Search
Displaying 1281 - 1290 of 4090
Beef Cows Sell Feeders
0.13
3.00 52 %5.768.76Fees, Publications, Travel 4.61
-8.92 -21 %41.6332.71Vet … 28.18
3.60 20 %18.3321.93Lvstk Marketing/Breeding 21.00
-14.09 -35 …
Beef Cows Sell Calves
3.66
-2.69 -37 %7.224.52Fees, Publications, Travel 8.33
-16.80 -52 … 28.46
-5.11 -20 %25.6320.52Lvstk Marketing/Breeding 16.38
-11.39 -28 …
Beef Cows Sell Feeders
0.82
0.55 8 %6.587.13Fees, Publications, Travel 5.90
-3.35 -10 %33.1129.76Vet … 25.75
4.55 26 %17.6022.15Lvstk Marketing/Breeding 16.43
-5.68 -16 …
Beef Cows Sell Calves
0.73
-3.76 -42 %8.965.21Fees, Publications, Travel 11.24
-14.42 -68 … 19.80
-0.26 -7 %3.453.20Lvstk Marketing/Breeding 12.68
-12.49 -30 …
Beef Cows Sell Feeders
0.82
0.55 8 %6.587.13Fees, Publications, Travel 5.90
-3.35 -10 %33.1129.76Vet … 25.75
4.55 26 %17.6022.15Lvstk Marketing/Breeding 16.43
-5.68 -16 …
Beef Cows Sell Calves
0.00
-5.56 -55 %10.134.57Fees, Publications, Travel 5.35
-9.17 -31 %29.8220.65Vet … 32.24
14.81 46 %32.1947.00Lvstk Marketing/Breeding 17.68
3.74 12 %30.8834.62Gas …
September 1, 2009
Assessing Business Opportunities
… very quiet after the
visiting economist completed his presentation. I could not understand
their silence because there was, obviously, something drastically wrong
with the irrationality conclusion. I knew this because I have lived with
some of these small farmers. But beyond my individual anecdotal
evidence, my master’s thesis was showing similar results—a negative
supply response—but I could not believe irrationality was a reasonable
explanation.1 I think my old professor invited me because he thought the
seminar will help me.
I asked the presenter what was measured as the farmers’ response to
price. “Did you measure production, acreage, marketed surplus or did all
of …
General Sessions
Programs Added: Dairy Production Margin Protection Program (DPMPP)
and the Dairy Market Stabilization Program (DMSP)
¨ … dairrequires handlers to reduce payments on producers’ milk marketings when dairy
production margins are low.
CONSERVATION … Programs extended with mandatory money
¨ Biobased Markets Program
¨ Biorefinery Renewable …
November 2, 2023
Meat Demand Research Studies
11/02/2023
5
RESULTS
OVERALL RANKING RESULTS
DistribuƟons and average rankings of responses to the nine beef product aƩributes are
illustrated in Figure 2. The percentage of respondents that selected each aƩribute as one of
their three most important and three least important are presented. These two categories add
to less than 100% with the remainder having selected the trait as neither most nor least
important. The mean response ranking is also reported which is the difference between the
frequency of the most and least preferred responses.
The three aƩributes with the largest number of respondents indicaƟng they were among the
most important aƩributes were 1) Freshness and 2) Price (each at 51%) and 3) Safety of Food
(49%). Only about 20% indicated Freshness and Safety of Food were least important, resulƟng in
these two traits having the highest average importance rank. For Price, 28% indicated it was a
least important aƩribute affecƟng purchase decisions resulƟng in ranking third. This indicates
more than half of respondents were sensiƟve to Price whereas 28% ranked it as least important
suggesƟng a significant porƟon were not price sensiƟve. The highest four ranked aƩributes of 1)
Freshness, 2) Safety of Food, 3) Price, and 4) Flavorful, juicy, tender are consistent with prior
research.
On the other end of our ranking spectrum were 1) SupporƟng local farmers, 2) NutriƟous
content, and 3) Low carbon beef. Less than one‐quarter of respondents indicated any of these
three were among the most important. A surprising 57% of our respondents placed Low carbon
beef as least important. Given elevaƟng importance of public concerns about greenhouse gas
emissions and contribuƟons of beef caƩle producƟon to greenhouse gases, as well as branded
products being developed in this space, we expected more consumers to rank this aƩribute
important.
A final point about results shown in Figure 2 is that every aƩribute had a notable proporƟon of
consumers who ranked it highly and every aƩribute also had a number that ranked it low
importance. This illustrates heterogeneous preferences of consumers for beef product
aƩributes. Furthermore, it indicates a variety of beef product claims can potenƟally be
successful in aƩracƟng consumers. For example, roughly one‐quarter of consumers indicate
Animal Welfare, No hormone/anƟbioƟc use, Supports local farmers, and NutriƟous content are
among their three most important beef purchase decision determinants.
Kansas State University Agricultural Economics Extension Report …
September 1, 2024
2024 Ag Lenders Conference Presentations
often
determined by competitive local markets, which may or may not reflect … land to
support “going” market rental rates. Thispublication provides non-irrigated cash … and 9 at the end of this publication. These estimates incorporate
the …