The name is absent



distribution to dominate another, not only for sto-
chastic dominance analysis but for all risk efficiency
criteria, is expected value analysis, where a compari-
son of the first moment of the decision density
functions is performed. Necessary and sufficient
condition for stochastic dominance analysis involves
the comparison of the cumulative probability distri-
butions for alternative insecticides. Specifically, sec-
ond degree stochastic dominance (SSD) requires
that the area below the cumulative probability distri-
bution of the dominant insecticide must be less than
or equal to the area below the cumulative distribution
of the insecticide it dominates.

RESULTS

Summary statistics for profit, yield, and damage,
aggregated for years 1988 and 1989, are listed in
Tables 4,5, and 6, respectively. Disaggregated sum-
mary statistics by year and state are in Chyen. For
years 1988 and 1989, profit per acre fluctuated be-
tween $-119.87 and $132.65. Generally, among the
three states, Louisiana had the highest mean profits
resulting from higher yields (Tables 4 and 5) and
lower soybean stink bug damage (Table 6). Among
the states, profits in Georgia fluctuated the most,
because of high variations in both yield and damage.
Georgia experienced dry spells in 1988, and 1989
was, overall, a dry year. Water was also a limiting
factor in Florida. Compared with Florida, Louisi-
ana, and Georgia soybean yields in the 1980s, as
reported by the USDA, the field experiment average
yield below 21 bu∕acre in Florida is low, over 38

Table 4. Profit Summary Statistics for Florida, Georgia, and Louisiana, Years 1988 and 1989

Chemical________

Number of
Observations3

Mean

Variance_________

Minimum

Maximum

.............doɪɪars-

—---------

All Regionsb

Scout

40

-5.10

4,077.91

-102.50

88.20

Karate

36

-5.28

5,632.48

-117.33

132.65

Orthene

36

-11.22

4,971.04

-108.60

98.27

Penncap M

48

-13.16

5,260.69

-113.11

106.56

Baythroid

36

-3.91

5,498.78

-115.50

116.39

Control

36

-14.85

5,160.18

-119.87

111.34

Florida

Scout

8

-72.75

560.46

-102.50

-18.03

Karate

8

-60.65

911.84

-103.77

-13.09

Orthene

8

-85.07

335.27

-108.60

-50.14

Penncap M

8

-74.19

220.17

-103.90

-48.38

Baythroid

8

-75.05

404.82

-100.59

-27.49

Ambush

8

-70.90

903.05

-113.05

-22.46

Control

8

-65.14

780.60

-115.27

-22.84

Georgia

Scout

12

-52.72

1,250.55

-95.38

29.14

Karate

12

-53.12

4,496.62

-117.33

132.65

Orthene

12

-58.32

1,199.27

-100.72

21.69

Penncap M

16

-75.16

1,660.92

-113.11

55.71

Baythroid

12

-45.28

3,374.41

-115.50

106.55

Control

12

-77.33

1,166.19

-119.87

-13.54

Louisiana

Scout

20

50.53

895.61

-18.63

88.20

Karate

16

58.30

1,553.24

-45.94

104.95

Orthene

16

61.03

507.34

19.57

98.27

Penncap M

24

48.53

1,730.82

-60.39

106.56

Baythroid

16

62.68

1,390.93

-11.37

116.39

Control________

________16________

57.17

966.20________

■8.23

111,34

aTwo test sites were conducted in Louisiana and Georgia in 1989 and two in Louisiana in 1988. This accounts for
different number of observations across states. At the second test sites, alternative rates of Penncap M and Scout were
included. These alternative rates of were as effective as the standard rates and thus were included in the overall
analysis.

bAII regions denotes the three states Florida, Georgia, and Louisiana.

87



More intriguing information

1. Biological Control of Giant Reed (Arundo donax): Economic Aspects
2. A Note on Productivity Change in European Co-operative Banks: The Luenberger Indicator Approach
3. The technological mediation of mathematics and its learning
4. The name is absent
5. The name is absent
6. The urban sprawl dynamics: does a neural network understand the spatial logic better than a cellular automata?
7. The name is absent
8. Une Classe de Concepts
9. The name is absent
10. Indirect Effects of Pesticide Regulation and the Food Quality Protection Act
11. EMU's Decentralized System of Fiscal Policy
12. Developmental Robots - A New Paradigm
13. Integration, Regional Specialization and Growth Differentials in EU Acceding Countries: Evidence from Hungary
14. Experience, Innovation and Productivity - Empirical Evidence from Italy's Slowdown
15. Industrial Cores and Peripheries in Brazil
16. AN ANALYTICAL METHOD TO CALCULATE THE ERGODIC AND DIFFERENCE MATRICES OF THE DISCOUNTED MARKOV DECISION PROCESSES
17. Macroeconomic Interdependence in a Two-Country DSGE Model under Diverging Interest-Rate Rules
18. Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 11
19. The name is absent
20. The name is absent