IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bit/bsrysr/v13y2022i3p23-35n4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Possible Impact of Risk Management Strategies with Farm Model on a Mixed Farm Type

Author

Listed:
  • Brečko Jure

    (Agricultural institute of Slovenia; University of Ljubljana, Slovenia)

  • Žgajnar Jaka

    (Agricultural institute of Slovenia; University of Ljubljana, Slovenia)

Abstract

Background: Farm-level models have become an important tool for agricultural economists as there is a growing demand for microsimulation and analysis of farms at the individual level. Objectives: In this paper, we present a mathematical model with the main objective of assessing the effectiveness of production and various possible strategies for agricultural holdings by reducing risks. At the same time, we were also interested in the environmental impacts of such strategies. The latter was measured using the indicator of GHG emissions. Methods/Approach: The model applied is based on linear programming and upgraded with QRP for risk analysis. The approach was tested on medium size mixed agricultural holding, which often faces challenges in light of the structural changes taking place in Slovenia. Results: The results suggest that such a farm could improve financial results with a more efficient risk management strategy. With a slightly modified production plan, the expected gross margin (EGM) can be increased by up to 10% at more or less the same risk. However, if the farmer is willing to diversify the production plan and take a higher risk (+23%), the farm’s EGM could increase by up to 18%. This kind of change in the production plan would also generate 17% more GHG emissions in total, calculated as kg equivalent of CO2 at the farm level, as both BL and C scenarios have the same relative ratio at 3.12 GHG CO2 eq. /EUR. Conclusions: Through this research, we concluded that diversification has a positive potential on a mixed farm, and the farm could achieve better financial results. With flexibility in management, the farmer could also achieve higher risk management efficiency and better farm results.

Suggested Citation

  • Brečko Jure & Žgajnar Jaka, 2022. "Possible Impact of Risk Management Strategies with Farm Model on a Mixed Farm Type," Business Systems Research, Sciendo, vol. 13(3), pages 23-35, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:bit:bsrysr:v:13:y:2022:i:3:p:23-35:n:4
    DOI: 10.2478/bsrj-2022-0022
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2478/bsrj-2022-0022
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2478/bsrj-2022-0022?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christian Stetter & Johannes Sauer, 2022. "Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Eco-Performance at Farm Level: A Parametric Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 81(3), pages 617-647, March.
    2. Poorvi Iyer & Martina Bozzola & Stefan Hirsch & Manuela Meraner & Robert Finger, 2020. "Measuring Farmer Risk Preferences in Europe: A Systematic Review," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(1), pages 3-26, February.
    3. Paut, Raphaël & Sabatier, Rodolphe & Tchamitchian, Marc, 2019. "Reducing risk through crop diversification: An application of portfolio theory to diversified horticultural systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 123-130.
    4. Marko Lovec & Tanja Šumrada & Emil Erjavec, 2020. "New CAP Delivery Model, Old Issues," Intereconomics: Review of European Economic Policy, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics;Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), vol. 55(2), pages 112-119, March.
    5. Franco Rosa & Mario Taverna & Federico Nassivera & Luca Iseppi, 2019. "Farm/crop portfolio simulations under variable risk: a case study from Italy," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 7(1), pages 1-15, December.
    6. Reidsma, Pytrik & Janssen, Sander & Jansen, Jacques & van Ittersum, Martin K., 2018. "On the development and use of farm models for policy impact assessment in the European Union – A review," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 111-125.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Robert Huber & Hang Xiong & Kevin Keller & Robert Finger, 2022. "Bridging behavioural factors and standard bio‐economic modelling in an agent‐based modelling framework," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(1), pages 35-63, February.
    2. Robert Finger & Nadja El Benni, 2021. "Farm income in European agriculture: new perspectives on measurement and implications for policy evaluation," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 48(2), pages 253-265.
    3. Marius Eisele & Christian Troost & Thomas Berger, 2021. "How Bayesian Are Farmers When Making Climate Adaptation Decisions? A Computer Laboratory Experiment for Parameterising Models of Expectation Formation," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(3), pages 805-828, September.
    4. Martina Bozzola & Robert Finger, 2021. "Stability of risk attitude, agricultural policies and production shocks: evidence from Italy," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 48(3), pages 477-501.
    5. Martín-García, Jaime & Gómez-Limón, José A. & Arriaza, Manuel, 2024. "Conversion to organic farming: Does it change the economic and environmental performance of fruit farms?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 220(C).
    6. Elena Toma & Paula Stoicea & Carina Dobre & Adina Iorga, 2023. "The Effect of Eco-Scheme Support on Romanian Farms—A Gini Index Decomposition by Income Source at Farm Level," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-15, August.
    7. Schreefel, L. & de Boer, I.J.M. & Timler, C.J. & Groot, J.C.J. & Zwetsloot, M.J. & Creamer, R.E. & Schrijver, A. Pas & van Zanten, H.H.E. & Schulte, R.P.O., 2022. "How to make regenerative practices work on the farm: A modelling framework," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    8. Takeshima, Hiroyuki & Hatzenbuehler, Patrick L. & Edeh, Hyacinth O., 2020. "Effects of agricultural mechanization on economies of scope in crop production in Nigeria," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    9. Muhammad Amjed Iqbal & Muhammad Rizwan & Azhar Abbas & Muhammad Sohail Amjad Makhdum & Rakhshanda Kousar & Muhammad Nazam & Abdus Samie & Nasir Nadeem, 2021. "A Quest for Livelihood Sustainability? Patterns, Motives and Determinants of Non-Farm Income Diversification among Agricultural Households in Punjab, Pakistan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-14, August.
    10. Liu, Xuan & van Kooten, Gerrit Cornelis & Duan, Jun, 2020. "Calibration of agricultural risk programming models using positive mathematical programming," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 64(3), July.
    11. Britz, Wolfgang & Ciaian, Pavel & Gocht, Alexander & Kanellopoulos, Argyris & Kremmydas, Dimitrios & Müller, Marc & Petsakos, Athanasios & Reidsma, Pytrik, 2021. "A design for a generic and modular bio-economic farm model," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    12. Huber, Robert & Bakker, Martha & Balmann, Alfons & Berger, Thomas & Bithell, Mike & Brown, Calum & Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne & Xiong, Hang & Le, Quang Bao & Mack, Gabriele & Meyfroidt, Patrick & Millingt, 2018. "Representation of decision-making in European agricultural agent-based models," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 143-160.
    13. Laura Onofri & Samuele Trestini & Vasco Boatto, 2020. "Who Is Afraid of Biotic Threats? An Econometric Analysis of Veneto Wine Grape Farmers’ Propensity to Insure," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-9, August.
    14. Alexis H. Villacis & Jeffrey R. Alwang & Victor Barrera & Juan Dominguez, 2022. "Prices, specialty varieties, and postharvest practices: Insights from cacao value chains in Ecuador," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(2), pages 426-458, April.
    15. Noeldeke, Beatrice & Winter, Etti & Ntawuhiganayo, Elisée Bahati, 2022. "Representing human decision-making in agent-based simulation models: Agroforestry adoption in rural Rwanda," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    16. Marzia Ingrassia & Stefania Chironi & Giuseppe Lo Grasso & Luciano Gristina & Nicola Francesca & Simona Bacarella & Pietro Columba & Luca Altamore, 2022. "Is Environmental Sustainability Also “Economically Efficient”? The Case of the “SOStain” Certification for Sicilian Sparkling Wines," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-26, June.
    17. Sardorbek Musayev & Jonathan Mellor & Tara Walsh & Emmanouil Anagnostou, 2022. "Application of Agent-Based Modeling in Agricultural Productivity in Rural Area of Bahir Dar, Ethiopia," Forecasting, MDPI, vol. 4(1), pages 1-22, March.
    18. Katharina Helming & Katrin Daedlow & Bernd Hansjürgens & Thomas Koellner, 2018. "Assessment and Governance of Sustainable Soil Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-13, November.
    19. Komarek, Adam M. & De Pinto, Alessandro & Smith, Vincent H., 2020. "A review of types of risks in agriculture: What we know and what we need to know," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    20. Thomas Slijper & Yann de Mey & P Marijn Poortvliet & Miranda P M Meuwissen, 2022. "Quantifying the resilience of European farms using FADN," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(1), pages 121-150.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    mathematical programming; farm model; greenhouse gas emissions; medium size farm type;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O3 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bit:bsrysr:v:13:y:2022:i:3:p:23-35:n:4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.sciendo.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.