The Value of Dairy Quota under a Commercial Export Milk Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper argues that under a commercial export milk program, the market value of quota will be determined by the spread between the domestic market price and the export price, rather than the conventional wisdom that it is determined by the spread between the domestic milk price and the marginal cost of production. Under this new economy, it is argued that ultimately the market price of dairy quota will be priced independently of firm marginal costs, which implies that low‐cost (or high‐margin) producers will not hold an economic advantage in bidding for quota over higher‐cost producers. Regression results are consistent with the hypothesized positive relationship between quota values and the difference between domestic and export milk price. The average export price has generally increased over time and is approximately equal to the marginal cost for an average producer. The results have implications for a World Trade Organization (WTO) challenge. New Zealand and the United States feel the domestic program acts as an export subsidy by cross‐subsidizing production of commercial export milk. The results here suggest that the prices for the filled export contracts are approximately the marginal cost of production for the average producer and not lower, as suggested by the challenge. Export contracts were found to have higher price risk than domestically produced milk. The risk is compounded by the short‐term nature of most export contracts. The increase in risk for the commercial export milk program (CEM) implies that it is unlikely many farmers will greatly diversify into CEM contracts unless the uncertainty is reduced.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".