According to the International Nut and Dried Fruit Council (2018), world pecan (C. illinoinensis) production has increased by 28% over the past decade. An estimated 92% of pecans are produced in North America, with the United States having 51% of that production. In 2017, there were 19,008 farms producing 223,903 ha of pecans with 83% of the hectarage of nut-bearing age [U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)–National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), 2019b]. Although U.S. production volume has increased by 45% during the past decade, U.S. pecan production for the 2018–19 marketing season (October–September) was 221.2 million pounds which was a decline of 27% from the previous year [USDA–Economic Research Service (ERS), 2018; USDA–NASS, 2019a]. Production in 2018–19 was the lowest level in a decade. The biggest losses were in major pecan-producing states like Georgia and Texas, but the fall in production reflects a decline in all the top four pecan-producing states (USDA–ERS, 2019). Hurricane Michael caused declining production in Georgia, whereas alternate bearing habits within pecan trees may be the reason for a decreased decline in Texas (Haire, 2018; Nesbitt et al., 2010).
American pecan growers have been largely feeding the export market, which absorbed up to 84% of pecans used in production in the 2017–18 marketing season (USDA–ERS, 2018). Meanwhile, domestic demand has increased over the past decade while stagnating during the latter part of the decade. Per capita demand for pecans has ranged from 0.16 kg to 0.24 kg over the past 10 years with the most recent estimates in 2017–18 being 0.20 kg (USDA–ERS, 2018). In comparison, almonds (Prunus dulcis) per capita demand reached the all high level of 1.03 kg in 2017–18 season (USDA–ERS, 2018). Further complicating pecan demand is the current trade dispute with China. As the trade dispute with China remains in effect, there was a sharp decline in the cumulative volume of shelled and in-shell pecan exports during the first 3 months of 2018–19 (USDA–ERS, 2019).
Currently, pecan producers and retailers are looking for ways to drive consumer demand given stagnating domestic demand, lower export demand, and increased production levels compared with a decade earlier. As such, producers and retailers have looked to refine factors that drive pecan demand, including varying varieties, sizes, grades, packaging, origin labeling, and use in value-added products. In terms of variety, each of the top four states grow a large amount of “improved” pecan varieties that have been bred and selected for their improved attributes, such as increased yield. However, Oklahoma relies predominately (74% of hectarage) on “native/seedling” varieties compared with the other top states. With respect to consumer preference for pecan varieties, Palma et al. (2015) examined consumer preference for fresh (non–value-added) pecans. They found consumer preference for native varieties, even though no evidence exists showing native varieties have any additional benefits over improved varieties.
Other studies have examined a myriad of issues associated with pecan consumption to provide pecan growers with knowledge of which attributes are preferred by consumers. Lombardini et al. (2008) and Lillywhite et al. (2014) identified differences in pecan consumers and nonconsumers as well as differences in nutritional knowledge levels. Gold et al. (2004) examined consumer preference for chestnuts (Castanea spp.), walnuts (Juglans spp.), and pecans. Florkowski and Park (2001) examined marketing strategies to enhance sales of raw, unprocessed pecans and evaluated how familiarity of marketing outlets affected consumer purchases of pecans. Moore et al. (2009) found $0.35 in additional sales for every dollar invested in the promotion of pecans via the Texas Pecan Checkoff Program. Nelson et al. (2005) found three segments within the Haitian population for honey-roasted pecans. Hinds et al. (2003) compared Haitian consumer views on taste and appearance for Haitian vs. U.S.-produced honey-roasted peanuts.
However, little research has focused on consumer preferences for varying types of value-added pecan products, product origin, or specific farm labeling. Therefore, the main objectives of this experiment were to understand what importance consumers place on various types of value-added pecans (i.e., cinnamon sugar, pralines, salted and roasted, chocolate-covered, and plain roasted), their origins (i.e., Oklahoma, Georgia, Texas, Mexico, and United States), and unique label messaging (i.e., local farm grown, Native American Grown, and no label) when making a purchasing decision. This was done using a conjoint experiment across two package sizes (1.5 oz and 8 oz), overall consumer preferences were identified as well as consumer preferences across varying market segments. In addition, demographic and purchasing behaviors were developed for the market segments for the two product sizes examined.
