Search

The Georgia turkey industry is made up of a mixture of integrated producers, small independent producers and contract producers. The primary objective of this report was to present costs information relative to typical independent and contract turkey operations. An additional objective was to examine variations in costs due to variations in production levels and feed prices. Most of the data used in this analysis were obtained by personal interview from a random sample of turkey producers. Data were obtained on 1972 production of 89 flocks with a total volume of over one million turkeys. Budgetary procedures were used to budget costs and returns for average independent and contract operations and variability in costs was analyzed by production levels. Production costs were also estimated by allowing feed prices to change by $10 intervals from $90 to $200 per ton. Average production costs, excluding land and operator labor, for turkeys marketed by independent producers during 1972 were estimated at $0.2278 for 25.09-pound toms and $0.2178 for 14.77-pound hens. Average returns to land and labor were estimated for 25-pound tom turkeys marketed during 1972: (1) independent operations, $0.1807; (2) profit share contract, $0.2704 and (3) base pay and bonuses contract, $0.1656. These analyses show that differences in production cost were large enough to account for the success or failure of the turkey enterprise at 1972 turkey market prices.

The neoclassical theorem, provided by Mrs Robinson and others, states that per capita consumption is maximized in the state of balanced growth (or the Golden Age) if the rate of profit is equal to the rate of growth. In such a state, the average saving ratio should be equal to the relative profit share. Except for this condition, “it does not matter at all who does the saving so long as the rate of profit is equal to the rate of growth,” in Mrs Robinson’s words ([1], p. 226). Commenting on this theorem, Samuelson states that “it has nothing essential to do with saving propensities” in the sense that “it is really a theorem about technology and production” ([1], p. 251). An identical comment is also given by Solow ([1], p. 257).

The aim of this research is from this research to find out 1) what kind of marketing institution plays a role in the marketing of broiler chickens in the partnership of PT. Ciomas Adisatwa and 2) price margins, profits, and marketing profits for broiler broiler at PT. Ciomas Adisatwa Metro City. The research method used in the research is using quantitative descriptive method. The research sample is a partnership farmer of PT. Ciomas Adisatwa, traders, and end consumers who buy chicken sourced from partnership farmers. Data analysis techniques used are analysis of price margins, profits, and profit share. The results of the research are three channels of marketing broiler broiler in Metro City, namely the first channel consists of breeders, collectors I, collectors’ II traders, collectors III, retailers and consumers. The second marketing channel is farmers, collectors I, collectors II, retailers, and consumers. The third marketing channel pattern is breeders, collectors, retailers, and consumers. The highest price margin is found in the pattern of the first third marketing channel, namely at the retail level, while the largest profit share is in the second channel pattern, that is, the collecting traders I. Keywords: Broiler, Price, Profit, Share Profit Margins

In a model where there exists a group who receive only property income (capitalists), the wealth of that sector will grow at a constant rate, depending on their saving rate and their rate of return earned S,(PI/K,) = g,. If long-run equilibrium is defined as a situation where the distribution of wealth remains constant, the wealth of all other sectors, and so of the economy as a whole, must also grow at this same rate. If in addition it is assumed that the economy grows at a constant (natural) rate, it follows that the profit rate and the profit share depend only on the saving preferences of capitalists, while the saving preferences of all other groups (workers) are irrelevant. This is the essence of the Pasinetti Theorem. [3] The assumption that the distribution of wealth is constant implies that savings are distributed in proportion to wealth