Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:52:42.398Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Determinants of Cattle Finishing Profitability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Michael Langemeier ,
Ted Schroeder  and
James Mintert
Michael Langemeier
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Kansas State University
Ted Schroeder
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Kansas State University
James Mintert
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Kansas State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Data from a western Kansas feedlot were analyzed to estimate the quantitative impacts of price and performance variables on profits per head from finishing cattle. Sale prices, feeder prices, and corn prices had the most impact on profit variability over time. Differences in sale prices, feeder prices, and feed conversions were important in explaining the difference in steer and heifer profits over time. Results suggest that breakeven prices should be calculated for a range of fed cattle, feeder, and corn prices, and that these three variables need to be stochastic in representative farm modeling efforts.

Keywords

cattle finishing profitabilityfeedlot closeoutscattle performance
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , December 1992 , pp. 41 - 47
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1992

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

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Federal Reserve Bulletin, various issues.Google Scholar
Buccola, S.T. “An Approach to the Analysis of Feeder Cattle Price Differentials.” Am. J. Agr. Econ., 62(1980):574–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burt, O.R., and Finley, R.M.. “Statistical Analysis of Identities in Random Variables.” Am. J. Agr. Econ., 50(1968):734–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, W.M., van der Sluis, G.T., and Stevermer, E.J.. “Determinants of Profitability in Farrow-to-Finish Swine Production.” N. Cent. J. Agr. Econ., 11(1989): 17–25.Google Scholar
Ezekiel, M., and Fox, K.A.. Methods of Correlation and Regression Analysis, 3rd Edition. New York: John Wiley, 1959.Google Scholar
Heady, E.O., and Jensen, H.R.. Farm Management Econ.. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1954.Google Scholar
Kansas Agricultural Statistical Service. Agricultural Prices, various issues.Google Scholar
Lambert, C., and Sands, M.B.. Kansas Steer Futurities: Summary of Nine Years of Retained Ownership. Kansas State University Cooperative Extension Service MF-712, April 1984.Google Scholar
Langemeier, M.R. “Cattle Finishing Budgets and Returns.” In Ag. Update: Monthly Marketing/Farm Mgt. Newsletter. Kansas State University Cooperative Extension Service, January 23,1992.Google Scholar
Marsh, J.M. “Monthly Price Premiums and Discounts Between Steer Calves and Yearlings.“ Am. J. Agr. Econ., 67(1985): 307–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schroeder, T., and Blair, J.. “A Survey of Custom Cattle-Feeding Practices in Kansas.” Kansas State University Agr. Exp. Sta., Report of Progress 573, May 1989.Google Scholar
Swanson, E.R. “Sourcesof Profit and Decision Making in Cattle Feeding.” J. Farm Econ.,. 41(1959):640–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanson, E.R., and West, V.I.. “Statistical Analysis of Feeder Cattle Returns.” J. Farm Econ., 45(1963): 146–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Cattle on Feed, various issues.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Hay Market News, various issues.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce. Survey of Current Business, various issues.Google Scholar
Weimar, M.R., and Hallam, A.. “Risk Sharing in Custom Cattle Feeding.” N. Cent. J. Agr. Econ., 12(1990):279–291.Google Scholar
Wright, S. “Correlation and Causation.” J. Agr. Res., 20(1921):557–575.Google Scholar