Impact of Dairy Imports on Raw Milk Production Technology Progress in China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
3. Model Setting and Data Sources
3.1. Measurement of Technological Added Value
3.2. Malmquist TFP Index Model
3.3. Data Sources
4. Empirical Result Analysis
4.1. Results of the Imported Technology Content of China’s Dairy Products
4.2. Result of the Technology Progress Index of China’s Large-Scale Raw Milk Production
4.3. Analysis of the Influence of the Total Imported Technology Content of Dairy Products on the Technological Progress of China’s Raw Milk Production
4.4. The Impact of the Total Imported Technology Content of Dairy Products on the Technological Progress of Moderately Large-Scale Raw Milk Production
5. Conclusions
- (1)
- There are significant differences in the technological content of dairy products imported from the main source countries. The technological content of dairy products imported by China from New Zealand is always higher, followed by Australia. The technological content of dairy products imported from the United States is obviously higher than that of Canada; Among European countries, the technological content of dairy products imported from France is the highest, while that from Ireland, Denmark and Finland is relatively close, while that from Netherlands, Germany, Poland and the United Kingdom has a small increase.
- (2)
- The technological progress index of scale production of raw milk in China has stage characteristics. From 2005 to 2007, the technological progress index of large-scale production of raw milk decreased obviously, in which the technological progress index of large-scale production of raw milk decreased most obviously, followed by medium-scale production, while the small-scale raw milk production technological progress index decreased least. The production technological progress index of scale raw milk in China fluctuated frequently from 2009 to 2014. From 2015 to 2017, only small-scale raw milk production technology progress index maintained a small increase, while medium-scale and large-scale raw milk production technology progress index once showed a decline of more than 30%.
- (3)
- The total import technology content of dairy products has a negative impact on the technological progress index of different scale production of raw milk in China, and the negative impact on the large-scale production of raw milk is the most serious. The import structure of Chinese dairy products is contrary to the production structure. Namely, the production of Chinese dairy products is mainly liquid dairy products, while the import is mainly dry dairy products, so the technological content of Chinese dairy products import is mainly reflected in the technological content of dry dairy products, rather than liquid dairy products. However, China’s dry dairy production is about one 7 of the liquid dairy products production, low capacity to a certain extent, shows the product production technology level is not high, so China’s existing dry dairy production technology hinder the absorption of China’s dairy industry to import dairy products technology content, and negative influence on China’s scale production of raw milk. As a dummy variable, dairy policy has a significant positive effect on the technological progress index of medium-scale and large-scale raw milk production in China, which is mainly because China’s dairy industry policy subsidies focus on medium and large-scale dairy farms.
- (4)
- According to the country classification, the impact of imported dairy product technology content on China’s moderate scale production technology progress index of raw milk is calculated, and there are significant differences in the results. Previous researches suggest that moderate scale production of raw milk is China’s dairy industry development direction in the future, based on medium-scale of raw milk production to represent the moderate scale in the article, the results showed that dairy technology content on the moderate scale of production and technology of China imported from New Zealand, Australia, Germany, the Netherlands and other countries has a significant positive role in promoting progress index, However, the technological content of dairy products imported from the United States, Canada, The United Kingdom, Denmark, Finland, Belgium and other countries has hindered the growth of China’s technological progress of raw milk. The main reason for this difference is a combination of factors, such as the type and structure of dairy products exported to China by various countries, the production structure of China’s dairy products, the overseas investment behavior of dairy companies, and trade agreements.