Efficiency and regulation: a comparison of dairy farms in Ontario and New York State

Abstract

We study the cost efficiency of dairy farms operating under two different regulatory regimes. While neo-classical economic theory suggests that farms should maximize their efficiency regardless of their regulatory system, we find that farms operating in a more regulated environment have, on average, a lower cost efficiency. Differences in cost efficiency are primarily explained by allocative decisions—farms in the more regulated environment are overcapitalized and overly reliant on homegrown feed. Efficiency is estimated using bootstrapped data envelopment analysis and a stochastic distance function. We discuss the implications of these results for welfare and policy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. 1.

    An alternative view holds that price instability in competitive markets can reduce efficiency by forcing producers to adjust to price changes. These adjustments can lead producers to make “mistakes,” which decrease efficiency.

  2. 2.

    The Dairy Farmers of Ontario regulates the target price of fluid milk in the province of Ontario, while the Canadian Dairy Commission sets a national price for industrial milk used in processed dairy products.

  3. 3.

    Unlike Canadian dairy policies, US policies have changed substantially since 2007, most recently with the passage of the 2014 farm bill.

  4. 4.

    These assumptions are validated in the Ontario data set. Ontario farms grew significant amounts of hay forage and wheat, but only 1 farm reported sales of hay forage or purchases of wheat.

  5. 5.

    The price in New York was available from the Department of Agriculture and Markets, New York State (2010), for Ontario it was calculated using the mean annual implicit price.

  6. 6.

    This is consistent with Stefanides and Tauer (1999) and Foltz and Chang (2002) who found BST to have a statistically insignificant impact on profits.

  7. 7.

    In certain years there were not enough farms with <50 cows in the dataset. When this occurred additional farms were added from the next size category.

References

  1. Alchian A (1950) Uncertainty, evolution and economic theory. J Polit Econ 58:211–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Baily MN (1993) Competition, regulation and efficiency in service industries. Brook Pap Econ Act Microecon 2:71–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Balagtas J (2007) U.S. dairy policy: analysis and options. In: Gardner B, Sumner D (eds) Agricultural policy for the 2007 farm bill and beyond. American Enterprise Institute, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  4. Balagtas J, Sumner D (2011) Evaluation of U.S. policies and the supply management proposals for managing milk margin variability. Am J Agric Econ 94:522–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Barichello R (1999) The Canadian dairy industry: prospects for future trade. Can J Agric Econ 47:45–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Battese G, Coelli T (1988) Prediction of firm-level technical efficiencies with a generalized frontier production function and panel data. J Econ 38:387–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bravo-Ureta B, Rieger L (1990) Alternative production frontier methodologies and dairy farm efficiency. J Agric Econ 41:215–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cochrane W (1958) Farm prices: myth and reality. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis

    Google Scholar 

  9. Coelli T, Perelman S (1999) A comparison of parametric and non-parametric distance functions with application to European railways. Eur J Oper Res 117:326–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Coelli T, Singh S, Fleming E (2003) An input distance function approach to the measurement of technical and allocative efficiency: with application to Indian dairy processing plants. Unpublished manuscript, University of Queensland, Brisbane, AU

  11. Das S, Krishna K, Lychagin S, Somanathan R (2013) Back on the rails: competition and productivity in state-owned industry. Am Econ J Appl Econ 5:136–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Department of Agriculture and Markets, New York State (2010) Annual Statistical Bulletin 2009. http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/New_York/Publications/Annual_Statistical_Bulletin/2009/Bulletin2009. Accessed 20 Jan 2011

  13. Foltz JD, Chang HH (2002) The adoption and profitability of rBst on Connecticut dairy farms. Am J Agric Econ 84:1021–1032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Goldfarb D (2009) Making milk: the practices, playes and pressures behind dairy supply management. Conference Board of Canada, Ottawa

    Google Scholar 

  15. Haghiri M, Nolan J, Tran K (2004) Assessing the impact of economic liberalization across countries: a comparison of dairy industry efficiency in Canada and the USA. Appl Econ 36:1233–1243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hailu G, Jeffrey S, Unterschultz J (2005) Cost efficiency for Alberta and Ontario dairy farms: an interregional comparison. Can J Agric Econ 53:141–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hayek FA (1945) The use of knowledge in society. Am Econ Rev 35:519–530

    Google Scholar 

  18. Jesse E, Crop B (2001) Federal milk marketing reform (continued), paper 73, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI

  19. Kneip A, Simar L, Wilson PW (2008) Asymptotics and consistent bootstraps for DEA estimators in nonparametric frontier models. Econ Theory 24:1663–1667

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kumbhakar S, Ghosh S, McGuckin JT (1991) A generalized production frontier approach for estimating determinants of inefficiency in U.S. dairy farms. J Bus Econ Stat 9:279–286

    Google Scholar 

  21. Lang B (2010) Dairy farm wage rates. http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/livestock/dairy/facts/wagerate.htm. Accessed 15 Jan 2011

  22. MacDonald JM, O’Donoghue EJ, McBride WD, Nehrig RF, Sandretto CL, Mosheim R (2007) Profits, costs, and the changing structure of dairy farming, research report 47, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC

  23. Mbaga M, Romain R, Larue B, Lebel L (2003) Assessing the technical efficiency of Quebec dairy farms. Can J Agric Econ 51:121–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Moschini G (1984) Quota values and price uncertainty. Can J Agric Econ 32:231–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Mosheim R, Lovell CK (2009) Scale economies and inefficiency of US dairy farms. Am J Agric Econ 91:777–794

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Nicholson CF, Knoblauch WA (1993) A comparison of New York and Ontario dairy farms. J Dairy Sci 76:2050–2055

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Politis DN, Romano JP, Wolf M (2001) On the asymptotic theory of subsampling. Stat Sin 11:1105–1124

    Google Scholar 

  28. Schmitz A, Schmitz T (1994) Supply management: the past and the future. Can J Agric Econ 42:125–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Schmitz JA Jr (2005) What determines productivity? Lessons from the dramatic recovery of the U.S. and Canadian iron ore industries following their early 1980s crisis. J Polit Econ 113:582–625

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Simar L, Wilson P (2007) Estimation and inference in two-stage, semi-parametric models of productive efficiency. J Econ 136:31–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Simar L, Wilson P (2011) Inference by the m out of n bootstrap in nonparametric frontier models. J Prod Anal 36:33–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Simar L, Zelenyuk V (2007) Statistical inference for aggregates of Farrell-type efficiencies. J Appl Econ 22:1367–1394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Stefanides Z, Tauer LW (1999) The empirical impact of bovine somatotropin on a group of New York dairy farms. Am J Agric Econ 81:95–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Tauer L (1993) Short-run and long-run efficiencies of New York dairy farms. Agric Res Econ Rev 22:1–9

    Google Scholar 

  35. Tauer L, Lordkipanidze N (2000) Farmer efficiency and technology use with age. Agric Res Econ Rev 29:24–31

    Google Scholar 

  36. United States Department of Agriculture (2008) Milk income loss contract program farm bill 2008 information sheet. http://future.aae.wisc.edu/publications/MILC_Fact_Sheet. Accessed 11 Jan 2011

  37. Weersink A, Turvey C, Godah A (1990) Decomposition measures of technical efficiency for Ontario dairy farms. Can J Agric Econ 38:439–456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Wilson P (1995) Detecting influential observations in data envelopment analysis. J Prod Anal 6:27–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Winter S (1971) Satisficing, selection and the innovating remnant. Q J Econ 85:237–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs [grant number 200222] and the Canadian Dairy Commission.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Slade.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Data

Subsampling New York producers

The procedure for subsampling was as follows:

  • Classify farms according to their herd size, using classes defined in Department of Agriculture and Markets, New York State (2010). These classes are: <50 cows, 50–99 cows, 100–199 cows, 200–499 cows, and 500 cows or greater.

  • Specify the number of farms that should be chosen from each class, each year, based on the proportion in the state population.Footnote 7

  • Randomly select producers in each class for the first year.

  • Verify average herd size and average output per cow is within 1 % of the state average, if not resample.

  • Producers included in previous subsamples are kept in subsequent years with additional producers randomly added to satisfy the previous requirements.

Outlier detection

Data envelopment analysis is sensitive to the inclusion of producers with data errors. Detecting such data errors is typically termed “outlier detection”, though in practice one should not remove producers who are outliers due to remarkable productivity, but only those who are reasonably suspected of having errors in their data. Fortunately, we have data on most producers over multiple years and can therefore observe whether there are unreasonable changes in a producer’s data from year to year. To detect outliers we employ the following algorithm loosely based on Wilson (1995),

  • Calculate baseline efficiency scores as per Sect. 3.

  • Calculate the “super-efficiency” score of each producer. The super-efficiency score of a producer is estimated by removing the producer from the production possibility set and calculating their efficiency score using the remaining observations. Since the producer is not in the production possibilities set, the producer’s super-efficiency score can be >100 %.

  • For each producer with a super-efficiency score >130 % run a new DEA model without this particular producer.

  • Compare these new models to our baseline model by examining the mean change in efficiency and the ten largest changes in efficiency scores among other producers.

Only one producer’s removal resulted in a mean change in efficiency scores of more than 1 %. There were four other producers whose removal altered the score of ten other producers by more than 1 %. When we examined the netput of these producers in the years prior to and during our sample we did not find it them to be exceptional, and thus we left the producers in the sample. Our qualitative results do not change when these producers are removed, nor are they changed when we remove all producers with a super-efficiency score >130 %.

Appendix 2: Econometric estimation of the distance function

In our estimation we assume the following Cobb–Douglas distance function,

$$\begin{aligned} \ln (d) = \alpha + \sum _{j=1}^3 \beta _j \ln (y_j) + \sum _{j=1}^4 \gamma _j \ln (x_j), \end{aligned}$$
(12)

where (\(\alpha , \beta ,\gamma\)) are parameters to be estimated, and d represents the producer’s distance from the production frontier. By homogeneity of degree one, \(\gamma _4=1-\gamma _1-\gamma _2-\gamma _3\). Imposing this identity and rearranging Eq. 12 yields the regression equation,

$$\begin{aligned} - \ln (x_4) = \alpha + \sum _{j=1}^3 \beta _j \ln (y_j) + \sum _{j=1}^3 \gamma _j \ln \left( \frac{x_j}{x_4} \right) -\ln (d). \end{aligned}$$
(13)

Assuming that deviations from the production frontier may result from both random errors, and inefficiency, we model \(\ln (d)\) using an error components model. Similar to a stochastic frontier model we set \(\ln (d)=v+u\), where v is a random component assumed to be distributed normally with standard deviation \(\sigma _v\), and u is a non-negative value that captures technical inefficiency. Typically, u is assumed to have a half-normal or truncated normal distribution with standard deviation \(\sigma _u\). A likelihood ratio test does not find statistically significant differences between the half-normal and truncated normal models (p value = 0.218), thus we employ the half-normal model which offers an additional degree of freedom. The expected efficiency of individual producers calculated as per Battese and Coelli (1988).

Following Coelli et al. (2003), we use the duality of the input distance and the cost function to calculate cost efficiency and tabulate allocative efficiency as a residual of cost and technical efficiency. In brief, the Cobb-Douglas cost function is,

$$\begin{aligned} \ln (c)=a+\sum _{j=1}^3 b_j \ln (y_{j}) + \sum _{j=1}^4 h_j \ln (w_{j}), \end{aligned}$$
(14)

where (a, b, h) are parameters and w represents input prices. Using the first order conditions for cost minimization, Coelli et al. (2003) relate the parameters of the input distance and cost functions as follows, \(h_j=\gamma _j\), \(b_j=\beta _j\), \(a=-\alpha -\sum _{j=1}^4 \gamma _j \ln (\gamma _j)\). Using these parameters in the cost function and applying Shephard’s lemma, the cost efficient quantity of the jth input is given as \(x_j^{opt}=\frac{\partial c}{\partial w_j}=\frac{\hat{c} h_j}{w_j}\). Cost efficiency is estimated as the ratio of optimal cost to observed costs,

$$\begin{aligned} CE=\frac{x^{opt} w}{xw}. \end{aligned}$$
(15)

Table 9 presents the results of our regression equation. Feed was used as the numeraire input—implicitly the coefficient attached to feed is 0.328. As expected the inputs have a positive sign, implying the distance to the frontier is increasing in input usage. Conversely, the outputs have a negative sign, implying distance to the frontier is decreasing in production.

Table 9 Estimated parameters using a stochastic distance function

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Slade, P., Hailu, G. Efficiency and regulation: a comparison of dairy farms in Ontario and New York State. J Prod Anal 45, 103–115 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11123-015-0456-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Regulation
  • Efficiency
  • Agricultural policy
  • Data envelopment analysis
  • Bootstrap
  • Distance function

JEL Classification

  • L51
  • D21
  • Q18