Consumer Demand Drives Beef Industry Ted C. Schroeder Professor of Agricultural Economics Kansas...

Post on 16-Jan-2016

219 views 0 download

Tags:

Transcript of Consumer Demand Drives Beef Industry Ted C. Schroeder Professor of Agricultural Economics Kansas...

Consumer Demand Drives Beef Industry

Ted C. SchroederProfessor of Agricultural Economics

Kansas State University

tcs@ksu.edu

National Beef Industry Development Fund WorkshopSeptember 19, 2002

Calgary, Alberta

U.S. Retail Beef Demand Index,1980-2001 (1980=100)100

94

88 8683

7976

70 6966 65

6360 59 57 56

53 5350 52

5557

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01

Year

Ind

ex V

alu

e

Source: USDA & K-State

U.S. Beef Demand Index

Markets at each stagecoordinated chain, but worked poorly

- highly varied product- little price-quality distinction - no incentives to improve - huge loss of market share

Lack of Coordination

1. Tender2. Flavorful3. Consistently High Quality4. Convenient to Prepare5. Healthy & Nutritious6. Safe7. Competitively Priced

Consumers Demand

Percentage Willing to Pay a Premium over a Generic Steak

0%

50%

72%

80%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Generic Natural GuaranteedTender

Certified Angus

Steak Type

Per

cen

tag

e

Tenderness & Brands Matter

Spring 2002 K-Stateconsumer beef preference study

- 363 consumers-bid to exchange -real $, actual steaks

K-State 2002 StudyK-State 2002 Study

Median Premiums Willing to Pay for Steaks(half were willing to pay this or more)

$0.00 $0.10

$1.16

$2.66

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

$3.00

Generic Natural GuaranteedTender

Certified Angus

Steak Type

Pri

ce P

rem

ium

($/

lb.)

K-State 2002 StudyK-State 2002 Study

Tenderness & Brands Matter

Flavorful?

Fully Cooked Chicken Strips CategoryTotal U.S. Dollar Volume - ACNielsen

$-

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

8/ 9/ 97 1/ 9/ 98 6/ 9/ 98 11/ 9/ 98 4/ 9/ 99 9/ 9/ 99

Convenience Matters

Source: AC Nielsen and NCBA

Convenience Matters

Shredded Cheese Sales Increase 84%

Source: AC Nielsen and NCBA

$739$828 $888

$956

$1,079$1,196

$1,316 $1,358

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Sa

les

(m

illi

on

s)

$106 $168$312

$577

$889

$1,100

$91$82

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Mill

ion

s

Bagged Lettuce Sales: Convenience

Convenience Matters

Source: AC Nielsen and NCBA

Where’s the Action?

Beef industry will have segmentedmarkets with both similar and divergentneeds for each segment

Key to success will be to determine role ofproducers in effectively and profitablymeeting needs of the sectors

1. Fresh Branded Case-Ready Products

Vertical alliancesabound – some 60or more in U.S.

USDA has 50 beef certification programs

Weighted-Average of Respondent's Percentage of Cattle Marketed Under Marketing Agreements, by Year

22.5%

52.3%

65.3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

1996 2001 Expect in 2006

Year

Per

cen

tag

e o

f C

attl

eMar

ket

ed

Schroeder et al. 2002 cattle feeder survey – Kansas, Texas, Nebraska, IowaSchroeder et al. 2002 cattle feeder survey – Kansas, Texas, Nebraska, Iowa

Producers Changing Marketing

Cattle Feeder Motives to Form Marketing Agreement with Packers

Motive for Producer

Average

Those with Agreements

Those without Agreements

Obtain quality/yield grade premiums 6.2 6.5 5.8 Enables access to detailed carcass data 6.1 6.1 6.1 Guarantees a buyer for cattle 5.7 5.9 5.4 Reduces marketing time and costs 5.5 5.6 5.3 Sell cattle at a higher base price 5.1 5.3 4.9 Reduces price risk and/or basis risk 5.0 5.1 5.0 Facilitates financing arrangements 4.7 4.6 5.0 Pressured by packers 4.3 4.0 4.8 Number of Respondents 306 to 308 185 to 187 121

Scale: 1=strongly disagree to 9=strongly agree Source: Schroeder et al. 2002 Feedlot Survey

Producer Motivations

Schroeder et al. 2002 cattle feeder survey – Kansas, Texas, Nebraska, IowaSchroeder et al. 2002 cattle feeder survey – Kansas, Texas, Nebraska, Iowa

Source: Schroeder et al. 2002 Feedlot Survey

Weighted-Average Percentage of Respondent Fed Cattle Marketing Using Live or Carcass Weight, Grids, and Other Pricing

Methods, by Year

82.3%

52.5%

33.1%

15.6%

45.4%

62.1%

2.1% 2.1% 4.9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1996 2001 Expect in 2006Year

Per

cen

tag

e o

f C

attl

e Live or Carcass WeightGridsOther

Cash Market Disappearing

Ribeye Steak Prices in Kansas City – April 1, 2000

LocationUSDA Grade

"Typical" Steak

"Hormone-free" Steak

Wild Oats none $11.99/lb.Hen House none $9.99/lb.Dean & Deluca Prime $24.95/lb.Dillons Select $7.49/lb.Dillons Choice $8.49/lb.Food-4-Less none $6.88/lb.Target Choice $4.99/lb. $9.49/lb.

Retail Steak Prices

Source: Lusk

2. Meal Packages

Single dish quick fix meal consumer expenditures expanded 83% in 2001 to $141 million – AC Nielsen

472 beef products introduced in 2001Compared to 70 in 1997 - NCBA

3. Food Service

Food service continuesto grow

Diversity of product needs

Quality control in volume are critical

Contracts

What do they require?

Product integrity

High level of accountability of input supplier

Product safety assurances – mega responsibility/risk

Production practice assurances (including location?)

Traceability

Consistent continuous supply

Critical Research Questions

1. How can the beef producer (seedstock, cow-calf, and feedlot) position their operation to be part of the new food environment?

Critical Research Questions

1. How can the beef producer (seedstock, cow-calf, and feedlot) position their operation to be part of the new food environment?

2. What form of business ownership, risk sharing, valuation, and financial arrangements are most likely to be successful in meeting the needs of the consumer? In other words, what is the most efficient way to provide the products demanded?

Critical Research Questions

1. How can the beef producer (seedstock, cow-calf, and feedlot) position their operation to be part of the new food environment?

2. What form of business ownership, risk sharing, valuation, and financial arrangements are most likely to be successful in meeting the needs of the consumer? In other words, what is the most efficient way to provide the products demanded?

3. How will incentives to add value, innovate, and invest in development and research be rewarded?

Critical Research Questions

1. How can the beef producer (seedstock, cow-calf, and feedlot) position their operation to be part of the new food environment?

2. What form of business ownership, risk sharing, valuation, and financial arrangements are most likely to be successful in meeting the needs of the consumer? In other words, what is the most efficient way to provide the products demanded?

3. How will incentives to add value, innovate, and invest in development and research be rewarded?

4. How will producers manage increased risks associated with greater accountability/liability?

Volume of U.S. Beef Imports and Exports, 1987-2001

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001

Year

Car

cass

Wei

gh

t (l

bs.

)

Exports

Imports

U.S. Beef Import Shares, 2001

CANADA32%

URUGUAY1%CENTRAL

AMERICA2%

MEXICO0%

BRAZIL5%

ARGENTINA3%

OTHER0%

NEW ZEALAND20%

AUSTRALIA37%

Primarilygrass-fedbeef importsfor groundor processed beef

U.S. Beef Export Shares, 2001

JAPAN45%

CANADA10%

MEXICO23%

CARIBBEAN1%

KOREA15%

RUSSIA0%

OTHER6%

Primarily offalsand high-qualityfresh table cuts

U.S. Beef Exports to European Union

Volume of US Beef Exports to the European Union

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

Year

Me

tric

To

ns

EU bans importof beef producedusing synthetic growth hormones(95% of U.S. fed beef)

U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA)U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)World Trade Organization (WTO)Lamming Group (European Scientists)

All say growthhormones not food safetyconcern

Growth Hormones

U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA)U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)World Trade Organization (WTO)Lamming Group (European Scientists)

All say growthhormones not food safetyconcern

Growth Hormones

Yet, 54% of EU consumers indicated in 1998 surveythat food must not have hormone use to be safe(INRA, Europe)

“Consumer is King!”

No credible scientific evidence suggests it is a problem.

Vast majority of U.S. consumers not concerned with use of GMO crops in food or animal production

However,Only 30% of German consumers, 60% of France, and 63% of United Kingdom consumers unwilling to buy

food produced with GM crops.57% of German, 38% of France, and 39% of U.K.

consumers view GM crops as a health risk.(Source: Hoban)

Is Feeding GMO Grains a Problem?

Estimated Premiums Average ConsumersIndicated they would Pay for Steaks

UnitedSteak Attribute France Germany Kingdom U.S.

No Growth $9.94/lb. $7.29/lb. $7.39/lb. $8.12/lb.Hormones

Not fed GMO $9.32/lb. $7.67/lb. $6.31/lb. $3.31/lb.Grain

Source: Lust et al., 2002

Monthly Farmer's Share of Retail Beef Dollar,1990- June 2001

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

55.0

60.0

65.0

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Date

Far

m S

har

e (%

)What about Margins?

Inflation-Adjusted Farm to Wholesale Cutout Price Spread, 1990- June 2002

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Date

Sp

read

(ce

nts

/lb R

etai

l)

Source: USDA, deflated using CPI 2001=100

Farm to Wholesale

Wholesale to Retail

Inflation-Adjusted Wholesale Cutout to Retail Monthly Beef Price Spread, 1990- June 2002

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Date

Sp

read

(ce

nts

/lb R

etai

l)

Source: USDA, deflated using CPI 2001=100

Are USDA Retail Prices Wrong?

Example of Impact of not Volume Weighting Beef Sales in Retail Price Reporting

$6.52$6.31

$4.68

$5.21

$1.97

$5.90 $5.75

$4.61$4.43

$1.83

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$6.00

$7.00

Ribeye Top Loin Top Round Porterhouse Ground (75%)

Beef Product

Pri

ce (

$/lb

.)

Simple Average

Volume-Weighted

Error range:2% Top Round

18% for Porterhouse

(8% for ground beef)

Source: Lensing, Jones, and Purcell, 2002