Search
Displaying 1301 - 1310 of 4107
October 16, 2009
Energy
efficiently, and other competitive market, energy and environmental … of factors such as energy market supply-demand, the advancement … http://www.card.iastate.edu/publications/synopsis.aspx?id=1076 …
Breakout Sessions
the Economist, and other publications. He served as
Associate … payment is the higher of the marketing year average or the
commodity … capitalization rate for market participants as they look …
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 …
August 1, 2017
Breakout Sessions
extension
education programs on market risk, government commodity … programs, crop insurance and public
policy. In 2016, Art was … National Association
of Public and Land Grant Universities …
April 15, 2021
Land Buying and Valuing
Agricultural Land Values and Trends publication is a joint venture between … Economics
robinreid@ksu.edu
785-532-0964
Electronic copies of this publication can be found at:
http://www.agmanager.info/land-leasing/land-buying-valuing
Hard … offices.
Disclosure
Data in this publication includes parcels sold in …
February 18, 2022
Land Buying and Valuing
Agricultural Land Values and Trends publication is a joint venture between … Economics
robinreid@ksu.edu
785-532-0964
Electronic copies of this publication can be found at:
http://www.agmanager.info/land-leasing/land-buying-valuing
Hard … offices.
Disclosure
Data in this publication includes parcels sold in …
October 4, 2011
Agribusiness Papers
e end, business leaders need to focus on opportunities embedded in these
uncertainties and combine their resources and capabilities creatively to ensure they gain and grow their
market shares in both domestic and international markets.
1
Near‐Term Economic Outlook: Agri‐Food
Business Leaders’ Perspectives
Vincent Amanor‐Boadu
September 2011
gri‐food and agribusiness companies have done well this year. Cargill reported a rise in profits of
35% to $2.69 billion in fiscal 2011.1 Archer Daniel Midlands (ADM) reported a modest 5% increase
in fiscal 2011 net earnings, from $1.93 billion to $2.04 billion.2 Monsanto reported a 77% increase in
profits in the third quarter of fiscal 2011, causing expected per share earnings to increase from $2.84 to
$2.88 in 2011 compared to 2010.3 General Mills saw a 17.5% increase in net income in fiscal 2011 over
fiscal 2010 while Tyson Foods reported an increase of 14.5% in the first nine months of fiscal 2011
compared to fiscal 2010.4 These increases in agri‐food and agribusiness companies’ net incomes have
come from modest volume increases and significant price increases. For example, Tyson Foods saw a
volume increase of about 2.1% across all its products compared to an 11.4% increase in prices in the first
months of 2011.
The U.S. farm sector is expected to have some stellar performance this year, similar to the agri‐food and
agribusiness companies. The Economic Research Service of the USDA forecasts a 19.8% increase in net
farm income (the entrepreneurial earnings of producers) to $94.7 billion in 2011 compared to 2010.5
Net cash incomes (i.e., income earned to settle expenses and debt) are forecast to increase by about 8%
over the same period while the net value added of agriculture to the U.S. economy in 2011 is forecast to
be the second‐highest in the past 35 years.
Agriculture and agri‐food sectors are not the only ones seeming to do well. Other industries, such as
financial services and basic metals, have seen net profit margin increases of 10.4% and 13.6%
respectively while that of consumer goods and industrial goods have increased by respectively 6.5% and
5.8%. Individual companies and industries are doing so well that U.S. companies are reputed to be
sitting on more than $2 trillion in cash. The top‐20 S&P companies account for 70% of this cash
reserve.6
1 …