Baker, G.A. & Crosbie, P.J. 1994 Consumer preferences for food safety attributes: A market segment approach Agribusiness Intl. J. 10 4 1662 1669
Baker, G.A. 1998 Strategic implications of consumer food safety preferences: Consumer concerns and willingness-to-pay Intl. Food Agribus. Mgt. Rev. 1 4 1662 1669
Baker, G.A. 1999 Consumer preferences for food safety attributes in fresh apples: Market segments, consumer characteristics, and marketing opportunities J. Agr. Resource Econ. 24 1 1662 1669
Campbell, B.L., Lesschaeve, I., Bowen, A.J., Onufrey, S.R. & Moskowitz, H. 2010 Purchase drivers of Canadian consumers of local and organic produce HortScience 45 1480 1488
Campbell, B.L., Mhlanga, S. & Lesschaeve, I. 2013 Consumer preference for peach attributes: Market segmentation analysis and implications for new marketing Agr. Resource Econ. Rev. 42 3 1662 1669
Campbell, B.L., Nelson, R.G., Ebel, R.C. & Dozier, W.A. 2006 Mandarin attributes preferred by consumers in grocery stores HortScience 41 664 670
Campbell, B.L., Nelson, R.G., Ebel, R.C., Dozier, W.A., Adrian, J.L. & Hockema, B.R. 2004 Fruit quality characteristics of satsuma mandarins that affect consumer preferences HortScience 39 1664 1669
Darby, K., Batte, M.T., Ernst, S. & Roe, B. 2008 Decomposing local: A conjoint analysis of locally produced foods Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 90 2 1662 1669
Fields, D. & Gillespie, J. 2008 Beef producer preferences and purchase decisions for livestock price insurance J. Agr. Appl. Econ. 40 3 1662 1669
Florkowski, W.J. & Park, T.A. 2001 Promotional programmes and consumer purchasing decisions: Pecan demand models Appl. Econ. 33 6 1662 1669
Frank, C.A., Nelson, R.G., Simonne, E.H., Behe, B.K. & Simonne, A.H. 2001 Consumer preferences for color, price, and vitamin c content of bell peppers HortScience 36 795 800
Green, P.E. & Helsen, K. 1989 Cross-validation assessment of alternatives to individual level conjoint analysis: A case study J. Mktg. Res. 26 346 350
Gold, M., Cernusca, M.M. & Godsey, L. 2004 Consumer preferences for chestnuts, eastern black walnuts, and pecans HortTechnology 14 583 589
Hair, J.F. Jr, Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. & Anderson, R.E. 2010 Multivariate data analysis. 7th ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ
Haire, B. 2018 Hurricane Michael changed Georgia’s pecan industry. FarmProgress. 12 May 2020. <https://www.farmprogress.com/orchard-crops/hurricane-michael-changed-georgia-s-pecan-industry>
Hinds, M.J., Jolly, C.M., Nelson, R.G., Donis, Y. & Prophete, E. 2003 Comparative study of properties and acceptability of Haitian and US honey-roasted peanuts Intl. J. Consum. Stud. 27 2 1662 1669
Harrison, R.W. & Sambidi, P.R. 2004 A conjoint analysis of the U.S. broiler complex location decision J. Agr. Appl. Econ. 36 3 1662 1669
International Nut and Dried Fruit Council 2018 Nuts and dried fruit statistical yearbook. 12 May 2020. <https://www.nutfruit.org/files/tech/1553521370_INC_Statistical_Yearbook_2018.pdf>
Kotler, P. & Armstrong, G. 2001 Principles of marketing. 9th ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ
Lillywhite, J.M., Simonsen, J.E. & Heerema, R.J. 2014 U.S. consumer purchases and nutritional knowledge of pecans HortTechnology 24 222 230
Lin, B.H., Payson, S. & Wertz, J. 1996 Opinions of professional buyers toward organic produce: A case study of the Mid-Atlantic market for fresh tomatoes Agribusiness Intl. J. 12 1 1662 1669
Lombardini, L., Waliczek, T.M. & Zajicek, J.M. 2008 Consumer knowledge of nutritional attributes of pecans and factors affecting purchasing behavior HortTechnology 18 481 488
Manalo, A.B. 1990 Assessing the importance of apple attributes: An agricultural example of conjoint analysis Northeastern J. Agr. Resources Econ. 19 2 1662 1669
Moore, E.D., Williams, G.W., Palma, M.A. & Lombardini, L. 2009 Effectiveness of state-level pecan promotion programs: The case of the Texas Pecan Checkoff Program HortTechnology 44 1914 1920
Nelson, R.G., Jolly, C.M., Hinds, M.J., Donis, Y. & Prophete, E. 2005 Conjoint analysis of consumer preferences for roasted peanut products in Haiti Intl. J. Consum. Stud. 29 3 1662 1669
Nesbitt, M., Stein, L. & Kamas, J. 2010 Improved pecans. Texas A&M University, AgriLIFE Extension. 12 May 2020. <https://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/fruit-nut/files/2010/10/improved-pecans.pdf>
Onozaka, Y. & McFadden, D.T. 2011 Does local labeling complement or compete with other sustainable labels? A conjoint analysis of direct and joint values for fresh produce claims Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 93 3 1662 1669
Palma, M.A., Collart, A.J. & Chammoun, C.J. 2015 Information asymmetry in consumer perceptions of quality-differentiated food products J. Consum. Aff. 49 3 1662 1669
U.S. Census Bureau 2019a Age and sex. 2018: ACS 1-year estimates detailed tables, American Community Survey, Table ID:S0101. 12 May 2020. <https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=median%20age&hidePreview=true&tid=ACSST1Y2018.S0101&t=Age%20and%20Sex&vintage=2018&layer=VT_2018_040_00_PY_D1&g=0400000US05,20,48,40>
U.S. Census Bureau 2019b Median age by sex. 2018: ACS 1-year estimates detailed tables. American Community Survey, Table ID:B01002. 12 May 2020. <https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=median%20age&hidePreview=false&tid=ACSDT1Y2018.B01002&t=Age%20and%20Sex&vintage=2018>
U.S. Department of Agriculture – Economic Research Service 2018 Fruit and tree nut yearbook tables. 12 May 2020. <https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/fruit-and-tree-nut-data/fruit-and-tree-nut-yearbook-tables/#Tree%20Nuts>
U.S. Department of Agriculture – Economic Research Service 2019 Fruit and Tree Nuts Outlook. FTS-368, March, 34 p. 12 May 2020. <https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/92731/fts-368.pdf?v=7239.3>
U.S. Department of Agriculture – National Agricultural Statistics Service 2019a Pecan Production. 12 May 2020. <https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-esmis/files/5425kg32f/tt44pv533/v979v9335/pecnpr19.pdf>
U.S. Department of Agriculture – National Agricultural Statistics Service 2019b Table 37. Specified fruits and nuts by acreage: 2017 and 2012. 12 May 2020. <https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/st99_1_0037_0037.pdf>
Wirth, F.F., Stanton, J.L. & Wiley, J.B. 2011 The relative importance of search versus credence product attributes: Organic and locally grown Agr. Resource Econ. Rev. 40 1 1662 1669