Agricultural Economics Departments Research Articles

Jayson Lusk: The food police: a well-fed manifesto about the politics of your plate

In The Food Police, Lusk argues that there is an increasing trend by ‘‘a chorus of authors, talk show hosts, politician, and celebrity chefs’’ (p. 2) to regulate, restrict and otherwise control the foods that we produce and consume. He calls these people the ‘‘food police’’ and the ‘‘high priests of politically correct food.’’ They are a self-appointed elite who think they know what foods people should and should not eat. Some of their targets, according to Lusk: banning trans fats and foie gras, outlawing Happy Meals, taxing Twinkies and subsidizing fruit and vegetables, mandating that schools purchase a certain percentage of local food. The book consists of 10 chapters. In the first chapter, ‘‘A Skeptical Foodie,’’ Lusk states that he does not have an agenda to change what food people eat. He also does not want to promote the status quo. As an economist, he is ‘‘generally agnostic about people’s preferences’’ (p. 15). Rather, his aim is to tell the ‘‘truth about food, and economics,’’ which he argues is badly distorted in the popular, public, and academic spheres. Lusk’s contribution to the debate is his unabashed advocacy of economics and freedom of choice. He uses economic logic and empirical studies to debunk myths and misconceptions about the production and consumption of food and to argue that efforts to interfere with food and agricultural markets by directly controlling or regulating how they operate will produce unintended, harmful consequences. Simply put, as problematic as the current food system is, it works in producing a lot of food that is accessible to the poor. ‘‘I don’t care,’’ he says, ‘‘if you refrain from eating foods made with biotechnology or growth promotants or preservative. But don’t tell me it is immoral to allow farmers to sell consumers these cheaper alternative’’ (pp. 37–38). Other chapters are those that one might expect in a book critical of efforts to promote an alternative food system over conventionally produced food. For example, both Lusk and McWilliams’ (2009) book, Just Food, contain chapters with similar arguments about local food movements, organic agriculture, agricultural subsidies and biotechnology (in fact, both of their chapters have the word ‘‘franken’’ in the title, as in ‘‘frankenfood’’). Other chapters in The Food Police detail the evolution and history of food progressivism, present an argument that efforts to regulate food are ‘‘slowly leading us down the road to serfdom’’ (p. 35), critique behavioral economics when used as a basis for policies designed to change what people eat, argue against any form of tax on food or food commodities, and outline Lusk’s vision of the ‘‘future of food.’’ There are some problems with the book. Most significant is the tone Lusk frequently uses when describing critics of conventional agriculture. He can be quite condescending. My favorite example is his ‘‘recipe’’ for the homemade crises that he claims such critics have created. Ingredients include ‘‘1 cup feigning compassion,’’ ‘‘1 28-oz can paternalism in moralizing syrup,’’ and ‘‘1 tablespoon inequality aversion harvested from a Wall Street Occupier.’’ Lusk also is a frequent user of a strawman argument (which is portraying an easy-to refute, over-stylized, and misrepresented version of an opponent’s argument). For example, Lusk claims that critics of conventional agriculture advocate an idealized world where ‘‘we’d all eat in fine restaurants’’ (p. 28). Another example is when he says a critic of Monsanto’s actions to sue farmers caught violating the company’s technology patents should not be willing to H. S. James Jr. (&) Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Missouri, 146 Mumford Hall, Columbia, MO 65211, USA e-mail: hjames@missouri.edu

RachelSchurman and William A.Munro. Fighting for the Future of Food: Activists versus Agribusiness in the Struggle over Biotechnology. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2010. Social Movements, Protest, and Contention series, number 35. 296 pp. $20.25. ISBN 978‐0816647620.

AgribusinessVolume 29, Issue 4 p. 538-539 Book Review Rachel Schurman and William A. Munro. Fighting for the Future of Food: Activists versus Agribusiness in the Struggle over Biotechnology. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2010. Social Movements, Protest, and Contention series, number 35. 296 pp. $20.25. ISBN 978-0816647620. Cliff Echols, Cliff Echols [email protected] Department of Agricultural, Food & Resource Economics, Rutgers University, NJSearch for more papers by this author Cliff Echols, Cliff Echols [email protected] Department of Agricultural, Food & Resource Economics, Rutgers University, NJSearch for more papers by this author First published: 23 September 2013 https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.21351Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL No abstract is available for this article. Volume29, Issue4Autumn 2013Pages 538-539 RelatedInformation

On the Indirect Effect of Biofuel

American Journal of Agricultural Economics Advance Access published June 24, 2013 O N THE I NDIRECT E FFECT OF B IOFUEL D AVID Z ILBERMAN , G EOFF B ARROWS , G AL H OCHMAN , AND D EEPAK R AJAGOPAL David Zilberman (zilber11@berkeley.edu) is a Professor and Robinson Chair in the Agricultural and Resource Economics Department at UC Berkeley and a member of the Giannini Foun- dation. Geoff Barrows (geoffrey.barrows@gmail.com) is a GSR (Graduate Student Researcher) in the Department of Agricul- tural and Resource Economics at UC Berkeley. Gal Hochman (hochman@AESOP.Rutgers.edu) is an Associate Professor at Rut- gers University. Deepak Rajagopal (rdeepak@ioes.ucla.edu) is an Assistant Professor at UCLA. This research was supported by the Energy Biosciences Institute. We would like to thank Scott Kaplan and Eunice Kim for their invaluable assistance. This article was presented in an invited paper session at the 2013 ASSA annual meeting in San Diego, CA. The articles in these sessions are not subjected to the journal’s standard refereeing process. Economists have found that LCA has multi- ple flaws (Khanna and Crago 2012) in current biofuel polices and many have reservations about the use of LCA as a major regulatory tool. But accepting that LCA is used for regu- lation,our challenge is to use economic analysis to evaluate the use of ILUC in computing the GHGE of biofuel in the policy process. In the next section we develop an economic foundation for the computation of ILUC and derive a related indirect effect—the indirect food consumption effect (IFCE) of biofuels. This is followed by the discussion of other indi- rect effects. The third segment investigates the reliability of ILUC estimates and their use in the regulatory process, which is followed by a conclusion. Conceptual Analysis of the Use of LCA in Computing GHGE of Biofuels To better view the LCA of GHGE of bio- fuel from an economic perspective, we will develop a simple conceptual model. Let B denote the amount of a biofuel we analyze. LCA considers the GHGE resulting from the production of B units of biofuel throughout the supply chain. Assume that biofuel production includes two stages: production of feedstock and processing used to produce the biofuel. The GHGE generated in producing the biofuel can be decomposed into (1) the emissions from the production of the feedstock denoted by GF and (2) emissions from processing denoted by GP. The calculation of the GHGE of the feedstock GF considers the GHGE of activ- ities both on the farm (use of tractors and other machinery) and off the farm (produc- tion of fertilizers). LCA is seeking to calculate impact coefficients based on average perfor- mance that will enable the assessment of the annual GHGE associated with a proposed Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 1–6; doi: 10.1093/ajae/aat038 © The Author (2013). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com Downloaded from http://ajae.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of California, Los Angeles on August 22, 2014 Biofuel policies were partially motivated by concerns about climate change. Therefore, qualifications for the benefit of these poli- cies were based on the amount of green- house gas emissions (GHGE) of particular biofuels. For example, entitlement for subsi- dies and mandates associated with the U.S. Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 requires remaining below upper bounds of GHGE per gallon. The computation of the GHGE of biofuel are based on lifecycle analy- sis (LCA), which takes into account emissions throughout the supply chain, including fertil- izer production and use, shipping, and refining. Searchinger et al. (2008) introduced the indi- rect land use change (ILUC) of biofuel pro- duction, which is the extra GHGE resulting from the expansion of acreage of a feedstock such as corn to accommodate the increase in price associated with the introduction of bio- fuel. Governments have considered including ILUC in computing GHGE of various biofu- els to determine compliance with policies like the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) or Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). Thus, inclusion of the ILUC in the computation GHGE of a fuel will make it more difficult to qualify for the RFS. This paper identifies some of the chal- lenges associated with the application of LCA, and in particular, the use of ILUC as part of the estimated GHGE of biofuel.

A state-level study of Kentucky’s equine industry: the 2012 Kentucky Equine Survey

s / Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 33 (2013) 321-399 365 [5] Seyedabadi HR, Banabazi MH, Afraz F, Asadzadeh N, Javanmard A, Aliabad AJ. J Anim Vet Adv 2011;10(7):865-7. [6] Shin EK, Perryman LE, Meek K. J Immunol 1997;158(8):3565-9. [7] Terry RR, Gholewinski C, Cothran EG. J Appl Genet 1999;40(1):39-41. Production and Management: Oral Presentations A state-level study of Kentucky’s equine industry: the 2012 Kentucky Equine Survey R.J. Coleman , M.G. Rossano , C.J. Stowe , A.E. Jarrett , G. Grulke , L. Brown , and S. Clark 4 1 Department of Animal and Food Sciences, 2 Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, 40546, 3 Kentucky Horse Council, Lexington, KY 40511, USDA-NASS, Louisville, KY, 20102-1120 The 2012 Kentucky Equine Survey was conducted by the Kentucky Field Office of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), with direction and assistance from the University of Kentucky, College of Agriculture and the Kentucky Horse Council. The objective of the Kentucky Equine Survey was to obtain an estimate of the inventory of all breeds of equine (horses, ponies, donkeys, and mules) as well as estimates of equine-related assets, sales and income, and expenditures. To develop a data base of names and addresses, the research team from UK contacted numerous breed and activity associations for their support and their mailing lists. In addition, a series of 34 public engagement meetings and extension programs were conducted across the state to reach horse owners who may not belong to a previously identified organization. These names were added to an existing data base of agricultural operations with equine maintained by NASS, resulting in a data base with over 31,000 names. This list frame was augmented by area frames, both in areas known to have agriculture and in additional areas considered Agri-urban fringe, where horse operations are frequently located but missed by traditional agricultural sampling approaches. From this data base a sample of 15,000 equine operations stratified by operation size and geographic location, received questionnaires. Data were collected June – October 2012. Non responders were contacted by telephone enumerators or by field enumerators in area segments being extensively sampled. The overall response rate was 71.4%.State-level estimates suggest that there are 242,400 horses in Kentucky, residing on 35,000 equine operations. The most prevalent breed was the Thoroughbred (54,000), followed by Quarter Horses (42,000), Tennessee Walking Horses (36,000) American Saddlebred Horses (14,000), and donkeys and mules (14,000). The total value of Kentucky’s equine and equine-related assets was $23.4 billion. The total of all equine sales and income from services provided for equine operations in 2011 was about $1.1 billion, and total equine-related expenditures by equine operations in 2011 were about $1.2 billion. Funding for the project was provided by the Kentucky Agriculture Development Fund, the University of Kentucky College Of Agriculture, the Kentucky Horse Council and numerous industry organizations and horse owners. Daily horse behavior patterns depend on management S.S. King, K.L. Jones, M. Schwarm, and E.L. Oberhaus Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL As human populations increasingly divorce from their agrarian roots, their intimate connection with the essential nature of the horse is being lost. Confined human lifestyles translate into increased confinement management of horses. We hypothesized that natural behavior patterns are altered as horses spend increasing amounts of time in confinement. This study compared 24-hour behavior patterns of horses between several confined states and unconfined pasture. A 24-hour time budget was constructed for 35 different horses observed for 24 consecutive hours. Horses were managed under zero confinement (24P), daytime confinement/night turnout (12CD), daytime turnout/night confinement (12CN), or 24h/day confinement (24C). The 24P group was considered the “control”. All horses had ad libitum access to roughage. Behavioral observations were made 10 times/h for 24h. Each 24h period was divided into 3h segments for analysis of time/treatment interactions. The 93 possible behaviors were ultimately grouped into 5 categories representing >91% of all behaviors (ingestion, movement, inactivity, socialization, investigative) for statistical evaluation. Percent time spent in each behavior was compared by confinement type and time of day using multiple ANOVA. The 24P time budget consisted of 44.9% ingestion, 24.2% movement, 21% inactivity, 3.4% socializing and 3.0 investigative. By comparison, the most frequent behavior of the 24C groups was inactivity (42.2%); ingestion (30.9%) and movement (11.3%) were all changed (P 0.05) in ingestion frequency between time periods. The highest frequency of ingestion occurred during 06:00-21:00h and was lowest at 03:0006:00h in 24C horses. Ingestion was highly influenced by time of pasture access in partially confined horses; lowest ingestion was 18:00-06:00h in 12CN and 06:00-18:00h in 12CD. The greatest compensatory ingestion occurred in

Book Reviews

Harry de Gorter of Cornell University reviews, “Political Power and Economic Policy: Theory, Analysis, and Empirical Applications” by Gordon C. Rausser, Johan Swinnen, and Pinhas Zusman. The EconLit abstract of this book begins: “Analyzes the links between political economics, governance structures, and the distribution of political power in economic policy making. Discusses public policy—the lens of political economy; the Nash solution to the bargaining problem; the Harsanyi solution to the bargaining problem; political-economic analysis; normative political-economic analysis; dynamic political-economic analysis; political power, ideology, and political organizational structures; political power, influence, and lobbying; constitutional prescription and political power coefficients; the political economy of commodity market intervention; the political economy of public research and development; a political-economic analysis of redistributive policies and public good investments; interest groups, coalition breaking, and productive policies; policy reform and compensation; political-economic analysis of land reform; political-economic analysis of water resource systems; the political economy lens on quality and public standard regulations; political-economic analysis in transition economies; the power of bureaucracies—the European Commission and EU policy reforms; political econometrics; the political econometrics of the Israeli dairy industry; flexible policy instruments given a political-power distribution; estimating statistical properties of power weight; and the role of institutions in the joint determination of political economic resource transactions and political economic seeking transfers. Rausser is Robert Gordon Sproul Distinguished Professor at the University of California, Berkeley. Swinnen is Professor of Economics and Director of the LICOS Institute for Institutions and Economic Performance at the Catholic University of Leuven and Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for European Policy Studies. The late Zusman was Professor Emeritus in the Department of Agricultural Economics at Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Index.”

Comparison of Weed Control, Yield, and Net Income in Conventional, Glyphosate‐Resistant, and Glufosinate‐Resistant Soybean

