No description available.

Call number: LD2668 .T4 1929 A81

No description available.

Government involvement in the production and marketing of milk and dairy products is more pronounced than in any other agricultural product. The U.S. government administers two major programs that affect significantly the production and marketing of milk throughout the United States. These are the Federal Milk Marketing Order Program and the Dairy Price Support Program. In Arizona, in addition to these two major programs, the United Dairymen of Arizona Cooperative operates a base system that determines how cooperative milk revenues are allocated among producer members. This dissertation discusses some theoretical models that provide some insights into the following questions: (1) How would the dairy industry perform without the historically administered prices? (2) What are the benefits and costs associated with the order program and the base system? Then, this inquiry focuses on the Arizona and New Mexico dairy sectors. The two production sectors are quite similar, as are the marketing institutions, except for the existence of the base system in Arizona. Milk supply response in Arizona and New Mexico is investigated. Two ways in which supply adjustments can be achieved are identified and empirically investigated. (1) Creation of new dairy facilities or relocation of dairy facilities from other markets. If the decision to invest in Arizona or New Mexico is assumed as given, it is found that the existence of base system is a significant factor in explaining the location choice of new producers. (2) Expansion in output of existing dairy farms. It is found that dairy farmers in Arizona and New Mexico respond to changes in the farm level price of milk. The last effort of the empirical investigation is on the consumers' welfare losses due to the regulations of the Arizona and New Mexico dairy markets. It is found that the milk marketing orders and the policies of the UDA Cooperative in Arizona and AMPI in New Mexico, on the average, enforce a tax on Arizona's consumers of fluid milk in the amount of 10 million dollars per year, or 13.5 percent of producers' total revenue, and a tax on New Mexico's consumers of fluid milk in the amount of 5.6 million dollars per year, or 12.6 percent of producers' total revenue. (Abstract shortened with permission of author.)

Call number: LD2668 .T4 1965 S379 / Master of Science

A number of technological changes have taken place in packaging market milk. Initially, glass bottles were the only means; later on paper cartons entered the scene. At the present time some plants are packaging mil: in plastic pouches. Since no study seem to hale been made to estimate the cost of packaging milk in plastic poaches, this study was designed. The objectives of the study were to: 1. determine investment in land, building, and equipment for packaging milk in plastic pouches in three model plants; 2. determine unit cost of packaging milk in one gallon and one-half gallon plastic pouches for each plant size; 3. compare cost of packaging in pouches in relation to plant size; and 4. identify factors that might contribute towards economies due to plant size.The economic-engineering approach was used to analyze the cost of packaging. Findings off the study were that the per unit. packaging cost varied from 3.1 cents for model plant 1 to 2.8 cents for model plant 3. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that it is not only cheaper to package milk in plastic pouches but also the economies of size can be realized up to a certain point by increasing the plant size.

Ever since the milk bottle was invented in 1884, a number of technological developments have taken place. At present milk is packaged in Plastic Pouches, Tetra-Briks, and Pure-pak cartons.The volume of milk sold in paper cartons in the U.S. has reached about 78 per cent, of which Pure-pak cartons account for about 70 per cent. Besides milk, it is also used for packaging other products such as cole slaw, soft drinks, and laundry detergents.Despite its divergent use and seemingly far-reaching advantages and implications for the market milk industry, no packaging cost study seems to have been done. Therefore, this study was designed to make an economic analysis of the cost of packaging milk in Pure-pak cartons.The economic-engineering approach was used to analyze the cost of packaging. The estimated cost of packaging in small and large plants varied from 7.3 cents to 6.0 cents and from 6.3 cents to 5.8 cents when the machines are purchased and leased, respectively, irrespective of the size of the container. Furthermore, it is economical to use larger plants and lease the, machinery than to buy them.

The objective of this study was to estimate the milk supply response of Virginia dairy farmers, including estimation of supply elasticities with respect to relevant prices. The supply response was estimated using linear regression techniques and quarterly data from 1965 through 1982. The hypothesis that producers are profit maximizers was not rejected. For the entire period the estimated supply responded positively to own-price changes, negatively to feed and cull-cow prices, and positively to technical change using time as a proxy variable. Estimated own-price elasticities for total and Grade A milk supplies were 1.19 and 0.94, respectively, and for Grade B milk supply was 2.11. Responses to own-price changes were completed within two years. The Chow test for structural change in the estimated coefficients of explanatory variables resulted in rejection of the hypothesis that supply responses were constant over the entire period. Producers continued to adjust supply positively to own-price changes for the years 1974 through 1982. However, estimated own-price elasticities for total, Grade A and Grade B milk supplies decreased to 0.84, 0 80 and 0.97, respectively. Technological efficiency, using time as a proxy, continued to contribute to increased output. Producers did not respond to feed price changes. Grade A supply response to own-price changes was completed within three years, and it took two years for total and Grade B supply to complete responses to own-price changes. / M.S.

No description available.

No description available.