IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea16/235432.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

When Bigger Isn't Better: Steak Size and Consumer Preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Maples, Joshua G.
  • Lusk, Jayson L.
  • Peel, Derrell S.

Abstract

The average cattle slaughter weight has increased more than 330 pounds over the past 40 years. With larger cattle have come larger steaks. In response, many retailers have begun offering thinner cuts to combat high total package prices. This article estimates consumer willingness to pay for beef steak dimensions using data from a national survey. Results imply that most consumers prefer thicker to thinner cuts steaks and that smaller surface areas are preferred to larger ones. Our estimates suggest that the forty-year increase in carcass weight has led to an $8.6 billion annual loss in consumer welfare resulting from changing steak size.

Suggested Citation

  • Maples, Joshua G. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Peel, Derrell S., 2016. "When Bigger Isn't Better: Steak Size and Consumer Preferences," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235432, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea16:235432
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.235432
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/235432/files/When%20Bigger%20Isn_t%20Better_manuscript.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.235432?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ward, Clement E. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Dutton, Jennifer M., 2008. "Implicit Value of Retail Beef Product Attributes," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 33(3), pages 1-18.
    2. Wuyang Hu, 2004. "Trading off health, environmental and genetic modification attributes in food," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 31(3), pages 389-408, September.
    3. Parcell, Joseph L. & Schroeder, Ted C., 2007. "Hedonic Retail Beef and Pork Product Prices," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 39(1), pages 1-18, April.
    4. Tomas Nilsson & Ken Foster & Jayson L. Lusk, 2006. "Marketing Opportunities for Certified Pork Chops," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 54(4), pages 567-583, December.
    5. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2003. "A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 681-698, September.
    6. Small, Kenneth A & Rosen, Harvey S, 1981. "Applied Welfare Economics with Discrete Choice Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(1), pages 105-130, January.
    7. Taylor, Mykel R. & Tonsor, Glynn T., 2013. "Revealed Demand for Country-of-Origin Labeling of Meat in the United States," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(2), pages 1-13, August.
    8. Deacue Fields & Walt Prevatt, 2008. "An Incentive Compatible Conjoint Ranking Mechanism," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(2), pages 487-498.
    9. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    10. Glynn T. Tonsor & Ted C. Schroeder & Joost M. E. Pennings & James Mintert, 2009. "Consumer Valuations of Beef Steak Food Safety Enhancement in Canada, Japan, Mexico, and the United States," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 57(3), pages 395-416, September.
    11. Umberger, Wendy J. & Boxall, Peter C. & Lacy, R. Curt, 2009. "Role of credence and health information in determining US consumers’ willingness-to-pay for grass-finished beef," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(4), pages 1-21.
    12. Jayson L. Lusk & Jutta Roosen & John A. Fox, 2003. "Demand for Beef from Cattle Administered Growth Hormones or Fed Genetically Modified Corn: A Comparison of Consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(1), pages 16-29.
    13. Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Maples, Joshua G. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Peel, Derrell S., 2019. "Technology and evolving supply chains in the beef and pork industries," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 346-354.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Maples, Joshua G. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Peel, Derrell S., 2018. "Unintended consequences of the quest for increased efficiency in beef cattle: When bigger isn’t better," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 65-73.
    2. Adalja, Aaron & Hanson, James & Towe, Charles & Tselepidakis, Elina, 2015. "An Examination of Consumer Willingness to Pay for Local Products," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 44(3), pages 253-274, December.
    3. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Olynk, Nicole & Wolf, Christopher, 2009. "Consumer Preferences for Animal Welfare Attributes: The Case of Gestation Crates," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 713-730, December.
    4. Brenna Ellison & Linlin Fan & Norbert L.W. Wilson, 2022. "Is it more convenient to waste? Trade‐offs between grocery shopping and waste behaviors," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 53(S1), pages 75-89, November.
    5. Koistinen, Laura & Pouta, Eija & Heikkila, Jaakko & Forsman-Hugg, Sari & Kotro, Jaana & Makela, Jarmo & Niva, M., 2011. "Impact of meat type, methods of production, fat content, price and carbon footprint information on meat choice," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114710, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Britwum, Kofi & Yiannaka, Amalia, 2019. "Consumer willingness to pay for food safety interventions: The role of message framing and issue involvement," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 1-1.
    7. Hackbarth, André & Madlener, Reinhard, 2016. "Willingness-to-pay for alternative fuel vehicle characteristics: A stated choice study for Germany," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 89-111.
    8. Eric Ruto & Guy Garrod & Riccardo Scarpa, 2008. "Valuing animal genetic resources: a choice modeling application to indigenous cattle in Kenya," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 38(1), pages 89-98, January.
    9. Birol, Ekin & Asare-Marfo, Dorene & Karandikar,Bhushana & Roy, Devesh, 2011. "A latent class approach to investigating farmer demand for biofortified staple food crops in developing countries: The case of high-iron pearl millet in Maharashtra, India," HarvestPlus working papers 7, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    10. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    11. Kloos, Julia & Tsegai, Daniel W., 2009. "Preferences for domestic water services in the Middle Olifants sub-basin of South Africa," Discussion Papers 49970, University of Bonn, Center for Development Research (ZEF).
    12. Steiner, B.E. & Peschel, A.O. & Grebitus, C., 2017. "Multi-Product Category Choices Labeled for Ecological Footprints: Exploring Psychographics and Evolved Psychological Biases for Characterizing Latent Consumer Classes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 251-264.
    13. repec:ags:afjare:225657 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Kikulwe, Enoch & Birol, Ekin & Wesseler, Justus & Falck-Zepeda, José, 2009. "A latent class approach to investigating consumer demand for genetically modified staple food in a developing country: The case of GM bananas in Uganda," IFPRI discussion papers 938, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    15. Milon, J. Walter & Scrogin, David, 2006. "Latent preferences and valuation of wetland ecosystem restoration," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 162-175, February.
    16. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen & Suzanne E. Vedel & Kennedy O. Pambo & Victor O. Owino, 2015. "Consumer acceptance and willingness to pay for edible insects as food in Kenya: the case of white winged termites," IFRO Working Paper 2015/10, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    17. Abedullah, A. & Kouser, S. & Ibrahim, M., 2018. "Consumer preferences and willingness to pay for Aflatoxin- Free Milk in Pakistan," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 275957, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Zhou, Jiehong & Liu, Qing & Mao, Rui & Yu, Xiaohua, 2017. "Habit spillovers or induced awareness: Willingness to pay for eco-labels of rice in China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 62-73.
    19. Bond, Craig A. & Thilmany, Dawn D. & Bond, Jennifer Keeling, 2008. "What to Choose? The Value of Label Claims to Fresh Produce Consumers," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 33(3), pages 1-26.
    20. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    21. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Olynk, Nicole J., 2011. "Modeling heterogeneity in consumer preferences for select food safety attributes in China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 318-324, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:aaea16:235432. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.