Separate field experiments were conducted in central and southeast Missouri during 2009 and 2010 to evaluate the effect of preemergence (PRE) and postemergence (POST) herbicide programs on Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats.) and waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis Sauer) control, soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] yield, and net income in conventional, glyphosateresistant, and glufosinate-resistant soybean production systems. Visual control evaluations 10 wk after emergence at the waterhemp site revealed that all preemergence only applications (PRE-only) and preemergence followed by a postemergence applications (PRE fb POST) provided greater than 92% waterhemp control in either soybean system and at the Palmer amaranth site and all PREonly provided greater than 83% Palmer amaranth control across soybean systems. Averaged across all herbicide programs at both locations, glufosinate-resistant soybean provided the highest grain yield and net return followed by glyphosate-resistant and conventional soybean systems. Furthermore, with the exception of the conventional PRE-only program at the waterhemp site, all glyphosate-resistant soybean herbicide programs provided greater net return than all conventional herbicide programs. Collectively, the results from both trials indicate that programs containing PRE herbicide treatments provide the best opportunity for season-long control of waterhemp and Palmer amaranth and highest grain yields and net returns in conventional, glyphosate-resistant, or glufosinateresistant soybean systems. The results from these experiments also suggest that Palmer amaranth may be particularly difficult to control in conventional soybean systems. Problematic Weeds and Weed Management Systems Palmer amaranth and waterhemp, both members of the Amaranthus family, are two of the most troublesome agronomic weeds in the United States due to their extended period of emergence, rapid growth at high light intensities and temperatures, and prolific seed production (10,14,18,27). In Missouri, the most common pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) species Published in Crop Management DOI 10.1094/CM-2013-0028-RS © Plant Management Network All rights reserved. No part of this periodical may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Permission for printing and for reprinting the material contained herein has been obtained by the publisher. Kristin K. Rosenbaum, Graduate Research Assistant, Division of Plant Sciences, 205 Waters Hall, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211; Raymond E. Massey, Extension Professor, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 223D Mumford Hall, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211; and Kevin W. Bradley, Associate Professor, Division of Plant Sciences, 201 Waters Hall, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211. Received 1 Aug. 2013. *Corresponding author (bradleyke@missouri.edu). Abbreviations: 1-pass POST, one-pass postemergence application; 1-pass POST W/Res, one-pass postemergence application with a residual herbicide; 2-pass POST, two-pass postemergence application; ALS, acetolactate synthase; POST, ; PRE, preemergence; PRE fb POST, preemergence followed by a postemergence application; PREonly, preemergence only application; WAE, weeks after emergence.

Optimal Expectations and the Welfare Cost of Climate Variability

We show that increased climate variability (a proxy for future income uncertainty) reduces farmers’ subjective well-being, consistent with the theory of optimal expectations (Brunnermeier & Parker, 2005), using panel data from rural Ethiopia and a new data set containing daily atmospheric parameters. The magnitude of our result indicates that a one standard deviation (7%) increase in climate variability has an equivalent e↵ect on life satisfaction to a two standard deviation (1-2%) decrease in consumption. This e↵ect is one of the largest determinants of life satisfaction in rural Ethiopia. (JEL: C25, D60, I31.) 1First draft: June 2012. Alem: Department of Economics, University of Gothenburg, Sweden, yonas.alem@economics.gu.se. Colmer: The Grantham Research Institute and Department of Geography and Environment, London School of Economics, UK. E-mail: j.m.colmer@lse.ac.uk. We are grateful to Allen Blackman, Je↵ery Bookwalter, Gharad Bryan, Douglas Dalenberg, Paul Dolan, John Feddersen, Greer Gosnell, Cameron Hepburn, Derek Kellenberg, Peter Martinsson, Kyle Meng, Rob Metcalfe, Eric Neumayer, Jonathan Parker, Hendrik Wol↵ and seminar participants at the EfD 6th Annual Meeting, EAERE, the University of Oxford, London School of Economics, University of Montana, and Resources for the Future for helpful thoughts, comments and discussions. The first author would like to thank the Swedish International Development Agency (Sida) through the Environment for Development Initiative (EfD) at the University of Gothenburg, and the Swedish Research Council Formas through the Human Cooperation to Manage Natural Resources (COMMONS) programme for financial support. Part of this research was done while Alem was a Visiting Scholar at the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California Berkeley. The second author would like to thank the ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy and the Grantham Foundation for financial support. The data used in this article were collected by the University of Addis Ababa, the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), and the Centre for the Study of African Economies (CSAE). Funding for the ERHS survey was provided by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), the Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA) and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). All errors and omissions are our own.

Implications of Alternative Agricultural Productivity Growth Assumptions on Land Management, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Mitigation Potential

American Journal of Agricultural EconomicsVolume 95, Issue 2 p. 435-441 AAEA Meeting Invited Paper Session Implications of Alternative Agricultural Productivity Growth Assumptions on Land Management, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Mitigation Potential Justin S. Baker, Corresponding Author Justin S. Baker [email protected] [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorBrian C. Murray, Brian C. MurraySearch for more papers by this authorBruce A. McCarl, Bruce A. McCarlSearch for more papers by this authorSiyi Feng, Siyi FengSearch for more papers by this authorRobert Johansson, Robert JohanssonSearch for more papers by this author Justin S. Baker, Corresponding Author Justin S. Baker [email protected] [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorBrian C. Murray, Brian C. MurraySearch for more papers by this authorBruce A. McCarl, Bruce A. McCarlSearch for more papers by this authorSiyi Feng, Siyi FengSearch for more papers by this authorRobert Johansson, Robert JohanssonSearch for more papers by this author First published: 16 December 2012 https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aas114Citations: 17 Justin S. Baker ([email protected]) is a research economist at RTI International. Brian C. Murray ([email protected]) is Director of Economic Analysis at the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University. Bruce A. McCarl ([email protected]) is University Distinguished Professor at the Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University. Siyi Feng ([email protected]) is a research fellow at the Department of Agricultural and Food Economics, Queen's University of Belfast. Robert Johansson ([email protected]) is Deputy Chief Economist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Chief Economist. This article was presented in an invited paper session at the 2012 AAEA annual meeting in Seattle, WA. The articles in these sessions are not subjected to the journal's standard refereeing process. Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Citing Literature Volume95, Issue2January 2013Pages 435-441 RelatedInformation

