[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea00/21720.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Estimating Farm-Level Yield Distributions For Corn And Soybeans In Illinois

Author

Listed:
  • Zanini, Fabio C.
  • Irwin, Scott H.
  • Schnitkey, Gary D.
  • Sherrick, Bruce J.
Abstract
Many yield modeling approaches have been developed in attempts to provide accurate characterizations of farm-level yield distributions due to the importance of yield uncertainty in crop insurance design and rating, and for managing farm-level risk. Competing existing models of crop yields accommodate varying skewness, kurtosis, and other departures from normality including features such as multiple modes. Recently, the received view of crop yield modeling has been challenged by Just and Weninger who indicate that there is insufficient evidence to reject normality given data limitations and potential methodological shortcomings in controlling for deterministic components (trend) in yields. They point out that past empirical efforts to estimate and validate specific-farm distributional characterizations have been severely hampered by data limitations. As a result, they argue in favor of normality as an appropriate parameterization of crop yields. This paper investigates alternate representations of farm-level crop yield distributions using a unique data set from the University of Illinois Endowment farms, containing same-site yield observations for a relatively long period of time, and under conditions that closely mirror actual farm conditions in Illinois. Results from alternate econometric model specifications controlling for trend effects suggest that a linear trend provides an adequate representation of crop yields at the farm level during the period covered by the estimations. Specification tests based on a linear-trend model suggest significant heteroskedasticity is present in only a few farms, and that the residuals are white noise. With these data, Jarque-Bera normality test results indicate that normality of detrended yield residuals is rejected by a far greater number of fields than would be explained due to randomness. Thus, to further clarify the issue of yield distribution characterizations, more complete goodness-of-fit measures are compared across a larger set of candidate distributions. The results indicate that the Weibull distribution consistently ranks better than the normal distribution both in fields where normality is rejected and in fields where normality is not rejected. The results highlight the fact that failing to reject normality is not the same as identifying normality as a "best" parameterization, and provide guidance for progressing toward better representations of farm-level crop yields.

Suggested Citation

  • Zanini, Fabio C. & Irwin, Scott H. & Schnitkey, Gary D. & Sherrick, Bruce J., 2000. "Estimating Farm-Level Yield Distributions For Corn And Soybeans In Illinois," 2000 Annual meeting, July 30-August 2, Tampa, FL 21720, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea00:21720
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.21720
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/21720/files/sp00za01.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.21720?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. Richard E. Just & Quinn Weninger, 1999. "Are Crop Yields Normally Distributed?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 81(2), pages 287-304.
    2. Davidson, Russell & MacKinnon, James G., 1993. "Estimation and Inference in Econometrics," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195060119.
    3. Pease, James W., 1992. "A Comparison Of Subjective And Historical Crop Yield Probability Distributions," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 24(2), pages 1-10, December.
    4. Steven D. Hanson & Robert J. Myers & J. Roy Black, 1998. "The Effects of Crop Yield Insurance Designs on Farmer Participation and Welfare," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(4), pages 806-820.
    5. Granger, C. W. J. & Newbold, Paul, 1986. "Forecasting Economic Time Series," Elsevier Monographs, Elsevier, edition 2, number 9780122951831 edited by Shell, Karl.
    6. Goodwin, Barry K., 1994. "Premium Rate Determination In The Federal Crop Insurance Program: What Do Averages Have To Say About Risk?," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 19(2), pages 1-14, December.
    7. Octavio A. Ramírez, 1997. "Estimation and Use of a Multivariate Parametric Model for Simulating Heteroskedastic, Correlated, Nonnormal Random Variables: The Case of Corn Belt Corn, Soybean, and Wheat Yields," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(1), pages 191-205.
    8. Deb, Partha & Sefton, Martin, 1996. "The distribution of a Lagrange multiplier test of normality," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 123-130, May.
    9. Urzua, Carlos M., 1996. "On the correct use of omnibus tests for normality," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 247-251, December.
    10. Marra, Michele C. & Schurle, Bryan W., 1994. "Kansas Wheat Yield Risk Measures And Aggregation: A Meta- Analysis Approach," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 19(1), pages 1-9, July.
    11. Barry K. Goodwin & Alan P. Ker, 1998. "Nonparametric Estimation of Crop Yield Distributions: Implications for Rating Group-Risk Crop Insurance Contracts," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 139-153.
    12. Pease, James W., 1992. "A Comparison of Subjective and Historical Crop Yield Probability Distributions," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(2), pages 23-32, December.
    13. L. M. Eisgruber & L. S. Schuman, 1963. "The Usefulness of Aggregated Data in the Analysis of Farm Income Variability and Resource Allocation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 45(3), pages 587-591.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chama CHIPETA & Daniel Francois MEYER, 2018. "Trade Openness, FDI and Exchange Rate Effects on Job Creation in South Africa's Tradable Sectors," Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, AMH International, vol. 10(4), pages 197-212.
    2. Chipeta Chama & Meyer Daniel Francois & Muzindutsi Paul-Francois, 2017. "The Effect of Exchange Rate Movements and Economic Growth on Job Creation," Studia Universitatis Babeș-Bolyai Oeconomica, Sciendo, vol. 62(2), pages 20-41, August.

    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. Clop-Gallart, M. Merce & Juarez-Rubio, Francisco, 2008. "Shape Persistence in Elicited Subjective Crop Yield Probability Density Functions," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 44128, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Tor N. Tolhurst & Alan P. Ker, 2015. "On Technological Change in Crop Yields," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 97(1), pages 137-158.
    3. Clop-Gallart, M. Merce & Juarez-Rubio, Francisco, 2005. "Elicitation of Subjective Crop Yield PDF for DSS Implementation," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24561, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Finger, Robert, 2012. "Biases in Farm-Level Yield Risk Analysis due to Data Aggregation," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 61(01), pages 1-14, February.
    5. Zheng, Qiujie & Wang, H. Holly & Shi, Qinghua, 2008. "Estimating Farm Level Multivariate Yield Distribution Using Nonparametric Methods," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6509, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    6. Rejesus, Roderick M. & Marra, Michele C. & Roberts, Roland K. & English, Burton C. & Larson, James A. & Paxton, Kenneth W, 2013. "Changes in Producers’ Perceptions of Within-Field Yield Variability after Adoption of Cotton Yield Monitors," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 45(2), pages 1-18, May.
    7. Christopher N. Boyer & B. Wade Brorsen & Emmanuel Tumusiime, 2015. "Modeling skewness with the linear stochastic plateau model to determine optimal nitrogen rates," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 46(1), pages 1-10, January.
    8. Norwood, F. Bailey & Roberts, Matthew C. & Lusk, Jayson L., 2002. "How Are Crop Yields Distributed?," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19733, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    9. Li, Shuang & Ker, Alan P., 2013. "An Assessment of the Canadian Federal-Provincial Crop Production Insurance Program under Future Climate Change Scenarios in Ontario," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 151213, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Kapiamba, Luabeya F., 2005. "Modeling Heteroskedasticity of Crop Yield Distributions: Implications for Normality," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19475, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    11. Finger, Robert, 2012. "Biases in Farm-Level Yield Risk Analysis due to Data Aggregation," Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, vol. 61(1).
    12. Joseph Cooper & Carl Zulauf & Michael Langemeier & Gary Schnitkey, 2012. "Implications of within county yield heterogeneity for modeling crop insurance premiums," Agricultural Finance Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 72(1), pages 134-155, May.
    13. Qiujie Zheng & H. Holly Wang & Qing Hua Shi, 2014. "Estimating bivariate yield distributions and crop insurance premiums using nonparametric methods," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(18), pages 2108-2118, June.
    14. Ker, Alan. P & Tolhurst, Tor & Liu, Yong, 2015. "Rating Area-yield Crop Insurance Contracts Using Bayesian Model Averaging and Mixture Models," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205211, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Conradt, Sarah & Bokusheva, Raushan & Finger, Robert & Kussaiynov, Talgat, 2014. "Yield Trend Estimation in the Presence of Farm Heterogeneity and Non-linear Technological Change," Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, Humboldt-Universitaat zu Berlin, vol. 53(2), pages 1-20, May.
    16. Yi, Jing & Richardson, James & Bryant, Henry, 2016. "How Do Premium Subsidies Affect Crop Insurance Demand at Different Coverage Levels: the Case of Corn," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 236249, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. Chen, Shu-Ling & Miranda, Mario J., 2006. "Modeling Yield Distribution In High Risk Counties: Application To Texas Upland Cotton," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21392, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    18. jose ramos pires manso, 2004. "Economical Versus Political Cycles In An Iberian Manufacturing Sector," Industrial Organization 0404003, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Arora, Gaurav & Agarwal, Sandip K., 2020. "Agricultural input use and index insurance adoption: Concept and evidence," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304508, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Buchholz, Matthias & Musshoff, Oliver, 2014. "The role of weather derivatives and portfolio effects in agricultural water management," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 34-44.

    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:aaea00:21720. 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/aaeaaea.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.