Pub Date : 1979-04-01DOI: 10.1017/S0163548400004659
J. Diamond, Bruce E. Lindsay
COMMENTS AND NOTES Present land use control mechanisms are seen as inadequate for the preservation of open space, agricultural land, and other ·'uneconomic" uses of land. Many proposals have been cited as possible solutions to the problems created by present land use control mechanisms. The transfer of development rights (hereafter known as TDR's) is one such proposal. This mechanism for land use control can be of several forms.' There are severe theoretical and practical problems, to be discussed, which a transfer of development rights program must overcome if it is to function in practical application . TDR is a program which utilizes the basic concepts of zoning and seeks to prevent the economic incentives to alter zoning by giving "just compensation" to the landowner who cannot develop his land to its highest market potential due to zoning for low density or nondeveloped purposes. In exchange for low density zoning and the forfeiting of the right to fully develop his land , the restricted landowner is given "development rights." The development rights are then purchased by land developers who must be in possession of a certain number of development rights to be allowed to develop the land in a specified development area over a pre-determined level of density . In this manner, development can take place, though only in specified areas, and restricted landowners may receive compensation for not being able to develop their land. In theory, society benefits from the preservation of open space, agricultural land, and myriad other "uneconomic" land uses. In theory, TDR is a good planning tool. Desirable land uses are obtained with little public cost. Owners of controlled property are compensated in the form of cash or development rights and property tax reductions. Developers who buy development rights can exceed conventional zoning regulations and pay no more than they normally would for the purchase of additional lands. In short, ideally, all parties involved in the TDR program are economically better off whi.le open space, agricultural land, and other "unprofitable" uses of land are maintained.
{"title":"APPROACHES TO RESEARCH ON TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROPOSALS: AN OVERVIEW","authors":"J. Diamond, Bruce E. Lindsay","doi":"10.1017/S0163548400004659","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0163548400004659","url":null,"abstract":"COMMENTS AND NOTES Present land use control mechanisms are seen as inadequate for the preservation of open space, agricultural land, and other ·'uneconomic\" uses of land. Many proposals have been cited as possible solutions to the problems created by present land use control mechanisms. The transfer of development rights (hereafter known as TDR's) is one such proposal. This mechanism for land use control can be of several forms.' There are severe theoretical and practical problems, to be discussed, which a transfer of development rights program must overcome if it is to function in practical application . TDR is a program which utilizes the basic concepts of zoning and seeks to prevent the economic incentives to alter zoning by giving \"just compensation\" to the landowner who cannot develop his land to its highest market potential due to zoning for low density or nondeveloped purposes. In exchange for low density zoning and the forfeiting of the right to fully develop his land , the restricted landowner is given \"development rights.\" The development rights are then purchased by land developers who must be in possession of a certain number of development rights to be allowed to develop the land in a specified development area over a pre-determined level of density . In this manner, development can take place, though only in specified areas, and restricted landowners may receive compensation for not being able to develop their land. In theory, society benefits from the preservation of open space, agricultural land, and myriad other \"uneconomic\" land uses. In theory, TDR is a good planning tool. Desirable land uses are obtained with little public cost. Owners of controlled property are compensated in the form of cash or development rights and property tax reductions. Developers who buy development rights can exceed conventional zoning regulations and pay no more than they normally would for the purchase of additional lands. In short, ideally, all parties involved in the TDR program are economically better off whi.le open space, agricultural land, and other \"unprofitable\" uses of land are maintained.","PeriodicalId":421915,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1979-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130480164","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1979-04-01DOI: 10.1017/S0163548400004635
J. P. Kuehn
The objectives of this article were first to develop a viable predicting model of the West Virginia feeder calf supply using calves marketed as the dependent variable. The second objective was to validate the predicting model using the "leave·out-one-year'" procedure and to derive an alternative predicting equation using the jackknife technique. The purpose of the emphasis on the second objective was to provide a simple and direct demonstration, of a useful and necessary technique, for the large group of applied economists, who often use econometric methods, but who do not consider themselves to be econon etric specialists.
