The name is absent



4

with the statement, 4 was neither agree nor disagree, and 7 was strongly disagree. Perhaps
surprisingly, how cattle feeders in the two groups responded to the statements did not differ
significantly, except for a single statement.

Table 3 groups the statements into similar categories. One could argue that mean ratings closer
to 1 and 7 indicated more and less importance, respectively, for the factor believed to affect grid
pricing than those closer to 4, depending on how the statement was presented. While some
comparison is made in the following discussion, recall there was only one significant difference
between the group which used grid pricing for half or less of their marketings in 2003 and the
group that used grid pricing for more than half of the fed cattle marketed from their feedlot that
year. For the group using grid pricing most frequently, factors of most importance were

when cattle were expected to fit a specific grid

when cattle were expected to quality grade well

when cattle were expected to dress well

when recent experiences with grid pricing were favorable

when cattle were expected to yield grade well.

Four of the five factors were from the Cattle Characteristics group in Table 3; with the fifth from
the Other Factors group.

Among other factors presented to feeders, those of most importance were

when there was a wide Choice-Select price difference

when marketing with an agreement, contract, or part of an alliance or cooperative

when there was a favorable base price.

Two of these factors came from the Price and Market Conditions group and one from the Other
Factors group in Table 3.

Four of the five factors rated highest by the group using grid pricing the most also were rated
most important by the group not using grid pricing as frequently. The sole statement for which
there was a significant difference in the mean response related to using grid pricing when futures
market prices are relatively stable. This factor was rated more important to the group using grid
pricing less frequently than to the other group.

Mean differences are neither the sole criterion nor perhaps the best one on which to claim no
significant differences among the two groups of cattle feeder respondents. Two nonparametric
tests were also conducted on the rankings of each statement by the two groups. While not shown
here, the only significant difference in rankings of the statements by the two groups according to
the Wilcoxon Scores test (rank sums) or the Spearman Rank Correlation test was, again, for the
statement regarding the relative stability of futures market prices.

Ordinary Least Squares and OrderedLogit Models - Two regression models were specified and
estimated with SAS (SAS Institute); one with extent of grid pricing as the dependent
(continuous) variable in an ordinary least squares model; and one with the extent of grid pricing
group as the dependent (binary choice) variable in an ordered logit model. The ordered logit
model was also estimated with three, four, and five dependent (choice) variables with similar



More intriguing information

1. The name is absent
2. Has Competition in the Japanese Banking Sector Improved?
3. Mergers and the changing landscape of commercial banking (Part II)
4. A Consistent Nonparametric Test for Causality in Quantile
5. The name is absent
6. QUEST II. A Multi-Country Business Cycle and Growth Model
7. Magnetic Resonance Imaging in patients with ICDs and Pacemakers
8. Unilateral Actions the Case of International Environmental Problems
9. PER UNIT COSTS TO OWN AND OPERATE FARM MACHINERY
10. The name is absent
11. The name is absent
12. Konjunkturprognostiker unter Panik: Kommentar
13. Skill and work experience in the European knowledge economy
14. An Intertemporal Benchmark Model for Turkey’s Current Account
15. The name is absent
16. The name is absent
17. Linkages between research, scholarship and teaching in universities in China
18. The name is absent
19. The name is absent
20. The name is absent