Risk Aversion, Subjective Beliefs, and Farmer Risk Management Strategies

American Journal of Agricultural EconomicsVolume 95, Issue 2 p. 384-389 AAEA Meeting Invited Paper Session Risk Aversion, Subjective Beliefs, and Farmer Risk Management Strategies Luisa Menapace, Corresponding Author Luisa Menapace luisa.menapace@unitn.it luisa.menapace@unitn.itSearch for more papers by this authorGregory Colson, Gregory ColsonSearch for more papers by this authorRoberta Raffaelli, Roberta RaffaelliSearch for more papers by this author Luisa Menapace, Corresponding Author Luisa Menapace luisa.menapace@unitn.it luisa.menapace@unitn.itSearch for more papers by this authorGregory Colson, Gregory ColsonSearch for more papers by this authorRoberta Raffaelli, Roberta RaffaelliSearch for more papers by this author First published: 15 October 2012 https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aas107Citations: 75 Luisa Menapace (luisa.menapace@ilr.uni-bonn.de) is Assistant Professor, Department of Agricultural and Food Market Research, Institute for Food and Resource Economics, University of Bonn, Germany. Gregory Colson (gcolson@uga.edu) is Assistant Professor, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia. Roberta Raffaelli (roberta.raffaelli@unitn.it) is Associate Professor, Department of Economics, University of Trento, Italy. This research was funded by the Autonomous Province of Trento, Big Projects 2006: ENVIROCHANGE. This article was presented in an invited paper session at the 2012 AAEA Annual meeting in Seattle, WA. The articles in these sessions are not subjected to the journal's standard refereeing process. Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume95, Issue2January 2013Pages 384-389 RelatedInformation

A Comparison of Salary Structures Between Economics and Agricultural Economics Departments

AbstractWe examine whether differences exist in the prevailing salary structures for doctorate‐granting economics and agricultural economics departments at public, land‐grant universities in the United States. Within a sample of 440 economists and 375 agricultural economists, we find that economics departments exhibit greater variation in annual salaries, higher estimated negative returns to seniority, and larger estimated returns to career publishing success than do agricultural economics departments. These difference manifest themselves in a hierarchical salary distribution in which members of elite economics departments earn the highest predicted annual salaries, members of elite agricultural economics and middle‐ranked economics departments earn middle predicted annual salaries, and members of middle‐ and lower‐ranked agricultural economics and lower‐ranked economics departments earn the lowest predicted annual salaries. In 16 out of 22 universities studied, we predict that economists would face salary declines if they moved across campus (or in some cases down the hall) to their respective agricultural economics departments.

Agriculture and human values

Next year marks the 30th anniversary of Agriculture and Human Values. According to Google Scholar, there have been more than 1,000 articles published in the journal between 1984 and 2011. The most cited paper is currently Laura Raynolds’ 2000 article ‘‘Re-embedding global agriculture: The international organic and fair trade movements.’’ Interest in the journal, as evidenced by submissions, continues to increase. Last year there were nearly 230 new papers submitted, representing an increase of more than 20 % over the previous year. By comparison, the increase in submissions in 2010 over 2009 was 5 %. I publish approximately 40 papers a year, which means that the acceptance rate is below 20 %, and declining. Scholars who have papers accepted for publication should feel pleased with the increasing selectivity of the journal, but because of constraints in the number of papers I can accept, I worry that I am turning away good papers. My publication backlog is under 1 year. This means that authors who have a paper accepted can now expect to see the paper in print within the next three or four issues. Accepted papers are published online within a few months of being accepted. More than 300 reviewers provided reports on papers submitted last year. I am always grateful for the work of our anonymous reviewers. Theirs is an important and necessary scholarly service. I wish promotion and tenure committees gave more weight to their efforts. The assistant editors associated with this journal provide an invaluable service in preparing accepted manuscripts for publication. I have had many authors express appreciation for the careful editing work provided by Jeffrey Cole, Nancy Grudens-Schuck and Jessica Goldberger, who have served or are currently serving as assistant editors since I came on board as editor-in-chief in 2007. Not many peer reviewed journals provide the detailed editing that our editors do. The papers published here are better because of it. Many thanks to these competent scholars. Finally, I acknowledge the work of our editorial board. If you, the reader, have not yet done so, then take a look at the inside front cover of this journal and review the names of those who help guide its direction and progress. There are outstanding scholars who serve on the editorial board. They provide feedback about issues relating to the development of the journal, make recommendations of reviewers, and often review papers themselves. I appreciate their service and note that I consider it quite an honor to be associated with them. It is because we have such a strong editorial board that the journal is a success. This issue of Agriculture and Human Values contains three research articles and a special symposium on food sovereignty. In the first research article, Ferrell examines how agricultural activity defines gender roles and why such a link can impede transitions in agricultural production practices. Lillywhite, Simonson, and Wilson report results from a survey of US practitioners of alternative medicines in order to assess both the preferences for Chinese medicinal herbs and the long-term viability of a developing agricultural niche market. Magnan presents case studies of innovative farming structures that combine size and private investor characteristics with family ownership. The symposium, which is guest edited by Molly Anderson and Anne Bellows, contains an introduction by the editors and six research papers. Book reviews and the current listing of books available for review complete this issue of Agriculture and Human Values. H. S. James Jr. (&) Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Missouri, 146 Mumford Hall, Columbia, MO 65211, USA e-mail: hjames@missouri.edu

Determinants of Risk Status of Small Scale Farmers in Niger State, Nigeria

Aims: To ascertain the risk status of farming households and whether the risk status is accentuated by some factors. The specific objective is to determine the relationship between their risk status and socio-economic characteristics and food security status in the study area. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Place and Duration of Study: Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension Technology, Federal University of Technology, Minna, Nigeria, between March 2011 and February, 2012. Methodology: The population for the study comprised farming households in Niger State. In order to obtain the sample for the study, two Local Government Areas (Suleja and Bosso) where randomly selected from where five farming communities were randomly selected and then ten farm families were randomly selected to give a total of 50 household from each Local Government Areas and 100 respondents for the study. The primary data covering background information, scale of production and yield, agricultural input use and access to credit, household food security and risk status were collected with structured questionnaire. Data analysis included the description of the socio-economic characteristics of the respondents using descriptive statistics and multinomial logistic regression used to confirm the determinants of risk status of the respondents. Results: With an LRI of 0.3451, the estimates of the explanatory variables show that the set of significant explanatory variables and their sign vary across the groups. The model, through the explanatory variables included predicted correctly 46.17% of risk neutral respondents, only 0.31% of the risk seekers and 53.53% of risk-averse respondents. The overall prediction was 53.8%. In this particular study, sex, primary educational status, years of farming experience, marital status, household size, credit, membership of cooperative, land acquisition by inheritance and total investment capital are the factors found to have determined risk status at different levels of significance but with differing Research Article British Journal of Economics, Management & Trade, 2(2): 92-108, 2012 93 signs relative to the base outcome. Conclusion: The model specified correctly predicted the probability of the risk status and has highlighted that there are more than just the observed socio-economic variables that explain the risk attitude of farmers, hence risk attitudes could only be explained by individual social, economic, cultural and psychological factors and it may be important to estimate individual risk preferences or identify factors that affect the individual’s capacity to bear risk or consider their risk environment.

Commercialisation Level of Poultry Production in Minna Metropolis, Niger State, Nigeria

Aims: The major objective of this study is to find out the proportion of commercial poultry farmers in the study area who procure credit for financing the production and determine the effect of credit on commercialization level of poultry farming in three selected local government areas in Niger state. While the specific objectives are to describe the socioeconomic characteristics of poultry farmers in the area, determine the effect of credit on poultry output in the study area, estimate and compare poultry commercialization index of credit and non-credit beneficiaries in the study area, determine the effect of credit on level of commercialization of poultry farmers in the study area, and examine the constraints faced by poultry farmers in the study area. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Place and Duration of Study: Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension Technology, Federal University of Technology, Minna, Nigeria, between January 2011 and April, 2012. Methodology: The sampling frame for this study is the poultry farmers in Minna Area, Nigeria who are involved in commercial production of either broiler or layer birds. Those Research Article Nmadu et al.; AJAEES; Article no. AJAEES.2012.001 2 raising local chickens were excluded. The sample of 120 commercial poultry farmers were randomly selected from the three Local Governments from a list of poultry farmers obtained from the Niger State Agricultural Development Project (NSADP). Data for this study was collected using standardised questionnaire administered through personal interactions with the respondents. The data collected were analysed using descriptive statistics and frontier production function. Results: The result suggests that the level of commercialisation is generally low among the respondents and shows no significant difference between beneficiaries and nonbeneficiaries of credit although beneficiaries of credit seem to be more business-oriented than non-beneficiaries. Also, the estimates of the frontier model shows that only output in 2010, eggs collected in 2008 in crates, eggs collected in 2010 in crates, cost of construction of housing and cost of hired labour significantly affected poultry population, although eggs collected in 2008 had inverse relationship with population. On the other hand, only output in 2009 and cost of medication did not have any significant relationship with household commercialisation index (HCI). Conclusion: Most of the factors increased technical efficiency suggesting that the farmers tend to manage their farms very efficiently. In view of this, the farmers should be encouraged to see the need to use credit to enhance production and hence increase their HCI. There is need for the farmers to use enhanced production system like battery cage so as to reduce labour input for cleaning the housing.

How the Cookie Crumbles: A Case Study of Gluten‐Free Cookies and Random Utility

American Journal of Agricultural EconomicsVolume 94, Issue 2 p. 576-582 AAEA Meeting Invited Paper Session How the Cookie Crumbles: A Case Study of Gluten-Free Cookies and Random Utility Norbert L. W. Wilson, Corresponding Author Norbert L. W. Wilson [email protected] Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Auburn University[email protected]Search for more papers by this author Norbert L. W. Wilson, Corresponding Author Norbert L. W. Wilson [email protected] Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Auburn University[email protected]Search for more papers by this author First published: 20 November 2011 https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aar081Citations: 8 Support for this project came from the Undergraduate Research Fellowship (URF) at Auburn University. The author thanks Courtney Anderson, recipient of the URF in 2006, for research assistance on this project. Also the author thanks Kroger's and Dayspring for their consent and participation in the project. Views expressed herein are those of the author and not necessarily those of Kroger's or Dayspring. This article was presented in an invited paper session at the 2011 AAEA annual meeting in Pittsburgh, PA. The articles in these sessions are not subjected to the journal's standard refereeing process. Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Citing Literature Volume94, Issue2January 2012Pages 576-582 RelatedInformation

Chinese Consumers' Demand for Food Safety Attributes: A Push for Government and Industry Regulations

American Journal of Agricultural EconomicsVolume 94, Issue 2 p. 489-495 AAEA Meeting Invited Paper Session Chinese Consumers' Demand for Food Safety Attributes: A Push for Government and Industry Regulations David L. Ortega, Corresponding Author David L. Ortega dlortega@purdue.edu Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University Department of International Trade, China Agricultural Universitydlortega@purdue.eduwanghong@purdue.edunolynk@purdue.eduwulp@cau.edu.cnjfbai.ccap@igsnrr.ac.cnSearch for more papers by this authorH. Holly Wang, Corresponding Author H. Holly Wang wanghong@purdue.edu Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University Department of International Trade, China Agricultural Universitydlortega@purdue.eduwanghong@purdue.edunolynk@purdue.eduwulp@cau.edu.cnjfbai.ccap@igsnrr.ac.cnSearch for more papers by this authorNicole J. Olynk, Corresponding Author Nicole J. Olynk nolynk@purdue.edu Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University Department of International Trade, China Agricultural Universitydlortega@purdue.eduwanghong@purdue.edunolynk@purdue.eduwulp@cau.edu.cnjfbai.ccap@igsnrr.ac.cnSearch for more papers by this authorLaping Wu, Corresponding Author Laping Wu wulp@cau.edu.cn Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University Department of International Trade, China Agricultural Universitydlortega@purdue.eduwanghong@purdue.edunolynk@purdue.eduwulp@cau.edu.cnjfbai.ccap@igsnrr.ac.cnSearch for more papers by this authorJunfei Bai, Corresponding Author Junfei Bai jfbai.ccap@igsnrr.ac.cn Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University Department of International Trade, China Agricultural Universitydlortega@purdue.eduwanghong@purdue.edunolynk@purdue.eduwulp@cau.edu.cnjfbai.ccap@igsnrr.ac.cnSearch for more papers by this author David L. Ortega, Corresponding Author David L. Ortega dlortega@purdue.edu Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University Department of International Trade, China Agricultural Universitydlortega@purdue.eduwanghong@purdue.edunolynk@purdue.eduwulp@cau.edu.cnjfbai.ccap@igsnrr.ac.cnSearch for more papers by this authorH. Holly Wang, Corresponding Author H. Holly Wang wanghong@purdue.edu Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University Department of International Trade, China Agricultural Universitydlortega@purdue.eduwanghong@purdue.edunolynk@purdue.eduwulp@cau.edu.cnjfbai.ccap@igsnrr.ac.cnSearch for more papers by this authorNicole J. Olynk, Corresponding Author Nicole J. Olynk nolynk@purdue.edu Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University Department of International Trade, China Agricultural Universitydlortega@purdue.eduwanghong@purdue.edunolynk@purdue.eduwulp@cau.edu.cnjfbai.ccap@igsnrr.ac.cnSearch for more papers by this authorLaping Wu, Corresponding Author Laping Wu wulp@cau.edu.cn Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University Department of International Trade, China Agricultural Universitydlortega@purdue.eduwanghong@purdue.edunolynk@purdue.eduwulp@cau.edu.cnjfbai.ccap@igsnrr.ac.cnSearch for more papers by this authorJunfei Bai, Corresponding Author Junfei Bai jfbai.ccap@igsnrr.ac.cn Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University Department of International Trade, China Agricultural Universitydlortega@purdue.eduwanghong@purdue.edunolynk@purdue.eduwulp@cau.edu.cnjfbai.ccap@igsnrr.ac.cnSearch for more papers by this author First published: 01 November 2011 https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aar074Citations: 82 This research is supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation (grant 0912174), the Chinese Natural Science Foundation (grant 70673102), and Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, China (grant for Project 211, Phase III). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the granting institutions. The authors gratefully acknowledge Xingming Fang, Yuanfeng Zhao, and Yanping Zhang for their assistance with data collection. This article was presented in an invited paper session at the 2011 AAEA annual meeting in Pittsburgh, PA. The articles in these sessions are not subjected to the journal's standard refereeing process. Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume94, Issue2January 2012Pages 489-495 RelatedInformation

