis to Examine Research Priorities for Genetically Engineered Peanuts," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 47(3), May.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:joaaec:349013
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.349013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/349013/files/42_2_pgs359-381.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.349013?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Price, Gregory K. & Lin, William W. & Falck-Zepeda, Jose Benjamin & Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge, 2003. "Size And Distribution Of Market Benefits From Adopting Biotech Crops," Technical Bulletins 33562, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    3. Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge & Nehring, Richard & Osteen, Craig & Wechsler, Seth James & Martin, Andrew & Vialou, Alex, 2014. "Pesticide Use in U.S. Agriculture: 21 Selected Crops, 1960-2008," Economic Information Bulletin 178462, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    4. Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge & Caswell, Margriet, 2006. "The First Decade of Genetically Engineered Crops in the USA," Economic Information Bulletin 33897, 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. Maziotis, Alexandros & Sala-Garrido, Ramon & Mocholi-Arce, Manuel & Molinos-Senante, Maria, 2025. "Estimating potential economic savings of water utilities due to improvements on technical and allocative inefficiencies," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).

    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. Frisvold, George, 2010. "Resistance Management and Sustainable Use of Agricultural Biotechnology," 14th ICABR Conference, June 16-18, 2010, Ravello, Italy 188091, International Consortium on Applied Bioeconomy Research (ICABR).
    2. Scott M. Swinton & Braeden Deynze, 2017. "Hoes to Herbicides: Economics of Evolving Weed Management in the United States," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 29(3), pages 560-574, July.
    3. Gu, Xi & Marsh, Thomas L., "undated". "Pesticide Substitution Under Maximum Residue Limits: Application to Hops Production," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258572, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Yonglin Shen & Xiuguo Liu, 2015. "Phenological Changes of Corn and Soybeans over U.S. by Bayesian Change-Point Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(6), pages 1-23, May.
    5. Yoo, Do-il, 2014. "Farm Heterogeneity in Biotechnology Adoption with Risk and Learning: an Application to U.S. Corn," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170656, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Robert Finger & Nadja El Benni & Timo Kaphengst & Clive Evans & Sophie Herbert & Bernard Lehmann & Stephen Morse & Nataliya Stupak, 2011. "A Meta Analysis on Farm-Level Costs and Benefits of GM Crops," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(5), pages 1-20, May.
    7. Huffman, Wallace E., 2010. "Consumer Acceptance of Genetically Modified Foods: Traits, Labels and Diverse Information," Staff General Research Papers Archive 31835, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    8. Frisvold, George B. & Reeves, Jeanne M., 2008. "The costs and benefits of refuge requirements: The case of Bt cotton," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 87-97, March.
    9. Wang, Sun Ling & Nehring, Richard & Mosheim, Roberto & Njuki, Eric, 2024. "Measurement of Output, Inputs, and Total Factor Productivity in U.S. Agricultural Productivity Accounts," Technical Bulletins 344773, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    10. Centner, Terence J. & Brewer, Brady & Leal, Isaac, 2018. "Reducing damages from sulfoxaflor use through mitigation measures to increase the protection of pollinator species," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 70-76.
    11. Sylvie Bonny, 2011. "Herbicide-tolerant Transgenic Soybean over 15 Years of Cultivation: Pesticide Use, Weed Resistance, and Some Economic Issues. The Case of the USA," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(9), pages 1-21, August.
    12. Matty Demont & Koen Dillen & Erik Mathijs & Eric Tollens, 2007. "GM Crops in Europe: How Much Value and for Whom? Les cultures génétiquement modifiées en Europe : quels avantages et pour qui? Genetisch veränderte Feldfrüchte in Europa: Welcher Wert und für wen?," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 6(3), pages 46-53, December.
    13. Lin, William W. & Somwaru, Agapi & Tuan, Francis C. & Huang, Jikun & Bai, Junfei, 2005. "Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Biotech Foods in China," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19569, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    14. Funk, Samuel M. & Bergtold, Jason S., 2014. "Cost Efficiency Changes and Adoption of Biotechnology Enhanced Soybeans in Kansas," Journal of the ASFMRA, American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers, vol. 2014, pages 1-10.
    15. Anita Alves Pena & Bryanna Dixon, 2022. "Pesticide exposure and the physical and economic health of US crop workers," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(4), pages 2087-2114, December.
    16. Antoine Bouet & Guillaume Gruère, 2010. "Refining opportunity cost estimates of not adopting GM cotton : An application in seven sub-saharan african countries," Larefi Working Papers 201002, Larefi, Université Bordeaux 4.
    17. Run Yu & Ping Leung, 2012. "The economic implication of rising transport cost for a small open economy: a case study of Hawaii’s vegetable sector," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 48(3), pages 855-875, June.
    18. Putman, Ben & Thoma, Greg & Burek, Jasmina & Matlock, Marty, 2017. "A retrospective analysis of the United States poultry industry: 1965 compared with 2010," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 107-117.
    19. Vijesh V. Krishna & Matin Qaim, 2008. "Consumer Attitudes toward GM Food and Pesticide Residues in India," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 30(2), pages 233-251.
    20. Stephen Jess & David I. Matthews & Archie K. Murchie & Michael K. Lavery, 2018. "Pesticide Use in Northern Ireland’s Arable Crops from 1992–2016 and Implications for Future Policy Development," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-16, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    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:joaaec:349013. 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/saeaaea.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.