IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/saeaed/6889.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Factors Affecting Hay Supply and Demand in Tennessee

Author

Listed:
  • Bazen, Ernest F.
  • Roberts, Roland K.
  • Travis, John
  • Larson, James A.

Abstract

Understanding the interactions between supply and demand for hay is important because of hay’s significance to the agricultural sector and economy, and because hay is an important crop on highly erodible soils. As an example, Tennessee has the most erodible cultivated cropland in the United States (Denton, 2000), nearly half of the state’s current CRP acreage contracts are set to expire in 2007 (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2006), and hay is one of the most economically important crops produced in the state (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2004). Cross (1999) attributed the upward trend in Tennessee hay acreage since 1980 to an increasing number of farmers who were searching for alternative production activities, such as hay, pasture and livestock, to replace row crops on erodible soils (U.S. Congress, House of Representatives and Senate, 2002). Hay ranked tenth in value of receipts in Tennessee at $49.25 million in 2006 and cattle and calf production ranked first at $500 million. Hay ranked second in value of production at $262 million in 2003 and averaged $248 million over a five period from 2002 – 2006. Underscoring the importance of hay in Tennessee was the state’s national ranking of fourth in the production of other hay (excluding alfalfa) at 4.25 million tons in 2006 (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2007). To quantify these supply and demand relationships, one must understand the characteristics of hay markets. Markets are usually localized because of the weight and bulky physical characteristics of hay. Although hay species are not identical, in many livestock production situations most are close substitutes, with the possible exception of alfalfa hay. In Tennessee, alfalfa is a differentiated hay product used mostly by dairy and equine producers. Nevertheless, alfalfa constituted only 2.5% of all hay produced in Tennessee in 2003 (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2004) and its price tends to move proportionally with other hay prices; thus, for modeling purposes alfalfa and other hay can be aggregated as in Shumway’s (1983) study of Texas field crops and treated as a composite commodity (Nicholson, 2005) called hay. In 2002, 47,000 operations within the state produced forage, while on the demand side, 50,000 operations were involved in beef and dairy production with another 24,000 equine operations (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2004). Despite the lack of national and state central markets for hay (Cross, 1999), buyers and sellers seem to be aware of the current prices in their area. Word of mouth, a hay directory website (Tennessee Farm Bureau Federation, 2005), and the Farm Facts bulletin (Tennessee Agricultural Statistics Service, 2004) are among the primary outlets for price discovery (Rawls, September 2004). Hay producers are typically assumed to be price takers (Shumway, 1983) because of the large numbers of sellers and buyers; nevertheless, search costs and price differentials can result from the lack of a central market. Even though hay and livestock producers have avenues for price determination in the short run, they have little information about what causes supply and demand for hay to change from year to year. The overall objective of this research was to illustrate how the understanding of hay markets can provide valuable information to hay and livestock producers and agricultural policymakers. Using the Tennessee hay market as an example, the specific objectives were to: 1) determine the factors that influence Tennessee hay supply and quantify their effects, 2) determine the factors that influence Tennessee hay demand and quantify their effects, and 3) briefly illustrate the importance of hay supply and demand information to policymakers. Estimating factors that influence hay supply and demand can help to provide hay and livestock producers with valuable information for making more informed business decisions and policymakers with insight into how proposed agricultural policies might affect hay and livestock producers. To accomplish the objectives, Tennessee hay supply and demand were modeled econometrically, and the coefficients of the models were used to quantify hay acreage, yield, and price responses to the factors that influence the Tennessee hay market. The results were then used to briefly illustrate the potential impacts on the 2008 Tennessee hay price from the retirement of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) acreage in 2007. Hay acreage proved to be fairly unresponsive to output and input prices in both the short and long runs. The weak response of hay acreage to own and substitute crop prices may result from many hay producers also being cattle producers that harvest their own hay in an effort to guarantee a reliable supply of roughage to feed their herds throughout the winter months. They might be willing to give up potentially higher profits from a production alternative to avert the risk of feed shortages for their cattle. The hay price appeared to be responsive to real per capita income with a price flexibility of 1.55. This finding is reasonable because an increase in real per capita income results in more purchasing power for a typical household. As purchasing power increases, one would expect beef consumption to increase because beef is a normal good (Schroeder and Mark, 1999). Increased beef consumption would positively influence the derived demand for beef production inputs; hence, increased demand for hay. A weak response of hay price to the quantity of hay produced (HPRODt) could be explained by the hay market structure. First, some livestock farmers may produce large amounts of hay for their own livestock, much of which is not sold on the market. These farmers may be able to produce hay at a lower cost than market price, or they may be willing to forgo the potential cost savings from buying hay from an off-farm source to avert the risk of feed shortages for their cattle. Additionally, unlike the market for corn or cattle, the hay market is much less organized and structured. Farmers producing hay for the cash market have no nearby and convenient grain elevator or auction market at which to sell their product. Weak response to changes in hay quantity and price suggests that hay farmers may not be driven solely by the profit motive. Instead, other motives may also enter into their objective functions as utility maximizers.

Suggested Citation

  • Bazen, Ernest F. & Roberts, Roland K. & Travis, John & Larson, James A., 2008. "Factors Affecting Hay Supply and Demand in Tennessee," 2008 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2008, Dallas, Texas 6889, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:saeaed:6889
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.6889
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/6889/files/sp08ba03.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.6889?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Larson, James A. & Jaenicke, Edward C. & Roberts, Roland K. & Tyler, Donald D., 2001. "Risk Effects of Alternative Winter Cover Crop, Tillage, and Nitrogen Fertilization Systems in Cotton Production," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 33(3), pages 445-457, December.
    2. Ben C. French & Jim L. Matthews, 1971. "A Supply Response Model for Perennial Crops," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 53(3), pages 478-490.
    3. Kazim Konyar & Keith Knapp, 1988. "Market analysis of alfalfa hay: California case," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 4(3), pages 271-284.
    4. Keith C. Knapp, 1987. "Dynamic Equilibrium in Markets for Perennial Crops," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 69(1), pages 97-105.
    5. John L. Baritelle & David W. Price, 1974. "Supply Response and Marketing Strategies for Deciduous Crops," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 56(2), pages 245-253.
    6. Munisamy Gopinath & Carlos Arnade & Mathew Shane & Terry Roe, 1997. "Agricultural competitiveness: The case of the United States and major EU countries," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 16(2), pages 99-109, May.
    7. Ben C. French & Raymond G. Bressler, 1962. "The Lemon Cycle," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 44(4), pages 1021-1036.
    8. Marc Nerlove, 1958. "Distributed lags and Estimation of Long-Run Supply and Demand Elasticities: Theoretical Considerations," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 40(2), pages 301-310.
    9. Elnagheeb, Abdelmoneim H. & Florkowski, Wojciech J., 1993. "Modeling Perennial Crop Supply: An Illustration from the Pecan Industry," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(1), pages 187-196, July.
    10. Blake, Martin J. & Clevenger, Tom, 1984. "A Linked Annual And Monthly Model For Forecasting Alfalfa Hay Prices," Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 9(1), pages 1-5, July.
    11. Keith C. Knapp & Kazim Konyar, 1991. "Perennial Crop Supply Response: A Kalman Filter Approach," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 73(3), pages 841-849.
    12. Jere R. Behrman, 1968. "Monopolistic Cocoa Pricing," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 50(3), pages 702-719.
    13. מחקר - ביטוח לאומי, 2006. "Summary for 2005," Working Papers 29, National Insurance Institute of Israel.
    14. Kennan, John, 1979. "The Estimation of Partial Adjustment Models with Rational Expectations," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(6), pages 1441-1455, November.
    15. C. Richard Shumway, 1983. "Supply, Demand, and Technology in a Multiproduct Industry: Texas Field Crops," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 65(4), pages 748-760.
    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. Okwo, Adaora & Thomas, Valerie M., 2014. "Biomass feedstock contracts: Role of land quality and yield variability in near term feasibility," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 67-80.
    2. Diersen, Matthew A., 2008. "Hay Price Forecasts at the State Level," 2008 Conference, April 21-22, 2008, St. Louis, Missouri 37600, NCCC-134 Conference on Applied Commodity Price Analysis, Forecasting, and Market Risk Management.
    3. Shengying Zhai & Qihui Chen & Wenxin Wang, 2019. "What Drives Green Fodder Supply in China?—A Nerlovian Analysis with LASSO Variable Selection," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-17, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jonathon Siegle & Gregory Astill & Zoë Plakias & Daniel Tregeagle, 2024. "Estimating perennial crop supply response: A methodology literature review," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 55(2), pages 159-180, March.
