Market Potential for Cage Free Eggs

Many food manufacturers and retailers have made pledges to go "cage free."  In fact, if all the pledges are maintained, about 75% of the entire egg laying flock will have to be converted to cage free by the year 2025, as the graph below suggests.     

Is there sufficient consumer demand to support this level of commitment (particularly when one acknowledges that, according to USDA data, cage free eggs are currently selling at about a $1/dozen (or 68%) premium to conventional)?

I recently completed a study for the Food Marketing Institute, Animal Agriculture Alliance, and the Foundation for Food and Agricultural Research on the market potential for cage free eggs to help provide some insights into these issues.

The study was conducted with more than 2,000 consumers.  The core of the study involved people making a series of simulated retail shopping choices like the one below.  

Answers to these questions allow us to infer consumer willingness-to-pay, market shares, and more.  In fact, if you want to run your own market share simulations, I created this handy downloadable spreadsheet.

The main finding is the following:

“When provided no additional information, choices imply half of consumers are willing to pay no more than a $0.30/dozen premium for cage free eggs; however, the mean premium is $1.16/dozen, suggesting a small fraction of consumers are willing to pay sizeable amounts for the cage free label. Almost 60% of consumers have a willingness-to-pay for cage free less than $0.40/dozen, but 33% have a value greater than $1.00/dozen.”

and

“Ultimately, the results suggest there is potential for the market-share for cage free eggs to rise above the current state even at premiums as high as $1.00/dozen. However, even at much more modest price premiums, the potential for cage free eggs to attain majority market share is unlikely, particularly if conventional eggs advertise other desirable attributes. Completely removing more affordable conventional eggs will significantly increase the share of consumers not buying eggs.”

Here are a couple key graphs:

and

There is much, much more in the full report, and you can also download the market share simulator here.

How to Feed the World

That's the title of a new book edited by Jessica Eise and Ken Foster that was just released last week.  The book is a collection of essays primarily from my colleagues in the Department of Agricultural Economics here at Purdue, but it includes contributions from Purdue faculty in other academic disciplines as well.  I had the privilege of writing the afterward.  

Here is the table of contents:

Chapter 1. Inhabitants of Earth- Brigitte S Walforf
Chapter 2. The Green, Blue, and Gray Water Rainbow- Laura C Bowling and Keith A Cherkauer
Chapter 3. The Land that Shapes and Sustains Us- Otto Doering and Ann Sorensen
Chapter 4. Our Changing Climate- Jeff Dukes and Thomas W Hertel
Chapter 5. The Technology Ticket- Uris Baldos
Chapter 6. Systems- Michael Gunderson, Ariana Torres, Michael Boehlje, and Rhonda Phillips
Chapter 7. Tangled Trade- Thomas W Hertel
Chapter 8. Spoiled, Rotten, and Left Behind- Ken Foster
Chapter 9. Tipping the Scales on Health- Steven Y Wu
Chapter 10. Social License to Operate- Nicole J Olynk Widmar
Chapter 11. The Information Hinge- Jessica Eise
Chapter 12. Achieving Equal Access- Gerald Shively

I Will Give You My Vote but Not My Money: Preferences for Public versus Private Action in Addressing Social Issues

That's the title of a paper by Bailey Norwood, Glynn Tonsor, and myself that was just released by the journal, Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy.

We start the paper as follows:

“Social issues in agriculture such as animal welfare and food insecurity pose two primary concerns: whether any action is going to be taken and, if it is, the extent to which action is taken in the private or public realm. Those who are concerned about animal welfare in conventional egg production can take private action by purchasing cage-free eggs, or they can encourage public action by voting for bans on the use of cages in egg production. Private action to mitigate food insecurity includes donating to food banks, while its public counterpart is government programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program”

A summary of the study and findings:

“This study explores the extent to which individuals will support public action but, in its absence, will not commit their own voluntary efforts. An internet survey was administered to over 3,500 individuals with hypothetical scenarios in which they could donate their own money toward a cause and/or support government action. When asked to choose between public or private action, most chose a combination of the two, suggesting that public and private partnerships are the preferred vehicle for solutions to social problems. Close to 20% indicated they would vote for laws to confront an issue but not contribute their own private donations.”

Should Retailers be Required to Stock Conventional Eggs?

According to the Des Moines Register: 

“The Iowa Senate gave final passage Monday to a controversial bill requiring Iowa grocers in a supplemental food program to offer conventional eggs if they sell eggs from chickens housed in a cage-free, free-range or enriched colony cage environment.

House File 2408 was approved 32-17, sending it to Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds for her consideration. It was approved in the House last week on an 81-17 vote.

Sen. Herman Quirmbach, D-Ames, opposed the bill, complaining that it’s clearly contrary to free enterprise, anti-regulation policies espoused by Republicans. “This is really direct interference in the marketplace,” he said.

But Sen. Dan Zumbach, R-Ryan, who farms in northeast Iowa, lauded the legislation for assuring that a low-cost choice for protein is available when many low-income Iowans head to the grocery store. Free-range or cage-free eggs are typically more expensive than conventional eggs from large farming operations.”

The background context here is that many retailers have made pledges to only stock cage free eggs, and some states have passed laws banning the sale of eggs from hens in the most confined cages. 

As readers of this blog likely know, I'm a big fan of consumer choice, and have done a fair amount of research on the costliness of policies that would remove products from the marketplace.  I've also routinely pointed to the benefits of practices and technologies that increase agricultural productivity.  Thus, one might suspect I'd be a proponent of the new law.  While I'm not necessarily opposed to it, I'm less sanguine about the long-run potential benefits.   

I suspect the bill will largely be interpreted as a producer protectionist measure.  One concern with a bill like this is that it might raise an issue to the attention of consumers that wasn't previously on the radar screen and might create a PR problem for the industry and invite threat of future disadvantageous legislation.  A consumer who wasn't thinking about this issue now sees a bill supported by the egg industry requiring sellers to offer a certain option.  What is their reaction?  It could be: "What's the egg industry trying to do that retailers are forced to stock an option they don't want to stock?" Or, maybe even: "I now need a bill requiring that cage free is also provided."  If one is skeptical that issue like this might create PR problems, the failure of the question 777 "right to farm" initiative in Oklahoma is instructive.

I'm not sure there are many other parallels for policies that would force sellers to provide an option.  That is, shouldn't freedom work both ways? Freedom for consumer to choose from what is offered but also freedom for producers/retailers to decide what to produce and sell?

If consumers really won't bear the cost of retailer pledges to go cage free, there will be a pretty strong incentive for retailers to reverse course.  I view retailer pledges to go cage free in fundamentally different light than a law to ban conventional eggs; one is a market-based decision and the other is not.  If retailer A pledges to go cage free and most consumers aren't willing to pay the higher cost, then there will be an incentive for retailer B to offer a lower-cost conventional version for people who are more price sensitive.  No such option is available if there is a blanket ban.

The egg industry is surely trying to "fight fire with fire" by using the political process in a way that animal advocacy organizations have to advance their interests.  If animal advocacy organizations can convince voters or a legislature to ban conventional egg production, then the egg industry can use a similar process to require conventional egg sales.  In that sense, perhaps all is fair in love and war.  What I'd rather see both sides do, however, is to try to convince consumers (and the retailers who sell to them) of the the merits of their cause rather than to get to a desired end by fiat.     

Gains to Chinese Agricultural Research and Extension

Last week, Nature published this piece on a massive study conducted by Chinese agricultural researchers.  Accompanying the piece was a summary/editorial describing the study:

“Running from 2005 to 2015, the project first assessed how factors including irrigation, plant density and sowing depth affected agricultural productivity. It used the information to guide and spread best practice across several regions: for example, recommending that rice in southern China be sown in 20 holes densely packed in a square metre, rather than the much lower densities farmers were accustomed to using.

The results speak for themselves: maize (corn), rice and wheat output grew by some 11% over that decade, whereas the use of damaging and expensive fertilizers decreased by between 15% and 18%, depending on the crop. Farmers spent less money on their land and earned more from it — and they continue to do so.”

The project appears to have created substantial economic benefits.  The authors of the study write:

“Direct profit, calculated from increased grain output and reduced nitrogen fertilizer use, was US$12.2 billion (Table 1), which does not include relevant environmental benefits associated with reductions in reactive nitrogen losses and in GHG emissions. On the basis of the rough estimates, the cost:benefit ratio would be 1:226. ”

The cost-benefit ratio is in some ways over- and in other ways under-estimated.  The benefits are over-estimated in the sense that it does not appear it takes into consideration the fact that greater grain production will dampen prices (it is also unclear how the benefits and costs are discounted or not over time).  The benefits are under-estimated because they do not include any of the environmental improvements.  

It is useful to contrast these findings with the rather large research on the value of agricultural R&D and extension investments in the U.S.  Jin and Huffman calculated the rate of return on spending on agricultural extension in the U.S. at 100%.  More broadly, Julian Alston gave the fellow's address at this this year's AAEA meetings on precisely this topic, and his remarks were recently published in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics.  He writes:

“Our estimates (Alston et al. 2010a, 2011) indicate that U.S. federal and state government expenditure on agricultural research and extension generates benefit-cost ratios of at least 10:1 (more likely 20:1 or 30:1)—evidence of a serious underinvestment. Pardey and Beddow (2017), echoing Pardey, Alston, and Chan-Kang (2013), suggested that a reasonable first step would be to double U.S. public investment in agricultural R&D—an increase of, say, $4 billion over recent annual expenditures. A conservatively low benefit-cost ratio of 10:1 implies that having failed to spend that additional $4 billion per year on public agricultural R&D imposes a net social cost of $36 billion per year”

Given the lower level of development in China, it is certainly possible to imagine that the rate of return on investments in agricultural research and extension being higher than is the case in the U.S.  But, can the benefit cost ration really be 10 times higher in China than the U.S. (226:1 vs. 20:1)?  One interesting thing about Chinese study in Nature is that, if I read correctly, it didn't entail development of any new genetics, pesticides, etc; rather it seemed to largely entail the application of previously developed "science" and practices to the particular geographies in question, and as such, the costs might have been much lower than in situations where new technologies are being created. 

In a sense, the shows an enormously high value to "better information."  This contrasts with perspectives such as this one by David Pannell, who argues that better technologies are much more impactful than "better information."  One way to reconcile this seeming paradox is that that the "information" conveyed to the Chinese farmers was to use better technologies and practices that were already known to exist.  Here in the developed world, the knowledge/technologies are likely already more widely dispersed.  

I'll end with this quote from Alston's paper, who articulated the value of increased productivity in a createive way:

“Clearly agricultural productivity growth is enormously valuable. Of the actual farm output in 2007, worth about $330 billion, only one-third (i.e., 100/280 = 0.36) or about $118 billion could be accounted for by conventional inputs using 1949 technology, holding productivity constant. The remaining two-thirds (i.e., 180/280 = 0.64) or about $212 billion in that year alone, is attributable to the factors that gave rise to a 180% increase in productivity since 1949—including improvements in infrastructure and inputs (if not captured already in the indexes), as well as new technology, developed and adopted as a result of agricultural research and extension, and other sources of innovations.”