Effects of Removing the Dairy Price-Support Program

1978 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 30 ◽  
Author(s):  
James W. Gruebele
1976 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-99 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank N. Fleming ◽  
Fred C. White

Use of peanuts in edible products is expected to increase five percent in 1975-76 to 1.9 billion pounds. Despite the increase in consumption, supplies are well in excess of edible requirements. The 1975-76 peanut supply is estimated at a record 5.0 billion pounds, about 20 percent above the previous year. Surplus production is an increasingly important problem for the peanut sector. Total peanut production has doubled since 1960, although planted acreage has been restricted by the peanut program to a maximum of 1.61 million acres. Due to increasing yields, acquisitions by the Commodity Credit Corporation have increased from 17 percent of total production in 1960 to 30-35 percent in 1975.


1990 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald J. Liu ◽  
Harry M. Kaiser ◽  
Olan D. Forker ◽  
Timothy D. Mount

The market impacts of generic dairy advertising are assessed using an industry model which encompasses supply and demand conditions at the retail, wholesale, and farm levels, and government intervention under the dairy price support program. The estimated model is used to simulate price and quantity values for four advertising scenarios: (1) no advertising, (2) historical fluid advertising, (3) historical manufactured advertising, and (4) historical fluid and manufactured advertising. Compared to previous studies, the dairy-industry model provides additional insights into the way generic dairy advertising influences prices and quantities at the retail, wholesale, and farm levels.


1953 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 269-269
Author(s):  
P. H. Groggins

1975 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 247-252 ◽  
Author(s):  
Inbum Song ◽  
John R. Franzmann ◽  
John F. Mead

Two major programs — allotment-quota and price support — have been in force to support peanut farming since 1952. The purpose is to restrict production of peanuts while supporting the price of peanuts produced. Production is restricted through the allotment-quota program, determined by the Secretary of Agriculture, and converted to a national acreage allotment. However, minimum national acreage allotment has been fixed at 1.61 million acres. The price support program provided that price be supported no lower than 75 percent of the parity price of peanuts. Under the programs, peanuts produced by the grower are sold on the market at the support price for edible uses and excess quantities are sold to the government at the support price. Peanuts purchased by the government are stored and later sold for crushing at the going market price. Because peanuts for crushing command a much lower price than the government acquisition price, the purchase-and-resale operation results in a net loss representing public cost of the peanut price support program.


2005 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Paul Chavas ◽  
Kwansoo Kim

In this paper, we present an econometric analysis of the effects of a price floor on price dynamics and price volatility. A price floor (implemented as a part of government pricing policy) provides a censoring mechanism for price determination. We specify and estimate a dynamic Tobit model under time-varying volatility. The model is applied to analyze the effects of a price support program on price dynamics and price volatility in the U.S. American cheese market. The econometric analysis provides useful insights on price dynamics in the presence of a government-determined price floor.


1995 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 199-210 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henry W. Kinnucan ◽  
Evelyn T. Belleza

An equilibrium-displacement model is combined with econometric estimates of key model parameters to identify the impacts of Canada's dairy advertising programs on prices and quantity. Results suggest increased advertising of fluid milk enhances the farm value of milk but has minimal effect on government costs of the dairy price-support program. Owing to government intervention in the butter market, increased butter advertising has no effect on the farm value of milk, at least in the short run, but is highly effective at reducing government costs. Advertising is most effective,ceteris paribus, in markets where retail demand and wholesale supply for the specific dairy product are relatively price inelastic.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document