The economics of technologies in Swedish pig production
Decisions on technologies, at farm and enterprise levels, have major implications for the biological performance in livestock production, and thereby on the economic benefits of production. However, when existing exogenous conditions are subject to change and influence the economic situation at farm level, the farmer needs to reconsider decisions on the composition of the technology set in order to improve productive performance and profit. The common aim of this thesis relates to the use of specific technologies in Swedish pig production including building design, feeding system, and managerial practices. Hence, a major aim is to analyse the economic value of technologies, considering animal welfare legislation and environmental regulations on production externalities. The thesis consists of four different articles, two of which them concern methods for assessment of the value of technologies. Article I, The value of animal welfare improving technologies in Swedish pig production, assesses the economic value of specific production technologies. Article II, Technology effects on pigsâ€™ feed efficiency, analyses specific technology effects on the quantity of pig meat produced and variance as affected by a change in feed use. The other two articles concern the economic implications of technology use in relation to production externalities. Article III, Utility of phase feeding choices in pig farming, ranks farmersâ€™ utility of using different protein contents in feed taking into account externalities from organic manure. Article IV, Environmental regulations with focus on pig density restriction and farmsâ€™ technologies, analyses the effects of the pig density regulation on intensive pig farming. The effects of several technologies on the cost of altering production to comply with environmental regulations are examined. A major conclusion of this thesis is that an economically rational farmer considers the value of specific technologies that frequently may improve animal welfare, and in some cases also reduce production externalities. However, the economic value and the biological benefits obtained from a given technology vary depending on individual conditions at farm level.
|Date of creation:||Jan 2003|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Box 7013, 750 07 UPPSALA|
Phone: 018-67 1724
Fax: 018-67 3502
Web page: http://www.slu.se/ekonomi
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Bruce A. Babcock & Joseph A. Herriges, 1994.
"Input Demand Under Yield and Revenue Insurance,"
Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications
94-wp127, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
- Dorfman, Robert, 1969. "An Economic Interpretation of Optimal Control Theory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 59(5), pages 817-831, December.
- Babcock, Bruce A. & Hennessy, David A., 1996. "Input Demand under Yield and Revenue Insurance," ISU General Staff Papers 199601010800001155, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
- Boland, Michael A. & Foster, Kenneth A. & Preckel, Paul V., 1999.
"Nutrition And The Economics Of Swine Management,"
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics,
Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 31(01), April.
- Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994.
"Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities,"
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,
Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
- Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Louviere, J. & Willians, M., 1992. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Staff Paper Series 232531, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
- Chavas, J. P. & Kliebenstein, James, 1985.
"Modeling Dynamic Agricultural Production Response: The Case of Swine Production,"
Staff General Research Papers Archive
10631, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
- Jean-Paul Chavas & James Kliebenstein & Thomas D. Crenshaw, 1985. "Modeling Dynamic Agricultural Production Response: The Case of Swine Production," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 67(3), pages 636-646.
- Azzeddine M. Azzam, 1998. "Testing for Vertical Economies of Scope: An Example from US Pig Production," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(3), pages 427-433.
- Stoneman, Paul & Kwon, Myung Joong, 1996. "Technology Adoption and Firm Profitability," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 106(437), pages 952-962, July.
- Brady, Mark, 2003. "Managing agriculture and water quality," Department of Economics publications 217, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Economics.
- Alfons Weersink & John R. Livernois & Jason F. Shogren & James S. Shortle, 1998. "Economic Instruments and Environmental Policy in Agriculture," Canadian Public Policy, University of Toronto Press, vol. 24(3), pages 309-327, September.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sua:ekonwp:459. 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: (Alejandro Engelmann)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.