Is there an economic incentive for farmer participation in a uniform health standard for aquaculture farms? An empirical case study.

The growth of aquaculture, both in terms of the volume of production and the diversity of species and production systems, has created challenges for effective animal health policies. This paper presents results of a case study of the costs to a sector of U.S. aquaculture in which producers raising fish that are sold and shipped live contend with widely differing requirements for testing and certification of aquatic animal health. These are compared to related costs under a proposed uniform standard. The uniform standard scenario assumes adoption by the majority of the industry of a non-regulatory surveillance and biosecurity program with veterinary oversight, as an alternative to the current complex regulatory environment based on administrative political districts rather than on risk of disease transmission. Farm-level cost data were obtained through a survey that captured 74% of the national volume of baitfish and sportfish production in the U.S. Reflecting recent joint industry/federal efforts to develop a non-regulatory national U.S. program to set and verify a uniform standard for aquatic animal health, seven scenarios were modelled to determine the potential benefits and costs of such a program. Results showed that the net benefit of a uniform standard, if adopted nationally, could result in an estimated annual savings of $6.6 million to the U.S. baitfish and sportfish industry, and an average savings of $81,175/farm (with a range of $17,851/farm to $265,968/farm). Such cost savings provide an incentive for producers to support the program. Moreover, development of a uniform standard has potential to move aquatic animal health policies from the current framework of political administrative units to one based on epidemiological approaches and sound science.

Replacement Beef Cow Valuation under Data Availability Constraints.

Economists are often tasked with estimating the benefits or costs associated with livestock production losses; however, lack of available data or absence of consistent reporting can reduce the accuracy of these valuations. This work looks at three potential estimation techniques for determining the value for replacement beef cows with varying types of market data to proxy constrained data availability and discusses the potential margin of error for each technique. Oklahoma bred replacement cows are valued using hedonic pricing based on Oklahoma bred cow data-a best case scenario-vector error correction modeling (VECM) based on national cow sales data and cost of production (COP) based on just a representative enterprise budget and very limited sales data. Each method was then used to perform a within-sample forecast of 2016 January to December, and forecasts are compared with the 2016 monthly observed market prices in Oklahoma using the mean absolute percent error (MAPE). Hedonic pricing methods tend to overvalue for within-sample forecasting but performed best, as measured by MAPE for high quality cows. The VECM tended to undervalue cows but performed best for younger animals. COP performed well, compared with the more data intensive methods. Examining each method individually across eight representative replacement beef female types, the VECM forecast resulted in a MAPE under 10% for 33% of forecasted months, followed by hedonic pricing at 24% of the forecasted months and COP at 14% of the forecasted months for average quality beef females. For high quality females, the hedonic pricing method worked best producing a MAPE under 10% in 36% of the forecasted months followed by the COP method at 21% of months and the VECM at 14% of the forecasted months. These results suggested that livestock valuation method selection was not one-size-fits-all and may need to vary based not only on the data available but also on the characteristics (e.g., quality or age) of the livestock being valued.

Estimation of risk management effects on revenue and purchased feed costs on US dairy farms.

Variations in milk and feed prices directly affect dairy farm risk management decisions. This research used data from the 2010 US Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Resource Management Surveys phase III dairy survey to examine how risk management tools affected revenues and expenses across US dairy farms. The survey was sent to 26 states and collected information on costs and returns to individual dairy farms. This research used the information from milk sales, crops sales, feed expenses, and farm and operator characteristics, as well as the use of risk management tools. Matching methodology was used to evaluate the effect of 5 independent risk management tools on revenues and expenses: selling milk to a cooperative, using a commodity contract to sell grain, feeding homegrown forage at a basic and intensive level, and use of a nutritionist. Results showed that dairy farms located in the Midwest and East benefit from selling milk to a cooperative and using commodity contracts to sell grain. Across the United States, using a nutritionist increased total feed costs, whereas a feeding program that included more than 65% homegrown forages decreased total feed costs. Results point to benefits from educational programming on risk management tools that are region specific rather than a broad generalization to all US dairy farmers.