A Generalized Measure of Marginal Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence from India and Morocco

American Journal of Agricultural EconomicsVolume 94, Issue 2 p. 444-450 AAEA Meeting Invited Paper Session A Generalized Measure of Marginal Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence from India and Morocco David R. Just, Corresponding Author David R. Just drj3@cornell.edu Dyson School of Applied Economics & Management, Cornell Universitydrj3@cornell.edutlybbert@ucdavis.eduSearch for more papers by this authorTravis J. Lybbert, Corresponding Author Travis J. Lybbert tlybbert@ucdavis.edu Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, University of California, Davisdrj3@cornell.edutlybbert@ucdavis.eduSearch for more papers by this author David R. Just, Corresponding Author David R. Just drj3@cornell.edu Dyson School of Applied Economics & Management, Cornell Universitydrj3@cornell.edutlybbert@ucdavis.eduSearch for more papers by this authorTravis J. Lybbert, Corresponding Author Travis J. Lybbert tlybbert@ucdavis.edu Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, University of California, Davisdrj3@cornell.edutlybbert@ucdavis.eduSearch for more papers by this author First published: 27 October 2011 https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aar072Citations: 4 This article was presented in an invited paper session at the 2011 AAEA annual meeting in Pittsburgh, PA. The articles in these sessions are not subjected to the journal's standard refereeing process. Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume94, Issue2January 2012Pages 444-450 RelatedInformation

Comparison of Production Costs and Resource Use for Organic and Conventional Production Systems

Comparison of Production Costs and Resource Use for Organic and Conventional Production Systems Karen Klonsky The USDA established the National Organic Program (NOP) to develop national standards for organically produced agricultural products and establish an organic certification program as required by the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) passed by Congress in 1990. Organic crop production excludes conventional pesticides, petroleum – based fertilizers, and sewage sludge based fertilizers with some notable exceptions. OFPA also required the establishment of the “National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances” for use in organic agriculture. The National List includes allowed synthetic substances and prohibited non-synthetic (natural) materials. The NOP crop standards require that soil fertility and crop nutrients be managed through tillage and cultivation practices, crop rotations and cover crops, supplemented with animal and crop waste materials, allowed mined substances, and synthetic materials allowed on the National List. Similarly, crop pests, weeds, and diseases are required to be controlled primarily through cultural practices such as tillage and cultivation, hand weeding, crop rotations, sanitation, and the introduction of predators or parasites. When these methods prove to be insufficient, growers may use approved natural or synthetic Karen Klonsky is a specialist in Cooperative Extension, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Davis and member, Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, University of California.

Citation analysis of M.Tech theses submitted in the Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, Federal University of Technology Akure, Nigeria

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to determine the materials used in Masters' theses of the Agricultural Economics and Extension Department (AEE), FUTA during the period of 2005‐2009 with the aim of improving the existing collection development available for the students.Design/methodology/approach – The study employed descriptive research design. Theses submitted for the award of M.Tech degree between 2005 and 2009 at the department of AEE, FUTA were examined. This was checked against the record of AEE (M.Tech) graduands obtained from the School of Postgraduate Studies. The population of the study was all the theses submitted during the periods under study. Data were extracted from title pages and reference lists. Extracted data were analysed using descriptive statistics.Findings – It was found that journals were more consulted compared to other sources of information materials. AEE M.Tech students do not take much advantage of resources available on the web and internet. It was also revealed that h...

Corrigendum to “Estimation of the costs of acute gastrointestinal illness in British Columbia, Canada” [Int. J. Food Microbiol. 127 (1–2) (2008) 43–52

a Department of Food, Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1 b Foodborne, Waterborne and Zoonotic Infections Division, Public Health Agency of Canada, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1H 8J1 c Department of Population Medicine, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1 d British Columbia Centre for Diseases Control, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V5Z 4R4 e Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St Johns, Newfoundland, Canada NL A1C 5S7

Use of internet and E-Resources by Agricultural students in a Nigerian University

The study examined the use of internet and e- resources by Agricultural students in a Nigerian university. The total population of students was 1, 200. The population sample for this study was 200 sets of questionnaire were administered to students between 200 and 500 leves in the departments of Agricultural Economics and Extension, Animal Production and Health and Agronomy. A simple non-proportionate random sampling technique of 50 students from each level were used to select sample for this study. In all, 191 sets of questionnaire were returned; the data so collected were analysed descriptively using tables and simple percentages. The study revealed that Agricultural students used internet facilities and e-resources for their studies and academic programmes while internet services e-mail and journals/e-books were mostly used. The major constraints identified include problems with internet skills, electricity, data information overload, difficulty in finding relevant information and data authenticity. Necessary suggestions were given to overcome the problems.