IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/isu/genstf/1992010108000011369.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Economic impacts of growth promotants in the beef, pork and poultry industries

Author

Listed:
  • Buhr, Brian Lee

Abstract

Advances in biotechnology have resulted in the potential for use of growth promotants in commercial livestock production. Somatotropins and beta-agonists are the two growth enhancers most likely to be used in beef, pork, and chicken production. The growth promotants increase production efficiency and also result in improved lean composition of meat;Commercial availability of growth promotants will have impacts on all participants in meat production, including producers, processors, consumers, crop producers, and the government, and their possible use has been controversial. The objective of this study is to determine the likely economic impacts of the adoption of growth promotants by beef and pork producers through the use of systematic ex ante evaluation framework. Key issues which must be addressed to determine the likely economic impacts of growth promotants include the timing and level of producer adoption, and consumer acceptance of meats treated with growth enhancers. Survey information and prior studies of the adoption of technology are used to determine likely producer adoption response. An experimental economics approach is used to estimate consumer acceptance of meat products produced by animals treated with growth promotants. Finally, a dynamic supply-demand econometric model of the beef, pork, and poultry industries was estimated, and used as the basis for simulating the likely impact of these technological changes;Results of the producer adoption survey suggest that beta-agonists are more likely to be adopted and to be adopted more rapidly than somatotropins. In addition, large producers and producers with greater management sophistication are likely to adopt more rapidly than others;Results of the consumer experiments suggest that consumers are willing to pay more for the leaner meat products obtained with the use of growth promotants, although consumers are initially concerned about the safety of the products. These results are subject to information provided with respect to the safety of growth promotants and the quality of the treated meat products;Results of the simulation of the adoption of growth promotants suggest that early adopters are likely to receive increased profits from the use of growth promotants. However, as more producers adopt, industry profits return to normal levels. Quantities of meat are more plentiful, and farm and retail prices for meat decline. Thus, consumers are the primary beneficiaries of the use of growth promotants in meat production.

Suggested Citation

  • Buhr, Brian Lee, 1992. "Economic impacts of growth promotants in the beef, pork and poultry industries," ISU General Staff Papers 1992010108000011369, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:isu:genstf:1992010108000011369
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://dr.lib.iastate.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/dc5891e5-cb16-49f2-8a7c-c8dbcf838de3/content
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Davidson, Russell & MacKinnon, James G, 1981. "Several Tests for Model Specification in the Presence of Alternative Hypotheses," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(3), pages 781-793, May.
    2. Barten, A. P. & Bettendorf, L. J., 1989. "Price formation of fish : An application of an inverse demand system," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 33(8), pages 1509-1525, October.
    3. Harry W. Ayer & G. Edward Schuh, 1972. "Social Rates of Return and Other Aspects of Agricultural Research: The Case of Cotton Research in São Paulo, Brazil," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 54(4_Part_1), pages 557-569.
    4. Davidson, James E H, et al, 1978. "Econometric Modelling of the Aggregate Time-Series Relationship between Consumers' Expenditure and Income in the United Kingdom," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 88(352), pages 661-692, December.
    5. Berndt, Ernst R & Savin, N Eugene, 1975. "Estimation and Hypothesis Testing in Singular Equation Systems with Autoregressive Disturbances," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 43(5-6), pages 937-957, Sept.-Nov.
    6. Jean-Paul Chavas & Stanley R. Johnson, 1982. "Supply Dynamics: The Case of U.S. Broilers and Turkeys," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 64(3), pages 558-564.
    7. Davies, Stephen W., 1979. "Inter-firm diffusion of process innovations," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 299-317, October.
    8. B. Wade Brorsen & Jean-Paul Chavas & Warren R. Grant & L. D. Schnake, 1985. "Marketing Margins and Price Uncertainty: The Case of the U.S. Wheat Market," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 67(3), pages 521-528.
    9. Gordon Anderson & Richard Blundell, 1983. "Testing Restrictions in a Flexible Dynamic Demand System: An Application to Consumers' Expenditure in Canada," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 50(3), pages 397-410.
    10. Roger A. Dahlgran, 1988. "Changing Meat Demand Structure in the United States: Evidence from a Price Flexibility Analysis," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 10(2), pages 165-176.
    11. Enrique R. Arzac & Maurice Wilkinson, 1979. "A Quarterly Econometric Model of United States Livestock and Feed Grain Markets and Some of Its Policy Implications," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 61(2), pages 297-308.
    12. Don L. Coursey & John L. Hovis & William D. Schulze, 1987. "The Disparity Between Willingness to Accept and Willingness to Pay Measures of Value," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 102(3), pages 679-690.
    13. Anderson, R & Wilkinson, M, 1985. "Consumer Demand for Meat and the Evaluation of Agricultural Policy," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 65-89.
    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. Buhr, Brian L., 1993. "A Quarterly Econometric Simulation Model Of The U.S. Livestock And Meat Sector," Staff Papers 13465, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    2. Philippe J. Deschamps, 2003. "Time-varying intercepts and equilibrium analysis: an extension of the dynamic almost ideal demand model," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(2), pages 209-236.
    3. Kira Lancker & Julia Bronnmann, 2022. "Substitution Preferences for Fish in Senegal," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 82(4), pages 1015-1045, August.
    4. Adrian C. Darnell, 1994. "A Dictionary Of Econometrics," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 118.
    5. Lancker, Kira & Bronmann, Julia, 2020. "Quantifying consumers’ love for marine biodiversity," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304214, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Paul Cashin, 1991. "A Model Of The Disaggregated Demand For Meat In Australia," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 35(3), pages 263-283, December.
    7. Goodwin, Barry K. & Harper, Daniel C. & Schnepf, Randall D., 2003. "Short-Run Demand Relationships in the U.S. Fats and Oils Complex," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 35(1), pages 1-14, April.
    8. Brown, Mark G., 2009. "Preference Variable Impacts in Direct and Inverse Differential Demand Systems," Research papers 104331, Florida Department of Citrus.
    9. Okrent, Abigail M. & Alston, Julian M., 2011. "Demand for Food in the United States: A Review of Literature, Evaluation of Previous Estimates, and Presentation of New Estimates of Demand," Monographs, University of California, Davis, Giannini Foundation, number 251908, December.
    10. Deschamps, Philippe J., 1998. "Full maximum likelihood estimation of dynamic demand models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 335-359, February.
    11. Julia Campos & Neil R. Ericsson & David F. Hendry, 2005. "General-to-specific modeling: an overview and selected bibliography," International Finance Discussion Papers 838, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    12. Jeon, Jong-Pyeong, 1989. "The impacts of policy alternatives and foreign demand fluctuations on the US rice market," ISU General Staff Papers 1989010108000010204, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    13. Panos Fousekis & Brian J. Revell, 2002. "Primary Demand for Red Meats in the United Kingdom," Cahiers d'Economie et Sociologie Rurales, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 63, pages 31-50.
    14. T. Kesavan & Zuhair A. Hassan & Helen H. Jensen & Stanley R. Johnson, 1993. "Dynamics and Long-run Structure in U.S. Meat Demand," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 41(2), pages 139-153, July.
    15. D. R. Cox, 2013. "A return to an old paper: ‘Tests of separate families of hypotheses’," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 75(2), pages 207-215, March.
    16. Chin-Hwa Jenny Sun & Fu-Sung Chiang & Patrice Guillotreau & Dale Squires, 2015. "Fewer Fish for Higher Profits? Price Response and Economic Incentives in Global Tuna Fisheries Management," Working Papers hal-01110771, HAL.
    17. Minoas Koukouritakis, 2003. "EU Accession Effects on Imports of Manufactures: The case of Greece," University of Cyprus Working Papers in Economics 2-2003, University of Cyprus Department of Economics.
    18. P. M. C. De Boer & C. Martinez & R. Harkema, 2000. "Trade liberalization and the allocation over domestic and foreign supplies: a case study for Spanish manufacturing," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(6), pages 789-799.
    19. Matteo Manera & Michael McAleer, 2005. "Testing Multiple Non‐Nested Factor Demand Systems," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(1), pages 37-66, January.
    20. Weichert, Ronald & Zietz, Joachim, 1986. "Das Verhalten der privaten Haushalte am Kapitalmarkt: Eine empirirische Analyse," Kiel Working Papers 262, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).

    More about this item

    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:isu:genstf:1992010108000011369. 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: Curtis Balmer (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deiasus.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.