Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2007. / Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 68-07, Section: A, page: 3062. Adviser: Madhu Khanna. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 107-112) Available on microfilm from Pro Quest Information and Learning.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2008. / Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 69-11, Section: A, page: 4436. Adviser: Bruce J. Sherrick. Includes bibliographical references. Available on microfilm from Pro Quest Information and Learning.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2007. / Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 68-06, Section: A, page: 2587. Adviser: Scott H. Irwin. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 94-101) Available on microfilm from Pro Quest Information and Learning.

Thesis (M.Sc.(Agric.))(Agricultural Economics)--University of Pretoria, 2005. / Includes summary. Includes bibliographical references.

Master of Agribusiness / Department of Agricultural Economics / Glynn Tonsor / To remain competitive in an ever changing pork industry, Hormel Foods required careful evaluation of advertising forecast accuracy. This study determines forecasting accuracy for bone-in loins, boneless loins, butts, and ribs pricing within Hormel Foods and determines the relationship between forecast horizon (how many weeks forward in pricing) and forecasting accuracy of these products. The challenge required the data collection of the advertising pricing quotes for the sale price in comparison to the forecasted price. Several different forecasting combinations were examined to determine the ideal combination. The focus of this research was to determine which forecast or combination of forecasts was preferable for Hormel Foods. Findings include that each commodity and weeks out front have a different preferred forecast or combination of forecasts when analyzing root mean square errors. Four forecasts (three forecast companies and the United States Department of Agriculture actual markets at the time of forecasts) were observed with one forecast company rarely utilized in the preferred forecasting combinations and therefore the potential exists for a cost savings that affect the bottom line profitability of the division. In addition, economic models presented in this study explain the errors (both raw and percentage based) in relation to the forecast companies, weeks out front forecasted, and specific commodity differences.

<p> This research is composed of three essays. It highlights the driving factors of land conversion and crop acreage response focusing on North Dakota agriculture and estimates the benefits of conservation land measures at west central South Dakota watershed. The major questions that are addressed here are how and why agricultural producers decide among different land use choices, crop selection, and land conservation measures and how their decision vary over time? The first essay examines the long run land conversion trend interconnected with change in crop, oil, and ethanol prices, climate and renewable fuel policy mandates. Data are obtained from Cropland Data Layer from 1997 to 2015 period of National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) at the USDA. The first essay employs a Seemingly Unrelated Tobit Regression approach to better understand the connection between land conversion and crop prices, biofuel policies, biophysical environment. Key findings indicate land-use conversion from grassland to cropland is relatively higher across the ND counties. </p><p> The second essay is designed to investigate the relationship between crop acreage response and socio-economic and environmental drivers. We use prices for crude oil, planted acres of major crops (corn, wheat, soybean, hay) and prices from the period of 1990 to 2015. This essay focuses on corn acreage response due to crop prices, energy policies, climate and other socio-economic factors using a Fixed Effect parameter framework. </p><p> The final essay estimates environmental benefits due to adoption of conservation practices. In other words, it analyzes the economic and environmental benefits of implemented conservation practices at Bad River watershed in South Dakota using an integrated framework. For example, in an article in the Global Journal of Agricultural Economics, Extension and Rural Development (2016), a Benefit Cost Analysis model is utilized to assess soil conservation benefits and evaluate economic impacts of conservation measures at a watershed scale. The economic analysis includes estimation of benefit cost ratio, annual rate of return of conservation practices. Key findings suggest that benefit value of sediment reduction average $2.13 per ton expressed in constant (year = 2000) dollars and the ratio of benefits to costs is greater than 1.</p><p>

Doctor of Philosophy / Department of Agricultural Economics / Michael A. Boland / The strategic decision a firm makes in determining where to set its vertical and horizontal boundaries is a widely discussed topic in the literature. This strategic decision can include vertical integration, horizontal integration and diversification outside of the food economy. These activities can impact a firm in different ways. The objective of this research is to determine whether food economy firms pursuing diversification or integration are valued lower or higher as a whole than the sum of their individual segments. This is commonly referred to as a premium or discount. The hypothesis is that a premium exists for food economy firms that pursue integration activities and a discount exists for food economy firms that pursue diversification activities. Four separate food economy sectors are used in the analysis: food processing, wholesale grocery, retail supermarkets, and restaurants. To determine whether a premium or discount exists for integration or diversification, an excess value calculation method is used which compares the actual value of a firm to the imputed value of all of the segments of a firm. This excess value is then used in a seemingly unrelated regression (SUR) framework to determine how certain firm characteristics influence firm value. But, these firm effects may both lead a firm to diversify or integrate and affect firm value. This would incorrectly attribute a premium or discount to the diversification or integration itself and not the underlying firm characteristics that caused the firm to pursue such a strategy. To account for these underlying firm and industry characteristics, Heckman’s two-stage procedure is used to control for the self-selection of firms that diversify. The SUR results indicate that the hypothesis that integration leads to a premium for food economy firms cannot be rejected for the restaurant sector and for the processing sector except in the case of vertical integration into retail. The endogeneity tests indicate that, in most cases, the diversification or integration decisions are endogenous meaning that the firm effects that cause firms to diversify or integrate are positively or negatively correlated with firm value. In the cases of vertical integration into wholesale in the processing and restaurant sectors and unrelated diversification in the restaurant sector, including a self selection parameter makes the premiums found using SUR become discounts.

Doctor of Philosophy / Department of Agricultural Economics / Jeffrey M. Peterson / Technological changes have always been subject to numerous debates and studies to establish if and how much they benefit society. Glyphosate resistant soybean can be seen as such a technological improvement that has generated numerous studies attempting to measure the welfare gains. There are obvious gains from adopting the technology from a production efficiency standpoint, as it significantly decreases production cost and simplifies weed control management. However, with some consumers being reluctant to embrace such a change, especially in Europe, it is not obvious that overall welfare gains are positive. This study attempts to address some shortcomings perceived in recent economic literature, namely the disregard of consumers’ demand responses and the lack of analysis over time. A partial equilibrium model is created where supply and demand functions are estimated based on observed prices and quantities, the adoption rate of the new technology, and production information such as yield and harvested areas. The model developed considers 6 different regions, namely the U.S., Europe, China, Argentina, Brazil and the rest of the world, and develops for each one of them a supply function and three demand functions for soybean grain, meal and oil. Once those are calibrated, the gains for the different players in the industry are computed. The findings are that the gains are proportionally allocated to the different consumers based on the share of the demand for the specific country. Price supports in the U.S. in the early years provide, proportionally to the adoption rate, more gains to the consumers. Producers gain or lose from the technology depending on whether they have adopted it or not. Countries like the U.S. or Argentina, who were the earlier adopters, definitely see an increase in their producer surplus from the adoption of the technology. Countries such as Brazil, which have delayed adopting the technology for political reasons, have faced a significant loss due to lower prices without the benefits of enjoying a cost-saving production technology. The innovator’s gain increases over time as the adoption rate rises. From a country perspective, the U.S. is without doubt the country that has benefited the most from the technology. The main reasons are that the U.S. has the largest acreage of soybean that is grown using the Glyphosate resistant technology. The U.S. consumer base for soybean products is the largest and the monopoly is a U.S.-based company. Therefore some of the gain captured abroad by the monopoly funnels into the U.S. This study finds that, from 2002 to 2005, even if the European consumer completely stopped purchasing soybean, the U.S. as a whole would still benefit from the technology. For the earlier period 1998-2005, the study finds that if Europe had decreased its demand from 35% to 48%, there would have been a possibility for the U.S. as a whole to have been made worse off by the technology.

Master of Science / Department of Agricultural Economics / Michael R. Langemeier / The objective of this thesis is to examine differences in labor efficiency and to find what is driving those differences among Kansas farms. The results provide a quantified understanding of the variation in labor productivity and labor efficiency relating to three categories of variables: farm characteristics, financial performance, and specialization. This research uses regression estimates from a data set of 1,145 Kansas farms to quantify how farm characteristics are related to labor productivity and labor efficiency. There are two main models. Labor productivity, expressed as value of farm production divided by the number of workers, is regressed on three categories of variables: farm characteristics, financial performance, and specialization. Labor efficiency, expressed as labor costs divided by value of farm production, is also regressed on the same categories of variables. The research found that farm size, managerial ability, and age were the most influential and significant variables in the labor productivity model. Farm size, managerial ability, and land tenure were the most influential and significant variables in the labor efficiency model. Farm size is a variable important to both models, and when evaluated at $100,000 of VFP, labor productivity has a value of 152,122 and a labor efficiency value of 0.271 (all else constant). When evaluated at a VFP of $500,000, labor productivity and labor efficiency improve to values of 217,914 and 0.246, respectively.

<p> Many reasons have been suggested as explanation for observed differences in citizens' environmental conservation projects policy choices and willingness-to-pay (WTP) values. Some people attribute this distinctive decision behavior to contrasts in the overall policy outcome expectations (preference heterogeneity) and/or differences in reactions to the changes in the environmental attributes (response heterogeneity). Others attribute this to differences in individual choice rationales, personalities, encounters, and past and present experiences. In other words, regardless of the possibility that outcomes are the same, people do not have the same emotions, convictions, disposition, or motivations. </p><p> In three separate essays, I investigate the possible reasons for the observed differences in citizens' environmental conservation policy choices and examine how preference and response heterogeneity arise. In the first essay, I ask if a priori environmental damage perception is a source of heterogeneity affecting conservation option choice decisions. In the second, I investigate if social networks (interactions among decision-making agents) affect choice decisions. In the third, I investigate if preferences change when decision making agents are allowed to deliberate among peers. </p><p> For the first essay, I conducted an on-line choice experiment (CE) survey. The survey asked questions that help to measure citizen preference for protecting environmental public goods, ascertain the value local residents are willing-to-pay (WTP), and determine how preference heterogeneity arises. CE attributes included groundwater use (measured by share of total water use from groundwater), aquatic habitat (measured by count of spawning kokanee salmon return), natural habitat health (measured by the sensitive ecosystem area reclaimed), and rural character (measured by a decrease in urban sprawl and/or a decrease in population density in rural areas). I used a special property levy as the vehicle of payment. Random parameter logit (RP) and latent class (LC) models were estimated to capture response and preference heterogeneity. The results suggest that (1) both preference and response heterogeneities were found for the choices and all environmental attributes respectively (2) respondents who have a higher value for one environmental good will have a higher value for other environmental goods, and (3) a priori damage perception could be one of the sources of response and preference heterogeneity. </p><p> In the same survey, I included people's egocentric networks, interactions, environment related activities and perceptions to empirically evaluate whether social network effect (SNE) is a source of systematic differences in preference. I estimate consumer preferences for a hypothetical future environmental conservation management alternative described by its attributes within a Nested Logit Model: nesting broader and distinct conservation options within choices impacted by individual&rsquo;s network structure. The results show that some network centrality measures capture preference heterogeneity, and consequently the differences in WTP values in a systematic way. </p><p> Third, I compare the value estimated based on the traditional choice experiment (CE) with the results obtained using the citizen jury (CJ) approach or a group-based approach or also called the "Market Stall" in some literature. I estimate the effect of deliberation on conservation choice outcomes by removing any significant differences between the people who participated in the CJ (people who volunteered to be contacted again after deliberation treatment) and those people who did the survey twice but did not volunteer for CJ (control group) in terms of their socioeconomic status and be able attribute the changes in preferences to deliberation treatment only. CJ approach involved two 90 minute deliberations held over two days to discuss and consider their preferences and WTP values with other household members. Results show that deliberation improves individuals' valuation process and there is observed difference in choice outcomes between the deliberation treatment and control groups. Both preference and response heterogeneity relatively vanish when people were allowed to deliberate among peers.</p>