Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T15:55:04.735Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factors Influencing Farmers’ Selection of a Milk Handler

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Richard L. Kilmer ,
Jonq-Ying Lee  and
Dale Carley
Richard L. Kilmer
Affiliation:
Food and Resource Economics Department, University of Florida
Jonq-Ying Lee
Affiliation:
Economic Research Department of the Florida Department of Citrus and in the Food and Resource Economics Department, University of Florida
Dale Carley
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Georgia Agricultural Experiment Station, Griffin, GA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A structural probit model is estimated to determine the change in the probability of selecting a milk handler. Cooperatives are thought to have lower prices and higher deductions than independent milk handlers and these factors reduce the probability that a farmer will select a cooperative by 0.39 and 0.32. Cooperatives are thought to have better services and an assured market and payment than independent milk handlers and these factors increase the probability that a farmer will select a cooperative by 0.20 and 0.26. This indicates that many cooperative members value monetary characteristics over non-monetary characteristics.

Keywords

cooperativesdairyprocessorsattributesselectionprobit
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , December 1994 , pp. 443 - 450
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1994

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

Berry, C.R., Dabney, W. T., and Voth, E.E.. Managers' perceptions of member participation in and control of selected large-scale dairy cooperatives. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. No. 868, University of Arkansas, 1984.Google Scholar
Boynton, Robert D. and Babb, Emerson. Grade A Daily Farmers ‘ Perception of Milk Buyer Performance: The Findings of a National Survey. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. No. 367, Purdue University, 1982.Google Scholar
Carley, D.H.Factors affecting the milk checks of southern da iiy farmers. Col. of Agr. & Envir. Sci., S. Coop. Series Bull. No. 362, University of Georgia, 1991.Google Scholar
Hamlett, C.A. and Roach, B.. Dairy farmers ‘ evaluation of cooperative market security. Washington, D.C: USDA Agr. Coop. Serv. Res. Rpt. No. 101, Nov. 1991.Google Scholar
Lee, L. “Unionism and Wage Rates: A Simultaneous Equations Model with Qualitative and Limited Dependent Variables.” Inter. Econ. Rev. 19(1978): 415–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liebrand, C.B. and Ling, K.C.. Value of cooperative benefits to southern dairy farmers. USDA Agr. Coop. Serv. Res. Rpt. No. 99, 1991.Google Scholar
Maddala, G. S.Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schräder, Lee, Babb, E.M., Boynton, R.D. and Lang, M.G.. Cooperative and Proprietary Agribusiness: Comparison of Performance. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. No. 982, Purdue University, 1985.Google Scholar
Wilkins, P.C. and Stafford, T. H.. Dairy farmers' evaluation of northeastern dairy cooperatives. USDA Agr. Coop. Serv. Res. Rpt. No. 19, 1982.Google Scholar