APIS Volume 3, Number 2, February 1985
In this issue
- Honey Promotion and Information Act
- Who Eats Honey and Why?--Shehata Survey
- Africanized Bee Impact--AER 519 Published
Honey Promotion Act
Events in January have pushed toward implementing the Honey Research, Promotion and Consumer Information Act. More than likely hearings on the Act will take place soon, although specific dates are not available as this issue of APIS goes to press. There appears to be little formalized opposition to the Act, but a lot of work has yet to be done. The eventual success of the legislation will lie in the hands of beekeeper-voters first, then those responsible for implementing the Act.
The tenor of statements coming out of Agriculture Secretary Block's office indicate that all agricultural commodities must be "market oriented." Translated, this appears to mean that those who help themselves stand a better chance of being helped. With this in mind, those in favor of the Act should contact their friends and get them to the hearings and to the polling places, which probably will be local Agriculture Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) offices.
WHO EATS HONEY AND WHY
[Editor's note 5/11/1997--Although dated, much of the information in this survey is still good. For later surveys, see updated reports by the National Honey Board.]
Dr. Sabry Shehata, Associate Professor, Agricultural Economics, California State University, Fresno reported the results of his study into honey consumer characteristics and attitudes at the January meeting of the American Beekeeping Federation in Tampa, Florida. The results should be of interest to both large- and small-scale honey marketers.
The purpose of the study was to (1) determine consumer's awareness and preferences for honey products, and (2) determine characteristics of the consumers' demand for honey at U.S. markets. Results show several interrelated factors influence demand for honey: (1) disposable income, (2) price of honey compared to competing sweeteners, (3) customs and habits of the buyer, (4) size and racial composition of the buying public, and (5) availability of substitutes. Demand can realistically be expected to increase because over the last ten years, U.S. per capita honey consumption averaged about 21 ounces, lower than Candian (32 ounces) Austrian (50 ounces), Japanese (96 ounces) and West German (140 ounces) consumption.
Methodology used was querying a random sample of households in four major U.S. representative cities (Dallas, TX; Washington, DC; Sacramento, CA; and Kansas City, MO-KS). The sample size was 964; questionnaires were used as the principle research tool. The survey was completed in October, 1984. Specifically, frequency of use, per capita consumption, seasonal use, honey characteristics, and purchase location were examined.
FREQUENCY OF USE
Most persons surveyed used honey in 1983 as follows: Dallas (60%), Washington (71%), Sacramento (66%) and Kansas City (77%). Although this appears high, according to Dr. Shehata, in all places only 30% of consumers used honey once a week or more frequently, according to the following table:
CITY HIGH USER MEDIUM USER INFREQUENT USER NON USER
Once a week Once every two More than a
or more weeks or rarely year ago
Dallas 27% 18% 15% 40%
Washington 27% 22% 21% 29%
Sacramento 27% 34% 37% 34%
Kansas City 33% 23% 21% 33%
U.S. Average 30% 21% 16% 33%Other findings are: (1) honey use increases with household income and with education level, (2) Mexican-Americans use less honey than other ethnic groups; (3) singles consume more honey than marrieds because they eat out more often. Main reasons for not using honey appear to be: (1) consumers have no use for it and/or haven't thought about it, (2) consumers don't like the taste,and (3) consumers avoid honey because of medical advice.
PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION
Estimated per capita consumption of honey in sampled households was 23.8 ounces per year, with a standard error of plus or minus two ounces (expected range is from 19.8 to 28 ounces). Per capita consumption for each city is shown below:
FOR 95% CITY
CITY NUMBER PER CAPITA STANDARD ERROR CONFIDENCE INTERVAL
SAMPLED LOW HIGH
Dallas 317 30.0 oz. 4.6 20.8 38.9
Washington 199 18.6 3.0 12.7 14.6
Sacramento 229 21.5 3.8 13.9 28.8
Kans. City 212 22.5 3.8 14.9 30.0
TOTAL 961 23.8 2.0 19.8 27.9Eighty three percent of those consumers using honey in 1983 reported no particular seasonal preference. Those reporting a seasonal use, however, indicated honey to be used mostly in winter.
HONEY CHARACTERISTICS
Dr. Shehata's data show the most popular type of honey for the U.S. consumer is liquid honey. A small percentage (6%) of persons purchased cream honey in 1983. When the product is promoted, as in Kansas City, consumption of creamed honey appeared to increase, according to the study.
