Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T01:13:16.077Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Adoption of Double-Cropping Soybeans and Wheat

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

B.I. Shapiro ,
B.Wade Brorsen  and
D. Howard Doster
B.I. Shapiro
Affiliation:
International Livestock Centre for Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
B.Wade Brorsen
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State University
D. Howard Doster
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University
Get access

Abstract

Double-cropping of soybeans and wheat is often promoted by extension personnel. This paper seeks to explain how the decision to adopt double-cropping is made, using a Tobit regression model. Tobit makes use of more of the information in the data set than do logit or probit and explains not only the decision to double-crop but also the rate of adoption. The paper considers factors such as profit and risk perceptions and risk which have not been included in the past models used to explain adoption of technology. The results show that risk perception is important. Contrary to the findings of some other adoption studies, this decision in not influenced by human capital factors. The farmers who double-crop are more highly leveraged and appear to do so both to achieve higher income and as part of a risk diversification strategy. This is consistent with the importance of the location factor, measured as the average number of growing degree days at the farm's location. Growing degree days is a proxy for the actual distribution of returns from double-cropping and is the main factor explaining this decision. Extensive adoption of double-cropping in cooler regions of the Midwest must await technological advances that can increase the profitability of double-cropping by reducing the growing season for wheat and/or beans.

Keywords

com belthuman capitalrisk perceptionsrisk preferenceTobit
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , December 1992 , pp. 33 - 40
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amemiya, T. “Regression Analysis When the Dependent Variable is Truncated Normal” Econometrica, 41(1973): 991–1116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J.R., Dillon, J.L., and Hardaker, B.. Agricultural Decision Analysis. Iowa State University Press, 1980.Google Scholar
Arcia, G., Johnson, S.R., and Sanders, J.H.. “Risk Perceptions of Price and Yield Uncertainty, and New Technology in a Small Farm Setting.” Research Triangle, North Carolina, mimeo, 1983.Google Scholar
Bohrnstedt, George W., and Goldberger, Arthur S.. “On the Exact Covariance of Products of Random Variables.” J. Am. Stat Assoc., 64(1969): 1439–1442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braden, John B., and Eales, James S.. “The Adoption of Reduced Tillage: The Role of Human Capital and Other Variables: Comment.” Am. J. Agr. Econ., 68(1986): 182–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brink, L., and McCarl, B.. “The Trade-Off Between Expected Income and Risk Among Corn Belt Farmers.” Am. J. Agr. Econ., 60(1978): 259–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
David, Herbert A. “Range and Mean as a Measure of Dispersion.” Order Statistics, 1st ed., Wiley, (1970): 140–141.Google Scholar
Doster, D.H. “Crop Mix Questions on Indiana Corn/Soybean and Corn/Bean/Wheat Farms,” Purdue Agricultural Economics Report., Purdue University, Cooperative Extension Service, May 1984.Google Scholar
Doster, D.H. “Crop Mix Questions on Indiana Corn/Soybean and Corn/Bean/Wheat Farms,” Purdue Agricultural Economics Report, Purdue University, Cooperative Extension Service, May 1990.Google Scholar
Feder, G., Just, R.E., and Zilberman, D.. “Adoption of Agricultural Innovations in Developing Countries: A Survey.” Econ. Dev. and Cultural Change, 33(1985): 255–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, J.B., Sanders, J.H., and deHollanda, A.D.. “Ex Ante Appraisal of New Technology: Sorghum in Northeast Brazil.” Am. J. Agr. Econ., 62(1980): 501–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeffers, D.L., Triplett, G.B., and Beierlein, J.E.. “Double-Cropped Soybeans,” Ohio Report, 58.4(1973): 67–69.Google Scholar
Just, Richard E., and Zilberman, D.. “Stochastic Structure, Farm Size and Technology Adoption in Developing Agriculture.” Oxford Econ. Papers, 35(1983): 307–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, P.P., and Robison, L.J.. “Implementation of the Interval Approach to the Measurement of Decision-Maker Preference.” Am. J. Agr. Econ., 63(1981): 510–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luzar, E. Jane, Kramer, Randall A., and Turner, Steven C.. “A Re-examination of Risk, Farmer Characteristics and the Adoption Process.” Paper (SP-86-3) presented at the annual meeting of the S. Agr. Econ. Assoc., February 1986, Dept. of Agr. Econ., Virginia Polytechnic Inst, and State Univ., January 1986.Google Scholar
Marra, Michele C., and Carlson, Gerald A. “The Decision to Double Crop: An Application of Expected Utility Theory Using Stein's Theorem.” Am. J. Agr Econ., 72(1990): 337–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marra, Michele C., and Carlson, Gerald A.. “Double-Cropping Wheat and Soybeans in the Southeast: Input Use and Patterns of Adoption,” Washington, D.C: USDA ERS, Agr. Econ. Rpt. No. 552, June 1986.Google Scholar
Marra, Michele C., and Carlson, Gerald A.. “The Role of Farm Size and Resource Constraints in the Choice between Risky Technologies.” Wes. J. Agr. Econ., 12(1987): 109–118.Google Scholar
McDonald, J.F., and Moffitt, R.A.. “The Use of Tobit Analysis.” Rev. Econ. and Stat., 63(1980):318–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Mara, Gerald. The Microeconomics of Technique Adoption by Small-Holding Mexican Farmers. Washington, D.C: World Bank Development Research Center, 1980.Google Scholar
Pratt, J. “Risk Aversion in the Small and in the Large.” Econometrica, 32(1964): 122–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahm, Michael R., and Huffman, Wallace E.. “The Adoption of Reduced Tillage: The Role of Human Capital and Other Variables,” Am. J. Agr. Econ., 66(1984): 405–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raiffa, H.Decision Analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1968.Google Scholar
Schultz, Theodore W. “The Value of the Ability to Deal with Disequilibrium.” J. Econ. Lit., 13(1975): 827–846.Google Scholar
Shapiro, B.J., and Wade Brorsen, B.. “Factors Affecting Farmers' Hedging Decisions.” N. Cent. J. Agr. Econ., 10(1988): 145–153.Google Scholar
Tobin, James. “Estimation of Relationships for Limited Dependent Variables.” Econometrica, 26(1968): 24–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Agricultural-Food Policy Review: Commodity Program Perspectives, Agr. Econ. R. No. 5300, 1985, pp. 62–64.Google Scholar
Walker, Thomas Steven. “Risk and Adoption of Hybrid Maize in El Salvador,” Food Research Institute Studies, 18.1 (1981): 59–88.Google Scholar
Welch, Finis. “Education in Production.” J. Pol. Econ., 78(1970): 35–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, P.N., and Eidman, V.R.. “An Empirical Test of the Interval Approach for Estimating Risk Preferences.” Wes. J. Agr. Econ., 8(1983): 170–182Google Scholar
Young, D.L. “Risk Preferences of Agricultural Producers: Their Use in Extension and Research.” Am. J. Agr. Econ., 61(1979): 1063–1070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar