Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:06:13.805Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Beef Producer Preferences and Purchase Decisions for Livestock Price Insurance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2015

Deacue Fields  and
Jeffrey Gillespie
Deacue Fields
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Auburn University, Auburn, AL
Jeffrey Gillespie
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Personal interviews were conducted with beef cattle producers in Louisiana to determine their preferences and purchase decisions for livestock price insurance. Conjoint analysis was utilized to determine the importance of selected attributes of insurance policies for these producers. The characteristics of producers who prefer given attributes were also identified. Producers rated products given four economic situations to evaluate. A two-limit tobit model was used to estimate the part worth utility values for each attribute. Univariate probit models were estimated to evaluate the influence of producer characteristics on purchase decisions.

Keywords

conjointlivestock price insuranceordered probittwo-limit tobitC25D81Q12Q13Q16
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 40 , Issue 3 , December 2008 , pp. 789 - 803
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bossman, D.A. “The Federal Crop Insurance Program: The Need for Livestock Revenue Protection.” American Feed Industry Association. Statement to the House Subcommittee on Risk Management and Specialty Crops. House Committee on Agriculture, 1998.Google Scholar
Black, D.L., and Dorfman, J.H. “Identifying Farmer Characteristics Related to Crop Insurance Purchase Decisions.” Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Agricultural Economics Association, Tampa, FL, 2000.Google Scholar
Fausti, S., and Gillespie, J. “Measuring Risk Preference Using a Mail Survey: How Consistent are the Methods?” Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 50,2(June 2006):171–188.Google Scholar
Feder, G.E., Just., R., and Zilberman, D. “Adoption of Agricultural Innovations in Developing Countries: A Survey.” Economic Development and Cultural Change 33(January 1985):255-98.Google Scholar
Gillespie, J., Taylor., G., Schupp., A., and Wirth, F. “Opinions of Professional Buyers Toward a New, Alternative Red Meat: Ostrich.” Agribusiness: An International Journal 14,3(June 1998): 247-56.3.0.CO;2-0>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, B.K. “An Empirical Analysis of the Demand for Multiple Peril Crop Insurance.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75(May 1993):425-34.Google Scholar
Greene, W.H. Econometric Analysis. 4th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2000.Google Scholar
Hair, J.R., Anderson., E., Tatham, R.L., and Black, W.C. Multivariate Data Analysis. 5th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1998.Google Scholar
Halbrendt, C.K., Wirth, F.F., and Vaughn, G.F. “Conjoint Analysis of the Mid-Atlantic Food-Fish Market for Farm-Raised Hybrid Striped Bass.” Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics 23(July 1991):155-63.Google Scholar
Harrison, W., Gillespie., J., and Fields, D. “Analysis of Cardinal and Ordinal Assumptions in Conjoint Analysis.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 34,2(October 2005):238-52.Google Scholar
Harrison, R.W., Ozayan., A., and Meyers, S.P. “A Conjoint Analysis of New Food Products Processed from Underutilized Small Crawfish.” Journal of Agriculture and Applied Economics 30,2(1998):257-65.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A. “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk.” Econometrica 47,2(March 1979):263-91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeney, R.L., and Raiffa, H. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
Lancaster, K. Consumer Demand: A New Approach. New York: Columbia University Press, 1971.Google Scholar
Lesser, W. Marketing Livestock and Meat. Bing-hamton, New York: Food Products Press, 1992.Google Scholar
Pennings, J.M.E. “Pulling the Trigger or Not: Factors Affecting Behavior of Initiating a Position in Derivatives Markets.” Journal of Economic Psychology 23,2(April 2002):263-78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennings, J.M.E., and Leuthold, R.M. “The Role of Farmers' Behavioral Attitudes and Heterogeneity in Futures Contracts Usage.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 82,4(November 2000):908-19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prentice, B.E., and Benell, D. “Determinants of Empty Returns by U.S. Refrigerated Trucks: Conjoint Analysis Approach.” Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 40,1 (April 1992): 109-27.Google Scholar
Richards, T.J., and Mischen, P. “The Demand for Specialty-Crop Insurance: Adverse Selection and Inefficiency.” Journal of Agribusiness 16(Spring 1998):53–77.Google Scholar
Sherrick, B.J., Barry, P.J., Schnitkey, G.D., Ellinger, P.N., and Wansink, B. “Farmers' Preferences for Crop Insurance Attributes.” Review of Agricultural Economics 25,2(Fall/Winter 2003):415-29.Google Scholar
Smith, V., and Baquet, A.E. “The Demand for Multiple Peril Crop Insurance: Evidence from Montana Wheat Farms.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78,1 (February 1996): 189–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
USDA. Animal Plant Health Inspection Service. (1998) Marketing Practices in Beef Cow-Calf Operations. Internet site: www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/cahm (Accessed October 5, 2008).Google Scholar
USDA, Risk Management Agency. “Livestock Risk Protection: Feeder Cattle.” Risk Management Agency Fact Sheet, Program Aid Number 1667-09, July 2007.Google Scholar
Vandeveer, M.L., and Loehman, E.T. “Farmer Response to Modified Crop Insurance: A Case Study of Corn in Indiana.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76,2(February 1994): 128-40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar