Production and Marketing Reports
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
JOBNAME: hortte 19#1 PAGE: 1 OUTPUT: November 20 01:32:19 2008 tsp/hortte/176989/01138 an alternative crop to growers and a ‘‘new’’ product to consumers. Chestnuts have favorable nutri- tional characteristics. High moisture and low oil content make chestnuts Production virtually fat free. Chestnuts have a high concentration of complex carbo- hydrates, a low glycemic index, are cholesterol free, and contain only and Marketing one-third the calorie content of pea- nuts (Arachis hypogaea) and cashews (Anacardium occidentale) and as much ascorbic acid as their equivalent Reports weight of lemons (Citrus limonium). Chestnut flour is sweet, nutty, and gluten-free, the latter making it Exploratory Assessment of Consumer appropriate for consumption by peo- ple with celiac disease (Chestnuts Preferences for Chestnut Attributes in Missouri Australia Inc., 2008; Erturk et al., 2006; University of Missouri Center 1,3 2 for Agroforestry, 2006). Francisco X. Aguilar , Mihaela M. Cernusca , and The market for edible chestnuts Michael A. Gold2 has considerable potential for increase in production and demand given growing consumer interest in alter- ADDITIONAL INDEX WORDS. Castanea spp., conditional logit model, conjoint native and healthy foods (Gold et al., analysis, chestnut market development 2004a). Consumers across Europe, SUMMARY. This article explores consumers’ preferences for different chestnut Australia, New Zealand, and the (Castanea spp.) attributes and studies differences across potential market segments. United States have an increasing The study was conducted between 2003 and 2007 during the Missouri Chestnut interest in chestnuts (Kelley and Roast festival. The festival, held annually in October during the chestnut harvest Behe, 2002). Current demand for season, is one of mid-Missouri’s premier family-oriented events. A longitudinal chestnuts in the United States study completed among festival visitors in 2003, 2004, and 2006 to identify exceeds national production, which chestnut characteristics that influence purchasing decisions was complemented with is offset by imports. According to the a conjoint analysis in 2007. The conjoint analysis used a conditional logit model to U.S. Department of Agriculture investigate responses from pairwise product profile comparisons. The attributes (USDA), chestnut imports have investigated include chestnut size (small, medium, and large), price ($3, $5, and $7 per pound), production process (organic and conventional), and origin (Missouri, grown steadily in value since 2003, United States, and imported). Results suggest a strong preference for locally and reaching $11.6 million in 2006 U.S.-grown compared with imported chestnuts. Local growers that provide the (USDA, 2007). Chestnuts are mostly market with medium-size chestnuts that carry organic certification could command imported from Europe (82% of total a market premium compared with imported/nonorganic certified chestnuts. imports in 2006). According to the USDA (2007), the main exporters to the United States are Italy (55%), dible chestnuts were well chestnut blight (Cryphonectria para- China (23%), and Korea (15%). known in the United States sitica) from Asia in the early 1900s In the United States, chestnut Ebefore their near extinction at almost eradicated american chestnut cultivation can be an attractive enter- the beginning of the 20th century. trees (Castanea dentata)(Anagnosta- prise due to high product demand, The accidental introduction of the kis, 1987). Research efforts are cur- favorable prices, and relatively low rently being conducted in Missouri, initial investment requirements (Gold This work was funded through the University of Michigan, Tennessee, and other states et al., 2006). However, aside from a Missouri Center for Agroforestry under cooperative agreement AG-02100251 with the USDA ARS Dale to identify improved cultivars and to small number of successful enter- Bumpers, Small Farms Research Center (Boonville, develop management practices suit- prises, the U.S. chestnut industry is Arkansas). The results presented are the sole responsibility able for commercial chestnut produc- in its initial stages of development, of the P.I.s and/or MU and may not represent the policies or positions of the ARS. tion. These initiatives aim to revitalize with the majority of producers in We thank Dr. Carla Barbieri and Dr. Laura McCann, the chestnut industry and to provide business for less than 10 years and University of Missouri, Columbia, for their review and insightful comments to an earlier version of this manuscript. 1Department of Forestry, University of Missouri, 203 ABNR Building, Columbia, MO 65211 Units 2Center for Agroforestry, University of Missouri, 203 To convert U.S. to SI, To convert SI to U.S., ABNR Building, Columbia, MO 65211 multiply by U.S. unit SI unit multiply by 3Corresponding author. E-mail: aguilarf@missouri. 2.54 inch(es) cm 0.3937 edu. 0.4536 lb kg 2.2046 216 • January–March 2009 19(1) JOBNAME: hortte 19#1 PAGE: 2 OUTPUT: November 20 01:32:19 2008 tsp/hortte/176989/01138 just beginning to produce at a com- and that could help in fostering prod- survey that was administered over 3 mercial scale (Gold et al., 2006). uct demand and developing new mar- years (2003, 2004, and 2006). Be- At the other end of the market kets. Specifically, this research aimed to cause very similar results were value chain, U.S. consumers are unfa- 1) identify how much attributes such as obtained in 2003 and 2004, 2005 miliar with chestnuts, are not fully size,price,quality,locallygrown,and was skipped, but the survey was re- aware of their healthful properties, in nutrition-diet-health, influence con- taken in 2006. The selected attributes what form and where to buy them, or sumers’ decisions to purchase chest- (price, quality, locally grown, and how to prepare them (Gold et al., nuts, 2) generate information on the nutrition-diet-health) were identi- 2005). In regions surrounding success- relative importance that consumers fied after a review of the literature ful growers or active research centers, place on particular chestnut character- (Jekanowski et al., 2000; Frank et al., consumers’ familiarity with chestnuts, istics (price, size, production process, 2001). The influence on consumer and knowledge and frequency of con- and label of origin), 3) determine preference for each attribute was sumption is continually increasing salient product characteristics that cur- evaluated on a five-point Likert-type (Carlman, 2007; Cernusca et al., rent and future chestnut producers scale ranging from ‘‘not at all’’ (1) to 2008). This situation represents a mar- should evaluate and adopt for effective ‘‘very strongly’’ (5). Each participant ket opportunity for expansion of chest- marketing purposes, and 4) identify took between 5 and 10 min to nut production in the United States differences in product preferences by complete the questionnaire. No that demands a better understanding demographic characteristics such as incentive in the form of monetary of consumer preferences. urban and rural consumers and or in-kind reward was offered to study Market knowledge is fundamen- gender. participants. tal for the successful establishment of CONJOINT ANALYSIS. CA was agroforestry enterprises (Gold et al., Materials and methods used to design and analyze surveys 2004a). Gold et al. (2006) consider A two-step research approach was distributed during the Missouri that one of the biggest barriers to used to assess consumer preferences Chestnut Roast festival in 2007. The success in the chestnut industry is the for chestnut attributes. The first step CA helped validate and quantify the lack of information for producers, addresses objective 1 and it involved results obtained in the previous sur- retailers, and consumers. Over the the study of perceptions among a veys and provided responses to exam- last two decades there have been a sample of consumers over 3 years. ine the remaining research objectives. limited number of studies focused on The second step corresponds to the CA is based on the premise that improving understanding of chestnut application of a conjoint analysis (CA) consumers can judge the value of markets (Gold et al., 2004b, 2006). A for the exploratory study of chestnut several hypothetical products that study by Wahl (2002) assessed the attributes. All information reported are described by different attributes interest of upscale restaurant chefs in in this article was gathered during the that make up product profiles and value-added chestnut products and annual Missouri Chestnut Roast fes- choose the one that gives them the found that product freshness and tival in New Franklin, MO. The fes- most utility (Green and Srinivasan, quality were the main attributes that tival held annually in October during 1978; Carson et al., 1994). influenced consumers’ and chefs’ the chestnut harvest season is one of Under a random utility frame- interest in purchasing food products mid-Missouri’s premier family-ori- work, a consumer (i)hasautility and ingredients. Wahl (2002) recom- ented events. The one-day event is function defined over an array of J mended that growers should pro- not dedicated solely to chestnuts. It is possible choices of chestnut products. mote chestnuts on the basis of an outstanding opportunity to intro- It is further assumed that a consumer quality, uniqueness, and local pro- duce participants to the broad range utility function contains a deterministic duction. Another study developed of possibilities and benefits that can component