Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The economics and productivity of US dairy farms that use crossbred vs non-crossbred breeding technology (production systems)

The economics and productivity of US dairy farms that use crossbred vs non-crossbred breeding... PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine the rise in crossbred cow numbers in the US dairy herd. Methods used look at well managed herds to see if crossbreeding provides a management tool that producers are using to maintain profitability.Design/methodology/approachThe authors estimate a Translog stochastic production frontier (SPF) for US dairy farms to examine the competitiveness of crossbred and non-crossbred dairy herds by system and region.FindingsThe bottom-line conclusion is that WM or highly efficient crossbred herds solidly compete on a financial basis with larger WM Western Holstein herds, the most technically efficient managed group, based on the SPF results in the authors’ study. The study finds that net return on assets for crossbred herds are not different from Western Holstein herds and that there is no significant difference in amount of milk per cow produced annually.Research limitations/implicationsBecause of a need to unmask the advantages of crossbreeding as a technology it was necessary to separate WM herds from poorly managed herds. That was done by frontier estimates that robustly ranked operation and corrected for endogeneity, tested for selectivity bias, and incorporated the NASS survey design.Originality/valueFor the first time, the 2010 Dairy Cost and Returns questionnaire version of the Agricultural Resource Management Survey (Dairy CAR) design allows researchers to expand survey observations to represent the vast majority of the US dairy farm population and to sort dairy farms into crossbred/non-crossbred herds. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Agricultural Finance Review Emerald Publishing

The economics and productivity of US dairy farms that use crossbred vs non-crossbred breeding technology (production systems)

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/the-economics-and-productivity-of-us-dairy-farms-that-use-crossbred-vs-VLTLn6FLPI
Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
Copyright © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
ISSN
0002-1466
DOI
10.1108/AFR-05-2016-0053
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine the rise in crossbred cow numbers in the US dairy herd. Methods used look at well managed herds to see if crossbreeding provides a management tool that producers are using to maintain profitability.Design/methodology/approachThe authors estimate a Translog stochastic production frontier (SPF) for US dairy farms to examine the competitiveness of crossbred and non-crossbred dairy herds by system and region.FindingsThe bottom-line conclusion is that WM or highly efficient crossbred herds solidly compete on a financial basis with larger WM Western Holstein herds, the most technically efficient managed group, based on the SPF results in the authors’ study. The study finds that net return on assets for crossbred herds are not different from Western Holstein herds and that there is no significant difference in amount of milk per cow produced annually.Research limitations/implicationsBecause of a need to unmask the advantages of crossbreeding as a technology it was necessary to separate WM herds from poorly managed herds. That was done by frontier estimates that robustly ranked operation and corrected for endogeneity, tested for selectivity bias, and incorporated the NASS survey design.Originality/valueFor the first time, the 2010 Dairy Cost and Returns questionnaire version of the Agricultural Resource Management Survey (Dairy CAR) design allows researchers to expand survey observations to represent the vast majority of the US dairy farm population and to sort dairy farms into crossbred/non-crossbred herds.

Journal

Agricultural Finance ReviewEmerald Publishing

Published: Jul 3, 2017

References