IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea15/205413.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Returns to Stakeholders from the American Lamb Checkoff Program: A Supply Chain Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Ghosh, Somali
  • Williams, Gary W.

Abstract

The United States sheep industry has suffered an almost constant decline in sheep and lamb inventories; a record of 56 million head in the early 1940s to only 5.33 million head in 2013. The steady decline of the industry can be attributed to a confluence of many factors, amongst which is the discontinuation of the U.S. Wool Incentive payment program. With the discontinuation of the program in 1996/97, an unsuccessful effort was made to pass a mandatory checkoff program through a producer referendum. Six years later, in 2002, to enhance the demand for lamb, the Lamb Promotion, Research, and Information Order, better known as the American Lamb Checkoff Program, was established under the Commodity Promotion, Research and Information Act of 1996. The main objective of this research was to measure the effectiveness of the Lamb Checkoff Program by determining the extent to which the program has been able to shift out the demand for U.S. lamb and how much of the promotion benefit, if any, has been transmitted back through the supply chain to the different stakeholders of the lamb industry. This research investigated questions dealing with the demand, supply and trade of sheep and lamb through the global supply chain. This analysis used a seventy equation, non-spatial price equilibrium model (LamMod) to estimate the parameters of interest using the OLS method of estimation. After estimating the parameters of all seventy equations, the model was simulated over the sample period (1987 - 2013) as a means of model validation. The model was then used to simulate two expenditure scenarios, the “with” and “without” lamb checkoff expenditure to measure the effects and benefits of the program by calculating the Benefit-Cost-Ratio. The results of this study clearly indicated that not only did the lamb checkoff program increase the demand for lamb, the program tended to lift the entire supply chain in the process with every stakeholder group benefitting from it. The Benefit-Cost Ratio (the dollars of net returns per dollar of checkoff expenditure) to the lamb industry as a whole over the entire period of analysis (1987-2013) was $7.10, considerably lower than the $44.14 reported by Williams, Capps and Dang (2011) at the retail level. When discounted to present value, the BCR was still a healthy $3.46. In other words, for every dollar invested by industry stakeholders in lamb promotion through the checkoff program, they realized $7.10 in additional profit ($3.46 on a discounted basis).Under the current lamb checkoff program (2002-2013), the industry BCR was $14.40 compared to the BCR of $3.03 in preceding years when the promotion expenditures were funded by the now defunct Wool Incentive Program.

Suggested Citation

  • Ghosh, Somali & Williams, Gary W., 2015. "Returns to Stakeholders from the American Lamb Checkoff Program: A Supply Chain Analysis," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205413, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea15:205413
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.205413
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/205413/files/AAEA2015article_Ghosh.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.205413?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Williams, Gary W. & Capps, Oral, Jr. & Bessler, David A., 2009. "Is the Soybean Checkoff Program Working?," Reports 90495, Texas A&M University, Agribusiness, Food, and Consumer Economics Research Center.
    2. Williams, Gary W. & Shumway, C. Richard & Love, H. Alan, 2002. "Returns to Soybean Producers from Investments in Promotion and Research," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 31(1), pages 97-111, April.
    3. George, P.S. & King, Gordon A., 1971. "Consumer Demand for Food Commodities in the United States with Projections for 1980," Monographs, University of California, Davis, Giannini Foundation, number 11936, December.
    4. Byrne, Patrick J. & Capps, Oral, Jr. & Williams, Gary W., 1993. "U.S. Demand For Lamb: The Other Red Meat," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 24(1), pages 1-9, February.
    5. Gary W. Brester & Ted C. Schroeder, 1995. "The Impacts of Brand and Generic Advertising on Meat Demand," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 77(4), pages 969-979.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Capps, Oral, Jr. & Williams, Gary W. & Dang, Trang, 2010. "Effects of Lamb Promotion on Lamb Demand and Imports," Reports 90492, Texas A&M University, Agribusiness, Food, and Consumer Economics Research Center.
    2. Luo, Ji & Williams, Gary W., 2015. "The Impacts of Chinese Exchange Rate Policy on World Soybean and Products Markets," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205075, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Okrent, Abigail M. & Alston, Julian M., 2011. "Demand for Food in the United States: A Review of Literature, Evaluation of Previous Estimates, and Presentation of New Estimates of Demand," Monographs, University of California, Davis, Giannini Foundation, number 251908, December.
    4. Batie, Cicely M. & Dennis, Elliott J. & Lubben, Bradley D., 2020. "Do state-level agricultural promotion programs increase agricultural output? The case of the Livestock Friendly County designation program in Nebraska," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304399, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Kinnucan, Henry W., 1997. "Middlemen behaviour and generic advertising rents in competitive interrelated industries," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 41(2), pages 1-17.
    6. Li, Chenguang & Sexton, Richard J., 2009. "Impacts of Retailers’ Pricing Strategies for Produce Commodities on Farmer Welfare," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 51720, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Capps, Oral Jr. & Havlicek, Joseph Jr., 1980. "National And Regional Household Demands For Meats And Seafood In The U.S.: A Complete Systems Approach," 1980 Annual Meeting, July 27-30, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois 278409, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    8. Phillips, Mark & Hueth, Darrell L. & Just, Richard E., 1989. "Estimating Cost of Banning Agricultural Chemicals: The Case of Maneb and Maneb Alternatives," Working Papers 197631, University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    9. Kent D. Messer & Todd M. Schmit & Harry M. Kaiser, 2005. "Optimal Institutional Mechanisms for Funding Generic Advertising: An Experimental Analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(4), pages 1046-1060.
    10. Richards, Timothy J. & Patterson, Paul M., 2000. "New Varieties And The Returns To Commodity Promotion: The Case Of Fuji Apples," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 29(1), pages 1-14, April.
    11. Jeffrey T. LaFrance, 1990. "Incomplete Demand Systems And Semilogarithmic Demand Models," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 34(2), pages 118-131, August.
    12. Dunn, James E. & Heien, Dale, 1985. "The Demand For Farm Output," Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 10(1), pages 1-10, July.
    13. Ospina, Enrique & Shumway, C. Richard, 1979. "Disaggregated Analysis Of Short-Run Beef Supply Response," Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 4(2), pages 1-18, December.
    14. Rickard, Bradley J. & Gonsalves, Jana, 2006. "Examining Potential Changes in Nutrition: Recommendations and Implications for Specialty Crops in California," Research Project Reports 121617, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California Institute for the Study of Specialty Crops.
    15. Capps, Oral, Jr. & Sherwell, Pablo, 2005. "Spatial Asymmetry in Farm-Retail Price Transmission Associated with Fluid Milk Products," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19316, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    16. Flake, Oliver L. & Patterson, Paul M., 1999. "Health, Food Safety And Meat Demand," 1999 Annual meeting, August 8-11, Nashville, TN 21648, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    17. Carambas, Maria Cristina D.M., 2005. "Analysis of Marketing Margins in Eco-Labeled Products," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24600, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Metin Cakir & Joseph V. Balagtas, 2010. "Econometric evidence of cross-market effects of generic dairy advertising," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(1), pages 83-99.
    19. Soliman, Ibrahim & Shapouri, Shahla, 1984. "Egyptian Meat Market: Policy Issues in Trade, Prices, and Expected Market Performance," MPRA Paper 66628, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Araji, A.A., 1981. "The Economic Impact of Investment in Integrated Pest Management," Evaluation of Agricultural Research, Proceedings of a Workshop, Minneapolis, MN, May 12-13, 1980, Miscellaneous Publication 8 49056, University of Minnesota, Agricultural Experiment Station.

    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:aaea15:205413. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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/aaeaaea.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.