Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T15:51:04.943Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Meeting market demand in the organic sector: Handler–supplier relationships in the face of tight supply

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 May 2009

C. Dimitri  and
L. Oberholtzer
C. Dimitri*
Affiliation:
United State Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC, USA.
L. Oberholtzer
Affiliation:
Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia, GA, USA.
*
*Corresponding author: cdimitri@ers.usda.gov
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Periodic shortfalls of organic food have been commonplace in the USA. Shortages, created when demand grows faster than supply, have been exacerbated by relatively slow growth of certified organic farmland (in comparison to growth in retail sales) over the past decade. Organic intermediaries, referred to as handlers in the US national organic standards, work with farmers and other handlers in moving organic products along the supply chain, and are often the first to feel the effects of tight supplies at the farm level. These firms have a variety of mechanisms available to procure needed ingredients when organic products are in short supply: contracts with suppliers, encouraging suppliers to transition to organic, working with suppliers to increase their output, working with new suppliers, providing technical assistance with organic standards and production methods, and making less than load shipment arrangements with suppliers. Survey data collected from certified organic handlers are used to identify characteristics that make it more likely that an organic handler will undertake activities with suppliers to affect the supply of organic products. Handlers most likely to work with their suppliers had been in business for longer periods of time, bought from growers or grower cooperatives, and were more likely to be wholesalers. Handlers who consider price as important were less likely to undertake activities with their supplies to increase the supply or flow of organic products.

Keywords

organiccertified organicintermediarieshandlersfarmerssupplierprocurementagricultural contractsmarket demandsupply chainsurvey datalogistic regression
Type
Research Papers
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , June 2009 , pp. 137 - 145
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

1Nutrition Business Journal (NBJ). 2008. U.S. Organic Food Sales ($Mil) 1997–2010e – Chart 22. Penton Media, Inc, New York.Google Scholar
2U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service. 2005. U.S. Market Profile for Organic Food Products. Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
3Richter, T. 2005. The European organic market between strong growth and consolidation—current state and prospects. In Lampkin, N. (ed.). Organic Farming in Europe 2005: Market, Production, Policy and Research. Available at Web site http://www.fibl.org (verified 30 April 2009).Google Scholar
4Organic Trade Association (OTA). 2006. The Organic Trade Association's 2006 Manufacturers’ Survey. Nutrition Business Journal, Greenfield, MA.Google Scholar
5Organic Trade Association (OTA). 2004. The Organic Trade Association's 2004 Manufacturers' Survey. Nutrition Business Journal, Greenfield, MA.Google Scholar
6Organic Trade Association (OTA). 2001. 2001 Manufacturers' Market Survey. Organic Trade Association, Greenfield, MA.Google Scholar
7Dimitri, C. and Richman, N. 2000. Organic Food Markets in Transition. Public Policy Report No. 14. Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture, Greenbelt, MD.Google Scholar
8Oliver, H. 2006. Organic dairy demand exceeds supply. Natural Foods Merchandiser 27(8):1, 14.Google Scholar
9Edmonds, B. 2006. Wal-Mart: the 800-pound organic gorilla. Natural Food Merchandiser 27(4):1 April.Google Scholar
10Gogoi, P. 2006. Wal-Mart's Organic Offensive. BusinessWeek. 29 March, 2006.Google Scholar
11New York Times. 2006. When Wal-Mart Goes Organic. Editorial, New York Times. 14 May, 2006.Google Scholar
12U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 2006. Organic agricultural production in 2005. (On-line data product). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC. Available at Web site http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/organic/ (verified 30 April 2009).Google Scholar
13Liebhardt, B. 2001. Get the facts straight: organic yields are good. Information Bulletin No. 10. Organic Farming Research Foundation.Google Scholar
14Dimitri, C. and Oberholtzer, L. 2005. Market-led Growth vs. Government-facilitated Growth: Development of the U.S. and EU Organic Agricultural Sectors. Outlook Report Number WRS0505, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC. Available at Web site: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/wrs0505/ (verified 30 April 2009).Google Scholar
15Wolf, T. 2006. Assessing producer options and obstacles for organic agriculture. Crop Management Online doi:10.1094/CM-2006-0921-04-PS. Available at Web site http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/pub/cm/symposium/organics/Wolf/ (verified 30 April 2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16Siemon, G. 2006. Options and opportunities for producers in organic agriculture. Crop Management Online doi:10.1094/CM-2006-0921-06-PS. Available at Web site http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/pub/cm/symposium/organics/Siemon/ (verified 30 April 2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17Brasher, P. 2008. Feed supply, costs squeeze organic livestock farmers. Des Moines Register. 5 April.Google Scholar
18Sporleder, T. 1992. Managerial economics of vertically coordinated agricultural firms. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 74(5):1226–1231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19Dimitri, C. 1999. Concentration, Coordination, and Integration. Fruit and Tree Nut Situation and Outlook, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
20Wilson, P., Thompson, G., and Cook, R. 1997. Mother Nature, business strategy, and fresh produce. Choices First Quarter:18–21, 24–25.Google Scholar
21Hueth, B., Ligon, E., Wolf, S., and Wu, S. 1999. Incentive instruments in fruit and vegetable contracts: Input control, monitoring, measuring, and price risk. Review of Agricultural Economics 21(2):374–389.Google Scholar
22MacDonald, J., Perry, J., Ahearn, M., Banker, D., Chambers, W., Dimitri, C., Key, N., Nelson, K., and Southard, L. 2004. Contracts, Markets, and Prices: Organizing the Production and Use of Agricultural Commodities. Agricultural Economic Report No. (AER-837). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23Dillman, D. 1999. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar