Koontz, Stephen R. Muth, Mary K. Lawrence, John D.
Abstract
It has been argued that access to captive supply cattle improve the economic efficiency of beef packing facilities. However, this argument has not been subject to hypothesis testing. This work models the cost efficiencies associated with captive supplies or cattle we refer to as being sourced through alternative marketing agreements (AMAs). We find that slaughter and processing costs are lower ceteris paribus for AMA cattle than for cash market cattle. We find that plants that slaughter cattle from AMA sources operate at higher monthly volumes ceteris paribus and lower average costs per head. And we find that plants that slaughter cattle from AMA sources have more predictable volumes ceteris paribus and have lower average costs per head. If AMAs were limited or prohibited then packing industry efficiency would be negatively impacted and that fed cattle prices would be negatively impacted.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (AgEcon Search).
Related research
Keywords:
Other versions of this item:
References listed on IDEAS Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.: