IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea06/21356.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Contract Pricing and Packer Competition in Fed Cattle Market

Author

Listed:
  • Park, Moon-Soo
  • Love, H. Alan
  • Jin, Yanhong H.

Abstract

We use a game-theoretical framework to analyze the coexistence of spot and contract markets in the cattle industry. A duopsony scenario with two packers and N feeders is used to reflect the reality in the cattle industry. Our main contribution is to incorporate the risk components and the pricing of hedonic attributes of cattle quality. Our preliminary results show that packers have an incentive to transform bidding strategies in spot markets when a series of hedonic characteristics play some significant roles in establishing cattle prices in contract market. That is, we will show that the effectiveness of contract with TOMP clauses on packer competition in a spot market depends on whether there is a correlation between spot price and hedonic characteristics. The results may shed light on understanding potential effects of captive supplies on market power and may aid in the assessment of the policies designed to enhance competition in the cattle industry.

Suggested Citation

  • Park, Moon-Soo & Love, H. Alan & Jin, Yanhong H., 2006. "Contract Pricing and Packer Competition in Fed Cattle Market," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21356, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea06:21356
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.21356
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/21356/files/sp06pa04.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.21356?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. Tian Xia & Richard J. Sexton, 2004. "The Competitive Implications of Top-of-the-Market and Related Contract-Pricing Clauses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(1), pages 124-138.
    2. MacDonald, James M. & Perry, Janet E. & Ahearn, Mary Clare & Banker, David E. & Chambers, William & Dimitri, Carolyn & Key, Nigel D. & Nelson, Kenneth E. & Southard, Leland W., 2004. "Contracts, Markets, and Prices: Organizing the Production and Use of Agricultural Commodities," Agricultural Economic Reports 34013, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    3. Hayenga, Marvin L. & O'Brien, Daniel, 1992. "Packer Competition, Forward Contracting Price Impacts, and the Relevant Market for Fed Cattle," Staff General Research Papers Archive 11603, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    4. 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.
    5. David E. Davis, 2000. "Does Top of the Market Pricing Facilitate Oligopsony Coordination?," SDSU Working Papers in Progress 12000, South Dakota State University, Department of Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Cesar L. Revoredo Giha & Denis A. Nadolnyak & Stanley M. Fletcher, 2005. "Contract Marketing in the US after the 2002 Farm Act: The Case of Peanuts," Environmental Economy and Policy Research Working Papers 11.2005, University of Cambridge, Department of Land Economics, revised 2005.
    2. Brorsen B. Wade & Fain James R. & Maples Joshua G., 2018. "Alternative Policy Responses to Increased Use of Formula Pricing," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 16(1), pages 1-11, January.
    3. Christopher C. Pudenz & Lee L. Schulz, 2024. "Multi‐plant coordination in the U.S. beef packing industry," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 106(1), pages 382-415, January.
    4. Muth, Mary K. & Liu, Yanyan & Koontz, Stephen R. & Lawrence, John D., 2008. "Differences in Prices and Price Risk Across Alternative Marketing Arrangements Used in the Fed Cattle Industry," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 33(1), pages 1-18, April.
    5. Maples, Joshua G. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Peel, Derrell S., 2019. "Technology and evolving supply chains in the beef and pork industries," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 346-354.
    6. Lee, Andrew C. & Kim, Man-Keun, 2011. "Captive Supply Impact On The U.S. Fed Cattle Price: An Application Of Nonparametric Analysis," Journal of Rural Development/Nongchon-Gyeongje, Korea Rural Economic Institute, vol. 34(4), pages 1-13, October.
    7. Hildebrand, Kayla & Chung, Chinjin, 2023. "Selectivity Bias and Cattle Price in the Cattle Procurement Market," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 48(3), September.
    8. Zavelberg, Yvonne & Heckelei, Thomas & Wieck, Christine, 2016. "Entry deterring effects of contractual relations in the dairy processing sector," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 5(1), pages 1-16, April.
    9. Adjemian, Michael & Brorsen, B. Wade & Hahn, William & Saitone, Tina L. & Sexton, Richard J., 2016. "Thinning Markets in U.S. Agriculture," Economic Information Bulletin 232928, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    10. Revoredo-Giha, Cesar & Nadolnyak, Denis A. & Fletcher, Stanley M., 2005. "Contract Marketing after the 2002 Farm Act: The Case of Peanuts," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19187, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    11. Kim, Jong-Jin & Zheng, Xiaoyong, 2015. "Effects of Alternative Marketing Arrangements on the Spot Market Price Distribution in the U.S. Hog Market," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 40(2), pages 1-24, May.
    12. Lee, Yoonsuk & Ward, Clement E. & Brorsen, B. Wade, 2010. "Relationships among Prices across Alternative Marketing Arrangements for Fed Cattle and Hogs," 2010 Annual Meeting, February 6-9, 2010, Orlando, Florida 56282, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    13. Tian Xia & John M. Crespi & Kevin C. Dhuyvetter, 2019. "Could packers manipulate spot markets by tying contracts to futures prices? And do they?," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 67(1), pages 85-102, March.
    14. Key Nigel, 2011. "Does the Prevalence of Contract Hog Production Influence the Price Received by Independent Hog Producers?," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 9(1), pages 1-26, May.
    15. Katchova, Ani L., 2010. "Agricultural Contracts and Alternative Marketing Options: A Matching Analysis," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 42(2), pages 1-16, May.
    16. Lee, Andrew C. & Kim, Man-Keun, 2004. "Causality Among Fed Cattle Market Variables: Directed Acyclic Graphs Analysis Of Captive Supply," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20124, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    17. Irz, Xavier & Mazzocchi, Mario & Réquillart, Vincent & Soler, Louis-Georges, 2015. "Research in Food Economics: past trends and new challenges," Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, Editions NecPlus, vol. 96(01), pages 187-237, March.
    18. Wu-Yueh Hu, 2015. "The role of risk and risk-aversion in adoption of alternative marketing arrangements by the US farmers," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(27), pages 2899-2912, June.
    19. Sebastian Kunte & Meike Wollni & Claudia Keser, 2017. "Making it personal: breach and private ordering in a contract farming experiment," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(1), pages 121-148.
    20. Rachael Goodhue & Leo Simon, 2016. "Agricultural contracts, adverse selection, and multiple inputs," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 4(1), pages 1-33, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Marketing;

    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:aaea06:21356. 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/aaeaaea.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.