Direct Marketing Hogs in Southern Appalachia_________________________ Michael Best In the past, hogs were extremely important animals in the Appalachian region. They could be raised to slaughter weight easily and quickly. The size of the animals and the ability for their meat to be cured easily made hogs ideal for families in the region, who raised them to be sold at local markets or slaughtered on the farm. Traditionally, hog-killing time was during November, December, January and February, when the temperatures were sufficiently cold to preserve fresh-dressed pork. This also used to be a time for community, when families and neighbors would get together and help each other slaughter the animals. However, advancements in porkproduction methods late in the twentieth century, advancements in refrigeration and rural electrification earlier in the century and state and federal regulations since 1990 have changed the way today's Appalachians acquire their pork. Regrettably, smaller farmers in the region have essentially been pushed out of the market by larger, lowcost producers and by government regulations. During the last five years, there has been a general conversation among regional farmers and agricultural economists concerning the economic viability for small farmers to market their meat directly to consumers. Last year I worked on a research project with Jennifer Craycraft, a Berea College senior whose family operates a small farm in southern Ohio. She and her family were considering marketing their hogs directly to consumers as an alternative business strategy. Out of that interest grew this project to find out whether direct-marketing pork is a viable option for smaller producers in the Southern Appalachian region. There are many ways of producing hogs today, from total confinement to pasture and free range. We first wanted to see how consumers viewed these different production methods. We defined four different production practices, as shown below. Consumers were asked near the beginning of the survey whether they had a preference for how their pork was produced, and then they were asked to rank their preferences. For the sake of this article, here are definitions for several terms associated with meat production practices: 13 Orgam'c-Pork produced in healthy environmental conditions without hormones and antibiotics. Hormone free-Pork produced without growth hormones such as steroids. This pork can be produced using pasture or confinement. Pasture or Free-Range-Pork raised outdoors. Conventional-Pork that has been produced inside. Antibiotics are typically given. Most pork is produced in this manner. The remainder of the survey was designed to elicit additional consumers' preferences regarding pork production and marketing methods. The survey was distributed at random among 1500 shoppers at local department stores and to 500 residences in Madison County, Kentucky. One hundred and twenty-five surveys were returned through the mail, not far below the normal 6.25 % response rate. The survey sample seemed a reasonably good representation of the people of Madison County, Kentucky, based on the demographic data of the county and the surveys returned. However, the survey revealed a higher average income and age than we anticipated, as well as slightly smaller household sizes. Madison County is the home of Eastern Kentucky University, Berea College, livestock and tobacco auctions and light industries. For all these reasons, its commercial center in the county seat of Richmond is a magnet for shoppers and workers from the nearby Cumberland Plateau. The results of our survey were quite interesting. Preference on Pork Production Consumers' First Choice 14 First, regarding consumer's preferences for how they would like their pork produced, the results showed that 63% of consumers do have a preference (see table on facing page). Of those consumers, 54% prefer organically-raised meat, 23% prefer their pork hormone-free and 18% prefer animals produced on pasture or free-range, while only 5% prefer the conventional factory method of production. This suggests plenty of potential for producers who might be interested in alternative methods for raising hogs. Consumers were asked to rank the level of their satisfaction with meat purchased from the stores where they typically shop. The results in Table 2 (below) suggest that consumers in Madison County are satisfied with the meat products they currentlybuy, and that it mightbe difficult to...
Read full abstract
Jan 1, 2018
Shivani Laad + 3
Open Access