Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T18:52:48.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impacts of Advertising, Attitudes, Lifestyles, and Health on the Demand for U.S. Pork: A Micro-Level Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Oral Capps Jr.  and
Jaehong Park
Oral Capps Jr.
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University. Senior authorship is not assigned. Funding for this research was provided by the National Pork Board
Jaehong Park
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University. Senior authorship is not assigned. Funding for this research was provided by the National Pork Board
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Using data from the 1994-1996 CSFII/DHKS, we identify and assess factors affecting the decision to consume pork and conditional on consuming pork, the decision of the amount of pork intake. Branded and generic advertising of pork play a prominent role in both decisions. Beef advertising, however, does not significantly affect either the probability of consuming pork or the amount of pork intake. Key health, attitudinal and lifestyle factors are smoking status, dietary status, body mass index, the importance of nutrition in buying food, and trimming visible fat from meat. These factors however impact the probability of consuming pork rather than the amount of pork consumed. Region, urbanization, race, age, income, and seasonality also affect pork demand.

Keywords

branded advertising and promotionCSFII/DHKS (1994—96)generic advertising and promotionpork demandpork checkoff
Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , April 2002 , pp. 1 - 15
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2002

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

Basmann, R.L. “A Theory of Demand with Variable Consumer Preferences.” Econometrica 24(1956):47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaylock, J.R. and Blisard, W.N.. “U.S. Cigarette Consumption: The Case of Low-Income Women.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 74(1992):698–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blisard, W.N. and Blaylock, J.R.. “Distinguishing Between Market Participation and Infrequency of Purchase Models of Butter Demand.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75(1993):314–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blundell, R.W. and Meghir, C.. “Bivariate Alternatives to the Univariate Tobit Model.” Journal of Econometrics 34(1987):314–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brester, G.W. and Schroeder, T.C.. “The Impacts of Brand and Generic Advertising on Meat Demand.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 77(November 1995):969–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton, M., Tomlinson, M., and Young, T.. “Consumers' Decisions Whether or Not to Purchase Meat: A Double-Hurdle Analysis of Single Adult Households.” Journal of Agricultural Economics 45(1994):202–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrne, P., Capps, O. Jr., and Saha, A.. “Calculating Marginal Effects in Models for Zero Expenditures in Household Budgets Using a Heckman-type Correction.” Applied Economics 29(1997):1311–16.Google Scholar
Capps, O. Jr. and Schmitz, J.D.. “A Recognition of Health and the Nutrition Factors in Food Demand Analysis.” Western Journal of Agricultural Economics 16(1991):21–35.Google Scholar
Capps, O. Jr., Bessler, D., Davis, G.C., Anderson, C. and Smith, E.. “Economic Evaluation of the Cotton Checkoff Program.” Departmental Technical Report 97-2. Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University, August 1997.Google Scholar
Carlson, K.A. and Gould, B.W.. “The Role of Health Knowledge in Determining Dietary Intake.” Review of Agricultural Economics 16(1994):373–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, H.T. and Capps, O. Jr., “Demand Analysis of Fresh and Frozen Finfish and Shellfish in the United States.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 70(1988):533–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, S. and Sosin, K.. “Testing for Structural Change: The Demand for Meat.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(1990):227–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cragg, J.G. “Some Statistical Models for Limited Dependent Variables with Applications to the Demand for Durable Goods.” Econometrica 39,5(19871):829–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forker, O. and Ward, R.W.. Commodity Promotions: The Econometrics and Measurement of Generic Programs. Lexington Books. New York, NY, 1993.Google Scholar
Haines, P.S., Guilkey, K.K. and Popkin, B.M.. “Modeling Food Consumption Decisions as a Two-Step Process.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 70(1988):543–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heckman, J.J. “Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error.” Econometrica 47(1979):153–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, A.M. “A Double-Hurdle Model of Cigarette Consumption.” Journal of Applied Econometrics 4(1989):23–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, H.M., Forker, O.D., Lenz, J.E. and Sun, C.H.. “Evaluating Generic Dairy Advertising Impacts on Retail.” Journal of Agricultural Economics Research 44(1988):3–18.Google Scholar
Kinnucan, H. and Belleza, E.. “Advertising Evaluation and Measurement Error: The Case of Fluid Milk in Ontario.” Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 39(July 1991):283–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinnucan, H.W. and Forker, O.D.. “Allocation of Generic Advertising Funds Among Products: A Sales Maximization Approach.” Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 17(1988):64–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinnucan, H.W., Xiao, H., Hsia, C. and Jackson, J.D.. “Effects of Health Information and Generic Advertising on Meat U.S. Demand.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79(1997):13–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, L.F. and Maddala, G.S.. “The Common Structure of Tests for Selectivity Bias, Serial Correlation, Heterosckedasticity and Non-normality in the Tobit Model.” International Economic Review 26(1985):1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, T.F. and Schmidt, P.. “A Test of the Tobit Specification Against an Alternative Suggested by Cragg.” Review of Economics and Statistics 65(1983):174–77.Google Scholar
Moon, W. and Ward, R.W.. “Two-Stage Household Demand for U.S. Beef: Implications for Promotions, Health, and Attitudes.” Unpublished manuscript, University of Florida, 1998.Google Scholar
National Pork Board. “About the Pork Checkoff,” http://www.porkboard.org/checkoff.html Google Scholar
Nayga, R.M. Jr. and Capps, O. Jr., “The Decision to Purchase Pork in the Away From Home and At Home Markets: The Case of the United States.” Journal of International Food and Agribusiness Marketing 7,4(1995):1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putler, D.S. and Frazao, E.. “Consumer Awareness of Diet-Disease Relationships and Dietary Behavior: The Case of Dietary Fat.” Journal of Agricultural Economics Research 45(1994):3–17.Google Scholar
Telser, L.G. “Advertising and Cigarettes.” Journal of Political Economy 70(1962):471–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Design and Operation: The Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals and the Diet and Health Knowledge Survey, 1994-96. Washington, D.C., 1997.Google Scholar
Ward, R.W. and Lambert, C.. “Generic Promotion of Beef: Measuring the Impact of the U.S. Beef Checkoff.” Journal of Agricultural Economics 44(1993):456–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yen, S.T. “Working Wives and Food Away From Home: The Box-Cox Double Hurdle Model.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75,4(November 1993):884–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar