↓ Skip to main content

Replacement Beef Cow Valuation under Data Availability Constraints

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
6 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Replacement Beef Cow Valuation under Data Availability Constraints
Published in
Frontiers in Veterinary Science, November 2017
DOI 10.3389/fvets.2017.00185
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amy D. Hagerman, Jada M. Thompson, Charlotte Ham, Kamina K. Johnson

Abstract

Economists are often tasked with estimating the benefits or costs associated with livestock production losses; however, lack of available data or absence of consistent reporting can reduce the accuracy of these valuations. This work looks at three potential estimation techniques for determining the value for replacement beef cows with varying types of market data to proxy constrained data availability and discusses the potential margin of error for each technique. Oklahoma bred replacement cows are valued using hedonic pricing based on Oklahoma bred cow data-a best case scenario-vector error correction modeling (VECM) based on national cow sales data and cost of production (COP) based on just a representative enterprise budget and very limited sales data. Each method was then used to perform a within-sample forecast of 2016 January to December, and forecasts are compared with the 2016 monthly observed market prices in Oklahoma using the mean absolute percent error (MAPE). Hedonic pricing methods tend to overvalue for within-sample forecasting but performed best, as measured by MAPE for high quality cows. The VECM tended to undervalue cows but performed best for younger animals. COP performed well, compared with the more data intensive methods. Examining each method individually across eight representative replacement beef female types, the VECM forecast resulted in a MAPE under 10% for 33% of forecasted months, followed by hedonic pricing at 24% of the forecasted months and COP at 14% of the forecasted months for average quality beef females. For high quality females, the hedonic pricing method worked best producing a MAPE under 10% in 36% of the forecasted months followed by the COP method at 21% of months and the VECM at 14% of the forecasted months. These results suggested that livestock valuation method selection was not one-size-fits-all and may need to vary based not only on the data available but also on the characteristics (e.g., quality or age) of the livestock being valued.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 6 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 6 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 17%
Student > Master 1 17%
Researcher 1 17%
Student > Postgraduate 1 17%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 1 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 33%
Environmental Science 1 17%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 17%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 17%
Unknown 1 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 November 2017.
All research outputs
#18,575,277
of 23,007,053 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#4,164
of 6,317 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#253,395
of 330,777 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#63
of 75 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,053 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,317 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,777 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 75 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.