Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:22:39.877Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Processor Demand and Price-Markup Functions for Catfish: A Disaggregated Analysis with Implications for the Off-Flavor Problem

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Henry Kinnucan ,
Scott Sindelar ,
David Wineholt  and
Upton Hatch
Henry Kinnucan
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Auburn University
Scott Sindelar
Affiliation:
Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA
David Wineholt
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Auburn University
Upton Hatch
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Auburn University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Off-flavor in catfish restricts farm marketings 10 to 45% depending on the season. The economic impact on society of this imposed supply restriction depends, in part, on the elasticity of demand for catfish. Econometric estimates based on disaggregated processing plant data indicate an elastic demand at the processor level but an inelastic demand at the farm level. Short-run social welfare gains from the elimination of off-flavor are estimated to equal 12.0% of farm revenues ($10.0 million in 1983). The inelastic demand for catfish at the farm level, however, means that most of the societal gains will accrue to individuals beyond the farm gate. Thus, an economic justification exists for public sector funding of off-flavor research.

Keywords

applied welfare analysisaquaculturecatfishderived demandoff-flavorprice transmission
Type
Submitted Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , December 1988 , pp. 81 - 92
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1988

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

Cacho, O., Kinnucan, H., and Sindelar, S.. “Catfish Farming Risks in Alabama.” Agricultural Experiment Station Circular 287. Auburn University, December, 1986.Google Scholar
Chavas, J.P., Hassan, Z. A., and Johnson, S. R.. “Static and Dynamic Elasticities and Flex ibilities in a System of Simultaneous Equations.” J. Agr. Econ., 32(1981):177–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dellenbarger, L., Luzar, E. J., and Schupp, A. R.. “Household Demand for Catfish in Louisiana.” Agribusiness: An International Journal, 4(1988):forthcoming.3.0.CO;2-W>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillard, J.G.Department of Agricultural Economics, Mississippi State University, personal communication, August, 1987.Google Scholar
French, B.C, and King, G. A.. “Demand and Price-Markup Functions for Canned Cling Peaches and Fruit Cocktail.” West. J. Agr. Econ., 11(1986):8–18.Google Scholar
Fuller, M.J., and Dillard, J. G.. “Cost-Size Relationships in the Processing of Farm-Raised Cat fish in the Delta of Mississippi.” Bullentin 930, Mississippi State University, December, 1984.Google Scholar
Gardner, B.L.. “The Farm-Retail Price Spread in a Competitive Food Industry.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 57,3(1975):399–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giachelli, J.W. Mississippi Department of Agriculture and Commerce, personal communication, July, 1987.Google Scholar
Hu, T. “Analysis of Seafood Consumption in the U.S.: 1970, 1974, 1978, 1981.” Pennsylvania State University: Institute for Policy Research and Evaluation, 1985.Google Scholar
Kinnucan, H. “Demand and Price Relationships for Commercially Processed Catfish with Industry Growth Projections.” In Auburn Fisheries and Aquaculture Symposium. Ed. Smitherman, R. O. and Tave, D.. Ala. Agr. Exp. Station; forthcoming.Google Scholar
Kinnucan, H.W. and Forker, O. D.. “Asymmetry in Farm-Retail Price Transmission for Major Dairy Products.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 69(1987):285–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinnucan, H., and Sullivan, G.. “Monopsonistic Food Processing and Farm Prices: The Case of the West Alabama Catfish Industry.” So. J. Agr. Econ., 18(1986):15–24.Google Scholar
Lovell, R. “Off-Flavor in Pond Cultured Channel Catfish.” Water Science Technology, 15(1983):67–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McElroy, M.B.. “Goodness of Fit for Seemingly Unrelated Regression.” J. Econometrics, 6(1977):381–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mississippi Crop and Livestock Reporting Service. Catfish. Mississippi Department of Agriculture and Commerce. Quarterly issues, 1985-86.Google Scholar
Miller, J.D., Connor, J. R., and Waldrop, J. E.. “Survey of Commercial Catfish Processor: Structural and Operational Characteristics and Procurement and Marketing Practices.” Agr. Econ. Res. Report No. 130, Mississippi State University, October, 1981.Google Scholar
Raulerson, R., and Trotter, W.. “Demand for Farm-Raised Channel Catfish in Supermarkets: Analysis of Selected Market.” USDA, Economic Research Service. Marketing Research Report No. 993, 1973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theil, H., and Shonkwiler, J.S.. “Monte Carlo Tests of Autocorrelation.” Economic Letters, 20(1986):157–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Aquaculture: Situation and Outlook. Economic Research Service. AS-3, 1982.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Crop Reporting Board. Statistical Reporting Service. Catfish. Various monthly issues, 1980-83.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Business Conditions Digest. December issues, 1980-84.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Census. Current Populations Reports. Series P-25, annual issues 1980-84.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. CPI Detailed Report. Various monthly issues, 1980-84.Google Scholar
Wallace, T.D. “Pretest Estimation in Regression: A Survey.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 59(1977):431–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar