IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/ifma07/345383.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

PR - Determining Labour Efficiency Of U.S. Row Crop Production

Author

Listed:
  • Ibendahl, Gregg
  • Anderson, John

Abstract

Technology is continually improving the technical efficiency of agriculture. Advances in seeds, chemicals, machinery, and other inputs are allowing farmers to produce more than ever before and with fewer inputs. In addition, the available supply of agricultural labour has been shrinking. One problem facing producers is determining what practices lead to labour savings and where is additional labour savings likely to occur. As quality labour becomes more expensive and difficult to obtain, producers will want to know how best to allocate their resources in order to obtain maximum labour efficiency. This paper uses seven years of farmer data from cotton and soybean production to develop a model that shows the factors determining the hours of labor required to produce each of the crops. The model is based on a regression analysis of 900 farmer observations from the Mississippi delta. In addition, the model shows how effective each factor is for reducing labour and whether the factor is more important for cotton or soybeans. Results show that farm size, field size, percent rented land, percent of farm planted to soybeans or cotton, percent custom expenses, percent GMO seed varieties, and row spacing can all be important factors determining labour hour requirements. Bigger farms have economies of scale for both cotton and soybean farms. However, the coefficient for cotton is twice as large meaning that cotton farms see a bigger gain in labour reduction by expanding than do soybean farms. The use of GMO had a similar effect as it both reduced labour and was more effective for cotton than soybeans. The major difference between cotton and soybean farms was in the degree of specialisation. For cotton farms, adding more cotton reduced labour while for soybeans, adding more increased labour. These results indicate that cotton farms are likely to continue to expand and also be more specialised. Farms growing soybeans are likely to grow a mix of crops but will continue to expand as well. These results should be useful to producers looking for ways to save labour and also to policy makers considering minimum wage laws and payment programs that might limit farm size.

Suggested Citation

  • Ibendahl, Gregg & Anderson, John, 2007. "PR - Determining Labour Efficiency Of U.S. Row Crop Production," 16th Congress, Cork, Ireland, July 15-20, 2007 345383, International Farm Management Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:ifma07:345383
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.345383
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/345383/files/07IbendahlAnderson.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.345383?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. Pray, Carl & Ma, Danmeng & Huang, Jikun & Qiao, Fangbin, 2001. "Impact of Bt Cotton in China," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 813-825, May.
    2. Peterson, Willis & Kislev, Yoav, 1986. "The Cotton Harvester in Retrospect: Labor Displacement or Replacement?," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(1), pages 199-216, March.
    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. Rousselière, Samira & Rousselière, Damien & Ramani, Shyama, 2016. "Innovation Led Alliances: Theory and application to the GM Plant Industry," 149th Seminar, October 27-28, 2016, Rennes, France 244949, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Sydorovych, Olha & Marra, Michele C., 2007. "A Genetically Engineered Crop's Impact on Pesticide Use: A Revealed-Preference Index Approach," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 32(3), pages 1-16, December.
    3. Guiyan Wang & Yuhong Wu & Wangsheng Gao & Michel Fok & Weili Liang, 2008. "Impact of Bt Cotton on the Farmer's Livelihood System in China," Post-Print halshs-00324390, HAL.
    4. Carl E Pray & Ramu Govindasamy & Ann Courtmanche, 2006. "The Importance Of Intellectual Property Rights In The International Spread Of Private Sector Agricultural Biotechnology," The IUP Journal of Agricultural Economics, IUP Publications, vol. 0(3), pages 7-20, July.
    5. Qiao, Fangbin, 2015. "Fifteen Years of Bt Cotton in China: The Economic Impact and its Dynamics," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 177-185.
    6. Nielsen, Chantal Pohl & Thierfelder, Karen & Robinson, Sherman, 2001. "Genetically modified foods, trade, and developing countries," TMD discussion papers 77, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    7. Lincoln Addison & Matthew Schnurr, 2016. "Growing burdens? Disease-resistant genetically modified bananas and the potential gendered implications for labor in Uganda," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 33(4), pages 967-978, December.
    8. Subramanian, Arjunan & Qaim, Matin, 2009. "Rural Poverty and Employment Effects of Bt Cotton in India," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 50555, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Fangbin Qiao & Jikun Huang & Caiping Zhang, 2016. "The Sustainability of the Farm-level Impact of Bt Cotton in China," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(3), pages 602-618, September.
    10. Robert Finger & Nadja El Benni & Timo Kaphengst & Clive Evans & Sophie Herbert & Bernard Lehmann & Stephen Morse & Nataliya Stupak, 2011. "A Meta Analysis on Farm-Level Costs and Benefits of GM Crops," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(5), pages 1-20, May.
    11. Jeffrey Vitale & Marc Ouattarra & Gaspard Vognan, 2011. "Enhancing Sustainability of Cotton Production Systems in West Africa: A Summary of Empirical Evidence from Burkina Faso," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(8), pages 1-34, July.
    12. Frisvold, George B. & Reeves, Jeanne M., 2008. "The costs and benefits of refuge requirements: The case of Bt cotton," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 87-97, March.
    13. Konou, Comlanvi Martin, 2011. "Who benefits from the adoption of Bt cotton in Burkina- Faso?," 2011 Annual Meeting, July 24-26, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 103920, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Hu, Ruifa & Pray, Carl & Huang, Jikun & Rozelle, Scott & Fan, Cunhui & Zhang, Caiping, 2009. "Reforming intellectual property rights and the Bt cotton seed industry in China: Who benefits from policy reform?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 793-801, June.
    15. Ying Xu & Christopher Findlay, 2019. "Farmers’ constraints, governmental support and climate change adaptation: evidence from Guangdong Province, China," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(4), pages 866-880, October.
    16. Subramanian, Arjunan & Qaim, Matin, 2009. "Village-wide Effects of Agricultural Biotechnology: The Case of Bt Cotton in India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 256-267, January.
    17. Baffes, John, 2004. "Cotton : Market setting, trade policies, and issues," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3218, The World Bank.
    18. Nielsen, Chantal Pohl & Robinson, Sherman & Thierfelder, Karen, 2002. "Trade in genetically modified food: A survey of empirical studies," TMD discussion papers 106, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    19. Qaim, Matin & de Janvry, Alain, 2002. "Bt Cotton In Argentina: Analyzing Adoption And Farmers' Willingness To Pay," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19710, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    20. Thirtle, Colin, 1988. "Induced Innovation Theory and Agricultural Development in LDCs: An Appraisal," Manchester Working Papers in Agricultural Economics 232807, University of Manchester, School of Economics, Agricultural Economics Department.

    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:ifma07:345383. 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/ifmaaea.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.