Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T16:30:21.635Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of a Quantitative Procedure to Select Among Alternative Marketing Strategies to Reduce Price Risks of Stocker Operators*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

James H. Davis  and
John R. Franzmann
James H. Davis
Affiliation:
Oklahoma State University
John R. Franzmann
Affiliation:
Oklahoma State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Producers within the cattle industry are faced with three major types of risks: (1) risks of losses in quality; (2) risks of quantity losses; and (3) losses resulting from unfavorable changes in cash prices. Quality and quantity risks are physical risks that can be dealt with through managerial techniques, adoption of new technology, and the use of fire, storm, and theft insurance. The risk associated with unfavorable price changes does not lend itself to an insurance approach. Producers must, therefore, become speculators in the cash market or choose to employ marketing strategies designed to transfer price risks to other market functionaries.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , December 1973 , pp. 63 - 71
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1973

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.)

Footnotes

*

Oklahoma State Agricultural Experiment Station Journal Article No. 2743

References

[1]Alder, Henry L. and Roessler, Edward B., Introduction to Probability and Statistics, Fourth Edition, W. H. Freeman and Company (San Francisco, 1968), pp. 136–138.Google Scholar
[2]Merrill, William C. and Fox, Karl A., Introduction to Economic Statistics, John Wiley and Sons (New York, 1970), p. 272.Google Scholar