Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T04:01:20.942Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Understanding Factors That Influence Breeders to Sell Bulls at Performance Tests

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2015

J. M. Lillywhite
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Agricultural Business, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM
J. Simonsen
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Agricultural Business, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM

Abstract

Breeders of purebred bulls have multiple avenues to market their bulls, including consignment at public auctions associated with performance tests. Purebred breeders often have the opportunity to withdraw bulls that are eligible to sell in these auctions. We examine sales data from a public auction held in conjunction with a performance bull test in Tucumcari, NM, to gain insights on breeder decisions to withdraw bulls prior to entering the sales ring. Specifically, we use a binary logit model to identify relevant characteristics that affect a breeder's decision to withdraw a sale eligible bull from the auction.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2008

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

Beckmann, M.Art Auctions and Bidding Rings: Empirical Evidence from German Auction Data.Journal of Cultural Economics 28(2004): 125-41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beef Improvement Federation. Guidelines for Uniform Beef Improvement Programs, 8th ed, Hohenboken, W.D. ed., Internet site: www.beefimprovement.org/library/06 guidelines.pdf (Accessed February 1 2008).Google Scholar
Buccola, S.T.Price Trends at Livestock Auctions.American Journal of Agricultural Economics 64(1982):6369.Google Scholar
Capps, O., and Kramer, R.A.Analysis of Food Stamp Participation Using Qualitative Choice Models.American Journal of Agricultural Economics 67(1985)4959.Google Scholar
Chakraborty, I., and Kosmopoulou, G.Auctions with Shill Bidding.Economic Theory 24(2004): 271-87.Google Scholar
Chenowith, P.J.Bull Libido/Serving Capacity.Veterinary Clinics of North America—Food Animal Practice 13(1997):331.Google Scholar
Chvosta, J., Rucker, R.R., and Watts, M.J.Transaction Costs and Cattle Marketing: The Information Content of Seller-Provided Presale Data at Bull Auctions.American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83(2001):286301.Google Scholar
Dhuyvetter, K.C., Shroeder, T.C., Simms, D.D., Bolze, R.P. Jr., and Geske, J.Determinants of Purebred Beef Bull Price Differentials.Journal of Agriculture and Resource Economics 21(1996): 396410.Google Scholar
Garcia, M.D., Thomas, M.D., Parker, W.R., Bauchemin, V.R., and Enns, R.M. Evaluation of performance trends in the Tucumcari Bull Test 1961 to 2000. New Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment Station, Research Report 754, 2004.Google Scholar
Greenleaf, E.A.Reserves, Regret, and Rejoicing in Open English Auctions.Journal of Consumer Research 31(2004):264-73.Google Scholar
Hurd, B.H.Water Conservation and Residential Landscapes: Household Preferences, Household Choices.Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 31(2006): 173-92.Google Scholar
Livestock Marketing Information Center, Internet site: www.lmic.info (Accessed January 1, 2007).Google Scholar
Maddala, G.S. Introduction to Econometrics, 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan, 1992.Google Scholar
Mears, G.J., and Kozub, G.C.Effect of Selection for Feedlot Gain, Breed and Age on Growth-Hormone and Growth-Hormone Kinetics in Bull Calves.Canadian Journal of Animal Science 75(1995):6369.Google Scholar
Mintert, J., Blair., J., Schroeder., T., and Brazle, F.Analysis of Factors Affecting Cow Auction Price Differentials.” Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics (1990):2330.Google Scholar
Petherick, J.C.A Review of Some Factors Affecting the Expression of Libido in Beef Cattle, and Individual Bull and Herd Fertility.Applied Animal Behavior Science 90(2005): 185205.Google Scholar
Prayaga, K.C., and Henshall, J.M.Adaptability in Tropical Beef Cattle: Genetic Parameters for Growth, Adaptive, and Temperament Traits in a Crossbred Population.Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 45(2005):971-83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quagrainie, K.K., McCluskey, J.J., and Loureiro, M.L.A Latent Structure Approach to Measuring Reputation.Southern Economic Journal 69(2003):966-77.Google Scholar
SAS. SAS Version 9.1. User's Guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc., 2004.Google Scholar
Schenkel, F.S., Miller, S.P., and Wilton, J.W.Genetic Parameters and Breed Differences for Feed Efficiency, Growth, and Body Composition Traits of Young Beef Bulls.Canadian Journal of Animal Science 84(2004): 177-85.Google Scholar
Schroeder, T., Mintert., J., Brazle., F., and Grunewald, O.Factors Affecting Feeder Cattle Price Differentials.Western Journal of Agricultural Economics 13(1988):7181.Google Scholar
Taylor, M.R., Dhuyvetter, K.C., Kastens, T.L., Douthit., M., and Marsh, T.L.Show Quality Quarterhorse Auctions: Price Determinants and Buy-Back Practices.Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 31(2006):595615.Google Scholar
Tomek, W.G., and Robinson, K.L. Agricultural Product Prices, 4th ed. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2003.Google Scholar
Turner, S.C., Dykes, N.S., and McKissick, J.Feeder Cattle Price Differentials in Georgia Teleauctions.Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics 12(1991):7584.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Internet site: http://data.bls.gov (Accessed January 1, 2007).Google Scholar
Walburger, A.M.Estimating the Implicit Prices of Beef Cattle Attributes: A Case from Alberta.Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 50(2002): 135-49.Google Scholar