Consumers also prefer gold colored honey over amber or yellow colored honey, which are considered too strong or not strong enough respectively. Clover and orange were the most recognized varietal honey types, followed by sage and alfalfa.
LOCATION OF PURCHASE
Most honey is purchased in the supermarket (74%), according to the study. About 10% of consumers buy honey directly from beekeepers.
RATING HONEY ATTRIBUTES
Attitudes between buyers and nonbuyers of honey are significant. Buyers responded more positively to the following attributes:
- Honey is easy to use.
- Honey is healthy.
- Honey is priced reasonably.
- Honey is a good source of energy.
- Honey improves food flavor.
- Honey is good for children.
- Honey is good for adults.
- Honey tastes better than jelly/jam.
- Honey tastes better than syrups.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Dr. Shehata concludes that there are two key factors which will contribute to increasing demand for honey and honey products: (1) expose consumers to as many uses of honey and honey products as possible, and (2) cater to preferences regarding honey container size and different varieties present in the marketplace.
He also suggests that older consumers (60 years of age and over) may be singled out as lower honey consumers, that single unit families are also lower consumers than married couples or families with two or more members using honey and finally, higher income groups eat more honey than those with lower incomes.
Therefore, the present honey consumer, according to the study, is an averaged sized family with medium to high income, whose members' ages lie between 24-60 years. This appears to be consistent throughout the U.S.
More specific recommendations by Dr. Shehata are: (1) demand can be increased by better merchandising and advertising, including improving packaging and store displays, and varying container sizes, (2) demand can be increased by emphasizing different varieties of honey and selling them in stores in more affluent neighborhoods, and (3) demand can be increased by promoting honey in the cooler months of the year.
Two findings in Dr. Shehata's study might bear more examination. The overwhelming preference of gold colored honey and liquid honey by the consumer should come as no surprise. They are by far the most offered products available to the consumer. The question invariably arises, however, whether the marketplace determines this preference by offering higher proportions of these products, rather than this being a well researched consumer preference. There may be far more room for different honey products and varieties than supposed, if only they were out there for the consumer to purchase. The fact remains that often they are not.
It also is not surprising that most honey is purchased in supermarkets. Because there is so much traffic in supremarkets, it is difficult to convince many that more shelf space for honey and honey products is required. In some areas, marketers may actually have to purchase space in stores. Perhaps the easier markets to crack, therefore, are local stores that aren't part of national chains. They are smaller, cater to a more limited clientele and competition for shelf space is not as intense.
AFRICANIZED BEE IMPACT
[Editor's note 5/11/1997--this information is dated to some extent--this study, however, may still be found in libraries and is worth consulting.]
What is expected to be the impact of the Africanized honey bee in the United States. Agricultural Economic Report (AER) 519, The Africanized Honey Bee in the United States: What Will Happen to the U.S. Beekeeping Industry, seeks to answer this. The author, Robert McDowell, theorizes four scenarios with economic losses ranging from $26 million to $58 million, depending on aggressivity of the bee and extent of the area it might colonize in the United States.
The figures represent losses for the beekeeping industry only, however, and there are no projections for effects on public health, pollination (except almonds), beekeeping supply and equipment firms, nonmigratory beekeeping in areas free from the bee's influence, and beekeepers in other countries that depend on the Southern United States for queen honey bees and package bees. So many figures have been left out (good estimates of the value of these beekeeping related services are not available), that the bottom line numbers appear to be much lower than expected.
In his summary, the author regrets that conclusions drawn from estimated economic effects are somewhat limited. A major limiting factor is the lack of a coherent set of data on the Africanized Honey Bee, matched by little consistent reliable information on the U.S. beekeeping industry. As the author states, "There are no published statistics for pollination, migratory beekeeping, nuclei production, or any of the minor hive products... The last survey of the package and queen industry was done in 1969." Limited as the study is, it should be required reading for beekeepers and others who seek to influence legislative decisions concerning beekeeping. Remember that according to the Report's preface, it was prepared in response to a request from the U.S. Congress "to assess the economic significance that this strain [African honey bee] would have if it became established in the United States..." That means it will a major information source used by many legislators and others to make decisions before, and probably after, the Africanized honey bee arrives in the United States.
Malcolm T. Sanford
Bldg 970, Box 110620
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611-0620
Phone (352) 392-1801, Ext. 143 FAX: (352) 392-0190
http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~entweb/apis/apis.htm
INTERNET Address: MTS@GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU
©1985 M.T. Sanford "All Rights Reserved
