Cross-Commodity Perspective on Contracting: Evidenc e from Mississippi
|
Table 4. Means of Relevant Variable by Product Categories, Contracting Survey, Mississippi, 2001._______________________________________________________ | ||||||
|
Variable Unclassified |
Cotton |
Field Crops |
FNVO |
Livestock |
Other | |
|
CVP HOURS OFFINC ASSETSP CONTRACT1 CONTRACT2 |
20.92 0.85 60.17 37.65 0.07 0.00 |
14.98 2.55 42.82 38.96 0.56 0.26 |
18.51 1.25 49.11 38.62 0.21 0.18 |
27.22 1.03 59.69 36.42 0.09 0.03 |
20.39 1.05 52.14 43.18 0.07 0.06 |
19.31 0.82 61.27 49.54 0.12 0.04 |
|
No. Obs. |
43 |
27 |
33 |
32 |
105 |
25 |
|
CVP is the coe¢cient of variation in |
expected price for the primary product, Hours | |||||
is the number of hours spent collecting and analyzing market information, OFFINC is the
percentage of total household income that is derived from off-farm sources, ASSETSP is the
percentage of total assets that can be used in the production of only one output, Contract1
is the proportion of respondents that utilized either forward contracts, marketing pools,
resource providing or production management contracts, and Contract2 is the proportion
of respondents that utilized either forward resource providing, or production management
contracts.
24