000174549 001__ 174549
000174549 005__ 20180122233404.0
000174549 037__ $$a968-2016-75276
000174549 037__ $$a968-2016-76460
000174549 041__ $$aen_US
000174549 245__ $$aThe rise and fall of public sector plant breeding in the United Kingdom: a causal chain model of basic and applied research and diffusion
000174549 260__ $$c1998-09
000174549 269__ $$a1998-09
000174549 300__ $$a18
000174549 336__ $$aJournal Article
000174549 520__ $$aThis paper examines the barley and wheat breeding programmes of the Plant Breeding Institute (PBI), which was the most
successful public plant breeding institute in the UK, until privatization in 1987. The PBI's shares in barley and wheat seed
sales are explained, showing that the success with barley was largely a matter of serendipity, whereas the wheat programme
followed a more normal pattern. For wheat, the causal chain, or recursive, model decomposes the well-documented link
between research expenditures and increases in agricultural productivity into three stages. These are the effects of R&D
expenditures on basic research output, measured by publications, the effect of publications and applied R&D expenditures on
trial plot yields, and the diffusion of the trial plot technologies, which raises yields on farms. Applying the model to the PBI's
wheat varieties allows estimation of the lag structures. In contrast to the results for aggregate agricultural research, for a single
plant breeding programme alone there is a considerable lead time before there is any response, followed by a lag distribution
only a few years long. The returns to the R&D investments are calculated from the causal chain model, from single equation
estimates and by evaluating the yield advantage of the PBI varieties. All three approaches give consistent results, which show
that the returns to barley and wheat alone were sufficient to support the entire PBI budget and still give rates of return to
applied research of between 14 and 25%. The return to the basic science expenditures of the John Innes Institute has a lower
bound of 17%, but must have been even higher than for the PBI if the other Institutes were taken into account. The paper
concludes by commenting on the effects of the privatization of the PBI. © 1998 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
000174549 542__ $$fLicense granted by Jennifer Nelson (nels7877@umn.edu) on 2014-07-01T14:15:11Z (GMT):

<center>  <h2> Deposit Agreement </h2> </center>
I represent that I am the creator of the digital material identified herein (&ldquo;Work&rdquo;).
I represent that the work is original and that I either own all rights of copyright 
or have the right to deposit the copy in a digital archive such as AgEcon Search. 
I represent that in regard to any non-original material included in the Work I have
secured written permission of the copyright owner (s) for this use or believe this 
use is allowed by law. I further represent that I have included all appropriate 
credits and attributions. I hereby grant the Regents of the University of Minnesota
(&ldquo;University&rdquo;), through AgEcon Search, a non-exclusive right to access, reproduce, 
and distribute the Work, in whole or in part, for the purposes of security, preservation,
and perpetual access. I grant the University a limited, non-exclusive right to make
derivative works for the purpose of migrating the Work to other media or formats in
order to preserve access to the Work. I do not transfer or intend to transfer any 
right of copyright or other intellectual property to the University. If the Deposit 
Agreement is executed by the Author�s Representative, the Representative shall separately
execute the following representation: I represent that I am authorized by the Author
to execute this Deposit Agreement on behalf of the Author.

000174549 650__ $$aProduction Economics
000174549 650__ $$aResearch and Development/Tech Change/Emerging Technologies
000174549 6531_ $$aBarley
000174549 6531_ $$aWheat
000174549 6531_ $$aBreed
000174549 6531_ $$aPlant breeding institute
000174549 6531_ $$aR+D lags
000174549 6531_ $$aRecursive model
000174549 700__ $$aThirtle, C.
000174549 700__ $$aBottomley, P.
000174549 700__ $$aPalladino, P.
000174549 700__ $$aSchimmelpfennig, D.
000174549 700__ $$aTownsend, R.
000174549 773__ $$dSeptember 1998$$jVolume 19$$kIssue 1-2$$o143$$q127$$tAgricultural Economics: The Journal of the International Association of Agricultural Economists
000174549 8564_ $$s1875927$$uhttp://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/174549/files/agec1998v019i001-002a015.pdf
000174549 887__ $$ahttp://purl.umn.edu/174549
000174549 909CO $$ooai:ageconsearch.umn.edu:174549$$pGLOBAL_SET
000174549 912__ $$nSubmitted by Jennifer Nelson (nels7877@umn.edu) on 2014-07-01T14:20:13Z
No. of bitstreams: 1
agec1998v019i001-002a015.pdf: 1875927 bytes, checksum: d758f963251f66c2e18eda59a9b93ff8 (MD5)
000174549 912__ $$nMade available in DSpace on 2014-07-01T14:20:13Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1
agec1998v019i001-002a015.pdf: 1875927 bytes, checksum: d758f963251f66c2e18eda59a9b93ff8 (MD5)
  Previous issue date: 1998-09
000174549 982__ $$gAgricultural Economics: The Journal of the International Association of Agricultural Economists>Volume 19, Issue 1-2, September 1998
000174549 980__ $$a968