mization result.
Limitations of this analysis must be stressed.
In particular, alternative multiobjective formula-
tions to reflect risk aversion and/or income tax
management, could also be consistent with di-
vergence from profit maximization. Further analy-
sis of alternative formulations is necessary to fully
evaluate the importance of Veblenesque behavior
in beef production both in Georgia and in other
states.
Methodology utilized in this study has implica-
tions for production economics research in topics
other than beef cattle production. Conventional
separation of production and consumption deci-
sions for analytical ease can severely limit the
validity of production analysis in the presence of
historical relations between status and inclusion
of certain commodities in the production process.
Other commodities may also currently have posi-
tive or negative utility to farm operators. If these
preferences are correlated with relative variability
of enterprise outputs, production patterns based
on personal preferences may be attributed to risk
aversion. Thus, consideration of personal prefer-
ences is important for valid agricultural production
forecasting and policy prescription.
REFERENCES
[1] Allison, John R. Beef Production in Georgia Resources Used and Operator Characteristics, Georgia
Agricultural Experiment Station Research Bulletin 131, February 1974.
[2] Allison, John R. Unpublished Survey Data, Regional Research Project S-67, Department of Agricul-
tural Economics, Experiment, Georgia, 1969.
[3] Cho-Chung-Hing, Alfred B. Minimum Resource Requirements for Beef and General Crop-Livestock
Farms for Specified Levels of Farm Incomes, Piedmont Area of Georgia—Full and Part-Time Farm-
ing Situations, Unpublished M.S. Thesis, University of Georgia, 1974.
14] Cohen, Kalman J., and Richard M. Cyert. Theory of the Firm: Resource Allocation in a Market
Economy, Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1965.
[51 Ely, Richard T., and George S. Wehrwein. Land Economics, New York: The Macmillan Company,
1940.
[6] Hatch, Roy E., et. al. Incorporating Multiple Goals into the Decision-Making Process: A Simulation
Approach to Firm Growth Analysis,” Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 6:1, July
1974.
[7] Hatch, Roy E., et. al. Aggregate Farm Production and Returns Under Alternative Cotton Prices and
Allotments, Gulf Coast Prairie of Texas, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station MP-818, October,
1966.
[8] Heady, Earl O. Economics of Agricultural Production and Resource Use, Englewood Cliffs, N. J.:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1952.
[9] Henderson, James M., and Richard E. Quandt. Microeconomic Theory, New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Company, 1958.
[10] Laughlin, Robert E., et. al. An Economic Analysis of Alternative Beef Cattle Systems for a Large
Farm in Central Missouri, Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station Research Bulletin 895, Sep-
tember, 1965.
[11] Lin, William, et. al. “An Empirical Test of Utility vs Profit Maximization in Agricultural Produc-
tion,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 56:3, August 1974.
[12] McGuire, Joseph W. Theories of Business Behavior, Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
1964.
[13] Mundlak, Yair. “Maximization with Several Objective Functions,” Proceedings of the International
Association of Agricultural Economists, 1970.
94