Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T22:44:23.101Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Computerized Remote-Access Commodity Market: Telcot

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Don E. Ethridge
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Cotton marketing, like the marketing of other agricultural commodities, traditionally has been done through relatively small country markets. Problems for cotton producers resulting from this type of market structure are the limited availability of market price information and the limited degree of buyer competition for their product at the local level. Though these are seemingly inherent problems in local markets, new technologies in the form of electronic markets can help to overcome them.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , December 1978, pp. 177 - 182
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

[1]Agricultural Marketing Service, Cotton Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Daily Spot Cotton Quotations, Memphis, Tennessee.Google Scholar
[2]Chandler, Whitman M. Jr. and Glade, Edward H. Jr. “Cost of Merchandising U.S. Cotton, 1974/75 Season,” Commodity Economics Division, Economic Research Service, USDA ERS-640, July 1976.Google Scholar
[3]Dahl, Dale C. and Hammond, Jerome W.. Market and Price Analysis. The Agricultural Industries. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1977.Google Scholar
[4]Henderson, Dennis R., Schräder, Lee F., and Turner, Michael S.. “Electronic Commodity Markets,” in Forker, Olan D., Rhodes, V. James, and Bonn, Ellen M., eds., Marketing Alternatives for Agriculture. Is There a Better Way? National Public Policy Education Committee Publication No. 7, Cornell University, November 1976.Google Scholar
[5] Plains Cotton Cooperative Association, Lubbock, Texas.Google Scholar
[6]Rhodes, James V., Henderson, Dennis, Hepp, Ralph, and Early, John. “Who Will Market Your Beef? Producer Alternatives,” Texas Agricultural Extension Service, D-1056, March 1978.Google Scholar
[7]Sporleder, Thomas, Haskell, James, Ethridge, Don, and Firch, Robert. “Who Will Market Your Cotton? Producer Alternatives,” Texas Agricultural Extension Service, D-1054, March 1978.Google Scholar
[8]Turner, Mike, Hefner, Richard, Nichols, Everett, and Wisner, Robert. “Who Will Market Your Grain? Producer Alternatives,” Texas Agricultural Extension Service, D-1057, March 1978.Google Scholar
[9]U.S. Department of Agriculture. “The Classification of Cotton,” Miscellaneous Publication No. 310, Washington, D.C, January 1965.Google Scholar
[10]U.S. Senate. “Marketing Alternatives for Agriculture; Is There A Better Way?” Committee Print, Subcommittee on Agricultural Production, Marketing, and Stabilization of Prices, Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, Washington, D.C, April 7, 1976, pp. 9–14.Google Scholar
[11]Williams, Willard F. and Stout, Thomas T.. Economics of the Livestock-Meat Industry. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1964.Google Scholar