Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:05:48.812Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Target MOTAD Analysis of Sweet Potato Marketing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2016

Larry L. Bauer
Larry L. Bauer*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics atClemson University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Decisions regarding when to harvest and when to sell sweet potatoes are more complex than for other crops because yields continue to increase after the crop is initially ready for harvest, and sweet potatoes can either be sold at harvest or cured and stored for later sale. The optimum marketing decision, based on expected net revenue, is dependent on yield and prices and their variability, and on costs of storage. A marketing strategy is developed using Target MOTAD and data covering 21 years.

Keywords

target MOTADmarketing strategysweet potatoes
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , December 1991 , pp. 123 - 130
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1991

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

Clemson University, Cooperative Extension Service, Department of Agricultural Economics. “Cured Sweet Potatoes Fresh Market Enterprise Budget,” June 1987.Google Scholar
Estes, E. A., and Wilson, L. G.. “Sweet Potatoes: Estimated Revenue, Operation Expenses, Annual Ownership Expenses, and Net Revenues per Acre.” North Carolina State University, Cooperative Extension Service, Budget 98-1, April 1986.Google Scholar
Hazell, P. B. R. “A Linear Alternative to Quadratic and Semivariance for Farm Planning Under Uncertainty.” Am. J. Agr. Econ., 53(1971):53–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
North Carolina Agricultural Statistics Service. “Agricultural Prices” Raleigh, NC, various issues.Google Scholar
North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Marketing Division, written correspondence.Google Scholar
Tauer, L. W. “Target MOTAD.” Am. J. Agr. Econ., 65(1983):606–610.Google Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture. “Crop Production: Annual Summary.” Washington, D. C., various issues.Google Scholar
United States Department of Commerce. “Survey of Current Business” Washington, D. C, various issues.Google Scholar
Watts, M. J., Held, Larry J., and Helmers, Glenn A.. “A Comparison of Target MOTAD to MOTAD.” Can. J. Agr. Econ., 32(1984):175–186.Google Scholar