Alternative Marketing Arrangements in the Beef Industry: Definition, Use, and Motives

Justin Taylor, Sheryl C Cates, Shawn A Karns, John D. Lawrence, Stephen R. Koontz and Mary K. Muth

Staff General Research Papers Archive from Iowa State University, Department of Economics

Abstract: During the 2002 Farm Bill debate, several pieces of legislation were aimed at restricting packers' livestock purchasing practices. A specific concern focused on marketing arrangements that gave packers control over livestock more than 14 days prior to slaughter, commonly known as "captive supply." As a compromise, in 2003 Congress requested a study of alternative marketing arrangements (AMAs) that are used as alternatives to the cash market. The resulting Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) Livestock and Meat Marketing Study was completed in early 2007 (Muth et al., 2007; Cates et al., 2007). However, during the time of the study, much of the proposed legislation has been reintroduced, and several are currently being discussed along with the 2007 Farm Bill. The purpose of this discussion is to illustrate perceived benefits of using AMAs to producers and packers.

Keywords: alternative marketing arrangements; hogs (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2007-11-01
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (4)

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:isu:genres:12907

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Staff General Research Papers Archive from Iowa State University, Department of Economics Iowa State University, Dept. of Economics, 260 Heady Hall, Ames, IA 50011-1070. Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Curtis Balmer ().