Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-6c8bd87754-xvt4m Total loading time: 0.191 Render date: 2022-01-18T17:07:58.076Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

The natural and organic pork market: A sustainable niche for small-scale producers? A review and analysis of the evidence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

W. Parker Wheatley
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, 316 Classroom-Office Building, St. Paul, MN 55108 (whea0025@umn.edu).
Get access

Abstract

This study reviews the literature on consumer preferences and willingness to pay for pork produced through alternative methods, such as natural and organic production, It finds evidence suggesting that many consumers are willing to pay relatively high premiums for natural and organic pork. Furthermore, research is found which suggests that such premiums can be expected to persist into the foreseeable future. This study also investigates the degree to which such premiums are transmitted to pork producers and finds anecdotal evidence suggesting that natural and organic pork producers receive modest premiums as well as more stable pricing overall. This paper then discusses the marketing efforts needed and impediments to supplying the natural and organic markets for pork. The overall perspective provided by this paper is that natural and organic production may be viable alternatives to more capital-intensive production for many small-scale producers.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2003

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

Armah, P., and Kennedy, D.. 2000. Identification of market potential for pasture-raised pork in the Mississippi Delta of Arkansas. J. Food Distribution Res. 31(1):8997.Google Scholar
Baker, G.A., and Crosbie, P.J.. 1994. Consumer preferences for food safety attributes: A market segment approach. Agribusiness 10(4):319324.3.0.CO;2-J>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhr, B. 1993. Would people pay more for leaner, hormone-treated meat? Minnesota Agricultural Economist 673.Google Scholar
Buhr, B. 2002. Understanding the retail sector: Towards traceability in the meat production chain. In Murphy, J.M. and de Lange, C.F.M. (eds.). Proceedings of the 2nd London Swine Conference – The Pork Industry in the 21st Century – Conquering the Challenges. London Swine Conference. London, Ontario.Google Scholar
Dimitri, C., and Richman, N.J.. 2000. Organic Food Markets in Transition. Policy Studies Report No. 14. Henry A. Wallace Center for Agricultural and Environmental Policy, Greenbelt, Maryland.Google Scholar
FMI. 2000. Trends in the United States: Consumer Attitudes and the Supermarket 2000. Food Marketing Institute, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Ginder, R. 1998. Alternative models for the future of pork production. Staff Paper 299. Dept of Economics, Iowa State University, Ames.Google Scholar
Govindasamy, R., and Italia, J.. 1999. Predicting willingness-to-pay a premium for organically grown fresh produce. J. Food Distribution Res. 30(2):4453.Google Scholar
Govindasamy, R., Italia, J., and Liptak, C.. 1997. Quality of agricultural produce: Consumer preferences and perception. J. Amer. Soc. Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers p. 105113.Google Scholar
Grannis, J., and Thilmany, D.. 2001. Marketing opportunities for natural pork products: Defining the consumers who would purchase natural pork. J. Amer. Soc. Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers p. 9398.Google Scholar
Hayes, D., Jensen, H., and Fabiosa, J., 1999. Economic Impact of a Ban on the Use of Antibiotics in U.S. Swine Rations. Swine Research Report. ASL - R1677. Iowa State University, Ames.Google Scholar
Honeyman, M.S. 1991. Sustainable swine production in the U.S. corn belt. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 6(2):6370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honeyman, M.S. 1996. Swine System Options for Iowa, Outdoor Pig Production: an Approach that Works. Sustainable Agriculture Publications SA–9. Iowa State University Extension, Ames.Google Scholar
Hotelling, H. 1929. Stability in competition. Econ. J. 39:4157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurley, S.P., and Kliebenstein, J.B.. 1998. A Final Report Prepared for the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture. Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State University, Ames.Google Scholar
Hurley, S.P., and Kliebenstein, J.B.. 1999. A Look at Consumer Willingness to Pay for Pork Products with Environmental Qualities, Swine Research Report. ASL R1675. Iowa State University, Ames.Google Scholar
Jolly, D.A. 1991. Differences between buyers and nonbuyers of organic produce and willingness to pay organic price premiums. J. Agribusiness. 9(1):97111.Google Scholar
Kinsey, J., Senauer, B., and Jonk, Y.. 1993. Desirable Attributes for Value Added Meat Products Survey - 1993. Working Paper WP 93–7. Center for International Food and Agricultural Policy, Dept of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul.Google Scholar
Larson, B., Kliebenstein, J., and Honeyman, M.. 2001. Costs of Organic Pork Production. Swine Research Report. ASL–R1784B. Iowa State University, Ames.Google Scholar
Lawrence, J., and Grimes, G.. 2001. Production and Marketing Characteristics of U.S. Pork Producers, 2000. Staff Paper No. 343. Dept of Economics. Iowa State University, Ames.Google Scholar
Lawrence, J., Grimes, G., and Hayenga, M.. 1998. Production and Marketing Characteristics of U.S. Pork Producers, 1997–1998. Staff Paper No. 311. Dept of Economics, Iowa State University, Ames.Google Scholar
Lohr, L., and Semali, A.. 2000. Reconciling Attitudes and Behavior in Organic Food Retailing. Faculty Series 00–08. Dept of Agricultural and Applied Economics. University of Georgia, Athens.Google Scholar
McGuirk, A.M., Preston, W.P., and McCormick, A.. (1990) Toward the development of marketing strategies for food safety attributes. Agribusiness 6(4):297308.3.0.CO;2-B>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Misra, S., Grotegut, D., and Clem, K.. 1997a. Consumer attitude toward recombinant porcine somatotrophin. Agribusiness 13(1): 1120.3.0.CO;2-Q>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Misra, S.K., Huang, C.L., and Ott, S.L.. 1997b. Consumer willingness to pay for pesticide-free fresh produce. Western J. Agric. Econ. 16(2):218227.Google Scholar
Park, T.A., and Lohr, L.. 1995. Supply and Demand Factors for Organic Produce. Faculty Series 95–02. Dept of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia, Athens.Google Scholar
Richman, N.J. 1999. The Natural Foods Market: A Natural Survey of Strategies for Growth. Policy Studies Report Number 12. The Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture, Greenbelt, Maryland.Google Scholar
Richman, N.J. 2000. The Growing Natural Foods Market: Opportunities and Obstacles for Mass Market Supermarkets. Working Paper WP 00–02. The Retail Food Industry Center, Dept of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul.Google Scholar
Thompson, G.D. 1998. Consumer demand for organic foods: What we know and what we need to know. Amer. J. Agric. Econ. 80(5): 11131118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
USDA. 1982. Appropriate Policy for the Approval or Denial of Labeling for Meat Products and Poultry Products Bearing the Term ‘Natural’. FSIS Policy Memo 055. Food Safety and Inspection Service, US Dept of Agriculture, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
USDA. 2000. Glickman Announces National Standards for Organic Food. News Release. 0425.00. US Dept of Agriculture, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Van Ravenswaay, E. O. 1996. Emerging Demands on Our Food and Agricultural System: Developments in Environmental Labeling. Staff Paper Series No. 96–88. Dept of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing.Google Scholar
Van Ravenswaay, E. O., and Blend, J. R.. 1997. Use of Ecolabeling to Encourage Adoption of Environmental Technology in Agriculture. Staff Paper No. 97–19. Dept of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing.Google Scholar
Westgren, R.E. 1999. Delivering food safety, food quality, and sustainable production practices: The label rouge poultry system in France. Amer. J. of Agric. Econ. 81(5):11071111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The natural and organic pork market: A sustainable niche for small-scale producers? A review and analysis of the evidence
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

The natural and organic pork market: A sustainable niche for small-scale producers? A review and analysis of the evidence
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

The natural and organic pork market: A sustainable niche for small-scale producers? A review and analysis of the evidence
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *