Methodology for Trend Analysis and Projection. Of Production, Market Shares, and Consumption*

Similar documents
2011 Cost of Producing Peppermint under Rill and Center-Pivot Irrigation in Washington State

ECONOMIC TRENDS IN THE FLORIDA AVOCADO INDUSTRY

Changes in Transportation Costs and Interregional Competition in the U.S. Apple Industry

2010 JOURNAL OF THE ASFMRA

Weather Effects on Expected Corn and Soybean Yields

Chapter 9. Fruits and Vegetables Bradley J. Rickard, Assistant Professor Charles H. Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management

Economic Impact of Florida's Fruit and Vegetable Industries 1

2012 Enterprise Budget for Establishing and Producing Irrigated Alfalfa in the Washington Columbia Basin

The Price Loss Coverage (PLC) Program of the 2014 Farm Bill

EU support of its processing tomato industry and the competitive consequences for California

BENEFITS FROM IMPROVING FLOOD IRRIGATION EFFICIENCY

IMPLICATIONS OF REMOTE SENSING IMAGERY AND CROP ROTATION FOR NITROGEN MANAGEMENT IN SUGAR BEET PRODUCTION

A STUDY OF THE IMPACT OF COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY OF EU ON PRODUCTION OF COTTON IN GREECE: IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S. COTTON EXPORTS

Volume Title: Productivity Trends in the Goods and Service Sectors, : A Preliminary Survey. Volume URL:

2012 Cost Estimates of Establishing, Producing, and Packing Red Delicious Apples in Washington

Implications for Producer s Risk Management Strategies

Trends in U.S. Tobacco Farming

TERRELL H. HOLDER Kentucky State University

Agriculture in China - Successes, Challenges, and Prospects. Prof. Zhihao Zheng College of Economics & Management China Agricultural University

Field Pea and Lentil Marketing Strategies

Profitability analysis of the experimental data By Marvin Batte

Baseline Update for U.S. Farm Income and Government Outlays

An economic analysis of winter vegetables production in some selected areas of Narsingdi district

U.S. Agricultural Productivity: Measurement, Data, and Sources of Growth

Overview of the NASS Nuts and Pecan Estimating Program. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service New Orleans, LA February 18, 2011

Rice Outlook and Baseline Projections. University of Arkansas Webinar Series February 13, 2015 Nathan Childs, Economic Research Service, USDA

Hog:Corn Ratio What can we learn from the old school?

Comparative Advantage of Selected Agricultural Products in Hawai i: A Revealed Comparative Advantage Assessment

Expected Occupation Growth in El Paso and Doña Ana Counties

Crops Marketing and Management Update

Iowa Farm Outlook. December 2017 Ames, Iowa Econ. Info Stretch Run for Meat Markets

Outlook of the World Rice Industry Under Alternative Trade Liberalization Policies in Japan and Korea

Iowa Farm Outlook. March 2014 Ames, Iowa Econ. Info Long-Term Projections for Beef Production and Trade

2017 Crop Market Outlook

2017 Tennessee Agricultural Outlook. Aaron Smith Crop Economist University of Tennessee Extension

Discussion Paper 3 (DP3): Impact of Management Treatment Alternatives on Economic Activity

1.0 Introduction 1.1 Identifying Situations For Use 1.2 Constructing Price Index Numbers

All Mushroom Sales Virtually Unchanged, Value Down 1 Percent

CONTRIBUTION OF THE ETHANOL INDUSTRY TO THE ECONOMY OF THE UNITED STATES

Trip Generation Characteristics of Free- Standing Discount Stores: A Case Study

U.S. Agriculture: Commodity Situation and Outlook

FAPRI Ethanol Briefing Materials for Congressman Peterson

Agriculture and Climate Change Revisited

Emerging Global Trade Patterns: USDA s Long-term Agricultural Projections

The Iowa Pork Industry 2008: Patterns and Economic Importance by Daniel Otto and John Lawrence 1

Price and expenditure elasticities at the retail level between 1960 and 1993 were estimated for 11 fresh fruits

