IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea12/124723.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A comparative breakeven net return threshold to guide development of conservation technologies with application to perennial wheat

Author

Listed:
  • Reeling, Carson J.
  • Weir, A.E.
  • Swinton, Scott M.
  • Hayes, R.C.

Abstract

In recent decades, public research into agricultural technology development has shifted is primary focus from farm profitability to environmental stewardship. While the orientation of technologies coming from the public sector has changed, the factors motivating adoption by farm businesses remain focused on profitability. This paper develops a comparative breakeven net return threshold for new conservation technologies that requires net returns to the farm enterprise after adoption of the new technology to at least equal their net returns before adoption. The framework is applied to the case study of perennial wheat, a wheat-grass hybrid that can survive and yield grain for multiple seasons. Its perenniality generates environmental benefits over annual wheat via improved soil conservation, water quality, and greenhouse gas sequestration. The framework is illustrated using data from the evaluation of a small set of perennial wheat breeding lines in Australia during 2009-11. We calculate a net return threshold and a potential environmental subsidy and evaluate the potential for changes in yield, price, and perenniality to enhance the commercial viability of PW. Increasing absolute grain yields seems to be the most promising option for further research and development. In all cases, increasing the price of PW through increasing grain quality without making additional improvements to other PW traits would require grain prices that exceed the range of currently feasible market levels. This paper generates a simple but versatile framework for the ex ante economic evaluation of new conservation technologies. The framework can be used to estimate a benchmark level of economic performance that must be achieved in order for a practice to be deemed economically attractive and ultimately adopted by producers. This framework can be used to inform technology developers of the most economically productive avenues for further refinement of their nascent technologies, thereby increasing the potential for their adoption by farmers.

Suggested Citation

  • Reeling, Carson J. & Weir, A.E. & Swinton, Scott M. & Hayes, R.C., 2012. "A comparative breakeven net return threshold to guide development of conservation technologies with application to perennial wheat," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124723, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea12:124723
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.124723
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/124723/files/AAEA%202012%20Reeling%20et%20al%20FINAL.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.124723?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. D'Souza, Gerard E. & Cyphers, Douglas & Phipps, Tim T., 1993. "Factors Affecting The Adoption Of Sustainable Agricultural Practices," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 22(2), pages 1-7, October.
    2. David Pimentel, 2006. "Soil Erosion: A Food and Environmental Threat," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 8(1), pages 119-137, February.
    3. Nagy, Joseph G. & Sanders, John H., 1990. "Agricultural technology development and dissemination within a farming systems perspective," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 305-320.
    4. Feather, Peter & Cooper, Joseph C., 1995. "Voluntary Incentives for Reducing Agricultural Nonpoint Source Water Pollution," Agricultural Information Bulletins 33619, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    5. Adesina, Akinwumi A. & Baidu-Forson, Jojo, 1995. "Farmers' perceptions and adoption of new agricultural technology: evidence from analysis in Burkina Faso and Guinea, West Africa," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 13(1), pages 1-9, October.
    6. D'souza, Gerard & Cyphers, Douglas & Phipps, Tim, 1993. "Factors Affecting the Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Practices," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(2), pages 159-165, October.
    7. Bell, Lindsay W. & Byrne (nee Flugge), Felicity & Ewing, Mike A. & Wade, Len J., 2008. "A preliminary whole-farm economic analysis of perennial wheat in an Australian dryland farming system," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 96(1-3), pages 166-174, March.
    8. Adesina, Akinwumi A. & Zinnah, Moses M., 1993. "Technology characteristics, farmers' perceptions and adoption decisions: A Tobit model application in Sierra Leone," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 9(4), pages 297-311, December.
    9. Lichtenberg, Erik, 2004. "Cost-Responsiveness of Conservation Practice Adoption: A Revealed Preference Approach," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 29(3), pages 1-16, December.
    10. Akinwumi A. Adesina & Moses M. Zinnah, 1993. "Technology characteristics, farmers' perceptions and adoption decisions: A Tobit model application in Sierra Leone," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 9(4), pages 297-311, December.
    11. Allen M. Featherstone & Barry K. Goodwin, 1993. "Factors Influencing a Farmer's Decision to Invest in Long-Term Conservation Improvements," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 69(1), pages 67-81.
    12. Knowler, Duncan & Bradshaw, Ben, 2007. "Farmers' adoption of conservation agriculture: A review and synthesis of recent research," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 25-48, February.
    13. Christine A. Ervin & David E. Ervin, 1982. "Factors Affecting the Use of Soil Conservation Practices: Hypotheses, Evidence, and Policy Implications," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 58(3), pages 277-292.
    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. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.
    2. Burnett, Wesley & Szmurlo, Daniel & Callahan, Scott, 2022. "Land tenure and conservation adoption: An analysis of contracts and incentives," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322244, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Burnett, J. Wesley & Szmurlo, Daniel & Callahan, Scott, 2024. "Farmland Rental and Conservation Practice Adoption," Economic Information Bulletin 341821, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    4. Sheng Gong & Jason.S. Bergtold & Elizabeth Yeager, 2021. "Assessing the joint adoption and complementarity between in-field conservation practices of Kansas farmers," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 9(1), pages 1-24, December.
    5. Bravo-Ureta, Boris E. & Cocchi, Horacio & Solís, Daniel, 2006. "Adoption of Soil Conservation Technologies in El Salvador: A Cross-Section and Over-Time Analysis," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 2894, Inter-American Development Bank.
    6. Zhihai Yang & Amin W. Mugera & Ning Yin & Yumeng Wang, 2018. "Soil conservation practices and production efficiency of smallholder farms in Central China," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 1517-1533, August.
    7. Bekelc Shiferaw & Stein T. Holden, 1998. "Resource degradation and adoption of land conservation technologies in the Ethiopian Highlands: A case study in Andit Tid, North Shewa," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 18(3), pages 233-247, May.
    8. Llewellyn, Rick S. & Lindner, Robert K. & Pannell, David J. & Powles, Stephen B., 2002. "Adoption of herbicide resistance management practices by Australian grain growers," 2002 Conference (46th), February 13-15, 2002, Canberra, Australia 179527, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    9. Odendo, Martins & Obare, Gideon A. & Salasya, Beatrice, 2010. "Determinants of the Speed of Adoption of Soil Fertility-Enhancing Technologies in Western Kenya," 2010 AAAE Third Conference/AEASA 48th Conference, September 19-23, 2010, Cape Town, South Africa 96192, African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE).
    10. Njabulo Lloyd Ntshangase & Brian Muroyiwa & Melusi Sibanda, 2018. "Farmers’ Perceptions and Factors Influencing the Adoption of No-Till Conservation Agriculture by Small-Scale Farmers in Zashuke, KwaZulu-Natal Province," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-16, February.
    11. Zhong, Hua & Hu, Wuyang & Penn, Jerrod M., 2018. "Application of Multiple Imputation in Dealing with Missing Data in Agricultural Surveys: The Case of BMP Adoption," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 43(01), January.
    12. Jara-Rojas, Roberto & Bravo-Ureta, Boris E. & Díaz, José, 2012. "Adoption of water conservation practices: A socioeconomic analysis of small-scale farmers in Central Chile," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 54-62.
    13. Jabbar, Mohammad A. & Beyene, Hailu & Mohamed Saleem, M A & Gebreselassie, Solomon, 1998. "Adoption pathways for new agricultural technologies : An approach and an application to Vertisols management technology in Ethiopia," Research Reports 182901, International Livestock Research Institute.
    14. Mzoughi, Naoufel, 2011. "Farmers adoption of integrated crop protection and organic farming: Do moral and social concerns matter?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(8), pages 1536-1545, June.
    15. Owens, Nicole N. & Swinton, Scott M. & van Ravenswaay, Eileen O., 1997. "Will Farmers Use Safer Pesticides?," Staff Paper Series 11577, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    16. Joshi, Kuhu & Joshi, Pramod Kumar & Khan, Md. Tajuddin & Kishore, Avinash, 2018. "Insights on the rapid adoption of Pusa 1121 basmati variety in North India," IFPRI discussion papers 1756, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    17. Avila-Santamaria, Jorge J. & Useche, Maria P., 2016. "Urea Subsidies and the Decision to Allocate Land to a New Fertilizing Technology: Ex-ante Analysis in Ecuador," 2016 Annual Meeting, February 6-9, 2016, San Antonio, Texas 229851, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    18. Martey, Edward & Wiredu, Alexander Nimo & Etwire, Prince M. & Fosu, Mathias & Buah, S. S. J. & Bidzakin, John & Ahiabor, Benjamin D. K. & Kusi, Francis, 2014. "Fertilizer Adoption and Use Intensity Among Smallholder Farmers in Northern Ghana: A Case Study of the AGRA Soil Health Project," Sustainable Agriculture Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 3(01).
    19. Giovanopoulou, Eirini & Nastis, Stefanos A. & Papanagiotou, Evagelos, 2011. "Modeling farmer participation in agri-environmental nitrate pollution reducing schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 2175-2180, September.
    20. Maligalig, R. & Umbeger, W. & Demont, M. & Peralta, A., 2018. "Farmer preferences for rice varietal trait improvements in Nueva Ecija, Philippines: A latent class cluster approach," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277476, International Association of Agricultural Economists.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Demand and Price Analysis; Environmental Economics and Policy; Research and Development/Tech Change/Emerging Technologies;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:aaea12:124723. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.