The pecan [Carya illinoinensis (Wangenh.) C. Koch] is unique among U.S. nut crops. Besides being the only native nut grown on a commercial scale, pecans exhibit alternate bearing behavior, often referred to as biennial bearing, which leads to wide biennial fluctuations in production and in nut quality characteristics at the orchard, regional, and national levels. This annual instability of supply and quality causes major problems for developing and maintaining demand within domestic and foreign markets. Perhaps for that reason, pecan is also the only U.S. nut industry with no national-level generic promotion program. National generic promotion (“checkoff”) programs are viewed as farmer self-help activities requiring minimal federal involvement or funding. They have been authorized by Congress for various farm commodities over the years as federally sanctioned, mandatory national programs, or as components of federal marketing order programs. Peanuts are one of 18 U.S. farm commodities with a federally legislated national generic promotion program, known as the Peanut Promotion, Research, and Information Order under the Commodity Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7411-7425). National generic promotion programs are authorized for almonds, hazelnuts, and walnuts through their respective federal marketing orders. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Marketing Service has some administrative and oversight responsibilities for these programs, but they are administered by boards of growers, shellers, handlers, and other industry representatives (Becker, 2004).
Implemented in 1992, the Pecan Promotion and Research Act of 1990 established a Pecan Marketing Board to carry out a coordinated national program of research and promotion to strengthen the pecan industry's domestic and foreign market position. However, 2 years later, in a referendum required by the Act, the program was terminated with 62% of those voting in the referendum against continuance of the program. Since then, efforts to promote sales of pecans have been piecemeal through independently operated promotion programs established by the National Pecan Shellers Association (NPSA) and all pecan-producing states. Typical of state-level pecan promotion programs is the Texas Pecan Checkoff Program established under the Texas Commodity Referendum Law (Texas Agricultural Code Chapter 41) in Aug. 1998 and administered by the Texas Pecan Board (TPB). The law authorizes TPB to promote pecans in an attempt to increase the welfare of Texas pecan growers.
This article addresses the general question of the effectiveness of state-level efforts to promote pecans. Specifically, the article examines whether or not the Texas Pecan Checkoff Program has worked as intended to increase sales of Texas pecans. The analysis focuses on the answers to three key questions: 1) What have been the effects of the Texas Pecan Promotion Program on sales of Texas pecans? 2) Is the level of effectiveness related to pecan variety (native versus improved varieties)? 3) What has been the return on investment made by Texas pecan growers from the promotion of sales of Texas pecans? Conclusions and implications for state-level pecan promotion programs are drawn from the analysis of these three questions.
Alston, J.M. , Carman, H.F. , Christian, J. , Dorfman, J. , Murua, J.-R. & Sexton, R. 1995 Optimal reserve and export policies for the California almond industry: Theory, econometrics, and simulations. Giannini Found. Monogr. 42 Giannini Foundation Agr. Econ., Univ. CA Davis, CA
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
Alston, J.M. Carman, H.F. Christian, J. Dorfman, J. Murua, J.-R. Sexton, R. 1995 Optimal reserve and export policies for the California almond industry: Theory, econometrics, and simulations. Giannini Found. Monogr. 42 Giannini Foundation Agr. Econ., Univ. CA Davis, CA
Becker, G.S. 2004 Federal farm promotion (“check-off”) programs CRS Rpt. Congr. No. 95-353 ENR. Congr. Res. Serv., The Library of Congress Washington, DC Mar. 25.
Bushnell, P.G. & King, G. 1986 The domestic and export markets for California Almonds. Giannini Found. Res. Rpt. 334 Giannini Foundation of Agr. Econ University of California, Davis, CA
Chung, C. & Kaiser, H.M. 2000 Do farmers get an equal bang for their buck from generic advertising programs? A theoretical and empirical analysis J. Agr. Resource Econ. 20 147 158
Florkowski, W.J. & Hubbard, E.E. 1994 Structure and performance of the pecan market Santerre C.R. Pecan technology Chapman & Hall New York, NY
Florkowski, W.J. & Park, T.A. 2001 Promotion programmmes and consumer purchasing decisions: Pecan demand models Appl. Econ. 33 763 770
Florkowski, W.J. , Purcell, J.C. & Hubbard, E.E. 1992 Importance for the United States pecan industry of communicating about quality HortScience 27 462 464
Florkowski, W.J. & Wu, X.-L. 1990 Simulating impact of pecan storage technology on farm price and growers' income Southern J. Agr. Econ. 22 217 222
Halliburton, K. & Henneberry, S. 1995 The effectiveness of U.S. nonprice promotion of almonds in the Pacific Rim J. Agr. Resource Econ. 20 108
Kinnucan, H.W. & Christian, J.E. 1997 A method for measuring returns to nonprice export promotion with application to almonds J. Agr. Resource Econ. 22 120 132
Kinnucan, H.W. , Miao, Y. , Xiao, H. & Kaiser, H.M. 2001 Effects of advertising on U.S. non-alcoholic beverage demand: Evidence from a two-stage rotterdam model 1 30 Baye M.R. & Nelson J.P. Advances in applied microeconomics: Advertising and differentiated products Vol. 10 Elsevier Science Ltd Oxford, UK
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
Kinnucan, H.W. Miao, Y. Xiao, H. Kaiser, H.M. 2001 Effects of advertising on U.S. non-alcoholic beverage demand: Evidence from a two-stage rotterdam model 1 30 Baye M.R. Nelson J.P. Vol. 10 Elsevier Science Ltd Oxford, UK
Onunkwo, I.M. & Epperson, J. 2000 Export demand for U.S. pecans: Impacts of U.S. export promotion programs Agribusiness 16 253 265
Rajaram, S. , Burke, K. , Connell, B. , Myint, T. & Sabaté, J. 2001 A monounsaturated fatty acid-rich pecan-enriched diet favorably alters the serum lipid profile of healthy men and women J. Nutr. 131 2275 2279
Rusmevichientong, P. & Kaiser, H.M. 2009 Measuring the effectiveness of U.S. rice export promotion programs Agribusiness Intl. J. 25 215 230
Shafer, C. 1996 Pecan production and price trends 1979–1995 Texas A&M University System, Texas Agr. Expt. Sta., Dept. Agr. Econ., Faculty Paper 96-03
U.S. Department of Agriculture 2008a Crop production Natl. Agr. Stat. Serv Washington, DC 5 June 2009 <http://www.nass.usda.gov/QuickStats/index2.jsp>.
U.S. Department of Agriculture 2008b Fruit and tree nut yearbook Econ. Res. Serv Washington, DC 5 June 2009 <http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1377>.
U.S. Department of Commerce (2008) National Economic Accounts. Bureau Econ. Analysis Washington, DC 5 June 2009 <http://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm>.
Williams, G.W. 1999 Commodity checkoff programs as alternative producer investment opportunities: the case of soybeans Agribusiness 15 539 552
Williams, G.W. , Capps O. Jr & Bessler, D.A. 2004 Florida orange grower returns from orange juice advertising. (Texas Agribusiness Market Research Center Consumer and Product Research Report No. CP-01-04) Texas A&M University, Department of Agricultural Economics College Station, TX February.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
Williams, G.W. Capps O. Jr Bessler, D.A. 2004 Florida orange grower returns from orange juice advertising. (Texas Agribusiness Market Research Center Consumer and Product Research Report No. CP-01-04) Texas A&M University, Department of Agricultural Economics College Station, TX February.
Williams, G.W. , Capps O. Jr & Palma, M.A. 2008 Effectiveness of marketing promotion programs: The case of Texas citrus HortScience 43 385 392
Wood, B.W. , Payne, J.A. & Grauke, L.J. 1994 An overview of the evolution of the U.S. pecan industry Santerre C.R. Pecan technology Chapman & Hall New York, NY