CONTRIBUTION OF THE ETHANOL INDUSTRY TO THE ECONOMY OF THE UNITED STATES

1998 AAEA Selected Paper Soybeans Quality Price Differentials From An Elevator s Perspective

AMERICAN AGRICULTURE has become one of

Report on Minnesota Farm Finances. April, 2010

Organic Fertilizer Calculator

Iowa Farm Outlook. May 2015 Ames, Iowa Econ. Info Several Factors Supporting, Pressuring Fed Cattle Prices

There is much debate on the size and importance of

THE INFLUENCE OF URBAN AREAS ON FARMLAND VALUES

Chapter 3. Table of Contents. Introduction. Empirical Methods for Demand Analysis

Land Values and Cash Rents: 2008 Summary

World Corn Market Supply Demand Trends

Vegetables and Specialties

POTENTIAL CHALLENGES FOR BEGINNING FARMERS AND RANCHERS

ACE 427 Spring Lecture 2. Economic Data and Graphing. by Professor Scott H. Irwin

Managerial Decision-Making Introduction To Using Excel In Forecasting

FEASIBILITY OF DIFFERENT HARVEST METHODS FOR CIDER APPLES: CASE STUDY FOR WESTERN WASHINGTON

Ending stocks can adjust due to a variety of factors from changes in production as well as adjustments to beginning stocks and demand.

Agriculture: farm income recovers

Food Price Outlook,

1.0 Chapter Introduction

Cultivating Trade: The Economic Impact of Indiana s Agricultural Exports

Evaluation of the Residential Inclining Block Rate F2009-F2012. Revision 2. June Prepared by: BC Hydro Power Smart Evaluation

A Profile of Timber and Wood Products. Keweenaw County MI

Farmland Investor. Apples Surge as New Trends Enhance Outlook for Washington Apples. Contents. Hancock Agricultural Investment Group

Economics of Specialty Corn Production in Missouri

2010 Cost Estimates of Establishing and Producing Organic Apples in Washington

RETUR COSTS A 8 R R. and 96 LI6R R

Do the BRICs and Emerging Markets Differ in their Agrifood Trade?

World, U.S. and Florida Avocado Situation and Outlook 1

Wheat Production in Washington

Economic Contribution of Maine s Food Industry

Fresh Deciduous Fruit (Apples, Grapes, & Pears): World Markets and Trade

OVERVIEW OF THE WHEAT SECTOR IN MANITOBA. Wheat is one of Manitoba s most important crops and occupies the largest area of crop by area.

Effects of Shale Energy Production on Cropland Land Rents in North Dakota. Markus Lang and Sayed Saghaian

Beef Cattle Outlook Dr. Curt Lacy Extension Economist-Livestock

Agriculture and Food Processing in Washington State Economic Impacts and Importance of Water

2015 AGRICULTURAL WORKFORCE. Agriculture economy Employment and earnings Agriculture labor market H-2A and prevailing wages Common practices

Trapping in special enclosures to create a more fertile growing environment an operation used in southeast Asia with milk fish and shrimp

OF EQUIPMENT LEASE FINANCING VOLUME 33 NUMBER 3 FALL Equipment Finance Market Forecasting By Blake Reuter

Alternative Livestock/Dryland Forage Systems in the Texas Panhandle

Comparison of Labor Costs between Florida and Mexican Strawberry Industries

Fresh Produce Marketing Trends and Issues for California Blueberry Growers

Fresh Produce Marketing Trends and Issues for California Blueberry Growers

Agriculture: expansions highlighted developments

Cooperative Agriscience Education I

Spreadsheets in Education (ejsie)

Seasonal Farm Price Patterns in Selected U.S. Fresh Fruit Markets

A number of studies have documented lower levels of schooling or formal education in

An Economic Analysis of Generic Fluid Milk Advertising in Ontario, Quebec, the Maritime Provinces

U.S. Trade Deficit and the Impact of Changing Oil Prices

Factors Affecting Cotton Production in Pakistan: Empirical Evidence from Multan District

Analysis of Forces Affecting Competitive Position of Mexico in Supplying U.S. Winter Melon Market

2011 Economic Contribution Analysis of Washington Dairy Farms and Dairy Processing: An Input-Output Analysis

PRICE AND PROFIT: INVESTIGATING A CONUNDRUM. Carl R. Zulauf, Gary Schnitkey, and Carl T. Norden*

Transcription:

Methodology for Trend Analysis and Projection Of Production, Market Shares, and Consumption* by C. Thomas Worley Department of Agricultural Economics Washington State University Pullman, Washington Raymond J. Folwell Department of Agricultural Economics Washington State University Pullman, Washington Vicki A. McCracken Department of Agricultural Economics Washington State University Pullman, Washington Introduction Food processing and marketing firms must continually analyze alternative product marketing strategies in view of the intensely competitive environment of the industry. Rural, agriculturally dependent communities with concentrated production of various crops frequently turn to expansion of food processing and marketing for increased employment and value adding economic activity. Formulation of product marketing strategies by firms and rural economic development efforts face the same problems of identifying crops, products, and areas in which to expand. Identification of trends in crop acreage and consumption of important agricultural products in defined geographic regions is valuable for firm planning and overall industry outlook purposes. Numerous single commodity analyses have been performed using econometric and mathematical programming techniques. Examples of single industry studies include Greig s mathematical programming model of the U.S. sweet corn industry and French and Willett s econometric model of the nation s asparagus industry. Shortcomings of these studies is lack of comparability among the results across commodities. Extensive data is also required for initial model construction and subsequent use in industry simulations. Application of uniform and systematic methods of analysis across the spectrum of crops and processing activities in a region yields mean- * Research Report Presented at the Thirty Third Annual Meeting of the Food Distribution Research Society at Boston, Massachusetts, November 4, 1992 February 93/page 110

ingthl relationships and comparisons concerning acreage, processing, marketing and consumption trends. The purpose of this research is to describe a systematic method of analyzing consumption trends and market shares which do~ not require excessive collection and maintenance of data and complex modeling techniques. Objectives The objective of this research report is to describe methods for analyzing consumption trends and regional market shares. The methodology is first presented and discussed in general form. Subsequently, the techniques are applied to the consumption and market shares of Washington asparagus. These techniques were developed to gain insight concerning relative rates of expansion in various types of fruit and vegetable processing in Washington in the year 2010, ~orley and Folwell]. The methodology and results of this research are based upon relatively few variables. This permits the methods to be replicated for other regions and crops which may be of particular interest to persons representing many different food industries. Although these techniques are relatively straight forward in nature, there is much sophistication incorporated into the projection methods via the income and population forecasts utilized. Forecasts of U.S. income and population made by the United States Department of Commerce are incorporated into the methodology. These forecasts are based on a complex set of assumptions concerning fbture economic and population growth in the United States which are fhrther explained in the text of this paper. Domestic Consumption Per Capita U.S. domestic market demand projections were accomplished in two steps. First, per capita consumption functions were statistically estimated for each product form (fresh, canned, frozen, etc.). The per capita consumption function emimated for each product form was one of the following three functional forms: (1) (2) (3) where: C,,t = Y, = T, = b, = per capita consumption of the i* commodity form in the @ year; per capita personal income year t in constant 1982 dollars; time trend measured in years, 1980, 1981, etc.; and the ordinary least-squares estimators of the intercept and slope coeffh cients for the iti commodity form. A consumption function was estimated using historical data from 1980-1989 for each product form. Selection of functional form (with or without an intercept) and the specification of the equation (with or without a trend variable) was based upon statistical considerations (significance), economic considerations (signs), as well as the predicted value for the year 2010, given trends in the historical data. Thus, the projected per capita consumption levels are based upon a continuation of past trends with income and/or time being the primary variables in the consumption formulas. The data requirements are minimal with per capita consumption for each product form and a U.S. income series being the only required data. The estimation technique is the simplest among those in inferential statistics which allows for hypotheses testing and tests of statistical significance. The estimated per capita consumption functions were evaluated for the year 2010 using projected per capita personal income for 2010. The income level in 2010 was adopted from projections by the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis (IJ!SDC-BEA). The projected 2010 per capita income was $16,693 measured in 1982 dollars. Februsry 93/page 111

