(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)"> (This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)">
[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/nbr/nberch/14297.html
   My bibliography  Save this book chapter

Quantifying Heterogeneous Returns to Genetic Selection: Evidence from Wisconsin Dairies

In: Economics of Research and Innovation in Agriculture

Author

Listed:
  • Jared Hutchins
  • Brent Hueth
  • Guilherme Rosa
Abstract
Estimates of productivity growth in the dairy sector attribute as much as half of observed growth to genetic improvement. Unobserved match quality is an important determinate of genetic selection by dairy farmers that confounds attribution to genetic improvement alone. Using data from a large sample of Wisconsin dairy farms, and national-level data on sire rankings, we develop and estimate a model that accounts for selection behavior, and decompose total productivity change into separate effects for genetic improvement and endogenous selection. We find that selection accounts for as much as 75 percent of the total productivity improvement in our sample. Our results provide evidence for positive assortative matching, whereby farmers who adopt above-average yield genetics also perform better than average for their chosen genetics. Further, we find that management behavior accounts for a significant portion of within-herd cow-level heterogeneity, suggesting that dairy farmers manage their herds at the level of individual cows. Overall, our results indicate that a large portion of productivity growth in dairy farming can be explained by farmers’ ability to identify and select genetics well suited to their production environment.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Jared Hutchins & Brent Hueth & Guilherme Rosa, 2019. "Quantifying Heterogeneous Returns to Genetic Selection: Evidence from Wisconsin Dairies," NBER Chapters, in: Economics of Research and Innovation in Agriculture, pages 81-105, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberch:14297
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c14297.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zvi Griliches & Jacques Mairesse, 1995. "Production Functions: The Search for Identification," NBER Working Papers 5067, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Cornelissen, Thomas & Dustmann, Christian & Raute, Anna & Schönberg, Uta, 2016. "From LATE to MTE: Alternative methods for the evaluation of policy interventions," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 47-60.
    3. Yair Mundlak, 1961. "Empirical Production Function Free of Management Bias," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 43(1), pages 44-56.
    4. Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2005. "Fixed-Effects and Related Estimators for Correlated Random-Coefficient and Treatment-Effect Panel Data Models," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 87(2), pages 385-390, May.
    5. Olley, G Steven & Pakes, Ariel, 1996. "The Dynamics of Productivity in the Telecommunications Equipment Industry," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 64(6), pages 1263-1297, November.
    6. James Heckman & Edward Vytlacil, 1998. "Instrumental Variables Methods for the Correlated Random Coefficient Model: Estimating the Average Rate of Return to Schooling When the Return is Correlated with Schooling," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 33(4), pages 974-987.
    7. James Levinsohn & Amil Petrin, 2003. "Estimating Production Functions Using Inputs to Control for Unobservables," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 70(2), pages 317-341.
    8. A. D. Roy, 1951. "Some Thoughts On The Distribution Of Earnings," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 3(2), pages 135-146.
    9. Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2015. "Control Function Methods in Applied Econometrics," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 50(2), pages 420-445.
    10. Jeffrey D Michler & Emilia Tjernström & Simone Verkaart & Kai Mausch, 2019. "Money Matters: The Role of Yields and Profits in Agricultural Technology Adoption," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 101(3), pages 710-731.
    11. Tavneet Suri, 2011. "Selection and Comparative Advantage in Technology Adoption," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 79(1), pages 159-209, January.
    12. Andrew Zeitlin & Stefano Caria & Richman Dzene & Petr Janský & Emmanuel Opoku & Francis Teal, 2010. "Heterogeneous returns and the persistence of agricultural technology adoption," CSAE Working Paper Series 2010-37, Centre for the Study of African Economies, University of Oxford.
    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. Douglas Gollin & Christopher Udry, 2021. "Heterogeneity, Measurement Error, and Misallocation: Evidence from African Agriculture," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 129(1), pages 1-80.
    2. Aguirregabiria, Victor, 2009. "Econometric Issues and Methods in the Estimation of Production Functions," MPRA Paper 15973, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Yuriy Gorodnichenko, 2007. "Using Firm Optimization to Evaluate and Estimate Returns to Scale," NBER Working Papers 13666, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Quang-Thanh Ngo & Canh Thi Nguyen, 2020. "Do export transitions differently affect firm productivity? Evidence across Vietnamese manufacturing sectors," Post-Communist Economies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(8), pages 1011-1037, November.
    5. Puggioni Daniela, 2019. "Productivity, Markups, and Trade: Evidence from Mexican Manufacturing Industries," Working Papers 2019-14, Banco de México.
    6. Abdoulaye Kané, 2022. "Measurement of total factor productivity: Evidence from French construction firms," EconomiX Working Papers 2022-9, University of Paris Nanterre, EconomiX.
    7. Philippe Martin & Thierry Mayer & Florian Mayneris, 2008. "Spatial Concentration and Firm-Level Productivity in France," Sciences Po publications 6858, Sciences Po.
    8. Martin, Philippe & Mayer, Thierry & Mayneris, Florian, 2011. "Public support to clusters: A firm level study of French "Local Productive Systems"," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 108-123, March.
    9. Sanjaya Malik, 2015. "Conditional technology spillovers from foreign direct investment: evidence from Indian manufacturing industries," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 43(2), pages 183-198, April.
    10. Roberto Martino & Phu Nguyen-Van, 2014. "Labour market regulation and fiscal parameters: A structural model for European regions," Working Papers of BETA 2014-19, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    11. Ioannis Bournakis & Mike Tsionas, 2024. "A Non‐parametric Estimation of Productivity with Idiosyncratic and Aggregate Shocks: The Role of Research and Development (R&D) and Corporate Tax," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 86(3), pages 641-671, June.
    12. Nikita Céspedes & María E. Aquije & Alan Sánchez & Rafael Vera Tudela, 2016. "Productividad sectorial en el Perú: un análisis a nivel de firmas," Chapters of Books, in: Nikita Céspedes & Pablo Lavado & Nelson Ramírez Rondán (ed.), Productividad en el Perú: medición, determinantes e implicancias, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 3, pages 70-92, Fondo Editorial, Universidad del Pacífico.
    13. Doraszelski, Ulrich & Jaumandreu, Jordi, 2006. "R&D and productivity: Estimating production functions when productivity is endogenous," MPRA Paper 1246, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Umut Kılınç, 2018. "Assessing Productivity Gains from International Trade in a Small Open Economy," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 29(5), pages 953-980, November.
    15. Nick Jacob & Giordano Mion, 2024. "On the productivity advantage of cities," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 24(5), pages 679-705.
    16. James B. Bushnell & Catherine Wolfram, 2009. "The Guy at the Controls: Labor Quality and Power Plant Efficiency," NBER Chapters, in: International Differences in the Business Practices and Productivity of Firms, pages 79-102, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Aguiar, Victor H. & Kashaev, Nail & Allen, Roy, 2023. "Prices, profits, proxies, and production," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 235(2), pages 666-693.
    18. Haskel, Jonathan & Hawkes, Denise & Pereira, Sonia, 2005. "Skills, human capital and the plant productivity gap: UK evidence from matched plant, worker and workforce data," CEPR Discussion Papers 5334, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    19. Koenig, Pamina & Mayneris, Florian & Poncet, Sandra, 2010. "Local export spillovers in France," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(4), pages 622-641, May.
    20. Bang, Minji & Gao, Wayne Yuan & Postlewaite, Andrew & Sieg, Holger, 2023. "Using monotonicity restrictions to identify models with partially latent covariates," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 235(2), pages 892-921.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D22 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Firm Behavior: Empirical Analysis
    • D24 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Production; Cost; Capital; Capital, Total Factor, and Multifactor Productivity; Capacity
    • O3 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights
    • O4 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity
    • Q1 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture
    • Q12 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Micro Analysis of Farm Firms, Farm Households, and Farm Input Markets
    • Q16 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - R&D; Agricultural Technology; Biofuels; Agricultural Extension Services

    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:nbr:nberch:14297. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.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.