Cross-Commodity Perspective on Contracting: Evidenc e from Mississippi
Table 1. Use of Contracting by Agricultural Producers
|
Commodity % Value Under Contract | ||
|
1993 |
1998 | |
|
Corn |
12.3 |
13.1 |
|
Soybeans |
12.4 |
12.2 |
|
Wheat |
6.8 |
N/A |
|
Cotton |
32.7 |
50.6 |
|
Vegetablesa |
47.4 |
45.5 |
|
Fruits |
56.7 | |
|
Cattlea |
18.4 |
25.3 |
|
Hogs |
42.9 | |
|
Poultry |
89.4 |
94.9 |
a Vegetables and Fruits were reported together in 1993; Cattle and Hogs were reported
together in 1993.
Source: USDA and Perry and Banker.
21
More intriguing information
1. Group cooperation, inclusion and disaffected pupils: some responses to informal learning in the music classroom2. The name is absent
3. Banking Supervision in Integrated Financial Markets: Implications for the EU
4. The name is absent
5. The name is absent
6. The Interest Rate-Exchange Rate Link in the Mexican Float
7. The name is absent
8. The name is absent
9. Emissions Trading, Electricity Industry Restructuring and Investment in Pollution Abatement
10. The name is absent