Future increases in global surface temperature threaten those worldwide who depend on rice production for their livelihoods and food security. Past analyses of high-temperature stress on rice production have focused on paddy yield and have failed to account for the detrimental impact of high temperatures on milling quality outcomes, which ultimately determine edible (marketable) rice yield and market value. Using genotype specific rice yield and milling quality data on six common rice varieties from Arkansas, USA, combined with on-site, half-hourly and daily temperature observations, we show a nonlinear effect of high-temperature stress exposure on yield and milling quality. A 1°C increase in average growing season temperature reduces paddy yield by 6.2%, total milled rice yield by 7.1% to 8.0%, head rice yield by 9.0% to 13.8%, and total milling revenue by 8.1% to 11.0%, across genotypes. Our results indicate that failure to account for changes in milling quality leads to understatement of the impacts of high temperatures on rice production outcomes. These dramatic losses result from reduced paddy yield and increased percentages of chalky and broken kernels, which together decrease the quantity and market value of milled rice. Recently published estimates show paddy yield reductions of up to 10% across the major rice-producing regions of South and Southeast Asia due to rising temperatures. The results of our study suggest that the often-cited 10% figure underestimates the economic implications of climate change for rice producers, thus potentially threatening future food security for global rice producers and consumers.

No abstract

Both cisgenesis and transgenesis are plant breeding techniques that can be used to introduce new genes into plant genomes. However, transgenesis uses gene(s) from a non-plant organism or from a donor plant that is sexually incompatible with the recipient plant while cisgenesis involves the introduction of gene(s) from a crossable—sexually compatible—plant. Traditional breeding techniques could possibly achieve the same results as those from cisgenesis, but would require a much larger timeframe. Cisgenesis allows plant breeders to enhance an existing cultivar more quickly and with little to no genetic drag. The current regulation in the European Union (EU) on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) treats cisgenic plants the same as transgenic plants and both are mandatorily labeled as GMOs. This study estimates European consumers’ willingness-to-pay (WTP) for rice labeled as GM, cisgenic, with environmental benefits (which cisgenesis could provide), or any combination of these three attributes. Data were collected from 3,002 participants through an online survey administered in Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom in 2013. Censored regression models were used to model consumers’ WTP in each country. Model estimates highlight significant differences in WTP across countries. In all five countries, consumers are willing-to-pay a premium to avoid purchasing rice labeled as GM. In all countries except Spain, consumers have a significantly higher WTP to avoid consuming rice labeled as GM compared to rice labeled as cisgenic, suggesting that inserting genes from the plant’s own gene pool is more acceptable to consumers. Additionally, French consumers are willing-to-pay a premium for rice labeled as having environmental benefits compared to conventional rice. These findings suggest that not all GMOs are the same in consumers’ eyes and thus, from a consumer preference perspective, the differences between transgenic and cisgenic products are recommended to be reflected in GMO labeling and trade policies.

No abstract

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers, and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact

No abstract

he efficiency of futures pricing has been investigated using the model: T S,+i = a + bF:+i + e,+i (1) where St+i is the spot price at t + i; F:+i is the price at t for the futures contract maturing at t + i; e,+i is a random disturbance with mean zero and variance a : ; and a and b are fixed parameters. Pricing is considered efficient if a = 0 and b = 1. However, empirical estimates of the a's have generally been positive and the b's less than one, at least for futures contracts several weeks before maturity (e.g., Bigman, Goldfarb and Schechtman (1983) ' Leuthold (1974)). From such results it has been concluded that futures prices provide inefficient (or biased) estimates of the futures (or spot) prices at contract maturity.In an article in this journal, Maberly (1985) disagrees with the conclusion that a^ > 0 and b < 1 (where A denotes an estimate) imply that futures pricing is inefficient. He argues that the empirical findings are the result of applying ordinary least squares (OLS) to censored data. He believes that an inherent restri9ion on the dependent variable in Equation (1) is responsible for a^ > 0 and b < 1. More details of Maberly's argument follow.The objective of this paper is to, show that the censoring argument is incorrect. The reason for a^ > 0 and b < 1 can be attributed to using OLS on a model with a lagged dependent variable. In what follows, Maberly's argument is critiqued and an alternative argument is made as to why the customary test of a = 0 and b = 1 is not valid. This argument is then supported with Monte Carlo evidence.

ing a more informed seed treatment decision before planting. Also, since seed cost and associated technology The effects of fungicide seed treatments on seeding rate, location, fees have made seed cost a greater percentage of opsimulated rainfall at emergence, time of planting, and seed quality erating costs (Lambert and Lowenberg-DeBoer, 2003), were analyzed for soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] in this study. Variation in plant emergence allowed estimation of economically analyses surrounding seeding rate and replanting decioptimal seeding rates and partial returns (PR ϭ Gross revenue Ϫ sions for soybean are becoming more important to pro-Seed cost) across seed treatment options. Study results proved a single ducers. seed treatment to be superior across most study conditions. In fact, In this study the effects of four different seed treata comparison of optimally treated to untreated seed revealed that a ments: Fludioxonil (Maxim), Carboxin-Tetramethylthiseemingly insignificant input in terms of cost (Ͻ$8.65 ha Ϫ1 ) enhanced uram disulfide-Metalaxyl (Stiletto), Metalaxyl (Alleprofitability by an average of $43.71 ha Ϫ1 in this study. Using high giance), and Carboxin ϩ PCNB (Vitavax ϩ PCNB) rather than low quality treated seed increased producer returns by were compared with a control with no seed treatment. 1 an average of $64.27 ha Ϫ1 . Seeding rate recommendations need to be viewed with the precaution that added seed may be low cost insurance This allowed for the assessment of the importance of against lesser-than-expected survival rates. For the cultivar Hutcheson different pathogens based on the fungicides applied to (MG V), planting in May compared with April and June provided seed (for example, Allegiance targets Pythium spp., better yields using less seed on average. Finally, as the planting season Vitavax ϩ PCNB targets Rhizoctonia solani, Maxim progressed, replanting plant population density thresholds decreased.