IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Expected Utility Analysis of Stocker Cattle Ownership Versus Contract Grazing in the Southeast

Listed author(s):
  • Anderson, John D.
  • Lacy, Curt
  • Forrest, Charlie S.
  • Little, Randall D.
Registered author(s):

    Stocker cattle ownership is compared to contract grazing using stochastic simulation. Returns are evaluated for both cattle owners and caretakers in contract grazing agreements. For caretakers, contract grazing is significantly less risky than cattle ownership. Slightly to moderately risk-averse caretakers could be expected to prefer some type of contract grazing to direct ownership of cattle. For cattle owners, contracting reduces risk only slightly while significantly reducing expected returns.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. 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.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Article provided by Southern Agricultural Economics Association in its journal Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics.

    Volume (Year): 36 (2004)
    Issue (Month): 03 (December)

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:ags:joaaec:43471
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    More information through EDIRC

    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.:

    in new window

    1. McBride, William D. & Key, Nigel D., 2003. "Economic And Structural Relationships In U.S. Hog Production," Agricultural Economics Reports 33971, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    2. Wes Harrison, R. & Bobst, Barry W. & Benson, Fred J. & Meyer, Lee, 1996. "Analysis of the Risk Management Properties of Grazing Contracts Versus Futures and Option Contracts," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 28(02), pages 247-262, December.
    3. Thomas L. Sporleder, 1992. "Managerial Economics of Vertically Coordinated Agricultural Firms," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 74(5), pages 1226-1231.
    4. Teegerstrom, Trent & D'Souza, Gerard E. & Osborne, Phillip & Jones, Kezelee Q., 1997. "To Contract Or Not To Contract? A Decision Theory And Portfolio Analysis Of Cattle Contract Grazing," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 26(2), October.
    5. Anderson, John D. & Coble, Keith H. & Miller, J. Corey, 2003. "Using Private Risk Management Instruments To Manage Counter-Cyclical Payment Risks Under The New Farm Bill," 2003 Conference, April 21-22, 2003, St. Louis, Missouri 18975, NCR-134 Conference on Applied Commodity Price Analysis, Forecasting, and Market Risk Management.
    6. May, Gary & Jones, Rodney D. & Langemeier, Michael R. & Dhuyvetter, Kevin C., 2002. "Influence of Grazing Lease Terms on Economic Optimal Stocking Rates," Staff General Research Papers Archive 10078, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    7. Johnson, Frank & Spreen, Thomas H. & Hewitt, Timothy, 1987. "A Stochastic Dominance Analysis of Contract Grazing Feeder Cattle," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(02), pages 11-19, December.
    8. Harrison, R. Wes & Bobst, Barry W. & Benson, Fred J. & Meyer, Lee, 1996. "Analysis Of The Risk Management Properties Of Grazing Contracts Versus Futures And Option Contracts," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 28(02), December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:joaaec:43471. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.