IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/agribz/v26y2010i1p1-24.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impacts of alternative marketing agreement cattle procurement on packer costs, gross margins, and profits: evidence from plant-level profit and loss data

Author

Listed:
  • Stephen R. Koontz

    (Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523)

  • John D. Lawrence

    (Department of Economics, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011)

Abstract

This work measures the impact of captive supplies, or cattle procured through alternative marketing agreements (AMAs), on meatpacker costs, gross margins, and profits. Confidential profit and loss data were examined from all the individual packing plants within the four largest packing firms for a 30-month period. Alternative marketing agreement use resulted in improved beef supply chain efficiency, product demand, and plant profitability. The slaughter and processing costs were lower for plants with higher volumes of AMA cattle relative to cash market cattle. Plants that slaughter cattle from AMA sources operated at higher volumes, had less variable volumes, and had lower average total costs per head because of the substantive economies of size. Plants that slaughter cattle from AMA sources also had higher gross margins and average profits per head. The general conclusion is clear: If policies are implemented that limit AMA use then packing industry efficiency would be negatively impacted. [EconLit Citation: Q130]. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephen R. Koontz & John D. Lawrence, 2010. "Impacts of alternative marketing agreement cattle procurement on packer costs, gross margins, and profits: evidence from plant-level profit and loss data," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(1), pages 1-24.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:agribz:v:26:y:2010:i:1:p:1-24
    DOI: 10.1002/agr.20234
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/agr.20234
    File Function: Link to full text; subscription required
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Azzeddine Azzam, 1996. "Testing the Monopsony-Inefficiency Incentive for Backward Integration," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(3), pages 585-590.
    2. John R. Schroeter & Azzeddine Azzam, 2003. "Captive supplies and the spot market price of fed cattle: The plant-level relationship," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(4), pages 489-504.
    3. Clement E. Ward, 1993. "Comparative analysis of cattle slaughtering and fabricating costs," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(5), pages 441-451.
    4. Wohlgenant, Michael K., 2001. "Marketing margins: Empirical analysis," Handbook of Agricultural Economics,in: B. L. Gardner & G. C. Rausser (ed.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 16, pages 933-970 Elsevier.
    5. Feuz, Dillon M. & Grimes, Glenn & Koontz, Stephen R. & Lawrence, John D. & Purcell, Wayne D. & Schroeder, Ted C. & Ward, Clement E., 2002. "Comments on Economic Impacts of Proposed Legislation to Prohibit Beef and Pork Packer Ownership, Feeding, or Control of Livestock," Staff General Research Papers Archive 10134, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    6. Zhang, Mingxia & Sexton, Richard J., 2000. "Captive Supplies And The Cash Market Price: A Spatial Markets Approach," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 25(01), July.
    7. John R. Schroeter & Azzeddine Azzam, 2004. "Captive supplies and cash market prices for fed cattle: The role of delivery timing incentives," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(3), pages 347-362.
    8. Clement E. Ward, 1990. "Meatpacking plant capacity and utilization: Implications for competition and pricing," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(1), pages 65-73.
    9. Schroeter, John R. & Azzam, Azzeddine M., 1999. "Econometric Analysis of Fed Cattle Procurement in the Texas Panhandle," Staff General Research Papers Archive 11365, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    10. Love, H. Alan & Burton, Diana M., 1999. "A Strategic Rationale For Captive Supplies," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 24(01), July.
    11. Ward, Clement E. & Koontz, Stephen R. & Schroeder, Ted C., 1998. "Impacts From Captive Supplies On Fed Cattle Transaction Prices," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 23(02), December.
    12. Whitley, John E., 2002. "The political economy of quality measurement: a case study of the USA slaughter cattle market," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 46(4), December.
    13. Paul J. Driscoll & S. Murthy Kambhampaty & Wayne D. Purcell, 1997. "Nonparametric Tests of Profit Maximization in Oligopoly with Application to the Beef Packing Industry," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(3), pages 872-879.
    14. Ted C. Schroeder & Rodney Jones & James Mintert & Andrew P. Barkley, 1993. "The Impact of Forward Contracting on Fed Cattle Transaction Prices," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 15(2), pages 325-337.
    15. Azzeddine Azzam, 1998. "Captive Supplies, Market Conduct, and the Open-Market Price," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 76-83.
    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. Onur Boyabatlı & Paul R. Kleindorfer & Stephen R. Koontz, 2011. "Integrating Long-Term and Short-Term Contracting in Beef Supply Chains," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(10), pages 1771-1787, October.

    More about this item

    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:26:y:2010:i:1:p:1-24. 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.