Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T23:23:06.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Marginal Value of Quality Attributes for Natural and Organic Beef

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Michael Boland  and
Ted Schroeder
Michael Boland
Affiliation:
Kansas State University
Ted Schroeder
Affiliation:
Kansas State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The objective of this research is to determine the marginal value of attributes to consumers with respect to natural beef or beef produced with organic grains. A hedonic model is used to value attributes of 11 different primal cuts. Results suggest that producers under this particular natural/implant-free marketing alliance should market high-yielding animals rather than high-quality grading animals. Consumers of this beef value taste, as measured by dry aging, and leanness, as measured by USDA Select grade. The economic magnitudes of the variables under a producer's control were small relative to those that could be controlled by a processor.

Keywords

beefsmall farmshedonic
Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , April 2002 , pp. 39 - 49
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2002

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.)

References

Barkema, A. “Reaching Consumers in the Twenty-First Century: The Short Way Around the Barn.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75(1993):1126–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belsley, D.A., Kuh, E., and Welsch, R.W.. Regression Diagnostics. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dikeman, M.E. “Fat Reduction in Animals and the Effects on Palatability and Consumer Acceptance of Meat Products.” Proceedings of the Reciprocal Meat Conference 40(1987):93.Google Scholar
Gebremedhin, T.G. and Christy, R.D.. “Structural Changes in U.S. Agriculture: Implications for Small Farms.” Journal of Agriculture and Applied Economics 28,1(July 1996):57–66.Google Scholar
Givry, S. “Difficulties and Opportunities for Organic Beef in the United States.” Senior Thesis, L'Ecole Superieure de Purpan, Toulouse, France, June 1998.Google Scholar
Greene, C. “U.S. Organic Agriculture Gaining Ground.” In Agriculture Outlook, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, April 2000, pp. 9–14.Google Scholar
Huffman, K.L., Miller, M.F., Hoover, L.C., Wu, C.K., Brittin, H.C., and Ramsey, C.B.. “Effect of Beef Tenderness on Consumer Satisfaction with Steaks Consumed in the Home and Restaurant.” Journal of Animal Science 74(January 1996):91–7.Google Scholar
Ladd, G.W. and Martin, M.B.. “Prices and Demands for Input Characteristics.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 58(1976):21–30.Google Scholar
Lusk, J.L., Fox, J.A., Schroeder, T.C., Mintert, J., and Koohmaraie, M.. “In-Store Valuation of Beef Tenderness.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83(2001):539–550.Google Scholar
Miller, M.F., Huffman, K.L., Gilbert, S.Y., Ham, L.L.-mon, and Ramsey, C.B.. “Retail Consumer Acceptance of Beef Tenderized with Calcium Chloride.” Journal of Animal Science 73(1995):2308.Google Scholar
Purcell, W.D. “Measures of Changes in Demand for Beef, Pork, and Chicken, 1975-1998.” Research Institute on Livestock Pricing, Virginia Tech University, Blacksburg, VA, Research Bulletin, October 1998.Google Scholar
Sartwelle, J. “Marketing and Informational Alliances in the Fed Cattle Sector.” In Proceedings of 1997 Cattle Profitability Conference, Department of Agricultural Economics, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, August 1997.Google Scholar
Schroeder, T.C., Marsh, T.L., and Mintert, J.. “Beef Demand Determinants: A Research Summary.” MF-2457, Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service, March 2000.Google Scholar
Schroeder, T.C., Ward, C.E., Mintert, J., and Peel, D.S.. “Beef Industry Price Discovery: A Look Ahead.” Research Bulletin 1-98, Research Institute on Livestock Pricing, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA. March 1998.Google Scholar
Shackelford, S.D., Wheeler, T.L., and Koohmaraie, M.. “Tenderness-Based Classification of Beef.” Unpublished manuscript, U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, USDA, Clay Center, NE, 1996.Google Scholar
Smith, G. C., Savell, J.W., Dolezal, H.G., Field, T.G., Gill, D.R., Griffin, D.B., Hale, D.S., Morgan, J.B., Northcutt, S.L., and Tatum, J.D.. The National Quality Beef Audit. Colorado State University, Texas A&M University, College Station, and Oklahoma State University or the National Cattleman's Beef Association. 1995.Google Scholar
Streeter, D.H., Sonka, S.T., and Hudson, M.A.. “Information Technology, Coordination, and Competitiveness in the Food and Agribusiness Sector.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73(1991):1465–1471.Google Scholar
Unnevehr, L.J. and Bard, S.. “Beef Quality: Will Consumers Pay for Less Fat?” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 18(December 1993):288–295.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. “Small Farm Commission Report.” 1998.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. “USDA Estimated Composite of Boxed Beef Cut-Out Values.” USDA Market News, Des Moines, IA, 1997-1999.Google Scholar
Wheeler, T.L., Cundiff, L.V., and Koch, R.M.. “Effect of Marbling Degree on Beef Palatability in Bos taurus and Bos indicus Cattle.” Journal of Animal Science 72(December 1994):3145–3151.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed