IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jageco/v61y2010i1p60-75.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analysing Production Technology and Risk in Organic and Conventional Dutch Arable Farming using Panel Data

Author

Listed:
  • Cornelis Gardebroek
  • María Daniela Chavez
  • Alfons Oude Lansink

Abstract

This paper compares the production technology and production risk of organic and conventional arable farms in the Netherlands. Just-Pope production functions that explicitly account for output variability are estimated using panel data of Dutch organic and conventional farms. Prior investigation of the data indicates that within variation of output is significantly higher for organic farms, indicating that organic farms face more output variation than conventional farms. The estimation results indicate that in both types of farms, unobserved farm-specific factors like management skills and soil quality are important in explaining output variability and production risk. The results further indicate that land has the highest elasticity of production for both farm types. Labour and other variable inputs have significant production elasticities in the case of conventional farms and other variable inputs in the case of organic farms. Manure and fertilisers are risk-increasing inputs on organic farms and risk-reducing inputs on conventional farms. Other variable inputs and labour are risk increasing on both farm types; capital and land are risk-reducing inputs. Copyright (c) 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation (c) 2009 The Agricultural Economics Society.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:jageco:v:61:y:2010:i:1:p:60-75
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2009.00222.x
    File Function: link to full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Moawia Alghalith, 2006. "Hedging under price and output uncertainty: revisited," Applied Financial Economics Letters, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 2(4), pages 243-245, July.
    2. Alfons Oude Lansink & Ky–sti Pietola, 2002. "Effciency and productivity of conventional and organic farms in Finland 1994--1997," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 29(1), pages 51-66, March.
    3. Oude Lansink, Alfons G.J.M. & Jensma, Klaske, 2003. "Analysing Profits and Economic Behaviour of Organic and Conventional Dutch Arable Farms," Agricultural Economics Review, Greek Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 4(2), August.
    4. 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.
    5. Kumbhakar, Sabul C., 1993. "Production risk, technical efficiency, and panel data," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 11-16.
    6. Just, Richard E. & Pope, Rulon D., 1978. "Stochastic specification of production functions and economic implications," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 67-86, February.
    7. Asche, Frank & Tveteras, Ragnar, 1999. "Modeling Production Risk With A Two-Step Procedure," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 24(02), December.
    8. Richard E. Just & Rulon D. Pope, 1979. "Production Function Estimation and Related Risk Considerations," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 61(2), pages 276-284.
    9. Cornelis Gardebroek, 2006. "Comparing risk attitudes of organic and non-organic farmers with a Bayesian random coefficient model," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 33(4), pages 485-510, December.
    10. Subal C. Kumbhakar, 2002. "Specification and Estimation of Production Risk, Risk Preferences and Technical Efficiency," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(1), pages 8-22.
    11. Lansink, Alfons Oude & Peerlings, Jack, 1996. "Modelling the New EU Cereals and Oilseeds Regime in the Netherlands," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 23(2), pages 161-178.
    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. Moser, Stefan & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2015. "Comparing the use of risk-influencing production inputs and experimentally measured risk attitude: Do decisions of Indonesian small-scale rubber farmers match?," EFForTS Discussion Paper Series 14, University of Goettingen, Collaborative Research Centre 990 "EFForTS, Ecological and Socioeconomic Functions of Tropical Lowland Rainforest Transformation Systems (Sumatra, Indonesia)".
    2. El Benni, Nadja & Finger, Robert & Mann, Stefan, 2012. "The effect of agricultural policy change on income risk in Swiss agriculture," 123rd Seminar, February 23-24, 2012, Dublin, Ireland 122532, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. El Benni, Nadja & Finger, Robert, 2014. "Where is the risk? Price, yield and cost risk in Swiss crop production," Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, Editions NecPlus, vol. 95(03), pages 299-326, September.
    4. Laure Latruffe & Céline Nauges, 2014. "Technical efficiency and conversion to organic farming: the case of France," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 41(2), pages 227-253.
    5. Cornelis Gardebroek & Kedir N. Turi & Jo H.M. Wijnands, 2010. "Growth dynamics of dairy processing firms in the European Union," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 41(3-4), pages 285-291, May.
    6. Dörschner, Till & Musshoff, Oliver, 2013. "Does the risk attitude influence the farmers' willingness to participate in agri-environmental measures? – A normative approach to evaluate ecosystem services," 53rd Annual Conference, Berlin, Germany, September 25-27, 2013 156112, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    7. Latruffe, Laure & Nauges, Celine, 2010. "Converting to organic farming in France: Is there a selection problem?," 120th Seminar, September 2-4, 2010, Chania, Crete 109386, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Zhu, Xueqin & Milán Demeter, Róbert, 2012. "Technical efficiency and productivity differentials of dairy farms in three EU countries: the role of CAP subsidies," Agricultural Economics Review, Greek Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 13(1), January.
    9. Ali D. Cagdas & Scott R. Jeffrey & Elwin G. Smith & Peter C. Boxall, 2016. "Environmental Stewardship and Technical Efficiency in Canadian Prairie Canola Production," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 64(3), pages 455-477, September.
    10. Cagdas, Ali D. & Jeffrey, Scott R. & Smith, Elwin G. & Boxall, Peter C., 2013. "Adoption of BMPs and technical inefficiency in Canadian canola production," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150200, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. Tomasz Gerard Czekaj & Arne Henningsen, 2013. "Panel Data Nonparametric Estimation of Production Risk and Risk Preferences: An Application to Polish Dairy Farms," IFRO Working Paper 2013/6, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.

    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:jageco:v:61:y:2010:i:1:p:60-75. 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: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing) or (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0021-857X .

    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 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.

    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.