[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea16/235867.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Valuing the Absence of Feral Swine for US Corn, Soybean, Wheat, Rice, and Peanut Producers and Consumers. A Partial Equilibrium Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Holderieath, Jason
Abstract
Conflicts between humans and wildlife are manifestations of inevitable divergences between human interests and wildlife presence and survival. Those conflicts can range from property damage to threatening and predatory behavior (USDA APHIS 2015). In the US, considerable financial resources are dedicated to managing human-wildlife conflicts. In 2014, the USDA allocated $106 million to the Wildlife Services division of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service for a portion of the federally funded human-wildlife conflict mitigation efforts (USDA 2015). Among policy makers and researchers interested in human-wildlife conflicts, one species of particular recent interest is feral swine. The USDA has dedicated $20 million to support the ambitious goals to "eliminate feral swine from two States [sic] every three to five years and stabilize feral swine damage within 10 [sic] years" and to these and supporting efforts (Bannerman and Cole 2014). Feral swine are known to cause damage to crops among other types of property damage. Pimentel, Zuniga, and Morrison (2005) is the only publication with a nationwide estimate of feral swine damage in the US, estimating $800 million in crop and environmental damages per year. Damage estimates such as Pimentel, Zuniga, and Morrison (2005) are part of the foundation of knowledge required to arrive at an economic value of removal. However, they do not reflect a more complex reality. When crops are damaged, the quantity available to be brought to market decreases. Markets adjust to the lower quantities with higher prices. Farms suffering damage have less to sell at higher market prices and farms that do not suffer damage have the same quantity at higher market prices. Welfare measures such as changes in producer and consumer surplus describe if individuals are better or worse off from a given policy action or market change. To-date, there are no studies that assess the welfare implications of feral swine crop damage. To address this need in the literature we ask, what are the welfare effects to US crop producers and consumers from an immediate removal of feral swine in nine of the hardest hit states in the southeastern US? Additionally, what would be the distribution of those effects among consumers and farmers in different states? A partial equilibrium model is built based on historical production data in all US counties with a crop insurance program for Corn, Soybeans, Wheat, Rice, and Peanuts from USDA NASS, feral swine presence data from USDA APHIS, and feral swine damage estimates from a recent USDA survey conducted in Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas. This model is used to create a counterfactual to the current reality of feral swine damage to value the absence of feral swine in the previously mentioned states. One framework for measuring the effects of feral swine crop damage is an Equilibrium Displacement Model (EDM). The EDM is a linear abstraction of supply and demand functions that describe the transition from one equilibrium to another without defining an exact functional form (Wohlgenant 2011; Wohlgenant 1993). The versatility of the EDM has allowed them to be used to examine export demand effects on grain, feed products, and livestock using genetically modified organisms (Preckel, Harrington and Dubman 2002), returns to public research (Alston, Norton and Pardey 1995), welfare effects of the Washington State University wheat breeding program (Nogueira et al. 2015), country of origin labeling (Brester, Marsh and Atwood 2004), and animal disease outbreaks (Pendell et al. 2007), among other uses. These varied applications are made possible by the flexibility inherent to the EDM. The literature has examples of EDMs with more than one product and location to serve as examples. Perrin and Scobie (1981) use an EDM with both multiple markets and price wedges to study the options for increasing nutrient consumption among Colombia's poor. More recently, Wohlgenant (2011) detailed several different variants of EDMs with multiple products and markets including vertical integration and joint products. Alston, Norton, and Pardey (1995) described several variants of EDMs with multiple markets including products related in consumption and products related in production as well as other models with multiple geographical markets. Nogueira et al. (2015) created a model that had both multiple products and multiple markets. Each of these models took a slightly different approach to measuring welfare changes. Our model closely follows the lead of Nogueira et al. (2015) in covering the products listed above in more than one place. Due to the price decrease resulting from the quantity increase, preliminary results indicate welfare losses for producers in states without feral swine, welfare gains or even losses for producers in states with feral swine, and unambiguous gains for consumers from a removal of feral swine damage. Final results will establish upper limits for what should be paid to control feral swine based on crop damage justification.

Suggested Citation

  • Holderieath, Jason, 2016. "Valuing the Absence of Feral Swine for US Corn, Soybean, Wheat, Rice, and Peanut Producers and Consumers. A Partial Equilibrium Approach," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235867, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea16:235867
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.235867
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/235867/files/output-2.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.235867?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. Bergtold, Jason S. & Akobundu, Eberechukwu & Peterson, Everett B., 2004. "The FAST Method: Estimating Unconditional Demand Elasticities for Processed Foods in the Presence of Fixed Effects," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 29(2), pages 1-20, August.
    2. Brester, Gary W. & Marsh, John M. & Atwood, Joseph A., 2004. "Distributional Impacts of Country-of-Origin Labeling in the U.S. Meat Industry," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 29(2), pages 1-22, August.
    3. Dustin L. Pendell & Gary W. Brester & Ted C. Schroeder & Kevin C. Dhuyvetter & Glynn T. Tonsor, 2010. "Animal Identification and Tracing in the United States," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 92(4), pages 927-940.
    4. Paul V. Preckel & David Harrington & Robert Dubman, 2002. "Primal/Dual Positive Math Programming: Illustrated Through an Evaluation of the Impacts of Market Resistance to Genetically Modified Grains," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(3), pages 679-690.
    5. John M. Antle & Susan M. Capalbo, 2010. "Adaptation of Agricultural and Food Systems to Climate Change: An Economic and Policy Perspective," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 32(3), pages 386-416.
    6. Michael K. Wohlgenant, 1993. "Distribution of Gains from Research and Promotion in Multi-Stage Production Systems: The Case of the U.S. Beef and Pork Industries," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(3), pages 642-651.
    7. Robert Jensen, 2007. "The Digital Provide: Information (Technology), Market Performance, and Welfare in the South Indian Fisheries Sector," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 122(3), pages 879-924.
    8. John C. Beghin & Holger Matthey, 2003. "Modeling World Peanut Product Markets: A Tool for Agricultural Trade Policy Analysis," Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) Publications (archive only) 03-wp332, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    9. Brester, Gary W. & Marsh, John M. & Jimmerson, Jason, 2004. "Distributional Impacts of Country-of-Origin Labeling in the U.S. Meat Industry," Briefings 29189, Montana State University, Department of Agricultural Economics and Economics, Agricultural Marketing Policy Center.
    10. Pendell, Dustin L. & Leatherman, John & Schroeder, Ted C. & Alward, Gregory S., 2007. "The Economic Impacts of a Foot-And-Mouth Disease Outbreak: A Regional Analysis," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(s1), pages 19-33, October.
    11. Richard K. Perrin & Grant M. Scobie, 1981. "Market Intervention Policies for Increasing the Consumption of Nutrients by Low Income Households," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 63(1), pages 73-82.
    12. Lusk, Jayson L. & Roosen, Jutta & Shogren, Jason (ed.), 2011. "The Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Food Consumption and Policy," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199569441.
    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. Lana Awada & Peter W. B. Phillips, 2021. "The distribution of returns from land efficiency improvement in multistage production systems," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 69(1), pages 73-92, March.
    2. Glynn Tonsor & Ted Schroeder, 2015. "Market impacts of E. Coli vaccination in U.S. Feedlot cattle," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 3(1), pages 1-15, December.
    3. Peyton Ferrier & Chen Zhen, 2014. "The producer welfare effects of trade liberalization when goods are perishable and habit-forming: the case of asparagus," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 45(2), pages 129-141, March.
    4. Fathi, Fatemeh & Bakhshoodeh, Mohammad, 2021. "Economic and environmental strategies against targeting energy subsidy in Iranian meat market: A game theory approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    5. Hanbin Lee & Richard J. Sexton & Daniel A. Sumner, 2023. "National and subnational regulation of farm practices for consumer products sold within a jurisdiction: California's Proposition 12," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 54(6), pages 838-853, November.
    6. Schroeder, Ted C. & Tonsor, Glynn T., 2011. "Economic Impacts of Zilmax(R) Adoption in Cattle Feeding," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(3), pages 1-15.
    7. Dennis, Elliott J. & Schroeder, Ted C. & Renter, David G. & Pendell, Dustin L., 2018. "Value of Arrival Metaphylaxis in U.S. Cattle Industry," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 43(2), May.
    8. Poddaturi, Dinesh Reddy & Hart, Chad E. & Schulz, Lee & Pouliot, Sébastien, 2020. "A Dynamic Model of U.S. Beef Cattle," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304577, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Melissa G. S. McKendree & Glynn T. Tonsor & Ted C. Schroeder & Nathan P. Hendricks, 2020. "Impacts of Retail and Export Demand on United States Cattle Producers," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(3), pages 866-883, May.
    10. Amanda M Countryman & Alessandro Bonanno, 2020. "A COOL Tale: Economic Effects of the U.S. Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling Repeal," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(4), pages 888-912, December.
    11. Pouliot, Sebastien & Sumner, Daniel A., 2014. "Differential impacts of country of origin labeling: COOL econometric evidence from cattle markets," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 107-116.
    12. Loureiro, Maria L. & Umberger, Wendy J., 2007. "A choice experiment model for beef: What US consumer responses tell us about relative preferences for food safety, country-of-origin labeling and traceability," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 496-514, August.
    13. Jongeneel, Roel & Baltussen, Willy H.M., 2014. "Analyzing the impacts of mandatory country of origin labeling in EU pork and poultry sectors on markets, cost of production and trade," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182688, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. Dharmasena, Senarath & Davis, George & Capps, Oral, Jr., 2014. "Partial versus General Equilibrium Calorie and Revenue Effects Associated with a Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 39(2), pages 1-17.
    15. Dinopoulos, Elias & Livanis, Grigorios & West, Carol, 2010. "Country of Origin Labeling (C.O.O.L.): How cool is it?," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 575-589, October.
    16. Glynn T. Tonsor & Ted C. Schroeder & Jayson L. Lusk, 2013. "Consumer Valuation of Alternative Meat Origin Labels," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(3), pages 676-692, September.
    17. Gunter, Allison & Goemans, Chris & Pritchett, James G. & Thilmany, Dawn D., 2012. "Linking an Equilibrium Displacement Mathematical Programming Model and an Input-Output Model to Estimate the Impacts of Drought: An Application to Southeast Colorado," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124930, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. Ross Hallren & Alexandra Opanasets, 2018. "Whence the Beef: The Effect of Repealing Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) Using a Vertically Integrated Armington Model with Monte Carlo Simulation," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 84(3), pages 879-897, January.
    19. Edgar E. Twine & James Rude & Jim Unterschultz, 2016. "Country of Origin Labeling and Structural Change in U.S. Imports of Canadian Cattle and Beef," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 64(3), pages 545-563, September.
    20. Ying Lin & Henry W. Kinnucan, 2020. "The optimal export tax for a primary commodity in a vertical market," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(6), pages 909-922, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:aaea16:235867. 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.