IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aare99/124517.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The role of expected protein levels in determining the impact of protein premiums and discounts

Author

Listed:
  • Petersen, Elizabeth H.
  • Fraser, Rob W.

Abstract

This paper investigates the role of expected protein levels in determining the impact of protein premiums and discounts on firstly, a grower’s income stream, and secondly, a grower’s willingness-to-pay for a forward contract. The impact is examined for a range of expected protein levels (9%-13%). When considering a grower’s income stream, for expected protein levels less than approximately 10.2% expected income, E(I), and the variance of income, Var(I), decrease, and E(I) is the dominating effect causing an overall decrease in expected utility (EU). There exists a small protein window (approximately 10.2%-10.3%) where E(I) and Var(I) decrease and the Var(I) effect is dominant causing an overall increase in EU. For expected protein levels greater than 10.3%, E(I) increases and Var(I) decreases, both working to positively affect EU. Hence, growers with low expected protein levels are disadvantaged by the scheme. A sensitivity analysis is conducted on key parameter values to understand their impact on this relationship and it is found that although the window changed slightly in size and level, it did not significantly alter this relationship. Expected protein levels also have a significant role in determining the impact of protein premiums and discounts on a grower’s willingness-to-pay for a forward contract. This paper shows that in the presence of protein premiums and discounts growers with expected protein less than approximately 10% are willing to pay more for a forward contract, and growers with expected protein greater than approximately 10% are willing to pay less for a forward contract. A sensitivity analysis conducted on key parameter values did not significantly modify this relationship.

Suggested Citation

  • Petersen, Elizabeth H. & Fraser, Rob W., 1999. "The role of expected protein levels in determining the impact of protein premiums and discounts," 1999 Conference (43th), January 20-22, 1999, Christchurch, New Zealand 124517, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aare99:124517
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.124517
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/124517/files/PetersenEH.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.124517?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. Bardsley, Peter & Harris, Michael, 1987. "An Approach To The Econometric Estimation Of Attitudes To Risk In Agriculture," Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 31(2), pages 1-15, August.
    2. Fraser, Rob W., 1997. "Seasonal variability, land values and willingness-to-pay for a forward wheat contract with protein premiums and discounts," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 41(2), pages 1-17.
    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. Petersen, Elizabeth H. & Fraser, Rob W., 2000. "The role of expected protein levels in determining the impact of protein premiums and discounts: a note," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 44(2), pages 1-10.
    2. Rob Fraser, 2013. "To Cheat or Not To Cheat: Moral Hazard and Agri-environmental Policy," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(3), pages 527-536, September.
    3. Rob Fraser, 2018. "Compensation Payments and Animal Disease: Incentivising Farmers Both to Undertake Costly On-farm Biosecurity and to Comply with Disease Reporting Requirements," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 70(3), pages 617-629, July.
    4. Z. Bar‐Shira & R.E. Just & D. Zilberman, 1997. "Estimation of farmers' risk attitude: an econometric approach," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 17(2-3), pages 211-222, December.
    5. David J. Pannell & Getu Hailu & Alfons Weersink & Amanda Burt, 2008. "More reasons why farmers have so little interest in futures markets," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 39(1), pages 41-50, July.
    6. Bruce L. Dahl & William W. Wilson & D. Demcey Johnson, 2004. "Valuing New Varieties: Trade-Offs between Growers and End-Users in Wheat," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 26(1), pages 82-96.
    7. Amir K. Abadi Ghadim & David J. Pannell, 1999. "A conceptual framework of adoption of an agricultural innovation," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 21(2), pages 145-154, October.
    8. Pannell, David J., 1994. "The Value Of Information In Herbicide Decision Making For Weed Control In Australian Wheat Crops," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 19(2), pages 1-16, December.
    9. Pannell, David J., 1995. "Economic aspects of legume management and legume research in dryland farming systems of southern Australia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 217-236.
    10. Serra, Teresa & Goodwin, Barry K. & Featherstone, Allen M., 2011. "Risk behavior in the presence of government programs," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 162(1), pages 18-24, May.
    11. Jackson, Elizabeth & Quaddus, Mohammed & Islam, Nazrul & Stanton, John & Hoque, Zohurul, 2007. "A Multi-Disciplinary Approach For Determining Adoption Of Agricultural Price Risk Management Strategies," 81st Annual Conference, April 2-4, 2007, Reading University, UK 7985, Agricultural Economics Society.
    12. Farquharson, Robert J., 1991. "A Farm Level Evaluation of a New Twinning Technology in Beef Cattle," Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 59(01), pages 1-21, April.
    13. Pluske, Johanna M. & Fraser, Rob W., 1995. "Can Producers Place Valid and Reliable Valuations on Wool Price-Risk Information?," Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(02), pages 1-8, August.
    14. Browne, Natalie & Kingwell, Ross & Behrendt, Ralph & Eckard, Richard, 2013. "The relative profitability of dairy, sheep, beef and grain farm enterprises in southeast Australia under selected rainfall and price scenarios," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 35-44.
    15. Fraser, Rob W., 1999. "The state of resource taxation in Australia: 'An inexcusable folly for the nation'?," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 43(3), pages 1-20, September.
    16. Schilizzi, S. G. M. & Kingwell, R. S., 1999. "Effects of climatic and price uncertainty on the value of legume crops in a Mediterranean-type environment," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 55-69, May.
    17. Farquharson, Robert J. & Cacho, Oscar J. & Turpin, J.E., 2000. "Agricultural response analysis in a longer term framework," 2000 Conference (44th), January 23-25, 2000, Sydney, Australia 123634, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    18. Sundar, B. & Virmani, Vineet, 2013. "Attitudes towards Risk of Forest Dependent Communities - Evidence from Andhra Pradesh," IIMA Working Papers WP2013-12-01, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
    19. Michael Young & Ross Kingwell & John Young & Phil Vercoe, 2020. "An economic analysis of sheep flock structures for mixed enterprise Australian farm businesses," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 64(3), pages 677-699, July.
    20. Gheyssens, Jonathan & Günther, Isabel, 2012. "Risk Experiments in Gains and Losses: A Case Study for Benin," WIDER Working Paper Series 038, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural Finance;

    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:aare99:124517. 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/aaresea.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.