This paper is only available as a PDF. To read, Please Download here.
Abstract
Data collected from 759 steer calves that were consigned to the South Dakota Retained
Ownership Demonstration Program were utilized to examine the effect of slaughter cattle
marketing method on production signals sent to beef producers. Marketing systems examined
included basing price on live weight (LW), dressed weight (DW), grade and yield (G-Y),
or Excel Corporation’s proposed muscle scoring system (MS). Profitability per head
averaged $6.64, $23.54, $26.00, and $27.09 for the LW, DW, G-Y, and MS marketing systems,
respectively. For the LW pricing system, average daily gain, cost of gain, initial
feedlot weight, and days fed accounted for 86.6% of the variation in profitability.
For the DW pricing system, average daily gain, dressing percentage, cost of gain,
initial feedlot weight, and days fed accounted for 92.86% of the variation in profitability.
Average daily gain, dressing percentage, quality grade, cost of gain, days fed, and
hot carcass weight accounted for 83.1% of the variation in profit for the G-Y marketing
system. Average daily gain, dressing percentage, cost of gain, days fed, carcass fatness,
quality grade, and rib eye area explained 75.6% of the variation in profitability
for the MS pricing system. Only the MS pricing system penalized the production of
carcass fat. Current fed cattle pricing systems used in the industry fail to transfer
consumer demand for lean beef to beef producers.
Key Words
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe toAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
Literature Cited
- A crossroads for the cattle industry.Econ. Rev. 1990; 75: 47
- Marketing implications from the National Consumer Beef Study.West. J. Agric. Econ. 1986; 11: 82
- Market structure dynamics in the livestockmeat subsector: Implications for pricing and price reporting.in: Purcel W. Altizer T. Key Issues in Livestock Pricing. A Perspective for the 1990’s. Research Institute on Livestock Pricing, Blacksburg, VA1988: 23
- Cash Cattle Prices and USDA Market News Cattle Closing. Electronic Market Quotes, Omaha, NE1991 (1992)
- Muscle scoring system.An Excel Production Video Tape. 1988 (Wichita, KS)
- Impact of a price premium on sales of branded, low fat, fresh beef.Agribusiness Int. J. 1988; 4: 521
- War on fat. Value-based Marketing Task Force Final Report.National Cattlemen’s Association. Englewood, CO, 1990
- Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle. 6th Rev. EdNational Academy Press, Washington, DC1984
- Net energy calculation from feedlot performance data.Oklahoma Agr. Exp. Sta. MP. 1984; 116: 290
- SAS User’s Guide: Statistics. (Version 5 Ed.). SAS Inst., Inc., Cary, NC1985
- A quality audit of the beef industry.in: Proc. Range Beef Cow Symp.XII. Fort Collins, CO, 1991: 1 (Dec. 3–5)
- South Dakota Retained Ownership Demonstration.S.D. Agr. Exp. Sta. Beef Report Cattle. 1991; 89 (91–23)
- South Dakota Retained Ownership Demonstration.S. D. Agric. Exp. Sta. Beef Report Cattle. 1992; 53 (92–15)
- Market structure dynamics in the livestock-meat subsector: Implications for pricing and price reporting.in: Purcel W. Rowsell J. Key Issues in Livestock Pricing, A Perspective for the 1990’s. Research Institute on Livestock Pricing, Blacksburg, VA1987: 8
- The consumer climate for red meat.Report to the American Meat Institute and the National Live Stock and Meat Board. National Live Stock and Meat Board, Chicago, IL1985
Article info
Identification
Copyright
© 1993 American Registry of Professional Animal Scientists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