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Maitiniyazi, S.; Canavari, M. Exploring Chinese consumers’ attitudes toward traceable dairy products: A focus group study. J. Dairy Sci. 2020, 103, 11257–11267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wu, X.; Lu, Y.; Xu, H.; Lv, M.; Hu, D.; He, Z.; Liu, Z.; Wang, Y.F. Challenges to improve the safety of dairy products in China. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 78, 6–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, K.; Shao, X.X. Fundamental problems, causes and focuses of China’s agricultural supply-side structural reform. J. Interdiscip. Math. 2018, 21, 1375–1379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Okano, M.T.; Vendrametto, O.; Santos, O. How to Improve Dairy Production in Brazil through Indicators for the Economic Development of Milk Chain. Mod. Econ. 2014, 5, 663–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Williams, Y.J.; Mcdonald, S.; Chaplin, S.J. The changing nature of dairy production in Victoria, Australia: Are we ready to handle the planning and development of large, intensive dairy operations? Anim. Prod. Sci. 2020, 60, 473–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hjorth-Andersen, C. The Search for R&D Spillovers: Comment. Scand. J. Econ. 1992, 94, 49–50. [Google Scholar]
- Coe, D.T.; Helpman, E.; Hoffmaister, A.W. International R&D spillovers and institutions. Eur. Econ. Rev. 2009, 53, 723–741. [Google Scholar]
- Grossman, G.M.; Helpman, E. Innovation and Groth in the Global Economy; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Coe, D.T.; Helpman, E. International R&D spillovers. Eur. Econ. Rev. 1995, 39, 859–887. [Google Scholar]
- Blyde, J. Trade and technology diffusion in Latin America. Int. Trade J. 2004, 18, 177–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, Y.F. New Structural Economics: Reconstructing the Framework of Development Economics. China Econ. Q. 2011, 10, 1–32. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Xu, J.; Wu, Y. A comparative study of the role of Australia and New Zealand in sustainable dairy competition in the Chinese market after the dairy safety scandals. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 2880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Jaforullah, M.; Whiteman, J. Scale efficiency in the New Zealand dairy industry: A non-parametric approach. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 1999, 43, 523–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gebrezgabher, S.A.; Meuwissen, M.P.M.; Lansink, A.G.J.M. Costs of Producing Biogas at Dairy Farms in The Netherlands. Int. J. Food Syst. Dyn. 2010, 1, 26–35. [Google Scholar]
- Hambrusch, J.; Kirner, L.; Ortner, K.M. Technical and scale efficiency in Austrian dairy farming. Econ. Sci. Rural. Dev. Conf. Proc. 2006, 10, 42–49. [Google Scholar]
- Pereira, R.N.; Teixeira, J.A.; Vicente, A.A. Exploring the denaturation of whey proteins upon application of moderate electric fields: A kinetic and thermodynamic study. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2011, 59, 11589–11597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Siddiqui, N.; Ahmed, J.U. Managing Change for Better: New Zealand Dairy Products Bangladesh Ltd. Asia-Pac. J. Manag. Res. Innov. 2016, 12, 85–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Guo, H.; Pan, L.; Li, L.; Lu, J.; Kwok, L.; Menghe, B.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, W. Characterization of Antibiotic Resistance Genes from Lactobacillus Isolated from Traditional Dairy Products. J. Food Sci. 2017, 82, 724–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Faccia, M. Chemical and Technological Characterization of Dairy Products. Foods 2020, 9, 1475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nikitina, J.V.; Topnikova, E.V.; Lepilkina, O.V.; Kashnikova, O.G. Technological and methodological aspects of the production of low- and lactose-free dairy products. Food Syst. 2021, 4, 144–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perna, A.; Simonetti, A.; Intaglietta, I.; Gambacorta, E. Fatty acids composition, cholesterol and vitamin E contents of Longissimus dorsi and Semitendinosus muscles of Suino Nero Lucano pigs slaughtered at two different weights. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2014, 55, 1037–1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bolenz, S.; Glde, L. Technological and nutritional aspects of milk chocolate enriched with grape pomace products. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2021, 247, 623–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jianbao, C.; Bo, D. A Nonparametric Estimation on the Effects of Import and Export Trade to Economic Growth in China. Procedia Eng. 2012, 29, 952–956. [Google Scholar]
- Muhammad, A.; Hye, Q. Exports, imports and economic growth in China: An ARDL analysis. J. Chin. Econ. Foreign Trade Stud. 2012, 5, 42–55. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, D.H.; Lin, S.C.; Suen, Y.B. Trade, growth and growth volatility: New panel evidence. Int. Rev. Econ. Financ. 2016, 45, 384–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Escribano, M.; Elghannam, A.; Mesias, F.J. Dairy sheep farms in semi-arid rangelands: A carbon footprint dilemma between intensification and land-based grazing. Land Use Policy 2020, 95, 104600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, X. Productivity, efficiency and structural problems in Chinese dairy farms. China Agric. Econ. Rev. 2012, 4, 168–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, G.; Guan, Z.; Yao, Z. Analysis of International Trade Structure: Technical Distribution of Trade Goods. Econ. Res. 2006, 08, 70–80. [Google Scholar]
- Hausmann, R.; Hwang, J.; Rodrik, D. What you export matters. J. Econ. Growth 2007, 12, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flagella, Z.; Giuliani, M.M.; Giuzio, L.; Volpi, C.; Masci, S. Influence of water deficit on durum wheat storage protein composition and technological quality. Eur. J. Agron. 2010, 33, 197–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, C.; Ji, H.; Chen, L.J.; Rong, J.; Wu, Y.N. Food Safety Knowledge, Attitudes and Behavior among Dairy Plant Workers in Beijing, Northern China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 63. [Google Scholar]
- Geng, J.; Chiron, C.; Combrisson, J. Rapid and specific enumeration of viable Bifidobacteria in dairy products based on flow cytometry technology: A proof of concept study. Int. Dairy J. 2014, 37, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schumacher, R. Deconstructing the Theory of Comparative Advantage. World Econ. Rev. 2013, 2013, 83. [Google Scholar]
- Curtis, J.; Ham, S.H.; Weiler, B. Identifying beliefs underlying visitor behaviour: A comparative elicitation study based on the theory of planned behaviour. Ann. Leis. Res. 2010, 13, 564–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lall, S.; Weiss, J.A.; Zhang, J. The Sophistication of Exports: A New Trade Measure. World Dev. 2006, 34, 222–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Do, Q.T.; Levchenko, A.A. Comparative advantage, demand for external finance, and financial development—ScienceDirect. J. Financ. Econ. 2007, 86, 796–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Caves, D.W.; Christensen, L.R.; Diewert, W.E. Multilateral comparisons of output, input, and productivity using superlative index numbers. Econ. J. 1982, 92, 73–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fu, X. Exports, technical progress and productivity growth in a transition economy: A non-parametric approach for China. Appl. Econ. 2005, 37, 725–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Q.; Parsons, R.; Zhang, G. China’s dairy markets: Trends, disparities, and implications for trade. China Agric. Econ. Rev. 2010, 2, 356–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.; Zhang, L.; Wang, M.; Brostaux, Y.; Dogot, T. Identifying key pathways in manure and sewage management of dairy farming based on a quantitative typology: A case study in China. Sci. Total. Environ. 2021, 760, 143326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Time | New Zealand | Australia | USA | Canada | Uruguay | France | Germany |
2005 | 746.205 | 42.615 | 8.404 | 1.486 | 0.878 | 9.693 | 0.384 |
2006 | 966.084 | 41.245 | 10.845 | 1.198 | 1.747 | 11.679 | 0.701 |
2007 | 812.595 | 54.112 | 11.242 | 1.554 | 14.668 | 17.669 | 1.323 |
2008 | 787.765 | 63.553 | 14.147 | 1.713 | 5.389 | 17.502 | 1.259 |
2009 | 1893.989 | 49.729 | 12.011 | 2.463 | 2.569 | 20.339 | 2.399 |
2010 | 3014.137 | 55.249 | 15.797 | 0.972 | 53.256 | 15.563 | 3.355 |
2011 | 2474.059 | 45.861 | 21.588 | 0.289 | 46.976 | 19.768 | 5.719 |
2012 | 3961.462 | 51.385 | 23.091 | 0.226 | 50.918 | 30.385 | 9.796 |
2013 | 5993.624 | 82.574 | 36.535 | 0.093 | 287.057 | 36.494 | 12.613 |
2014 | 7344.327 | 122.051 | 39.478 | 0.359 | 352.136 | 48.299 | 17.177 |
2015 | 4360.186 | 151.757 | 26.282 | 0.172 | 105.162 | 43.131 | 19.321 |
2016 | 5061.959 | 170.896 | 25.277 | 0.309 | 135.981 | 58.940 | 21.283 |
2017 | 6284.666 | 173.533 | 35.981 | 0.248 | 56.494 | 75.676 | 23.946 |
Time | UK | Denmark | The Netherlands | Finland | Belgium | Ireland | Poland |
2005 | 0.266 | 2.968 | 4.948 | 18.399 | 1.347 | 14.497 | 1.441 |
2006 | 0.107 | 4.541 | 4.459 | 18.069 | 0.645 | 13.754 | 2.809 |
2007 | 0.059 | 4.858 | 6.574 | 27.647 | 0.566 | 16.633 | 1.576 |
2008 | 0.015 | 3.271 | 7.552 | 18.886 | 1.067 | 17.233 | 0.452 |
2009 | 0.147 | 10.526 | 9.500 | 35.116 | 1.009 | 20.736 | 1.923 |
2010 | 1.046 | 38.035 | 8.190 | 31.913 | 3.177 | 20.800 | 3.595 |
2011 | 1.648 | 28.609 | 12.901 | 37.326 | 1.921 | 34.372 | 5.867 |
2012 | 1.344 | 23.355 | 14.324 | 63.680 | 3.559 | 39.148 | 5.116 |
2013 | 2.094 | 28.733 | 19.342 | 64.666 | 4.531 | 51.784 | 8.051 |
2014 | 4.725 | 44.311 | 18.281 | 73.860 | 5.631 | 55.643 | 15.755 |
2015 | 3.885 | 45.138 | 22.762 | 52.941 | 4.079 | 62.324 | 14.531 |
2016 | 6.198 | 43.538 | 25.629 | 52.934 | 5.511 | 52.144 | 12.440 |
2017 | 8.635 | 58.811 | 33.971 | 57.605 | 7.064 | 61.948 | 16.059 |
Time | Small Scale (10–50 Cows) | Medium Scale (50–500 Cows) | Large Scale (500+ Cows) |
---|---|---|---|
2005 | 1.026 | 0.956 | 1.043 |
2006 | 1.697 | 1.201 | 1.400 |
2007 | 0.803 | 0.677 | 0.532 |
2008 | 1.068 | 1.213 | 1.183 |
2009 | 1.013 | 1.208 | 1.125 |
2010 | 1.221 | 1.003 | 0.626 |
2011 | 0.829 | 1.069 | 1.335 |
2012 | 0.800 | 0.768 | 1.109 |
2013 | 1.408 | 1.182 | 0.960 |
2014 | 0.803 | 0.642 | 0.860 |
2015 | 1.011 | 1.360 | 1.677 |
2016 | 0.941 | 1.180 | 0.809 |
2017 | 1.035 | 0.937 | 0.690 |
Mean Value | 1.050 | 1.030 | 1.027 |
Variable | Small-Scale Technological Progress Index | Medium-Scale Technological Progress Index | Large-Scale Technological Progress Index | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Coef | SE | Coef | SE | Coef | SE | |
etc | −0.005 * | 0.003 | −0.011 *** | 0.003 | −0.016 *** | 0.004 |
city | −0.001 | 0.004 | 0.002 | 0.004 | −0.403 | 0.527 |
rural | 0.311 | 0.24 | 0.402 ** | 0.189 | 0.19 | 0.245 |
profit | 0.134 | 0.122 | 0.184 * | 0.095 | 0.076 | 0.13 |
policy | −0.094 | 0.067 | 0.214 *** | 0.07 | 0.274 *** | 0.096 |
cons | 1.01 *** | 0.197 | 0.927 *** | 0.154 | 1.551 *** | 0.397 |
F | 16.7 *** | 17.95 *** | 13.97 ** | |||
Observations | 169 | 247 | 247 |
Country | Techch | Techch | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Import Source Country | Coef | SE | p | Import Source Country | Coef | SE | p |
New Zealand | 1.248 | 0.127 | 0.000 | Australia | 0.415 | 0.095 | 0.000 |
USA | −1.122 | 0.157 | 0.000 | Canada | −0.123 | 0.043 | 0.005 |
Uruguay | −0.033 | 0.027 | 0.220 | France | / | / | / |
German | 0.427 | 0.111 | 0.000 | UK | −0.081 | 0.031 | 0.009 |
Denmark | −0.451 | 0.102 | 0.000 | The Netherlands | 0.944 | 0.139 | 0.000 |
Finland | −0.639 | 0.125 | 0.000 | Belgium | −0.328 | 0.052 | 0.000 |
Irish | / | / | / | Poland | / | / | / |
city | −0.0001 | 0.002 | 0.951 | rural | 0.079 | 0.123 | 0.518 |
profit | 0.077 | 0.061 | 0.208 | policy | / | / | / |
cons | −2.01 | 0.758 | 0.000 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Bai, Y.; Li, L.; Wang, F.; Zhang, L.; Xiong, L. Impact of Dairy Imports on Raw Milk Production Technology Progress in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 2911. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19052911
Bai Y, Li L, Wang F, Zhang L, Xiong L. Impact of Dairy Imports on Raw Milk Production Technology Progress in China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(5):2911. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19052911
Chicago/Turabian StyleBai, Yuhang, Li Li, Fengting Wang, Lizhong Zhang, and Lichun Xiong. 2022. "Impact of Dairy Imports on Raw Milk Production Technology Progress in China" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 5: 2911. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19052911
APA StyleBai, Y., Li, L., Wang, F., Zhang, L., & Xiong, L. (2022). Impact of Dairy Imports on Raw Milk Production Technology Progress in China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(5), 2911. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19052911