2020
DOI: 10.1002/aepp.13108
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Milk Income over Feed Cost Margin, Margin Protection Program, and Farm Finances for a Sample of Wisconsin Dairies in 2000–2017

Abstract: The relationship between farm‐level milk income over feed cost (IOFC) margin and national margin, profit risk, and terminal stress risk are investigated using data on Wisconsin dairy farms over the period 2000–2017. Results show that farm‐specific IOFC margins were not highly correlated with the national margin, higher farm IOFC margin increased profit level and volatility but decreased downside risk, and farm terminal stress appears unaffected by either the margin or the related payments. These findings sugge… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
(41 reference statements)
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Since dairy support programs are national in scope, there is an issue regarding whether the national MF margin reflects actual conditions due to substantial regional variation in the MF margin as determined by local market conditions (Mark et al, 2016). Results in a recent study by Skevas et al (2020) show that there is not a strong relationship between the national MF margin and actual MF margins of dairy farms in Wisconsin. The primary objective of this study is to explain why there can be variation in the actual MF margins across regions and over time.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…Since dairy support programs are national in scope, there is an issue regarding whether the national MF margin reflects actual conditions due to substantial regional variation in the MF margin as determined by local market conditions (Mark et al, 2016). Results in a recent study by Skevas et al (2020) show that there is not a strong relationship between the national MF margin and actual MF margins of dairy farms in Wisconsin. The primary objective of this study is to explain why there can be variation in the actual MF margins across regions and over time.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…As the DMC program is relatively new, only a few studies explicitly examine the program (e.g., Mark et al, 2016;Newton et al, 2016;Nicholson & Stephenson, 2014;Skevas et al, 2021;Wolf et al, 2014). The primary focus of the literature is how the program payments benefit dairy farms.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Exit is found to be negatively affected by farm area (Breustedt and Glauben, 2007;Dong et al, 2016;Ferjani et al, 2015;Kang, 2006;Mishra et al, 2014), livestock units (Skevas et al 2021), farm values (Goetz and Debertin, 2001;Kimhi and Bollman, 1999), and farm sales (Hoppe and Korb, 2006). Not only Goetz and Debertin (2001) but also Skevas et al (2021) show an exception: while they find that the value of land and buildings has a negative coefficient on farm exit rate in the OLS model, their probit model has a positive coefficient. Not surprisingly, the probability of farm exit rates is strongly influenced by other farm characteristics such as farm types and location in the reviewed articles.…”
Section: Farm Exitmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Prices and payments can matter, as well. The hypothesis that government payment programs keep farms operating is supported (Breustedt and Glauben, 2007;Mishra et al, 2014;Skevas et al, 2021). Breustedt and Glauben (2007) provide empirical evidence that high subsidy payments are likely to lower farm exit rates in western Europe.…”
Section: Farm Exitmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation