1 Live, In-the-Beef, or Formula: Is there a Best Method for Selling Fed Cattle? Dillon M. Feuz Presented at Western Agricultural Economics Association 1997 Annual Meeting July 13-16, 1997 Reno/Sparks, Nevada
2 Live, In-the-Beef, or Formula: Is there a Best Method for Selling Fed Cattle? Dillon M. Feuz University of Nebraska
3 Live, In-the-Beef, or Formula: Is there a Best Method for Selling Fed Cattle? Abstract Descriptions of grid pricing, formula pricing, and marketing alliances for fed cattle are provided. These pricing methods are compared with traditional live-weight and in-thebeef pricing. Expected revenue and revenue variability are compared as well as determining what type of cattle are most profitable under each pricing method.
4 Live, In-the-Beef, or Formula: Is there a Best Method for Selling Fed Cattle? Historically, most fed cattle were sold on a live-weight basis. Prior to the 1970 s, much of the fed cattle trade occurred at terminal auction markets. As cattle feeding moved westward out of the cornbelt and into the southern plains, terminal auction market volume declined and direct selling to packers increased. Much of the direct selling continued to be done on a live-weight basis. Ward reported that in 1979, 98% of the cattle in the southern plains and 82% of the cattle in the western corn belt were sold on a live-weight basis. In 1990, live-weight pricing still accounted for 72% of the southern plains trade and 55% of the cornbelt trade (Packers and Stockyards Administration). A disadvantage to live-weight pricing is that it is based on averages; all cattle in a pen receive the same price regardless of the quality of the individual animal and the yield of the carcass. Carcass-weight pricing, in-the-beef, rewards higher yielding cattle, but there is still no price differential for quality; all cattle in a pen still receive the same price. Over the last couple of years there has been a much greater emphasis on improving the quality and consistency of beef (National Cattlemen s Association). Cattle producers, breed associations, feed suppliers, and beef packers have all initiated new value based pricing methods. Grid pricing, formula pricing, and strategic alliances are examples of these new value based pricing methods. While these pricing methods may differ substantially in the carcass and management traits they seek to reward or penalize, they all have one common feature: price is established on each individual animal, based on various traits.
5 The goals of these new pricing methods are to price cattle based on their true value to consumers, to reduce problems of inconsistency in the final product, and to send appropriate market signals to producers. Are all of the different pricing methods equal in achieving the above goals? What type of cattle are likely to be rewarded under the different methods? What percent of cattle will likely be sold on these new systems? The objective of this paper is to describe these new pricing methods and provide answers to the above questions. Description of Grids, Formulas, & Alliances There are numerous pricing grids, packer formulas, and strategic alliances now available to price fed cattle. The USDA-AMS is now reporting weekly from seven major packers the average and range of premiums and discounts being offered on their grids and formulas. A recent article in Beef Today (Ishmael) compared features of 20 different alliances. What is the difference between a grid, a formula, or an alliance? Pricing Grid Figure 1 contains a representation of a basic pricing grid. For most grids the base price is for a USDA Choice, Yield Grade 3, pound carcass. The base price is generally tied to the relevant cash market, e.g., the five day average Nebraska top, or $1 over the Kansas direct trade. The premiums and discounts may change weekly, based on supply and demand conditions, or may be fixed for some period of time. If the grid is a packer grid the premiums and discounts will generally change. However, some of the grids associated with specific breed alliances have fixed premiums and discounts.
6 Example Grid Pricing Scheme ($/cwt. Carcass Basis) Yield Grades Quality Grade Prime CAB Choice Select Standard Out Cattle -25 Light Carcass <550 lb -20 Heavy Carcass >950 lb -20 Figure 1. An Example of a Pricing Grid for Fed Cattle. Formula Price A formula pricing agreement may appear the same as the grid displayed in Figure 1. However, there is a fundamental difference in how the base price is determined. As with the grid, the base price will be tied to the cash market, but it is also determined by the type of cattle being killed at the packing plant. For example, two packing plants may offer identical premiums and discounts associated with quality and yield grades, but their base price will be different dependant upon the percentage of cattle being slaughtered at the plant that fit into each grade category. The base price may also differ dependant upon the average dressing percentage at the plant. An example of how these formulas work is displayed in Figure 2. There are two plants that have the same premiums and discounts associated with quality grades and both plants are using the same cash price for a reference. However, the percentage of cattle in
7 Formula Example Plant A Plant B Pen of Cattle Pre/Dis Percent Pre/Dis Percent Pre/Dis Percent Pre/Dis Prime +$6 5% $0.30 2% $0.12 CAB +$3 10% $0.30 5% $0.15 8% $0.24 Choice 60% 50% 60% Select -$15 20% ($3.00) 40% ($6.00) 30% ($4.50) Standard -$25 5% $1.50 5% ($1.25) Base Price = Mkt Price - SUM(Premiums & Discounts) Plant A $ = $112 + $3.90 Plant B $ = $112 + $7.10 Pen Net = Base Price + SUM(Premiums & Discounts) Plant A $ = $ $4.14 Plant B $ = $ $4.14 Figure 2. Example of Formula Pricing Based on Plant Averages. each grade differs at the two plants. The base price is arrived at by (1) multiplying the premium or discount by the percentage of cattle in that category, (2) summing these premiums and discounts, and (3) subtracting this sum from the cash market price. The net price for a pen of cattle sold at either plant is arrived at by (1) multiplying the premium or discount by the percentage of the pen in that category, (2) summing these premiums and discounts, and (3) adding this sum to the base price of the plant. In the example in Figure 2, the net price for the pen varies by $3.20 per hundred of carcass weight depending upon the plant base. With Plant A the price from the formula, $111.76, is less than the average cash price of $112 per cwt. However, the net price at Plant B is above the average cash price. A disadvantage of formula prices relative to grid prices is that the true value of a pen of cattle is now relative to the plant average and not an absolute based on the quality of the pen. In addition, from a market efficiency point of view, there are different market
8 signals being sent to producers, for producing a similar product. This clearly creates an inefficiency in the market place, and will impede the efforts of the beef industry to improve the quality and consistency of their product. Alliances An alliance can be defined as any formal or informal agreement between different segments of the beef industry. Most of the alliances involve cow-calf producers and cattle feeders, and the cooperation of a specific beef packer. Almost all of the alliances are using a grid or formula to establish the fed cattle price. However, there are generally additional criteria the cattle have to meet to qualify to be sold through the alliance. Several of the cattle breed associations have established alliances that are based on cattle having some percentage of that breed. Some feed companies have established alliances for producers who use their feeds and follow a recommended feeding program. Other groups have established alliances based on location of cattle, organically produced cattle, or other management criteria. A fundamental difference between alliances is that some are still selling commodity beef, while others are selling a branded product. Those alliances that are selling commodity beef are not increasing the amount of revenue coming back to producers; they are only changing the distribution of this revenue between producers. However, alliances that are selling a branded product have the possibility of increasing the amount of revenue to be shared by producers. Of course, this is dependant upon consumer acceptance and preference for the branded product. In general, the alliances that can increase the total
9 revenue to be shared will probably prove more successful over time, because they will be able to attract and retain a greater number of producers. Comparison of Pricing Methods Actual live weight and in-the-beef prices and two different packer formula prices were all obtained for the same period of time and same market area. Three pens of cattle were constructed to represent above average, average, and below average quality cattle: Pen 1, Pen 2, and Pen 3, respectively, Table 1. The average live weight for the three pens was identical and dressing percentage was 63.5, 62.5 and 61.5 percent for the three pens. With current marketing practices, if all three pens of cattle were being fed at the same feedlot, they would all sell for the same average live weight price or if they were sold in-the-beef, they would all sell for the same average carcass price. The average live price was $68.20/cwt. and the average carcass price was $112/cwt. Average revenue per head from selling on a live weight basis was $810 (1188 lbs X $.682/lb = $810) for all three pens. Average carcass weight was 756, 742, 733 pounds for the three pens. Average revenue was obtained by multiplying the carcass weight by the carcass price, $1.12/lb. Revenue was $847, $832, and $821 for the three pens. If cattle are not sold on a live weight basis, then the seller generally pays for transportation to the packer. This cost will vary with distance. For this analysis, a $10 per head transportation cost was charged, which is representative of about a 150 mile haul from the feedlot to the packing plant.
10 Table 1. Percentage of Cattle from Three Different Pens Which Meet Various Grid Specifications. Pen 3 Prime Yield Grade Choice Yield Grade Low Choice Yield Grade Select Yield Grade Standard Light Weigh t Out Cattle Heavy Weight Pe Table 2. Average Revenue per Head for Each Pen Sold Under Each Pricing Method. Live Dressed Formula A Formula B Pen Pen Pen Average Range Note: Revenue for the dressed, formula A, and formula B pricing methods has been reduced by a $10 per head transportation cost. Each of the three pens was priced using the two actual packer formulas. The net carcass price ranged from $ to $ Average revenue per head for each pen on each selling method is displayed in Table 2. From Table 2, it is apparent that the variability in revenue increases in going from live to dressed to the two formula price agreements. This revenue variability is a source of risk to cattle feeders. Feuz, Fausti and Wagner concluded that risk aversion on the part of sellers may explain the widespread use of live weight pricing and difference in risk aversion among sellers is a plausible explanation for the existence of multiple pricing systems in the cattle market. In a more recent paper, Fausti, Feuz and Wagner theorize
11 that many risk averse producers may be reluctant to sell on a grid or formula. Their assumption is that the expected return from the grid or formula will not be sufficiently higher than the expected return from live weight pricing to offset the additional variability in revenue. Certainly, this is the case with Formula A in the example above, where average revenue actually decreased relative to the live weight pricing method. However, the higher expected revenue from Formula B may be sufficiently higher to attract some risk avers sellers. Empirical Data How do the results of the above three pens compare to empirical data? Actual carcass data was obtained on 42 pens of calf-fed steers. Most of these pens were mixed cattle from more than one source. However, some of the pens were uniform cattle all from the same ranch herd. Summary statistics on the carcass characteristics of the cattle are displayed in Table 3. Overall the steers graded 46 percent USDA Choice or higher, had an average yield grade of 2.75, and the average dressing percentage was slightly higher than 63 percent. Revenue was simulated for the 42 pens as if they had been sold on the same $68.20 live weight price, $112 in-the-beef price, and the two actual packer formulas, Table 4. Average revenue was highest for the in-the-beef pricing method followed by live weight pricing and then the two formulas. The live weight pricing method had the
12 Table 3. Individual Carcass Characteristics of 42 pens (1471 head) of Calf Fed Steers. Characteristic Mean Std. Dev. Minimum Maximum Live Weight Carcass Weight Dressing Percent Marbling Score Yield Grade Note: Marbling Score and corresponding USDA Quality Grade: 3.00-Standard, 4.00-Select, 5.00-Low Choice, 6.00-Mid Choice, 7.00-High Choice, and 8.00-Prime. Table 4. Simulated Revenue from Selling 42 pens of Calf Fed Steers on Alternative Pricing Methods (Dollars per Head). Method Mean Std. Dev CV Min Max Live In-the-Beef Formula A Formula B Note: Revenue for the dressed, Formula A, and Formula B pricing methods has been reduced by a $10 per head transportation cost. least amount of revenue variation as measured by the standard deviation and the coefficient of variation. Variability, or risk, to sellers increased with in-the-beef pricing and increased even more with the two formula pricing methods. Increased revenue variability may not necessarily imply increased risk, if sellers have a priori information regarding the expected quality of the carcass. Higher quality cattle are expected to receive a premium and lower quality cattle are expected to receive a discount when sold on a formula. However, if sellers believe that all their cattle are above average, then selling on a formula certainly increases revenue variability and risk. Many believe that certain breeds of cattle are likely to be more profitable if sold on a grid. The 42 pens of cattle were classified according to the predominant breed in the
13 pen. The most profitable pricing method was identified for each of the 42 pens, Table 5. Pens that were predominantly Angus were also priced on the Scotch Cap Angus Alliance formula and pens that were predominantly Hereford were priced on the Certified Hereford Beef Grid. The majority of the 42 pens were most profitable if sold in-the-beef. However, three out of four Hereford pens were most profitable on the Certified Hereford Beef Grid and four out of eleven Angus pens were most profitable on either Formula B or the Scotch Cap Angus Alliance. One pen of Simmental steers was most profitable if sold on Formula B. Table 5. Most Profitable Selling Method by Predominant Breed of Steers in Pen. Breed No. Of Pens Live In-the-Beef Formula B Angus Alliance Hereford Alliance Angus Hereford Gelbvieh 3 3 Simmental Mixed Total These 42 pens are probably not that representative of the entire fed cattle population. All of the pens were calf-fed steers, and they were all from the same feedlot. Different calf feeding programs and feeding yearlings rather than calves may alter the most profitable pricing method. However, in examining the characteristics of the pens that were most profitable on the formulas, some consistent traits can be identified that probably will hold true for the greater population of fed cattle.
14 To receive a higher net price from a grid or formula, the cattle generally need to grade over 65 percent USDA Choice. To receive a higher net price from a grid or formula, less than 5 percent of the pen can be yield grade 4, light or heavy carcasses, USDA Standard, or other Out cattle. To receive a higher net price from a formula, the carcass yield or dressing percentage of the pen needs to be equal to or greater than the plant average dressing percentage. Predominantly Hereford cattle that meet the other eligibility criteria for the Certified Hereford Beef Grid will generally receive a higher price from the grid than from other pricing methods. Implications The implications of these observations are that 1) some pens of cattle will never receive a higher price from a grid or formula and 2) pens that are going to be sold on a grid or formula should be sorted and any obvious out cattle, cattle that will receive a heavy discount, should be removed from the pen. These sorted out cattle could then be mixed with a pen that is not going to be sold on a grid or formula and receive the average price. If a significant number of producers begin sorting their cattle and selling the higher quality cattle on a grid or formula and continue to sell the rest of the cattle on the live weight market or in-the-beef, then what are the implications for the quality and hence the price in the live or in-the-beef market? If packers identify that their is a quality difference
15 between formula priced cattle and live weight priced cattle, then they will obviously try and purchase the live weight cattle for a lower average price. However, if the grids and formulas base prices remained tied to the live or in-the-beef cash price, then the net price on the grid or formula will also decline. To be a truly value based pricing system, the premiums would have to increase if the base price declined for sellers to remain equally rewarded for producing a superior product. An alternative solution to the above dilemma is to free the base price from the cash fed cattle market and to tie it to a box beef price or a weighted average wholesale beef price or index. From a market efficiency perspective, if an appropriate box beef or wholesale beef price could be used, then the price of fed cattle sold on a grid or formula would be tied more closely to the final consumer market. However, this base would not reflect changes in the hide and offal market that a packer bid may reflect. As more cattle are sold on grids, formulas, and through alliances, the cash market will become thinner and may represent a different quality market. There are a number of pricing issues that we as agricultural economists need to continue to research and address.
16 References Fausti, S.W., D.M. Feuz, and J.J. Wagner Value Based Marketing for Fed Cattle: A Discussion of the Issues, Paper Presented at the Southern Agricultural Economics Association Meeting, February 1-5, Birmingham, Alabama. Feuz, D.M., S.W. Fausti, and J.J. Wagner Risk and Market Participant Behavior in the U.S. Slaughter Cattle Market. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp Ishmael, Wes. Pick a Target, then Aim. Beef Today, January 1997, pp National Cattleman's Association. "The War on Fat.", Value Based Marketing Task Force, Denver CO: (1990). Packers and Stockyards Administration. Packers and Stockyards Statistical Report, 1990 Reporting Year. P&SA Statis. Rep. No. 92-1, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, Nov Ward, C.E. "Market Structure Dynamics in the Livestock-Meat Subsector: Implications for Pricing and Price Reporting." in Key Issues in Livestock Pricing: A Perspective for the 1990's, W. Purcell and J. Rowsell Eds., Blacksburg, Va: Research Institute in Livestock Pricing, (1987): 8-53.
Managing for Today s Cattle Market and Beyond March 2002 Grid Base Prices and Premiums-Discounts Over Time By Clement E. Ward, Oklahoma State University Ted C. Schroeder, Kansas State University Dillon
E-557 RM1-11.0 03-09 Risk Management Grid Pricing of Fed Cattle Robert Hogan, Jr., David Anderson and Ted Schroeder* Grid prices, or value-based marketing, refers to pricing cattle on an individual animal
Calf Marketing: Capturing the Greatest Value from a Weaned Calf Dillon M Feuz Utah State University Extension Specialist Cattle ranching has always been a challenging and risky operation. Producers deal
Beef Premiums and Discounts An Update of 5-Area Cattle and Beef Quality Premiums and Discounts March 2012 Matthew A. Herrington (Graduate Student, Kansas State University) Glynn T. Tonsor (Kansas State
The Efficacy of the Grid Marketing Channel for Fed Cattle by Scott Fausti, Bashir Qasmi, and Matthew Diersen* Economics Staff Paper No 2008-2 January 2008 Papers in this series are reproduced and distributed
ESM 481 FUTURES TRADING OF LIVE BEEF CATTLE (HEDGING) by Clarence C. Bowen Cooperative Extension Service Department of Agricultural Economics & Rural Sociology The Ohio State University September, 1972
Marketing Opportunities for AI Bred Heifers and AI Sired Progeny Scott Brown University of Missouri The U.S. cattle inventory was at 87.7 million head at the beginning of 2014, the lowest inventory for
Live Cattle Evaluation for Carcass Traits and Grid Marketing Basics. Amy Radunz State Beef Cattle Extension Specialist, UW-Madison Fed cattle are marketed primarily by three methods. Live weight, dressed
Relationships Affecting the Choice-Select Spread R. Curt Lacy Extension Economist - Livestock and Assistant Professor University of Georgia Tifton, GA Introduction There has been considerable concern in
TOC INDEX Feeder Associations of Alberta Ltd. Exporting Live Cattle to the United States - Marketing Considerations Alberta Agriculture Market Specialists Introduction Why Are Live Cattle Exported? Exporting
PNW 666 Price Indices for Estimating Cattle Prices in the Pacific Northwest C. Wilson Gray Introduction The history of the cattle industry since statistics were first collected in 1865 has been cyclical.
Understanding and Using Cattle Basis in Managing Price Risk by R. Curt Lacy 1, Andrew P. Griffith 2 and John C. McKissick 3 Introduction Understanding the concept of basis is a key element in developing
Managing for Today s Cattle Market and Beyond March 2002 Cattle Price Seasonality By Derrell Peel, Oklahoma State University Steve Meyer, Livestock Marketing Information Center Introduction Seasonal price
Agricultural Commodity Marketing: Futures, Options, Insurance By: Dillon M. Feuz Utah State University Funding and Support Provided by: On-Line Workshop Outline A series of 12 lectures with slides Accompanying
Understanding Grid Marketing: How Quality Grades and Grid Conditions Affect Carcass Value By Pete Anderson Ag Knowledge Services Introduction Are cattle a commodity or a branded product? Since sight unseen
Managing for Today s Cattle Market and Beyond March 2002 The Costs of Raising Replacement Heifers and the Value of a Purchased Versus Raised Replacement By Dillon M. Feuz, University of Nebraska Numerous
Livestock Risk Protection (LRP) Insurance for Feeder Cattle Department of Agricultural MF-2705 Livestock Marketing Economics Risk management strategies and tools that cattle producers can use to protect
Using Futures, Options or LRP Insurance to Manage Feeder Cattle Price Risk Dillon M. Feuz - Utah State University and John P. Hewlett University of Wyoming Understanding Risk In Agricultural Prices Wyoming
U.S. Beef and Cattle Imports and Exports: Data Issues and Impacts on Cattle Prices Gary W. Brester, Associate Professor Montana State University Bozeman and John M. Marsh, Professor Montana State University
The Effects of Drought and Disaster Payments on the Missouri Cattle Industry July 2016 Dr. Scott Brown Assistant Extension Professor 215 Mumford Hall Columbia, MO 65211 (573) 882 3861 email@example.com
Marketing Slaughter Hogs Under Contract Introduction Authors Ron Plain, University of Missouri Glenn Grimes, University of Missouri Reviewers John Lawrence, Iowa State University Chris Hurt, Purdue University
Understanding and Using Basis for Livestock Producer Marketing Management 1 By: Al Wellman, and Reviewed by Gene Murra Edited by Duane Griffith and Stephen Koontz 2 This Fact Sheet will assist a livestock
Beef and Cattle --- Market Situation and Outlook AAEA Extension Livestock Outlook Session, July 3, James Robb Director LMIC 655 Parfet Street Suite E31 Lakewood, CO 8215-5517 www.lmic.info $ Per Cwt. 83
TOC INDEX Feeder Associations of Alberta Ltd. Dressing Percentage in Slaughter Cattle Alberta Agriculture Market Specialists Introduction Dressing Percentage in Perspective The decision to market cattle
Economic Factors Impacting the Cattle Industry, the Size of the Beef Cow Herd, and Profitability and Sustainability of Cow-Calf Producers Stephen R. Koontz Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics
Authors: Authors: Name, Justin Taylor, Affiliation RTI International Name, Affiliation Sheryl C. Cates, Name, RTI International Affiliation Name, Shawn Affiliation A. Karns, RTI International Stephen R.
Introduction Using the Futures Market to Predict Prices and Calculate Breakevens for Feeder Cattle Kenny Burdine 1 and Greg Halich 2 AEC 2013-09 August 2013 Futures markets are used by cattle producers
ANR-0800 A L A B A M A A & M A N D A U B U R N U N I V E R S I T I E S Marketing Feeder Cattle With A Price Slide Making dollars and sense out of buying and selling feeder cattle using a price slide is
Extension Extra ExEx 5032 August 1996 Economics COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE & BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES / SOUTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY / USDA Livestock Contract Feeding Arrangements by Larry Madsen, Extension area
A Comparison of the Effectiveness of Using Futures, Options, LRP Insurance, or AGR-Lite Insurance to Manage Risk kfor Cow-calf Producers by Dillon M. Feuz Suggested citation format: Feuz, D. M. 2009. A
Canfax Research Services A Division of the Canadian Cattlemen s Association Publication Sponsored by: A lot happens during the fall run and the decisions made now determine if a cow/calf operation is profitable
April 2013 AG/AppliedEconomics/2013-01pr Livestock Marketing and Risk Management Dillon M. Feuz, Bridger Feuz and Ryan Feuz Contents Volatility in the Market Prices 1 Over Time 2 Across Markets 4 Across
Louisiana Seasonal Cattle Price Patterns Seasonal Indices Production agriculture is affected by seasonal production and demand cycles that are influenced by weather conditions as well as biological processes.
Effective Canadian Fed Cattle Price and Market Information Ted Schroeder Kansas State University firstname.lastname@example.org Background and Problem Statement Price discovery is the impounding of new information into commodity
CHARACTERIZATION OF BOXED BEEF VALUE IN ANGUS FIELD DATA 1999 Animal Science Research Report Authors: Story in Brief Pages 32-40 B.R. Schutte, S.L. Dolezal, H.G. Dolezal and D.S. Buchanan The OSU Boxed
BEEF CATTLE MARKETING IN NORTH CAROLINA Geoff Benson 1, Dale Miller 2, and Richard Lichtenwalner 2 Introduction Profitable management and marketing decisions require reliable information about cattle prices.
MCDONALD S SUSTAINABLE BEEF PILOT Information Sharing Initiative Report April 7, 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS 02 04 INTRODUCTION KEY TAKEAWAYS 06 RESULTS 15 CONCLUSION 17 APPENDIX MCDONALD S SUSTAINABLE BEEF
AS 653 ASL R2184 2007 Value of Modified Wet Distillers Grains in Cattle Diets without Corn Allen H. Trenkle Iowa State University Recommended Citation Trenkle, Allen H. (2007) "Value of Modified Wet Distillers
Weekly Live Cattle Contract Monthly Live Cattle Contract Weekly Feeder Cattle Contract Monthly Feeder Cattle Contract 1 Cattle Outlook Fed cattle market will trend down: Domestic demand was strong. International
Ontario Beef Industry Situation and Outlook FarmSmart Steve Duff Chief Economist OMAFRA United States market situation Overview Canadian & Ontario market situation Ontario market outlook 2 USA Market Situation
Livestock Risk Protection Insurance for Stocker Operations Tammy L. McKinley Extension Specialist Agricultural Economics Acknowledgements Original presentation by Dr. Walt Prevatt, Auburn University Special
GRAZING LANDS ECONOMICS: EVALUATING STOCKER GRAZING ALTERNATIVES Dr. James M. McGrann 1 ABSTRACT: Increased cost of feed grains, reflected in feedyard cattle cost of gain, availability of ethanol by-product
May 2 AG/Agribusiness/2-pr A Comparison of the Effectiveness of Using Futures, Options, or LRP Insurance to Manage Risk for Cow-calf Producers Dillon M. Feuz Utah State University Introduction Historically
An Introduction to Cattle Feeding Spreads JANUARY 2014 INTRODUCTION Through the use of various combinations of CME Group derivative products, market participants have the ability to simulate the financial
Agricultural Commodity Marketing: Futures, Options, Insurance Basis The Cash Futures Relationship By: Dillon M. Feuz Utah State University Funding and Support Provided by: Fact Sheets Knowing and Managing
Managing for Today s Cattle ket and Beyond ch 2002 Factors Affecting the Basis for Feeder Cattle By DeeVon Bailey, Utah State University Wilson Gray, University of Idaho Emmit L. Rawls, University of Tennessee
Characterization of the Beef Cow-calf Enterprise of the Northern Great Plains Barry Dunn 1, Edward Hamilton 1, and Dick Pruitt 1 Departments of Animal and Range Sciences and Veterinary Science BEEF 2003
Managing Cattle Price Risk with Futures and Options Contracts Dr. John Lawrence, Extension Livestock Economist and Professor, Laura A. Bortz, Undergraduate Research Assistant, Iowa State University Department
2nd Quarter 2010 25(2) HOG MARKETING PRACTICES AND COMPETITION QUESTIONS John D. Lawrence Hog production and marketing practices in the U.S. pork industry have changed dramatically over the past two decades.
TOC INDEX Feeder Associations of Alberta Ltd. Breakeven Analysis for Feeder Cattle Alberta Agriculture Market Specialists Introduction Breakevens are specialized partial budgets used to evaluate feeder
AS I SEE IT Special Report By Bill Helming Economist, Agribusiness Consultant, Author and Speaker 13881 West 138th Street #302 Olathe, Kansas 66062 (913) 768-6540 For Your Careful Review Special Report
CATTLE MARKET SITUATION AND OUTLOOK John D. Lawrence and Shane Ellis Extension Livestock Economists Iowa State University. Ames, IA Introduction The US beef market has survived a roller coaster ride in
Beef Cattle Frame Scores AS-1091, May 1995 John Dhuyvetter, Area Livestock Specialist Frame scores are an objective, numerical description of cattle skeletal size which reflect the growth pattern and potential
Comparison of beef cattle management systems: pasture versus drylot year 1 (2009-2010) B. R. Ilse and V. L. Anderson NDSU Carrington Research Extension Center Introduction Land is an expensive and limited
Managing Cattle Price Risk with Futures and Options Contracts Dr. John Lawrence, Extension Livestock Economist and Associate Professor, Iowa State University Department of Economics Alexander H. Smith,
Breimyer Seminar July 17, 2013 U.S. Cattle History, Cycles and Trends Ron Plain, Ph.D. D. Howard Doane Professor Dept. of Agricultural & Applied Economics University of Missouri-Columbia http://web.missouri.edu/~plainr/
Comparing LRP to a Put Option Dr. G. A. Art Barnaby, Jr Kansas State University Phone: (785) 532-1515 Email: email@example.com Check out our WEB at: AgManager.info 1 Livestock Risk Protection (LRP)
Beef Cattle Selection Handbook A Basic Guide to Selecting Feeder Cattle, Breeding Heifers, and Bulls Where to Begin What are your goals? What type of animal will help you achieve these goals? Age? Sex?
Managing Feed and Milk Price Risk: Futures Markets and Insurance Alternatives Dillon M. Feuz Department of Applied Economics Utah State University 3530 Old Main Hill Logan, UT 84322-3530 435-797-2296 firstname.lastname@example.org
Analysis & Comments Livestock Marketing Information Center State Extension Services in Cooperation with USDA January 16, 2015 Letter #1 www.lmic.info Cattle Prices: Situation and Outlook A near perfect
Red Angus Crossbreeding Solutions Many commercial cow/calf operators enhance the profitability of their operations through thoughtful application of heterosis and breed complementarity made available through
January 2014 AG/AppliedEconomics/2014-01pr Grain Finishing Beef: Alternative Rations, Cattle Performance and Feeding Costs for Small Feeders Dillon M. Feuz and Jesse Russell Introduction Even though many
W 320A Using Futures Markets to Manage Price Risk in Feeder Cattle Operations Andrew P. Griffith Assistant Professor & Extension Economist- Livestock University of Tennessee R. Curt Lacy Associate Professor
The Changing Market Structure for the American Beef Industry Harlan Hughes 1 Introduction Change is now a common everyday word in beef marketing. Change spells out Cattlemen Have A New Great Encore. You
Livestock Risk Protection Insurance: How Does It Work James Mintert, Ph.D. Professor & Extension State Leader Department of Agricultural Economics Kansas State University www.agmanager.info/livestock/marketing
Beef Cattle Feed Efficiency Dan Shike University of Illinois Outline Introduction Definitions of feed efficiency Feedlot closeout data Challenges we face New technology Cow efficiency Summary Why all the
Agricultural and Resource Economics C O L L E G E O F A G R I C U L T U R E & L I F E S C I E N C E S Management and Marketing Series Series No. 19 (Revised) July 2004 Dairy Cow Leasing Geoff Benson, Ph.D
Iowa Farm Outlook 0BDepartment of Economics December 2016 Ames, Iowa Econ. Info. 2080 Glean More Information from Cattle Market Reports When discussing fed cattle prices, we all have our traditional benchmarks.
Enterprise Budget: BISON Cow-Calf Short Grass Prairie, Eastern Wyoming Thomas Foulke Steven J. Torok Tex Taylor Edward Bradley B-1092 January 2001 Authors: Thomas Foulke, Information Specialist, University
e relationship between subcutaneous fat and marbling Literature Review by Robert Maddock Associate Professor and Extension Meats Specialist, Animal Sciences NORTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY September 2013
Agricultural Cycles: Livestock Market Assessment and Long Term Prospective (Beef Cattle and Hogs) By Lee Schulz Assistant Professor/Extension Livestock Economist, Iowa State University In the current economic
Crossbreeding Beef Cattle Cooperative Extension Service Kansas State University Manhattan Crossbreeding Beef Cattle Although the benefits of crossbreeding have been known for many years, it has been accepted
COST COMPARISON OF METHODS OF HEIFER REPLACEMENT By, Andy Edwards University of Wyoming AGEC 4960 CONTENTS Introduction Overview Methods Results, Past and Present Alternatives Recommendations Conclusion
Canada Report & Outlook Canada Generally stable economy Strong financial system Stable Political Environment with a majority Conservative Government Committed to regulatory modernization, trade, and innovation
US Imported Beef Market A Weekly Update Prepared Exclusively for Meat & Livestock Australia - Sydney Volume XVI, Issue 24 June 29, 2016 Prepared by: Steiner Consulting Group SteinerConsulting.com 800-526-4612
Evaluation Of The Charolais As Straightbred And Crossbred For Beef Production In South Central Florida February 1977 - Bulletin 786 Agricultural Experiment Stations Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
North American Beef Production, Demand and Trade Challenges and Opportunities: A Perspective from the United States Introduction John D. Lawrence Iowa State University Department of Economics and Director,
THE CANADIAN BEEF INDUSTRY THE CANADIAN BEEF ADVANTAGE CANADIAN CATTLE PRODUCTION SYSTEM CANADIAN BEEF PROCESSING SYSTEM THE CANADIAN BEEF ADVANTAGE The Canadian Beef Industry Canada is one of the leading
Impact of Cash Settlement on Feeder Cattle Basis David Kenyon, Bruce Bainbridge, and Robin Ernst The feeder cattle futures contract specifications were changed in 1986 from physical delivery to cash settlement.
Impact of Cash Settlement on Feeder Cattle Basis David Kenyon, Bruce Bainbridge, and Robin Ernst The feeder cattle futures contract specifications were changed in 1986 from physical delivery to cash settlement.