Value of Beef Steak Branding: Hedonic Analysis of Retail Scanner Data

Schulz, Lee; Schroeder, Ted C.; White, Katharine L.

doi:10.1017/s1068280500003397

Cited by 27 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, in a meta-analysis of WTP data, White & Brady (2013) reported that consumers would pay a 4% premium for beef products perceived to have positive effects on environmental impact, which increased to an 82% premium for products with a combined environmental and health benefit. This concurs with the results of Schulz et al (2012) who examined retail price scanner data and concluded that consumer would pay 30% more for originally-labelled beef.…”

Section: The Social Acceptability Of Livestock Productionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Should we reject animal source foods to save the planet? A review of the sustainability of global livestock production

Capper¹

2013

SA J. An. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Within the next 40 years, the global livestock industry will have to considerably increase production in order to supply the population with animal-source foods, yet the industry must concurrently improve the three metrics of sustainability -economic viability, environmental stewardship and social responsibility. Environmental stewardship is currently the area for which animal agriculture is under the most scrutiny, as many consumers perceive that animal-source foods have an unacceptable environmental cost. These concerns are intensified by activist group campaigns propounding that reducing meat consumption will have significant environmental mitigation effects. Animal-source foods have been shown to be essential dietary components for improving health of inhabitants in developing regions, for whom such foods are often economically unavailable. Moreover, reducing meat consumption in developed countries has a negligible effect upon national greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and leads to further questions with regards to the implications for use of animal and plant by-products, and the difficulty of producing human food crops on grazed pasturelands. Improving livestock productivity has positive sustainability implications as it reduces resource use and GHG emissions whilst improving economic viability, yet it is often difficult to attain consumer acceptance of modern best practices and technologies. Productivity metrics that enhance sustainability include milk and meat yield, growth rates, feed efficiency, calving rate, parasite control and use of growth-enhancing technologies.________________________________________________________________________________

show abstract

Section: The Social Acceptability Of Livestock Productionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Should we reject animal source foods to save the planet? A review of the sustainability of global livestock production

Capper¹

2013

SA J. An. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Numerous authors have detailed the economic impact and benefits of beef branding (Wachenheim et al, 2000;Feldkamp et al, 2005;Parcell and Schroeder, 2007;Froehlich et al, 2009;Schulz et al, 2012;Morales et al, 2013), although to date, the palatabilityrelated value of branding has not been evaluated. The results of the current study suggest that branding has a large impact on perceived eating quality of beef products.…”

Section: Impact Of Branding On Consumer Palatability Traitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of branding on consumer palatability ratings of beef strip loin steaks1,2

Wilfong

McKillip

Gonzalez

et al. 2016

Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…As consumer preferences have become better understood, packers and retailers have adjusted their WTP for meat animals to better reflect the desires of the consumer (Igo et al, 2013). For example, consumers consistently show high WTP for tender, high quality steak grades (Schulz et al, 2012). Although an equivalent WTP does not exist for tender ground beef, packers, retailers and even feedlot operators will pay premiums for cattle with superior genetics for tenderness (Igo et al, 2013).…”

Section: Methodological and Meat Type Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Scanner data analyses consistently show high price premiums for organic products (Martinez, 2008;Schulz et al, 2012). Schulz et al (2012) found organic labeling increased beef cost by $6.56/ kg.…”

Section: Environmental Labels and Wtpmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Can consumers’ willingness to pay incentivize adoption of environmental impact reducing technologies in meat animal production?

White

Brady

2014

Food Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tThis study develops a model estimating consumer willingness to pay (WTP) for environmental meat attributes and uses a multi-objective nutritional optimizer to explore the extent to which WTP can offset on-farm costs of reducing water use. Data for the WTP model are sourced from a literature survey of the Agricola and Google Scholar databases yielding 46 studies estimating WTP for pure and impure (organic, grass-fed, natural) environmental meat attributes. Bayesian analysis is used to estimate 3 models varying in independent variables. Models are evaluated by the correlation coefficient (R 2 ), root mean squared error of prediction (RMSPE) and posterior model probability. The most probable model is then used to estimate a confidence range of WTP for pure environmental beef. Impure environmental labels result in higher WTP than pure labels. Non-hypothetical WTP for pure environmental labeling for North American consumers ranges from 6.7% to 32.6%. A case study is conducted to identify the expected reduction in water use that can be funded from capturing WTP through labeling. A multi-objective nutritional optimizer is used to identify ideal management of beef cattle to reduce whole-system water use in three regions of the United States. Cost increases from management are varied over the predicted range in WTP and combined with the probability of a consumer purchasing beef at each WTP value to identify the theoretical effect on expected environmental impact reduction. A 10% premium is the ideal WTP, resulting in water use reductions between 24.4 L and 41.4 L.

show abstract

Value of Beef Steak Branding: Hedonic Analysis of Retail Scanner Data

Cited by 27 publications

References 32 publications

Should we reject animal source foods to save the planet? A review of the sustainability of global livestock production

Should we reject animal source foods to save the planet? A review of the sustainability of global livestock production

The effect of branding on consumer palatability ratings of beef strip loin steaks1,2

Can consumers’ willingness to pay incentivize adoption of environmental impact reducing technologies in meat animal production?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About