IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/ifma05/24227.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Comparison of Risk and Return Characteristics of Efficient Crop Portfolios for the Brown Soil Zones Saskatchewan and Mecklenburg, Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Schoney, Richard A.
  • Moeller, Christof

Abstract

Two efficient farms are constructed for the brown soils of Saskatchewan, Canada and for Mecklenburg, Germany based on producer panels. Both farms feature highly integrated cropping systems which take advantage of cropping synergies. However, farm risk is inherently different between the two because differences in 1) climate that gives rise to very different yield risk and cost structure, and 2) EU programs which offer fixed cash payments and stable sugar beet prices. As expected, risk is much higher for the Saskatchewan case farm - it has a chance of a negative cash flow of approximately one year in five. In sharp contrast, the Mecklenburg has very little chance of generating a negative cash flow. Hence, it is easy to understand why crop insurance and other risk reducing types of programs have long been popular in Saskatchewan grain and oilseed price and yield risk make for a very real possibility of cash shortfalls on even the most efficient farm with moderate debt. On the other hand, there is little need for such risk reducing programs by efficient German farms because risk remains relatively low unless he/she is financially imprudent. Moving to higher farmland rents associated with an equilibrated land market or removing government payments increases risk considerably, but still at levels well below those of the Saskatchewan case farm.

Suggested Citation

  • Schoney, Richard A. & Moeller, Christof, 2005. "A Comparison of Risk and Return Characteristics of Efficient Crop Portfolios for the Brown Soil Zones Saskatchewan and Mecklenburg, Germany," 15th Congress, Campinas SP, Brazil, August 14-19, 2005 24227, International Farm Management Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:ifma05:24227
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.24227
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/24227/files/cp05sc01.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.24227?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. Harwood, Joy L. & Heifner, Richard G. & Coble, Keith H. & Perry, Janet E. & Somwaru, Agapi, 1999. "Managing Risk in Farming: Concepts, Research, and Analysis," Agricultural Economic Reports 34081, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    2. Anderson, Jock R. & Dillon, John L. & Hardaker, Brian, 1977. "Agricultural Decision Analysis," Monographs: Applied Economics, AgEcon Search, number 288652, July.
    3. Anderson, Jock R. & Feder, Gershon, 2007. "Agricultural Extension," Handbook of Agricultural Economics, in: Robert Evenson & Prabhu Pingali (ed.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 44, pages 2343-2378, Elsevier.
    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. Gollin, Douglas, 2006. "Impacts of International Research on Intertemporal Yield Stability in Wheat and Maize: An Economic Assessment," Impact Studies 7657, CIMMYT: International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center.
    2. Bard, Sharon K. & Barry, Peter J., 2000. "Developing A Scale For Assessing Risk Attitudes Of Agricultural Decision Makers," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 3(1), pages 1-17.
    3. Anderson, Kim B. & Mapp, Harry P., Jr., 1996. "Risk Management Programs In Extension," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 21(1), pages 1-8, July.
    4. Serrao, Amilcar & Coelho, Luis, 2004. "Cumulative Prospect Theory: A Study Of The Farmers' Decision Behavior In The Alentejo Dryland Region Of Portugal," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20245, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    5. Gomez-Limon, Jose Antonio & Riesgo, Laura & Arriaza Balmón, Manuel, 2003. "Multi-Criteria Analysis Of Factors Use Level: The Case Of Water For Irrigation," 2003 Annual Meeting, August 16-22, 2003, Durban, South Africa 25836, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Parton, Kevin A., 2009. "Agricultural Decision Analysis: The Causal Challenge," 2009 Conference (53rd), February 11-13, 2009, Cairns, Australia 48150, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    7. Rasmussen, Svend, 2003. "Criteria for optimal production under uncertainty. The state-contingent approach," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 47(4), pages 1-30.
    8. Berg, Ernst & Starp, Michael, 2006. "Farm Level Risk Assessment Using Downside Risk Measures," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25400, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Hammida, Mustapha & Eidman, Vernon R., 1991. "Livestock And Poultry Production Risk In The United States," Staff Papers 14016, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    10. Gempesaw, Conrado M., II & Tambe, A.M. & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr. & Toensmeyer, Ulrich C., 1988. "The Single Index Market Model In Agriculture," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 17(2), pages 1-9, October.
    11. Musser, Wesley N. & Tew, Bernard V., 1984. "Use Of Biophysical Simulation In Production Economics," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 16(1), pages 1-10, July.
    12. J.C. Flinn & S. Jayasuriya & C.G. Knight, 1980. "Incorporating Multiple Objectives In Planning Models Of Low‐Resource Farmers," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 24(1), pages 35-45, April.
    13. Dilshad Ahmad & Muhammad Afzal & Abdur Rauf, 2019. "Analysis of wheat farmers’ risk perceptions and attitudes: evidence from Punjab, Pakistan," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 95(3), pages 845-861, February.
    14. Asci, Serhat & VanSickle, John J. & Cantliffe, Daniel J., 2014. "Risk in Investment Decision Making and Greenhouse Tomato Production Expansion in Florida," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 17(4), pages 1-26, November.
    15. Bennett, Anne L. & Pannell, David J., 1998. "Economic evaluation of a weed-activated sprayer for herbicide application to patchy weed populations," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 42(4), pages 1-20.
    16. Sinden, Jack A., 1978. "Estimation Of Consumer'S Surplus Values For Land Policies," Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 22(2-3), pages 1-19, August.
    17. Lajili, Kaouthar & Barry, Peter J. & Sonka, Steven T. & Mahoney, Joseph T., 1997. "Farmers' Preferences For Crop Contracts," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 22(2), pages 1-17, December.
    18. George Baourakis & Michael Doumpos & Nikos Kalogeras & Constantin Zopounidis, 2002. "Multicriteria analysis and assessment of financial viability of agribusinesses: The case of marketing co-operatives and juice-producing companies," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(4), pages 543-558.
    19. John O.S. Kennedy, 1980. "On The Derivation Of Indifference Curves For Estimating Consumer Surplus," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 24(3), pages 291-295, December.
    20. Kaylen, Michael S. & Devino, Gary T. & Procter, Michael H., 1988. "Optimal Use Of Qualitative Models: An Application To Country Grain Elevator Bankruptcies," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 20(2), pages 1-7, December.

    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:ifma05:24227. 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/ifmaaea.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.