The income projections by the USDC-BEA are based on assumptions of continuance of past economic relationships with no major policy changes. Consequently, these are essentially the same assumptions underlying the consumption functions. Gross national product (GNP) was projected based on projections of population, labor-force, employment, and GNP per employee. The population projections were based mainly on the work of the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census (USDC-BC), and the labor force projections were based mainly on the work of the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Labor Statistics. The GNP projections were in general the basis of the derivation of other national measures, including total personal income by component and both employment and earnings by industry. Aggregate U.S. Consumption The 2010 per capita consumption estimates were used in conjunction with projected 2010 population levels as published by the USDC-BC to determine aggregate U.S. consumption, The USDC-BC uses a cohort-component model to make such population projections. The basic data used to generate the projected population levels included a base-year population, projected fertility rates, projected surviwd rates, fiuure net immigration statistics, and under count rates from the 1980 census. The projections include a low, middle, and high series of estimates for U.S. population. The USDC-BC describes these estimates as:... The lowest series assumes low fertility, low life expectancy, and low net immigration; while the highest series assumes high fertility, high life expectancy, and high net immigration. These series provide the widest range around the middle series (which is based upon the middle assumption for each component) in terms of future total population size, but do not necessarily represent the extreme range for any particular population subgroup. The total U.S. population estimates for 2010 by USDC-BC using these assumptions were: Low: 264,193,000 Middle: 282,575,000 High: 305,882,000 These population levels were multiplied by the projected 2010 per capita consumption estimates to project total U.S. consumption in 2010 for the three population levels of the various commodity forms. Net Foreign Demand Import and export data as identified by the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System were compiled for the calendar years 1989 and 1990 [Foreign Agricultural Trade of the United States]. The data for specific products were aggregated by product form (fresh, canned, frozen) to achieve compatibility with the domestic consumption product forms. The data were reported on a product weight basis and were converted to fresh or farm weight by using factors published by USDA [Stat. Bulletin 616]. Trade data for calendar years 1989 and 1990 were averaged and used to calculate net foreign trade as a percentage of total 1990 domestic consumption for each product form. This percentage was assumed unchanged in the future and was used as an adjustment factor to the previously estimated 2010 domestic consumption to account for the effect of net foreign trade. Total U.S. output was assumed equal to aggregate domestic consumption adjusted for the percentage of consumption represented by foreign supply or demand. Market Shares Determination Estimated market shares for a selected study area were obtained through trend analysis of historical acreage data using regression techniques. The market shares for the study market area were specified as linear functions of time: MS, = aoij + aljj T,, Where MS, is market share and is defined as the percent of U.S. acreage grown in the study area in year t, T is the time trend measured in years; ~,ij ~d ~l,ij are the ordinary least-squares estimators; i and j denote the i* commodity form and February 931page 112

