IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/agribz/v25y2009i4p480-499.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The importance of product cut and form when estimating fish demand: the case of U.S. Catfish

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew Muhammad

    (Department of Agricultural Economics, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762)

  • Terrill R. Hanson

    (Department of Fisheries and Allied Aquacultures, Auburn University, 203 Swingle Hall, Auburn, AL 36849)

Abstract

The absolute price version of the Rotterdam model was used in the estimation of U.S. catfish demand where catfish was differentiated by product cut (whole, fillet, and other) and product form (fresh and frozen). Likelihood ratio tests were used to determine the importance of product form in demand (product form aggregation). Likelihood ratio tests were also used to determine if fresh products were separable from frozen products (product form separability). Product form aggregation was rejected at a probability of 0.999, suggesting that fresh and frozen catfish products are not homogenous. The hypothesis, no product form separability, failed to be rejected at the 0.05 significance level, but was rejected at the 0.01 significance level. Test results suggest that it is more acceptable to focus on a single product group (e.g., frozen products) than to assume that catfish products are perfectly aggregatable across product forms. [JEL classifications: Q11, Q13, Q22]. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew Muhammad & Terrill R. Hanson, 2009. "The importance of product cut and form when estimating fish demand: the case of U.S. Catfish," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(4), pages 480-499.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:agribz:v:25:y:2009:i:4:p:480-499
    DOI: 10.1002/agr.20191
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/agr.20191
    File Function: Link to full text; subscription required
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eales, James S. & Roheim, Cathy A., 1999. "Testing Separability Of Japanese Demand For Meat And Fish Within Differential Demand Systems," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 24(01), July.
    2. Barten, A. P., 1969. "Maximum likelihood estimation of a complete system of demand equations," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 7-73.
    3. Chiang, Fu-Sung & Lee, Jonq-Ying & Brown, Mark G., 2001. "The Impact Of Inventory On Tuna Price: An Application Of Scaling In The Rotterdam Inverse Demand System," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 33(03), December.
    4. Barten, A. P. & Bettendorf, L. J., 1989. "Price formation of fish : An application of an inverse demand system," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 33(8), pages 1509-1525, October.
    5. Clements, Kenneth W & Selvanathan, Antony & Selvanathan, Saroja, 1996. "Applied Demand Analysis: A Survey," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 72(216), pages 63-81, March.
    6. Italianer, Alexander, 1985. "A small-sample correction for the likelihood ratio test," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 315-317.
    7. Ligeon, Carel & Jolly, Curtis M. & Jackson, John D., 1996. "Evaluation Of The Possible Threat Of Nafta On U.S. Catfish Industry Using A Traditional Import Demand Function," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 27(2), July.
    8. Yang, Seung-Ryong & Koo, Won W., 1994. "Japanese Meat Import Demand Estimation With The Source Differentiated Aids Model," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 19(02), December.
    9. Brown, Mark G. & Lee, Jonq-Ying, 2000. "A Uniform Substitute Demand Model With Varying Coefficients," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 32(01), April.
    10. Seale, James L., Jr., 2003. "Uniform Substitutes When Group Preferences are Blockwise Dependent," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 35.
    11. Seale, James L., Jr. & Sparks, Amy L. & Buxton, Boyd M., 1992. "A Rotterdam Application To International Trade In Fresh Apples: A Differential Approach," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 17(01), July.
    12. Giancarlo Moschini & Daniele Moro & Richard D. Green, 1994. "Maintaining and Testing Separability in Demand Systems," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(1), pages 61-73.
    13. repec:cup:jagaec:v:33:y:2001:i:03:p:403-411_02 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Brown, Mark G. & Lee, Jong-Yinq, 2000. "A Uniform Substitute Demand Model with Varying Coefficients," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(01), pages 1-9, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Eric Sjöberg, 2014. "Pricing the Fish Market- Does size matter?," Working Paper Series, Department of Economics, University of Utah 2014_01, University of Utah, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q11 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Aggregate Supply and Demand Analysis; Prices
    • Q13 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Markets and Marketing; Cooperatives; Agribusiness
    • Q22 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Fishery

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:agribz:v:25:y:2009:i:4:p:480-499. 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: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing) or (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6297 .

    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 CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.