    2. Blank, Steven C. & Orloff, Steve B. & Putnam, Daniel H., 2001. "Sequential Stochastic Production Decisions For A Perennial Crop: The Yield/Quality Tradeoff For Alfalfa Hay," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 26(1), pages 1-17, July.
    3. Elnagheeb, Abdelmoneim H. & Florkowski, Wojciech J., 1993. "Modeling Perennial Crop Supply: An Illustration From The Pecan Industry," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 25(1), pages 1-10, July.
    4. Devadoss, Stephen & Luckstead, Jeff, 2010. "An analysis of apple supply response," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(1), pages 265-271, March.
    5. Roosen, Jutta, 1999. "Economic analysis of pesticide regulation in the U.S. apple industry," ISU General Staff Papers 1999010108000013606, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    6. Carman, Hoy F., 1981. "Income Tax Reform And California Orchard Development," Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 6(2), pages 1-16, December.
    7. Kinney, William & Green, Richard & Carman, Hoy & O'Connell, John, 1987. "An Analysis of Economic Adjustments in the California-Arizona Lemon Industry," Research Reports 251939, University of California, Davis, Giannini Foundation.
    8. Fleskens, Luuk & Graaff, Jan de, 2010. "Conserving natural resources in olive orchards on sloping land: Alternative goal programming approaches towards effective design of cross-compliance and agri-environmental measures," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(8), pages 521-534, October.
    9. Arvind Panagariya & Maurice Schiff, 1991. "Política Comercial, Exportaciones de Productos Básicos y Bienestar: Teoría y Aplicación al Cacao," Latin American Journal of Economics-formerly Cuadernos de Economía, Instituto de Economía. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile., vol. 28(84), pages 249-270.
    10. Knapp, Keith & Konyar, Kazim, 1990. "A Dynamic Spatial Equilibrium Model of the California Alfalfa Market," Research Reports 251936, University of California, Davis, Giannini Foundation.
    11. Bradley Franklin & Kurt Schwabe & Lucia Levers, 2021. "Perennial Crop Dynamics May Affect Long-Run Groundwater Levels," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-18, September.
    12. Tsai, Grace Yueh-Hsiang, 1989. "A dynamic model of the U.S. cotton market with rational expectations," ISU General Staff Papers 1989010108000012168, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    13. Kazim Konyar & Keith Knapp, 1988. "Market analysis of alfalfa hay: California case," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 4(3), pages 271-284.
    14. French, Ben C. & Gomaa, Mohammed, 1983. "An Economic Model of Dynamic Adjustment Processes in the Egyptian Citrus Industry," Working Papers 243419, University of California, Davis, Agricultural Development Systems: Egypt Project.
    15. Rae, Allan N. & Carman, Hoy F., 1975. "A Model Of New Zealand Apple Supply Response To Technological Change," Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 19(1), pages 1-13, April.
    16. Hanawa, Hikaru & Willett, Lois Schertz & Tomek, William G., 1997. "An Econometric Analysis of the U.S. Kiwifruit Industry: Annual and Monthly Factors," Research Bulletins 122721, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    17. Eli Feinerman & Yacov Tsur, 2014. "Perennial crops under stochastic water supply," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 45(6), pages 757-766, November.
    18. Julian M. Alston & John W. Freebairn & John J. Quilkey, 1980. "A Model Of Supply Response In The Australian Orange Growing Industry," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 24(3), pages 248-267, December.
    19. Murray-Prior, Roy B. & Wright, Vic, 2001. "Influence of strategies and heuristics on farmers’ response to change under uncertainty," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 45(4), pages 1-26.
    20. Tozer, Peter R. & Marsh, Thomas L. & Jiang, Xiaojiao, 2014. "Perennial Supply – Substitution in Bearing Acreage Decisions," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170045, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Crop Production/Industries; Demand and Price Analysis;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:saeaed:6889. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/saeaaea.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.