j* market area, and t is the year. The market shares measure: 1) the percentage of total U.S. acreage of the iti commodity grown in a selected state, and 2) the percentage of total state acreage of the iti commodity grown in the study area. The regression equations were estimated using historical acreage data from 1980 through 1990. An advantage of using this simple model for projections is that the market share for the state and the rest of the United States will always add up to 100 percent, which insures gains in market share in the selected state are offset by losses in the other states. Market Shares Applied to Projected U.S. Production The market shares projections for 2010 were applied to the previously calculated net U.S. output projections to determine the production of each commodity in a selected state and study area. These were then compared to the derived level of production in 1990 for the selected state and study area to determine the magnitude of change over the 20-year period. The procedure was to first calculate the state s share of the net U.S. production and then use the resulting state total to calculate the study area s share of state production. The same market share was used for all forms of product. This assumes that each state and the study area produce the same proportion of each product form of the commodity. These projections were compared to 1990 production levels calculated the same way except using 1990 market shares and net U.S. production. Thus, comparability between a base year, 1990, and the 2010 projections was maintained. Example Application: Washington Asparagus The historical per capita asparagus consumption data summarized in Table 1 was first regressed on income and time variables as described previously. The results of these OLS regressions are presented in Table 2 for each product form of asparagus. The regression was not completed for frozen asparagus since the historical consumption of this product remained unchanged over the ten-year period of 1980-89. These estimated consumption functions were then used to predict the per capita levels of consumption in 2010 by evaluation at projected 2010 income and time. Column one of Table 3 reports these estimated 2010 per capita consumption levels. Per capita asparagus consumption trends are negative for canned, flat for frozen, and slightly positive for fresh product. The regression equations of fresh and canned were used to project the per capita consumption of these product forms in 2010, while the historical average for frozen was used as the per capita projection for that product form. The per capita estimates of consumption were then multiplied by the three e&imates of population to estimate aggregate U.S. consumption levels for 2010 reported in Table 3. Table 4 shows the average net level of foreign trade in asparagus by product form, the percentage of 1990 U.S. consumption, and the resulting adjustment factor. U.S. aggregate consumption was adjusted using this factor which resulted in the projected asparagus production shown in Table 5. Net trade for fresh and frozen asparagus is negative; the United States is a net importer of these forms. The United States is a relatively small net exporter of canned asparagus with quantities averaging 1.3 percent of domestic consumption during 1989 and 1990. Acreage data used for the trend regression is shown in Table 6. The estimated trend in market share coefficients indicates that Washington s share of U.S. acreage in increasing. Washington s share of U.S. acreage has expanded during the 1980-1990 period by an estimated 0.3 percent per year. Projecting this rate of increase to year 2010 results in an expected share of 38.8 percent of all U.S. acres to be grown in Washington, increasing from the 32.7 percent share in 1990. Applying the estimated 2010 market shares to the estimated U.S. production levels in 2010 provides the projected level of output in Washington in 2010 shown in Table 7, These projections are then divided by the 1990 levels yielding the expansion ratios shown in Table 7. February 93/page 113

Table 1 U.S. Per Capita Asparagus Consumption By Form Of Product, 1980-89 Product Pounds Per Capita Form Mean Std. Deviation Range Low High Fresh.47 0.1252.30.60 canned.32 0.0422.30.40 Frozen.10 0.0000.10.10 Source: USDA Vegetables and Specialties Table 2 Ordinary Least Squares Estimates Of Asparagus Consumption Function Coefficients By Product Form Product Form Intercept Income Time Residual Mean Square Fresh.0000385.009577 (15,37) canned Frozen 94.604.0001522 -.048455.000276 (5,88)1 (4.78)1 (-5.83) regression not possible lstudent t values at the 95% level of confidence. Table 3 Estimated 2010 Per Capita And Total U.S. Consumption By Population Level Product 2010 2010 Total U. S. Consumption Form Per Capita Low Middle High lbs farm weight equivalent (million lbs) Fresh 0.64 169.1 180.8 195.8 canned 0.25 66.0 70.6 76.5 Frozen 0.10 26.4 28.3 30.6 February 93/page 114

Table 4 Net U.S. Trade Of Asparagus By Product Form (Exports-Imports) Averaged For 1989 and 1990 Average Average as % of 1990 Adjustment Product Form Net Trade Consumption Factorl million lbsfarm weight equivalent Fresh -3.788 2.53 0.9747 canned 0.995 1.33 1.0133 Frozen -1.135 4.55 0.9545 ladjustment factor to adjust aggregate U.S. consumption to total U.S. production. Table 5 U.S. Asparagus Production Projected In 2010 By Population Level Product Adjustment Population Level ----------------- ------------ --------------- Form Factor Low Medium High ---- million pounds ---- Fresh 0.9747 164.800 176.266 190.805 canned 1.0133 66,928 71.584 77.489 Frozen 0.9545 25,216 26.971 29.196 February 93/page 115