{"title":"VALIDATING PREDICTING EQUATIONS: THE SUPPLY OF FEEDER CALVES IN WEST VIRGINIA","authors":"J. P. Kuehn","doi":"10.1017/S0163548400004635","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0163548400004635","url":null,"abstract":"The objectives of this article were first to develop a viable predicting model of the West Virginia feeder calf supply using calves marketed as the dependent variable. The second objective was to validate the predicting model using the \"leave·out-one-year'\" procedure and to derive an alternative predicting equation using the jackknife technique. The purpose of the emphasis on the second objective was to provide a simple and direct demonstration, of a useful and necessary technique, for the large group of applied economists, who often use econometric methods, but who do not consider themselves to be econon etric specialists.","PeriodicalId":421915,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council","volume":"08 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1979-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122221365","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1979-04-01DOI: 10.1017/S016354840000460X
R. L. Shane
Traditional models in the agricultural labor literature have examined agricultural labor supply in terms of a labor-lei sure trade-off by a single individual. This work examines the question of total annual market days in farm and nonfarm work of secondary family workers engaged in hired farm work. The underlying model is one of home production-consumption. A trade-off of market days between wife and older children in a family is hypothesized. Empirical results are mixed, generally supporting a tradeoff in the supply of market days in a family between nonstudents and wives, but not between students and wives.
{"title":"MARKET TIME SUPPLY OF NON-HOUSEHOLD-HEAD HIRED FARM WORKER","authors":"R. L. Shane","doi":"10.1017/S016354840000460X","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S016354840000460X","url":null,"abstract":"Traditional models in the agricultural labor literature have examined agricultural labor supply in terms of a labor-lei sure trade-off by a single individual. This work examines the question of total annual market days in farm and nonfarm work of secondary family workers engaged in hired farm work. The underlying model is one of home production-consumption. A trade-off of market days between wife and older children in a family is hypothesized. Empirical results are mixed, generally supporting a tradeoff in the supply of market days in a family between nonstudents and wives, but not between students and wives.","PeriodicalId":421915,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1979-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132325587","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1979-04-01DOI: 10.1017/S0163548400004581
W. Knoblauch
Hay crop forage systems for milk production are compared using the budgeting technique for four feeding plans containing hay (90% dry matter) or hay crop silage (40% dry matter) only and in combination with corn silage as 50% of the forage dry matter. Investments, labor requirements, purchased feed , and cropping program differences are calculated for each hay crop forage system. Hay crop silage·corn silage systems are low cost systems for all herd sizes analyzed. Improved nutrient quality of the hay crop when harvested as hay crop silage is a major factor determining the annual cost ranking.
{"title":"AN ECONOMIC COMPARISON OF HAY CROP FORAGE SYSTEMS FOR MILK PRODUCTION IN THE NORTHEAST","authors":"W. Knoblauch","doi":"10.1017/S0163548400004581","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0163548400004581","url":null,"abstract":"Hay crop forage systems for milk production are compared using the budgeting technique for four feeding plans containing hay (90% dry matter) or hay crop silage (40% dry matter) only and in combination with corn silage as 50% of the forage dry matter. Investments, labor requirements, purchased feed , and cropping program differences are calculated for each hay crop forage system. Hay crop silage·corn silage systems are low cost systems for all herd sizes analyzed. Improved nutrient quality of the hay crop when harvested as hay crop silage is a major factor determining the annual cost ranking.","PeriodicalId":421915,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council","volume":"50 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1979-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124797391","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1979-04-01DOI: 10.1017/S0163548400004672
P. S. Dhillon
It would seem, for the sake of convenience and in the interest of imparting exact information, that the terms used in a discipline should have one and only one meaning. Unfortunately economics terminology is not in such a completely refined state that all terms have unambiguous meanings. In some instances different meanings are attached to the same terms which is a source of confusion. This is especially the case for the term "intensive" use of a resource which frequently has been used to describe the relative abundance of a resource in production. The term has been used inconsistently in two opposing senses when applied to land and labor on the one hand and capital and labor on the other hand. While this may not pose a serious problem for a seasoned scholar who can construe the proper meaning in each context, beginning teachers and students need to be made aware of the inconsistency to avoid confusion and unnecessary debate. The word intensive is commonly used to connote the ratio between productive resources in the production process. When it is used in the context of capital and labor, production is referred as either capital intensive or labor intensive depending on the relative abundance of capital or labor. If capital is the abundant factor relative to labor, the capital to labor ratio is high, and the production is termed as capital intensive. If labor is the abundant resource relative to capital, the labor to capital ratio is high and the production is termed as labor intensive. In the former case capital is regarded as being intensively employed while in the latter situation labor is regarded as being in tensively used . However, when the term intensive is used with respect to land and labor, diametrically opposite meanings compared to the above are being implied by the same word. For instance, in agricultural contexts where land is the scarce input and labor is relatively abundant, the land to labor ratio is low, and the cultivation is termed as land intensive. Here land is regarded as being intensively used. In a situation where the land to labor ratio is high , production is referred as land extensive implying nonintensive use of land. ln line with this usage, the concept of intensity of land use is frequently applied in farm management and land economics. According to this concept the more production there is from an acre of land by the greater application of cooperant faCtors, the higher is the intensity of land use. Clearly the use of the word intensive is not consistent in the two situations related above. In going from production involving capital and labor to a situation involving land and labor, the meanings of the same word are being inverted. It seems that for the sake of having unambiguous terminology the term intensive should be used consistently to convey only one meaning irrespective of the factors involved in production. The choice could be based on the original usage of the word and the extent of its current usage in th
{"title":"ON A CONSISTENT DEFINITION OF INTENSIVE USE OF A RESOURCE","authors":"P. S. Dhillon","doi":"10.1017/S0163548400004672","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0163548400004672","url":null,"abstract":"It would seem, for the sake of convenience and in the interest of imparting exact information, that the terms used in a discipline should have one and only one meaning. Unfortunately economics terminology is not in such a completely refined state that all terms have unambiguous meanings. In some instances different meanings are attached to the same terms which is a source of confusion. This is especially the case for the term \"intensive\" use of a resource which frequently has been used to describe the relative abundance of a resource in production. The term has been used inconsistently in two opposing senses when applied to land and labor on the one hand and capital and labor on the other hand. While this may not pose a serious problem for a seasoned scholar who can construe the proper meaning in each context, beginning teachers and students need to be made aware of the inconsistency to avoid confusion and unnecessary debate. The word intensive is commonly used to connote the ratio between productive resources in the production process. When it is used in the context of capital and labor, production is referred as either capital intensive or labor intensive depending on the relative abundance of capital or labor. If capital is the abundant factor relative to labor, the capital to labor ratio is high, and the production is termed as capital intensive. If labor is the abundant resource relative to capital, the labor to capital ratio is high and the production is termed as labor intensive. In the former case capital is regarded as being intensively employed while in the latter situation labor is regarded as being in tensively used . However, when the term intensive is used with respect to land and labor, diametrically opposite meanings compared to the above are being implied by the same word. For instance, in agricultural contexts where land is the scarce input and labor is relatively abundant, the land to labor ratio is low, and the cultivation is termed as land intensive. Here land is regarded as being intensively used. In a situation where the land to labor ratio is high , production is referred as land extensive implying nonintensive use of land. ln line with this usage, the concept of intensity of land use is frequently applied in farm management and land economics. According to this concept the more production there is from an acre of land by the greater application of cooperant faCtors, the higher is the intensity of land use. Clearly the use of the word intensive is not consistent in the two situations related above. In going from production involving capital and labor to a situation involving land and labor, the meanings of the same word are being inverted. It seems that for the sake of having unambiguous terminology the term intensive should be used consistently to convey only one meaning irrespective of the factors involved in production. The choice could be based on the original usage of the word and the extent of its current usage in th","PeriodicalId":421915,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1979-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114176084","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1978-10-01DOI: 10.1017/S0163548400002260
D. A. Storey, C. Willis
The Atlantic sea scallop (Placopecten magellanicus) is harvested in the waters off the coast of the northeastern United States and Canada by vessels from both countries. The Atlantic sea scallop fishery has been an important fishery in the Northeastern U.S. in recent decades. This is particularly true for New England where, during the quarter-century ending in 1976, over 10 percent of the value of all fish and shellfish landed was attributable to the harvest of sea scallops. United States landings during the last quarter-century, imports and apparent U.S. consumption are shown in Figure 1. While each of these measures was subject to annual fluctuations, a definite pattern is evident. U.S. landings have trended downward~ since 1961 and have been gradually replaced by i!flports, which trended upwards, as the primary source of supply for U.S. consumption, although there was a substantial recovery in U.S. landings at the end of the period. Consumption exhibited less trend than the other two measures, as it increased during the first 10 years of the period, then decreased to its beginning level in the late 1960's and early 1970's, and then fmally increased sharply at the end of the period. The changes indicated in Figure 1 stem in part from a gradual replacement of U.S. fishing activity by Canadian fishing activity on Georges Bank, which was the principal source of sea scallops for the New England fleet in the 1950's and early 1960's. This, coupled with an apparent decrease in natural abundance on Georges Bank, resulted in a diversion of New England scallopers to the Middle Atlantic banks which had previously supported only a small fishery operating out of ports from New York south to North Carolina. Since 1965, Georges Bank has yielded a U.S. catch of between two and four million pounds of edible meats each year, compared with over 20 million pounds in earlier peak years. The total U.S. catch, which was over 27 million pounds in 1961 , had decreased to a little over five million pounds by 1973. An unusually large abundance on the Middle Atlantic banks pushed the U.S. catch back to nearly 20 million pounds in 1976. Meanwhile, the Canadian catch which was relatively low until the early 1960's exceeded the U.S. volume in 1966, and has been double the U.S. volume since 1969 (except for 1976). The Canadians have exported over 80 percent of their landings to the U.S. in most years since 1960. Canada was the source of nearly all U.S. scallop imports in the 1960's. In the 1970's, other important foreign sources emerged (the United Kingdom, Australia, Iceland and Mexico), but Canada has continued to supply half or more of U.S. imports in the 1970's. The U.S. Fishery Management and Conservation Act of 1976 created an exclusive U.S. fishing zone to 200 miles off the U.S. coast. Included in this zone is all of Georges Bank, although the eastern part is a disputed area since it also falls within 200
{"title":"AN ECONOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF ATLANTIC SEA SCALLOP MARKETS","authors":"D. A. Storey, C. Willis","doi":"10.1017/S0163548400002260","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0163548400002260","url":null,"abstract":"The Atlantic sea scallop (Placopecten magellanicus) is harvested in the waters off the coast of the northeastern United States and Canada by vessels from both countries. The Atlantic sea scallop fishery has been an important fishery in the Northeastern U.S. in recent decades. This is particularly true for New England where, during the quarter-century ending in 1976, over 10 percent of the value of all fish and shellfish landed was attributable to the harvest of sea scallops. United States landings during the last quarter-century, imports and apparent U.S. consumption are shown in Figure 1. While each of these measures was subject to annual fluctuations, a definite pattern is evident. U.S. landings have trended downward~ since 1961 and have been gradually replaced by i!flports, which trended upwards, as the primary source of supply for U.S. consumption, although there was a substantial recovery in U.S. landings at the end of the period. Consumption exhibited less trend than the other two measures, as it increased during the first 10 years of the period, then decreased to its beginning level in the late 1960's and early 1970's, and then fmally increased sharply at the end of the period. The changes indicated in Figure 1 stem in part from a gradual replacement of U.S. fishing activity by Canadian fishing activity on Georges Bank, which was the principal source of sea scallops for the New England fleet in the 1950's and early 1960's. This, coupled with an apparent decrease in natural abundance on Georges Bank, resulted in a diversion of New England scallopers to the Middle Atlantic banks which had previously supported only a small fishery operating out of ports from New York south to North Carolina. Since 1965, Georges Bank has yielded a U.S. catch of between two and four million pounds of edible meats each year, compared with over 20 million pounds in earlier peak years. The total U.S. catch, which was over 27 million pounds in 1961 , had decreased to a little over five million pounds by 1973. An unusually large abundance on the Middle Atlantic banks pushed the U.S. catch back to nearly 20 million pounds in 1976. Meanwhile, the Canadian catch which was relatively low until the early 1960's exceeded the U.S. volume in 1966, and has been double the U.S. volume since 1969 (except for 1976). The Canadians have exported over 80 percent of their landings to the U.S. in most years since 1960. Canada was the source of nearly all U.S. scallop imports in the 1960's. In the 1970's, other important foreign sources emerged (the United Kingdom, Australia, Iceland and Mexico), but Canada has continued to supply half or more of U.S. imports in the 1970's. The U.S. Fishery Management and Conservation Act of 1976 created an exclusive U.S. fishing zone to 200 miles off the U.S. coast. Included in this zone is all of Georges Bank, although the eastern part is a disputed area since it also falls within 200","PeriodicalId":421915,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1978-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132908109","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1978-10-01DOI: 10.1017/S0163548400002119
L. M. Day
{"title":"THE NATIONAL REGIONAL RESEARCH PLANNING SYSTEM: AN EXAMPLE FROM RURAL DEVELOPMENT","authors":"L. M. Day","doi":"10.1017/S0163548400002119","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0163548400002119","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":421915,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1978-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121718030","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1978-10-01DOI: 10.1017/S0163548400002089
Edmund F. Jansen
{"title":"Changes In Resource Economics And Community Development Programs: The New Hampshire Experience","authors":"Edmund F. Jansen","doi":"10.1017/S0163548400002089","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0163548400002089","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":421915,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council","volume":"46 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1978-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124637069","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1978-10-01DOI: 10.1017/S0163548400002120
J. Jansma
There is increasing evidence that research funding sources are requiring additional assurances that the expenditure of their resources is in the "highest and best use." Legislative calls for sunset provisions and mandated evaluations plus administrative moves toward grant rather than formula funding emphasize the push for more direct accountability. The objective of this paper is to outline the work of a committee charged with assisting the directors of agricultural research and extension in the nation's land grant universities in their requests for funds for high priority research.
{"title":"AN ANALYSIS IN SUPPORT OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH FUNDING","authors":"J. Jansma","doi":"10.1017/S0163548400002120","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0163548400002120","url":null,"abstract":"There is increasing evidence that research funding sources are requiring additional assurances that the expenditure of their resources is in the \"highest and best use.\" Legislative calls for sunset provisions and mandated evaluations plus administrative moves toward grant rather than formula funding emphasize the push for more direct accountability. The objective of this paper is to outline the work of a committee charged with assisting the directors of agricultural research and extension in the nation's land grant universities in their requests for funds for high priority research.","PeriodicalId":421915,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1978-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134129196","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1978-10-01DOI: 10.1017/S0163548400002168
R. Young, W. Tomek
A long-standing problem in agricultural marketing is the question of "optimal" marketing patterns for a seasonally produced crop. When futures markets exist, agricultural economists have often recommended their use to improve marketing decisions, but farmer use of futures as an aid to marketing is not common. This paper considers the potential benefits to upstate New York farmers of hedging using Maine potato futures contracts. Benefits are defined in terms of the mean and variance of returns from alternative marketing strategies for potatoes. A portfolio approach is implicit in the analysis which also relies, in part, on the formulation of a simple price-forecasting model.
{"title":"A Comparison of Marketing Strategies for Potatoes in Upstate New York","authors":"R. Young, W. Tomek","doi":"10.1017/S0163548400002168","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0163548400002168","url":null,"abstract":"A long-standing problem in agricultural marketing is the question of \"optimal\" marketing patterns for a seasonally produced crop. When futures markets exist, agricultural economists have often recommended their use to improve marketing decisions, but farmer use of futures as an aid to marketing is not common. This paper considers the potential benefits to upstate New York farmers of hedging using Maine potato futures contracts. Benefits are defined in terms of the mean and variance of returns from alternative marketing strategies for potatoes. A portfolio approach is implicit in the analysis which also relies, in part, on the formulation of a simple price-forecasting model.","PeriodicalId":421915,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1978-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125491477","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：