IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea03/21942.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Development Of A Stochastic Model To Evaluate Plant Growers' Enterprise Budgets

Author

Listed:
  • Ludena, Carlos E.
  • McNamara, Kevin T.
  • Hammer, P. Allen
  • Foster, Kenneth A.

Abstract

Increased domestic concentration and international competition in the floricultural industry are forcing growers to improve resource management efficiency. Cost management and cost accounting methods are becoming key tools as growers attempt to reduce costs. These tools allow growers to allocate costs for each crop, increasing their greenhouse planning abilities. Growers have a relative high degree of risk due to potential crop and market failure. Individual growers have different tolerance for risk and risk bearing capacity. Growers need a cost accounting system that incorporates production and market risk, a system that allows them to make informed business decisions. The research reported in this paper developed a greenhouse budgeting model that incorporated risk to allow growers to compare production costs for flowers with different genetics and production technologies. This enables greenhouse growers to make production management decisions that incorporate production and market risk. The model gives growers the option of imputing their own production data to evaluate how various yield and price assumptions influence income and expense projections, and ultimately, profit. The model allows growers to compare total production cost and revenue varying grower type, production time, geographical location, operation size, and cost structure. The model evaluates budgets for growers who market to mass-market retail operations or wholesale intermediaries who sell to merchandisers or flower shops distribution channels. The model was demonstrated with sample data to illustrate how incorporating risk analysis into a grower's greenhouse budget model effects resource allocation and production decisions as compare to a budget model that does not incorporate risk. Deterministic and stochastic models were used to demonstrate differences in production decisions under various assumptions. The stochastic model introduced prices and flowering characteristics variability. The @Risk software was used to generate the random number simulation of the stochastic model, and stochastic dominance analysis was used to rank the alternatives. The result for both the deterministic and stochastic models identified the same cultivar as most profitable. However, there were differences in crop profits levels and rankings for subsequent cultivars that could influence growers' production choice decisions. The grower's risk aversion level influenced his/her choice of the most profitable cultivars in the stochastic model. The model summarizes the sources of variability that affect cost and revenue. The model enables the grower to measure effects that change in productivity might have on profit. Growers can identify items in their budget that have a greater effect on profitability, and make adjustments. The model can be used to allocate cost across activities, so the grower would be able to measure the economic impact of an item on the budget.

Suggested Citation

  • Ludena, Carlos E. & McNamara, Kevin T. & Hammer, P. Allen & Foster, Kenneth A., 2003. "Development Of A Stochastic Model To Evaluate Plant Growers' Enterprise Budgets," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 21942, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea03:21942
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.21942
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/21942/files/sp03lu01.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.21942?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. Halter, A.N. & Mason, Robert, 1978. "Utility Measurement For Those Who Need To Know," Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 3(2), pages 1-12, December.
    2. King, Robert P. & Black, J. Roy & Benson, Fred J. & Pavkov, Patti A., 1988. "The Agricultural Risk Management Simulator Microcomputer Program," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(2), pages 165-171, December.
    3. Wilson, Paul N. & Eidman, Vernon R., 1983. "An Empirical Test Of The Interval Approach For Estimating Risk Preferences," Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 8(2), pages 1-13, December.
    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. Paul J. Block & Kenneth Strzepek & Mark W. Rosegrant & Xinshen Diao, 2008. "Impacts of considering climate variability on investment decisions in Ethiopia," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 39(2), pages 171-181, September.

    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. Blank, Steven C., 1989. "Research On Futures Markets: Issues, Approaches, And Empirical Findings," Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 14(1), pages 1-14, July.
    2. Ahearn, Mary Clare & Collender, Robert N. & Diao, Xinshen & Harrington, David H. & Hoppe, Robert A. & Korb, Penelope J. & Makki, Shiva S. & Morehart, Mitchell J. & Roberts, Michael J. & Roe, Terry L. , 2004. "Decoupled Payments In A Changing Policy Setting," Agricultural Economic Reports 33981, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    3. Jason R.V. Franken & Joost M.E. Pennings & Philip Garcia, 2017. "Risk attitudes and the structure of decision†making: evidence from the Illinois hog industry," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 48(1), pages 41-50, January.
    4. Khojasteh, Khosrow, 1992. "Effects of farm characteristics and government disaster assistance on multiple-peril crop insurance purchases by Iowa crop farmers," ISU General Staff Papers 1992010108000010841, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    5. Fausti, Scott W. & Gillespie, Jeffrey M., 2006. "Measuring risk attitude of agricultural producers using a mail survey: how consistent are the methods?," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 50(2), pages 1-18, June.
    6. Young, Douglas & Lin, William & Pope, Rulon & Robison, Lindon & Selley, Roger, 1979. "Risk Preferences Of Agricultual Producers:Their Measurement And Use," Risk Management in Agriculture: Behavioral, Managerial, and Policy Issues, January 25-26, 1979, San Francisco, California 271459, Regional Research Projects > W-149: An Economic Evaluation of Managing Market Risks in Agriculture.
    7. Parsch, Lucas D. & Trice, Kalven L. & Cochran, Mark J. & Scott, H. Don, 1987. "Impact of Wheat Harvest Timeliness on Risk Efficiency of Double-Cropped Soybeans," Staff Papers 232557, University of Arkansas, Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness.
    8. Lombard, J. P. & Kassier, W. E., 1990. "Implementering Van Die Intervalbenadering By Die Bepaling Van Besluitnemers Se Houding Teenoor Risiko," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 29(4), December.
    9. Sen Lin & Bo Li & Antonio Arreola-Risa & Yiwei Huang, 2023. "Optimizing a single-product production-inventory system under constant absolute risk aversion," TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 31(3), pages 510-537, October.
    10. Love, Ross O. & Robison, Lindon J., 1984. "An Empirical Analysis Of The Intertemporal Stability Of Risk Preference," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 16(1), pages 1-7, July.
    11. McCarl, Bruce A., 1986. "Innovations In Programming Techniques For Risk Analysis," Regional Research Projects > 1986: S-180 Annual Meeting, March 23-26, 1986, Tampa, Florida 271825, Regional Research Projects > S-180: An Economic Analysis of Risk Management Strategies for Agricultural Production Firms.
    12. Feuz, Dillon M. & Fausti, Scott W. & Wagner, John J., 1995. "Risk And Market Participant Behavior In The U.S. Slaughter-Cattle Market," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 20(1), pages 1-10, July.
    13. Gomez-Limon, Jose A. & Arriaza, Manuel & Riesgo, Laura, 2003. "An MCDM analysis of agricultural risk aversion," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 151(3), pages 569-585, December.
    14. Wilson, Paul N. & Eidman, Vernon R., 1983. "An Empirical Test Of The Interval Approach For Estimating Risk Preferences," Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 8(2), pages 1-13, December.
    15. Knowles, Glenn J., 1980. "Estimating Utility Functions," Risk Analysis in Agriculture: Research and Educational Developments, January 16-18, 1980, Tucson, Arizona 271570, Regional Research Projects > W-149: An Economic Evaluation of Managing Market Risks in Agriculture.
    16. Walker, Odell L. & Nelson, A. Gene, 1980. "Dealing With Risks In The Management Agricultural Firms: An Extension/Teaching Viewpoint," Risk Analysis in Agriculture: Research and Educational Developments, January 16-18, 1980, Tucson, Arizona 271561, Regional Research Projects > W-149: An Economic Evaluation of Managing Market Risks in Agriculture.
    17. Moss, Charles B. & Boggess, William G., 1992. "New Procedures in Modeling Risk: Nihil Novum Sub Sol Est," 1992 Quantifying Long Run Agricultural Risks and Evaluating Farmer Responses to Risk Meeting, March 22-25, 1992, Orlando, Florida 307864, Regional Research Projects > S-232: Quantifying Long Run Agricultural Risks and Evaluating Farmer Responses to Risk.
    18. Andersson, H., 1995. "Landlords and farmers: implications of disparities in bargaining power for tenancy in agriculture," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 12(2), pages 151-162, August.
    19. Gomez-Limon, Jose Antonio & Riesgo, Laura & Arriaza Balmón, Manuel, 2002. "Agricultural Risk Aversion Revisited: A Multicriteria Decision-Making Approach," 2002 International Congress, August 28-31, 2002, Zaragoza, Spain 24827, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. Kim, Man-Keun & Curtis, Kynda R. & Yeager, Irvin, 2014. "An Assessment of Market Strategies for Small-Scale Produce Growers," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 17(3), pages 1-18, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Crop Production/Industries;

    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:aaea03:21942. 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/aaeaaea.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.