Table 6 U.S. and Washington Asparagus Acreage and Share of U.S. Acreage in Washington State, 1980-1990 Year Washington United States I WAIUS ----- (W acres ------ 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 22.20 87.95,2524 23.70 81.99.2891 28.40 84.64.3355 29.30 87.29.3357 29,00 89.93.3225 29.00 91.45.3171 30.00 96.18.3119 31.00 99.84.3105 32.00 100.91.3171 32.00 98.51.3248 30.00 95.60.3138 Estimated time coefilcient:.00304 Projected 2010 share of U.S. in WA:.388 Table 7 Washington Asparagus Production Projected in 2010 and The Expansion Ratio Relative to 1990 at Three Population Levels i I 2010 Projected 1 Expansion Ratio i I 1 I 1990 Low Med High ~ Low Med High 1 # I million pounds farm weight i i Fresh ~ 45.760 63.942 68.391 74.032 ~ 1.397 1.495 1.618 canned i 23.787 25.968 27.775 30.066 [ 1.092 1.168 1.264 I Frozen I 7.469 9.784 10.465 11,328 { 1.310 1.401 1.517 February 93/page 116

Data for the last three years indicate that 69 and 31 percent of Washington asparagus is grown for processing and fresh use, respectively WA Agri-Facts], This dependency on processing coupled with the forgoing trends suggest that the asparagus processing industry in the state will continue at about its present size. The likelihood of expanded canning activity seems especially slight, given the declining per capita consumption and relatively low volume of net exports. Summary and Conclusions Relative magnitudes of change between current and projected production, processing and consumption levels can be consistently measured using the described methodology. These methods provide results which identify those crops and processing activities which have potential for expansion in a state and intra-state regions. The methodology was applied to only one region of the state and to only one commodity. Applications to other specified study areas could yield regional expansion rates for comparison within a state. References Chase, Robert A., Washington State s Preserved Fruit and VegetableIndustry: An Economic Assessment - Dray?Highlights, School of Business, University of Washington, Seattle, June 1992. Folwell, R. J. and B. G. Swanson, The Economic Importance of the Food Industry in Washington, Washington sland & People, College of Agriculture and Home Economics, Washington State University, Vol. 4, No. 1, Spring 1990. Food Processing: The Pacific Northwest s Industrial Powerhouse, Pacific Northwest Ekecutive, School of Business, University of Washington, Seattle, Vol. 6, No. 3, July 1990. French, Ben C. and Lois Schertz Willett. An Econometric Model of the U.S. Asparagus Zndustry. California Agricultural Experiment Station, Giannini Research Report Number 340, September 1989. Greig, Smith. Interregional Competition in Processing of Frozen Sweet Cbrn with Emphasis on the Northwest s CompetitivePosition. Agricultural Research Center, Washington State University, Research Bulletin XB0947, 1986. U.s. Department of Agriculture, Gmversion Factors and Weights and Measures, Economics, Statistics, and Cooperative Service, Statistical Bulletin No. 616, Washington, D. C., 1979. Foreign Agricultural Trade of the United States- Calendar Year 1950 Supplement, Economic Research Service, Washington, D. C., November 1991. Vegetablesand SpecialtiesSituation and O;tlook Yearbook, Economic research Service, TVS-255, December, 1991. U.S. Department of Commerce, BEA Regional Projections to 2040- Volume 1: States, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Washington, D. C., June 1990., Projections of the Population of the United States, by Age, Sex, and Race: 1988 to 2080, Bureau of the Census, Series P-25, No. 1018, Washington, D.C., 1989. Washington Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington Agri-Facts, Washington State Department of Agriculture, Olympia, Washington. Worley, T. and R. Folwell, Food Processing Industry in the Presser Area: Recent Trends and Future Prospects, Department of Agricultural Economics, Washington State University, Pullman, April 1992. Febmary 93/page 117