IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea15/205271.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

U.S. Crop Yields Redux: Weather Effects versus Human Inputs

Author

Listed:
  • Trindade, Federico J.

Abstract

It is estimated that world population will increase by 30 percent to reach more than 9 billion people by 2050. Given expected higher income, per capita consumption of protein will induce an increase in cereal production of at least 70% over current levels; quantity attainable without incorporating new land if the yield growth rates increase at least 1.3% per year (Fulginiti and Perrin, 2010). The dramatic increase in world crop production observed in the second half of the nineteenth century was the result from increasing yields through the use of chemicals, fertilizers, pesticides and water from irrigation systems (Tilman et al., 2002). During the last years it was observed by several authors a decrease in global yields growth rates for the major crops (corn, wheat, rice and soybeans) when comparing the period 1990-2010 with 1960-1990 (Alston et al. 2010, Fuglie 2010, World Bank Development Report 2007). If this observed decline in agricultural productivity growth continues, average global yields growth rate for the main crops could fall below 1.3% increase per year, lower than the needed amount to reach the production goal of 2050. Thus, the food production increases needed to satisfy future demand will put greater stress on existing cropland and natural resources, if the prices rise there will be also greater pressure to convert natural ecosystems to cropland. Climate change, a final source of concern, is likely to aggravate the situation. Considering different scenarios of future trends in climate, several authors have found that the impact that climate change will have over agriculture production will most likely be negative (Schlenker and Roberts, 2009). Schlenker and Roberts consider the effect of weather on aggregate farm yields. They regressed corn, wheat and cotton yields in counties east of the 100º meridian on weather variables during the years 1950-2005 and found that there is an increasing positive relation between temperatures and crop yield up to 29-32ºC (depending on the crop.) Temperatures above these thresholds are found to reduce yields significantly. Their regressions included precipitation, time trend, soils, and county effects for location-specific unobserved factors. There are two important omissions in this study. First, they only consider rain-fed counties, those east of the 100º meridian, while production increases have been directly related to irrigation developments mostly west of the 100º. Second, their study controls for natural characteristics like precipitation but does not allow for purchased inputs. These inputs have had a pivotal role on increased yields and are under the control of the farmer. It is important then to understand the degree of substitution and the contribution of these versus other inputs to the time trends they estimated. An important step towards understanding the evolution of agricultural production under different climate scenarios is to carefully estimate the effect that different temperatures and precipitation have on agricultural productivity considering also inputs under farmers’ control and the farmers’ profit maximizing behavior. Another issue of importance, given the developments of the last 60 years, is the study of rain-fed as well as irrigated agriculture. These are the objectives of our analysis; we do not know of any other study with these objectives that considers this set of variables and assumptions. This research develops a county level biomass production function for an 800-mile climatic gradient from the Rocky Mountains to the Mississippi River (41o N latitude). A panel data set that includes 101 counties for the 1960-2008 period is developed. The quantity of biomass produced per hectare (from all crops) is hypothesized to result from the use of traditional inputs under farmers’ control such as land, fertilizer, chemicals, and percent of irrigated land and from environmental variables such as soil organic matter, precipitation and temperatures. Indexes are constructed for all variables at the county level. Given interest on climate effects, particular emphasis is placed in the development of county precipitation and different intervals of degree-days indexes. A semi transcendental logarithmic production specification is jointly estimated with share equations for purchased inputs using a seemingly unrelated estimation approach. Additionally, to avoid simultaneity issues, price indexes are used as instruments for fertilizer and chemicals used. Out results are able to quantify the critical effects that high temperatures have on agricultural productivity in the region, after controlling for irrigation, other managed inputs, soil characteristics, precipitation, and technological change. Confirming Schlenker and Roberts (2009) results, we find a negative and increasing (nonlinear) effect of temperatures over 30ºC on crop yields; a full day of temperatures between 30ºC and 35ºC decreases expected yield by 1.0%, a day of temperatures over 35ºC decreases yields by 27.1%. Our results provide additional information than the findings of Schlenker and Roberts. The inclusion of irrigated land seems to diminish greatly the negative effect of higher temperatures; converting rain fed crops to irrigated crop will produce a sharp decrease in the negative impact of the higher temperature interval. Results also show that the semi-arid areas like western Nebraska and eastern Colorado and Wyoming, for example, compensate the lack of precipitation with high values of irrigation. Finally, the contribution of fertilizer and chemicals to yield changes is significant. Technological change has been fertilizer and chemicals using.

Suggested Citation

  • Trindade, Federico J., 2015. "U.S. Crop Yields Redux: Weather Effects versus Human Inputs," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205271, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea15:205271
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.205271
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/205271/files/AAEA%202015.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.205271?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. James G. MacKinnon, 2002. "Bootstrap inference in econometrics," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 35(4), pages 615-645, November.
    2. Zvi Griliches & Jacques Mairesse, 1995. "Production Functions: The Search for Identification," NBER Working Papers 5067, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Anders Toft & Trond Bjørndal, 1997. "The Structure of Production in the Norwegian Fish-Processing Industry: An Empirical Multi-Output Cost Analysis Using a Hybrid Translog Functional Form," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 8(3), pages 247-267, August.
    4. Eldon Ball & David Schimmelpfennig & Sun Ling Wang, 2013. "Is U.S. Agricultural Productivity Growth Slowing?," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 35(3), pages 435-450.
    5. Yair Mundlak, 1961. "Empirical Production Function Free of Management Bias," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 43(1), pages 44-56.
    6. Hayami, Yujiro & Ruttan, Vernon W, 1970. "Agricultural Productivity Differences Among Countries," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 60(5), pages 895-911, December.
    7. Morten O. Ravn & Harald Uhlig, 2002. "On adjusting the Hodrick-Prescott filter for the frequency of observations," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 84(2), pages 371-375.
    8. Hazilla, Michael & Kopp, Raymond J., 1986. "Testing for separable functional structure using temporary equilibrium models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1-2), pages 119-141.
    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. De Figueiredo Silva, Felipe & Fulginiti, Lilyan E. & Perrin, Richard K., 2020. "Climate change, productivity and producer welfare in Great Plains agriculture," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304529, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Nuñez, Hector M. & Chakrabortu, Lopamudra & Robles-Chavez, Jesus Eduardo, 2021. "Impacts of Weather Shocks on Crop Yields in Mexico," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 314988, International 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. Trindade, F. & Fulginiti, L. & Perrin, R., 2018. "Irrigation and Climate Effects on Land Productivity in the U.S. Central Plains," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277264, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Edoardo Baldoni & Roberto Esposti, 2021. "Agricultural Productivity in Space: an Econometric Assessment Based on Farm‐Level Data," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(4), pages 1525-1544, August.
    3. Lajos Baráth & Imre Fertő, 2017. "Productivity and Convergence in European Agriculture," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(1), pages 228-248, February.
    4. Suarez, Federico & Fulginiti, Lilyan & Perrin, Richard, 2015. "The Value of Water in Agriculture: The U.S. High Plains Aquifer," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211644, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Jared Hutchins & Brent Hueth & Guilherme Rosa, 2019. "Quantifying Heterogeneous Returns to Genetic Selection: Evidence from Wisconsin Dairies," NBER Chapters, in: Economics of Research and Innovation in Agriculture, pages 81-105, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Arboleda, Xavier & Bermúdez-Barrezueta, Natalia & Camino-Mogro, Segundo, 2022. "Production and enterprise profitability in Ecuador’s crop-growing sector," Revista CEPAL, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL), August.
    7. Giulio Bottazzi & Marco Grazzi & Angelo Secchi, 2005. "Characterizing the Production Process: A Disaggregated Analysis of Italian Manufacturing Firms," Rivista di Politica Economica, SIPI Spa, vol. 95(1), pages 291-318, January-F.
    8. Aguirregabiria, Victor, 2009. "Econometric Issues and Methods in the Estimation of Production Functions," MPRA Paper 15973, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Yuriy Gorodnichenko, 2007. "Using Firm Optimization to Evaluate and Estimate Returns to Scale," NBER Working Papers 13666, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Quang-Thanh Ngo & Canh Thi Nguyen, 2020. "Do export transitions differently affect firm productivity? Evidence across Vietnamese manufacturing sectors," Post-Communist Economies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(8), pages 1011-1037, November.
    11. Trindade, Federico J. & Fulginiti, Lilyan E. & Perrin, Richard K., 2020. "A half century of yield growth along the forty-first parallel of the Great Plains: factor intensification, irrigation, weather, and technical change," Staff Papers 305568, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    12. Davide Golinelli, 2022. "Revisiting the Porter Hypothesis: A Nonparametric Analysis on the impact of Pollution Abatement Technologies on firms' performances," SEEDS Working Papers 0622, SEEDS, Sustainability Environmental Economics and Dynamics Studies, revised Jul 2022.
    13. Palia, Darius & Lichtenberg, Frank, 1999. "Managerial ownership and firm performance: A re-examination using productivity measurement," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 5(4), pages 323-339, December.
    14. Puggioni Daniela, 2019. "Productivity, Markups, and Trade: Evidence from Mexican Manufacturing Industries," Working Papers 2019-14, Banco de México.
    15. M.L. Nores & M.P. Díaz, 2016. "Bootstrap hypothesis testing in generalized additive models for comparing curves of treatments in longitudinal studies," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(5), pages 810-826, April.
    16. Pantelis Kalaitzidakis & Theofanis P. Mamuneas & Thanasis Stengos, 2008. "The Contribution of Pollution to Productivity Growth," Working Paper series 06_08, Rimini Centre for Economic Analysis.
    17. Konon, Alexander & Fritsch, Michael & Kritikos, Alexander S., 2018. "Business cycles and start-ups across industries: An empirical analysis of German regions," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 742-761.
    18. Philippe Martin & Thierry Mayer & Florian Mayneris, 2008. "Spatial Concentration and Firm-Level Productivity in France," Sciences Po publications 6858, Sciences Po.
    19. Laura Hospido & Eva Moreno-Galbis, 2015. "The Spanish productivity puzzle in the Great Recession," Working Papers 1501, Banco de España.
    20. Dean V. Williamson, 2010. "Financial-Market Contracting," Chapters, in: Peter G. Klein & Michael E. Sykuta (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Transaction Cost Economics, chapter 24, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Production Economics; Productivity Analysis;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:aaea15:205271. 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.