IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/utaeer/302907.html

Consumer Willingness to Pay for Tennessee Certified Beef

Author

Listed:
  • Griffith, Andrew P.
  • DeLong, Karen L.
  • Jensen, Kimberly L.
  • Merritt, Meagan G.

Abstract

Tennessee cattle production is primarily composed of cow-calf producers and secondarily by stocker and backgrounding operations. Given the competitive advantage other regions in the nation have in grain-finishing cattle, most Tennessee feeder cattle are sent to feedlots in Midwestern and Western states to be finished and harvested. In 2016, Tennessee commercial cattle slaughter totaled 64,900 head, which represents 6.8 percent of the 950,000 head of cows and heifers calved in Tennessee during 2016 (USDA National Agricultural Statistical Service [NASS], 2017a; USDA NASS, 2017b). This result indicates a majority of cattle are harvested/slaughtered outside of the state. Over the past several years, consumer demand for local foods has grown, with increased consumer interest in knowing how their food is produced. Recognizing this consumer interest, several livestock producers across Tennessee have delved into direct marketing finished cattle and/or beef products to consumers. Additionally, in December 2013, Tennessee’s governor challenged policymakers and state agricultural leaders to expand state agricultural and forestry industries. This challenge led to four major recommendations, one of which was to “expand marketing opportunities for Tennessee producers and encourage new production systems and agribusinesses” (Johnson, Upchurch, and Arrington, 2016). Thus, evaluating opportunities to expand cattle marketing alternatives is merited to help meet the governor’s challenge. Given the governor’s challenge, consumer interest in local foods, and the consumer’s desire to know the production practices used in food production, the question remains if Tennessee cattle producers can expand marketing opportunities and increase profitability by producing finished cattle and selling their beef under a Tennessee Certified Beef (TCB) program. To answer this question, there are several marketing components in need of evaluation including producer willingness to supply cattle to a TCB program (Griffith et al., 2018), consumer willingness to pay for TCB, and retailers’ (restaurants, grocery stores and other consumer outlets) willingness to stock TCB. At the time of publication, Tennessee has no beef state-labeling program. However, there are several programs in which cattle producers can participate and become certified that influence cattle production practices including Advanced Master Beef Producer (AMBP) and Beef Quality Assurance (BQA). University of Tennessee Extension coordinates and educates cattle producers for the AMBP program. The AMBP program covers topics such as marketing and management, production economics, genetics, reproduction, nutrition, cattle handling and transport, forages, cattle health, and other cattle industry issues. Similarly, the BQA program is a nationally coordinated, state-implemented program for both US beef producers and consumers to better understand animal husbandry techniques and scientific knowledge about emerging herd management methods. However, the level of consumer awareness regarding producer participation in these programs is limited. Because little research exists regarding Tennessee consumers’ attitudes toward and willingness to pay premiums for beef labeled as Tennessee Certified Beef (TCB), information is not available to know whether consumers would be willing to purchase TCB or pay premiums for beef labeled as TCB. The goal of this publication is to convey results of a consumer survey determining Tennessee consumer willingness to pay (WTP) for steak and ground beef labeled as Tennessee Certified Beef (TCB), labled as produced by cattle producers who have completed Advanced Master Beef Producer (AMBP) and Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) programs, and containing other labels that could appear on TCB (e.g., grassfed, Certified Angus Beef [CAB], no hormones administered).

Suggested Citation

  • Griffith, Andrew P. & DeLong, Karen L. & Jensen, Kimberly L. & Merritt, Meagan G., "undated". "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Tennessee Certified Beef," Extension Reports 302907, University of Tennessee, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:utaeer:302907
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.302907
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/302907/files/W%20484-BFinal.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.302907?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Lacy, Katherine & Ward, Ruby & Bordigioni, Malieka & Emm, Staci & Allen, Karin & Whyte, Anne, 2021. "Issues and Implications of New Conversations Around Meat Supply in the West," Western Economics Forum, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 19(01), June.
    2. Shijun Gao & Carola Grebitus & Karen L. DeLong, 2024. "Explaining consumer willingness to pay for country‐of‐origin labeling with ethnocentrism, country image, and product image: Examples from China's beef market," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 72(2), pages 149-166, June.
    3. DeLong, Karen L. & Syrengelas, Konstantinos G. & Grebitus, Carola & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2021. "Visual versus Text Attribute Representation in Choice Experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    4. Paudel, Bindu & Zhou, Mo, 2024. "Are consumers “green” enthusiasts or skeptics? Evidence from nontimber forest products," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    5. Rihn, Alicia L. & Jensen, Kimberly & Hughes, David W., "undated". "Tennessee's Wine Industry: Consumer Perceptions, Quality Assurance Programs and Marketing Strategies," Extension Reports 319853, University of Tennessee, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    6. Yiwen Yang & PingSun Leung & Chu‐wei Tseng, 2022. "Price premium or price discount for locally produced food products? A 5W1H approach in meta‐analysis," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 43(6), pages 2261-2274, September.
    7. Maki Nakajima, 2022. "Sustainable Food Consumption: Demand for Local Produce in Singapore," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-22, September.
    8. Grashuis, Jasper & Su, Ye, 2023. "Consumer Preferences for State-Sponsored Designations: The Case of the Missouri Grown Label," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 48(01), January.
    9. Shalynn Sumrow & Darren Hudson & Oscar Sarasty & Carlos Carpio & Christy Bratcher, 2024. "Consumer preferences for worker and supply chain risk mitigation in the beef supply chain in response to COVID‐19 pandemic," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 40(1), pages 299-315, January.
    10. Santeramo, Fabio Gaetano & Lamonaca, Emilia, 2020. "Objective risk and subjective risk: The role of information in food supply chains," MPRA Paper 104515, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Iryna Printezis & Carola Grebitus & Stefan Hirsch, 2019. "The price is right!? A meta-regression analysis on willingness to pay for local food," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-23, May.
    12. Horvath, Camille & Koning, Martin & Raton, Gwenaëlle & Combes, François, 2024. "Short food supply chains: The influence of outlet and accessibility on farmer and consumer preferences. Two discrete choice experiments," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    13. Balcombe, Kelvin & Bradley, Dylan & Fraser, Iain, 2022. "Consumer preferences for chlorine-washed chicken, attitudes to Brexit and implications for future trade agreements," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    14. DeLong, Karen L. & Jensen, Kimberly L. & Upendram, Sreedhar & Eckelkamp, Elizabeth, . "Consumer Preferences for Tennessee Milk," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 51(2).
    15. Ruoye Yang & Kellie Curry Raper, 2025. "Misconceptions and meat: The impact of new knowledge on meat demand," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 41(2), pages 570-587, April.
    16. McKay, Lettie & DeLong, Karen L. & Jensen, Kimberly L. & Griffith, Andrew P. & Boyer, Christopher N., "undated". "Restaurants’ Willingness to Pay for Tennessee Certified Beef," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266578, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    17. Riccardo Testa & Francesco Vella & Giuseppina Rizzo & Giorgio Schifani & Giuseppina Migliore, 2025. "Meat attachment or health awareness? Understanding the factors influencing the consumption of local red meat in Italy," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 13(1), pages 1-20, December.
    18. Azucena Gracia & Ana María Sánchez & Francesc Jurado & Cristina Mallor, 2020. "Making Use of Sustainable Local Plant Genetic Resources: Would Consumers Support the Recovery of a Traditional Purple Carrot?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-17, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • Q10 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - General
    • Q13 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Markets and Marketing; Cooperatives; Agribusiness

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:utaeer:302907. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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/dautkus.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.