Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T08:57:50.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Estimating organic premiums in the US fluid milk market

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 July 2009

T.A. Smith ,
C.L. Huang  and
B.-H. Lin
T.A. Smith*
Affiliation:
Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, 1800 M Street NW, Washington, DC20036-5831, USA.
C.L. Huang
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA30602-7509, USA.
B.-H. Lin
Affiliation:
Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, 1800 M Street NW, Washington, DC20036-5831, USA.
*
*Corresponding author: tsmith@ers.usda.gov
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Using actual retail purchases from the 2006 Nielsen Homescan panel data, we estimate a hedonic model on price premiums and discounts associated with household characteristics, market factors, and product attributes focusing on the organic attribute for fluid milk. The organic attribute carries a significant price premium, which is largest of all product attributes considered in this study. Further, additional price variations among organic milk are observed for differences in fat content, container size and branding. Specifically, the results suggest that organic price premiums for half-gallon milk range from $1.23 for whole private label organic milk (60–68% above conventional counterpart) to $1.86 for nonfat/skim-branded organic milk (89–109% above conventional counterpart). The study also found that milk sold in a discount store (i.e., supercenter or club warehouse) was price 13 cents per half gallon, or 7.4%, below milk sold through other venues, and that milk on sale was priced 26 cents per half gallon, or 14.3%, less than the regular average price. Although household characteristics exert little influence on price relative to product attributes and market factors, the study does find that unmarried households and those with children under six pay slightly higher prices for milk, possibly due to time constraints.

Keywords

organic milkhedonic pricemarket factorsproduct attributesbrandingNielsen Homescanorganic premium
Type
Research Papers
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 24 , Issue 3 , September 2009 , pp. 197 - 204
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Dimitri, C. and Greene, C. 2002. Recent Growth Patterns in U.S. Organic Foods Market. Agricultural Information Bulletin No. 777. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
2Nutrition Business Journal (NBJ). 2008. Organic Markets Overview. Penton Media, Inc., Cleveland, OH.Google Scholar
3Hartman Group. 2006. Organic2006: Consumer Attitudes and Behavior, Five Years Later and into the Future. The Hartman Group, Bellevue, WA.Google Scholar
4Yiridoe, E.K., Bonti-Ankomah, S., and Martin, R.C. 2005. Comparison of consumer perceptions and preference toward organic versus conventionally produced foods: A review and update of the literature. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 20(4):193–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5Wolf, M.M. 2002. An analysis of the impact of price on consumer interest in organic grapes and a profile of organic purchases. Paper presented at the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Long Beach, CA, July.Google Scholar
6O'Donovan, P. and McCarthy, M. 2002. Irish consumer preference for organic meat. British Food Journal 104(3/4/5):353–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Thompson, G.D. and Kidwell, J. 1998. Explaining the choice of organic produce: cosmetic defects, prices, and consumer preferences. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80(2):277–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8Glaser, L.K. and Thompson, G.D. 2000. Demand for organic and conventional beverage milk. Paper presented at the Western Agricultural Economics Association meetings, Vancouver, BC, Canada. June 29–July 1.Google Scholar
9Huang, C.L. and Lin, B.-H. 2007. A hedonic analysis on the implicit values of fresh tomatoes. Review of Agricultural Economics 29(4):783–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Lin, B.-H., Smith, T.A., and Huang, C.L. 2008. Organic premiums of US fresh produce. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 23(3):208–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11Maguire, K.B., Owens, N., and Simon, N.B. 2004. The price premium for organic babyfood: a hedonic analysis. Journal of Agriculture and Resource Economics 29(1):132–149.Google Scholar
12Chang, H.-S. and Zepeda, L. 2005. Consumer perceptions and demand for organic food in Australia: focus group discussions. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 20(3):155–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13Goldschmidt, B. 2008. Milk: Cow cash. Progressive Grocer. Available at Web site http://www.progressivegrocer.com/progressivegrocer/esearch/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003690104 (verified 18 August 2008).Google Scholar
14Kiesel, K. and Villas-Boas, S.B. 2007. Got organic milk? Consumer valuations of milk labels after the implementation of the USDA organic seal. Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization 5:1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15Nielsen, A.C. 2007. Consumer Panel Solutions. Available at Web site http://www2.acnielsen.com/products/cps.shtml (verified 18 August 2007).Google Scholar
16Kurtzweil, P. 1998. Skimming the milk label: fat-reducing milk products join the food labeling fold. FDA Consumer Magazine 32(1): January–February. Available at Web site http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1998/198_milk.html (verified 18 August 2007).Google Scholar
17Grebitus, C., Yue, C., Bruhn, M., and Jensen, H.H. 2007. What affects consumption patterns of organic and conventional products? Poster paper presented at the American Agricultural Economics Association meeting, Portland, OR.Google Scholar
18Dimitri, C. and Venezia, K.M. 2007. Retail and Consumer Aspects of the Organic Milk Market. Outlook Report, No. LDPM15501. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC. Available at Web site http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/LDP/2007/05May/LDPM15501/ldpm15501.pdf (verified 18 August 2007).Google Scholar
19Lancaster, K. 1966. A new approach to consumer demand theory. Journal of Political Science 74(2):132–157.Google Scholar
20Ladd, G.W. and Suvannunt, V. 1976. A model of consumer goods characteristics. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 58(3):504–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21Rosen, S. 1974. Hedonic prices and implicit markets: Product differentiation in pure competition. Journal of Political Economics 82(1):34–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22Ladd, G.W. and Martin, M.B. 1976. Prices and demands for input characteristics. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 58(1):21–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23Brogan, D.J. 1997. Pitfalls of Using Standard Statistical Software Packages for Sample Survey Data. Available at Web site http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~stats/survey-soft/donna_brogan.html (verified 18 August 2007).Google Scholar
24StataCorp. 2005. Stata Statistical Software: Release 9. StataCorp LP, College Station, TX.Google Scholar
25Wier, M., Jensen, K.O., Andersen, L.M., and Millock, K. 2008. The character of demand in mature organic food markets: Great Britain and Denmark compared. Food Policy 33(5):406–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), USDA. 2008. Dairy Programs. USDA, AMS, Washington, DC. Available at www.ams.usda.gov/dairy/ (verified 18 August 2007).Google Scholar
27AMS, USDA. 2006. Table 36—Class I Milk Price, by Federal Milk Order Marketing Area, 2006. Available at Web site http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDEV3100775&acct=dmktord (verified 18 August 2007).Google Scholar
28Leibtag, E. 2005. Where you shop matters: store formats drive variation in retail prices. Amber Waves 3(5). November. Available at Web site http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/November05/Features/WhereYouShop.htm (verified 18 August 2007).Google Scholar
29Harper, G.C. and Makatouni, A. 2002. Consumer perception of organic food production and farm animal welfare. British Food Journal 104(3/4/5):287–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30Wier, M. and Anderson, L.M. 2003. Consumer demand for organic foods: Attitudes, values, and purchasing behavior. Newsletter from Danish Research Center for Organic Farming, June.Google Scholar
31Tourila, H. 1987. Selection of milks with varying fat contents and related to overall liking, attitudes, norms, and intention. Appetite 8:1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32Saba, A., Moneta, E., Nardo, N., and Sinesio, F. 1998. Attitudes, habit, sensory and liking expectation as determinants of the consumption of milk. Food Quality and Preference 9(1/2):31–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33Dhar, T. and Foltz, J.D. 2005. Milk by any other name: Consumer benefits from labeled milk. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87(1):214–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34Nutrition Business Journal (NBJ). 2006. U.S. Organic Food Industry IV. Penton Media, Inc., Cleveland, OH.Google Scholar
35Demeritt, L. 2004. Organic Pathways. [N]Sight. Hartman Group, Inc., Bellevue, WA.Google Scholar