Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/gjagec/309976.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Die Zukunft der Milch-Lieferbeziehungen aus Sicht deutscher Landwirte

Author

Listed:
  • Petersen, Julian
  • Hess, Sebastian

Abstract

Die Lieferbeziehungen zwischen Milcherzeugern und Molkereien in Deutschland sind möglicherweise nur eingeschränkt geeignet, um Preissignale in ein entsprechendes Mengen-Management zu überführen. Dies ist einer der Gründe, warum eine Reformierung der Lieferbeziehungen immer wieder gefordert wird. Es ist jedoch nur wenig über die Präferenzen deutscher Milcherzeuger im Hinblick auf die von ihnen bevorzugten Attribute eines möglichen Milchliefervertrags bekannt. Zufällig ausgewählte Landwirte in unterschiedlichen deutschen Regionen wurden daher zu diesem Thema befragt. Anhand von Choice-Experimenten wurden ihre Präferenzen hinsichtlich unterschiedlicher Vertragsattribute wie Laufzeit, Preisfindung, Kündigungsfrist und Mengenregelung bestimmt, indem ein Random-Parameter-Logit-Modell geschätzt wurde. Die Ergebnisse verweisen auf starke regionale Heterogenität. Insgesamt wünschen sich größere Milcherzeuger eher vertragliche Lösungen, während kleine und mittlere Betriebe eher am typischen Liefermodell ohne Mengenbindung festhalten wollen. Die meisten Landwirte wünschen sich jedoch kürzere Kündigungsfristen bei ihrer Molkerei. Milcherzeuger in ostdeutschen Bundesländern lehnen das typische Liefermodell deutlich häufiger ab als Befragte in Westdeutschland. In typical contractual relations between milk producers and processors in Germany, prices may currently function only to a limited extend as signals for quantity adjustments of milk production. This is one of the reasons why a reform of the contractual relationships has been frequently discussed. However, little is known about the preferences of German milk producers regarding their preferred attributes of an ideal milk delivery relationship. Therefore, randomly selected farmers in different German regions where presented with Discrete-Choice-Experiments about different contractual attributes such as duration, pricing, cancellation period and quantity regulation. A random parameter logit model was estimated to identify drivers of preference heterogeneity. Results indicate that larger milk producers tend to favor fixed contractual solutions, while small and medium-sized producers tend to adhere to the currently prevailing cooperative delivery system of unregulated quantities of delivery and ex post pricing. However, the majority of milk producers want shorter cancellation periods with their dairy companies, and milk producers in East German federal states reject the typical cooperative delivery system more frequently than the respondents in West Germany.

Suggested Citation

  • Petersen, Julian & Hess, Sebastian, 2018. "Die Zukunft der Milch-Lieferbeziehungen aus Sicht deutscher Landwirte," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 67(2), June.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:gjagec:309976
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.309976
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/309976/files/2_Hess.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.309976?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:zbw:inwedp:522011 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Andreas Hildenbrand & Rainer Kühl, 2016. "Beobachtbare Milchauszahlungspreise: Chance für Milcherzeuger – Risiko für Endverbraucher," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 65(01), March.
    3. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
    4. Krol, Noortje & Polman, Nico & Peerlings, Jack & Nikolov, Dimitre, 2010. "Changing governance in the EU milk supply chain," IAMO Forum 2010: Institutions in Transition – Challenges for New Modes of Governance 52703, Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Central and Eastern Europe (IAMO).
    5. Schlecht, Stephanie & Steffen, Nina & Spiller, Achim, 2013. "Vertragsmanagement in Molkereien nach Auslaufen der Milchquotenregelung," Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, vol. 62(1).
    6. Julia A. Schreiner & Sebastian Hess, 2017. "The Role of Non-Use Values in Dairy Farmers’ Willingness to Accept a Farm Animal Welfare Programme," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(2), pages 553-578, June.
    7. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, November.
    8. Zavelberg, Yvonne & Heckelei, Thomas & Wieck, Christine, 2016. "Entry deterring effects of contractual relations in the dairy processing sector," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 5(1), pages 1-16, April.
    9. Offermann, Frank & Efken, Josef & Ellßel, Raphaela & Hansen, Heiko & Klepper, Rainer & Weber, Sascha, 2017. "Ausgewählte Instrumente zum Risikomanagement in der Landwirtschaft: Systematische Zusammenstellung und Bewertung," Thünen Working Paper 257212, Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut (vTI), Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries.
    10. Schlecht, Stephanie & Steffen, Nina & Spiller, Achim, 2013. "Vertragsmanagement in Molkereien nach Auslaufen der Milchquotenregelung," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 62(01), pages 1-17, February.
    11. Petersen, Julian & Hess, Sebastian, 2017. "Gegenwart und Zukunft der Milch-Lieferbeziehungen aus Sicht Deutscher Landwirte," 57th Annual Conference, Weihenstephan, Germany, September 13-15, 2017 262149, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    12. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Janina Knuck & Sebastian Hess, 2023. "Who buys regional fresh milk brands? An analysis of German household data," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(2), pages 473-493, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Petersen, Julian & Hess, Sebastian, 2018. "Der Wettbewerb Um Rohmilch In Deutschland: Hat Das Bundeskartellamt Recht?," 58th Annual Conference, Kiel, Germany, September 12-14, 2018 275894, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    2. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren Bøye Olsen & Suzanne E. Vedel & John Kinyuru & Kennedy O. Pambo, 2016. "Integrating sensory evaluations in incentivized discrete choice experiments to assess consumer demand for cricket flour buns in Kenya," IFRO Working Paper 2016/02, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    3. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    4. Ting Li & Robert J. Kauffman & Eric van Heck & Peter Vervest & Benedict G. C. Dellaert, 2014. "Consumer Informedness and Firm Information Strategy," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(2), pages 345-363, June.
    5. Basu, Debasis & Hunt, John Douglas, 2012. "Valuing of attributes influencing the attractiveness of suburban train service in Mumbai city: A stated preference approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(9), pages 1465-1476.
    6. Robert Turner, 2013. "Using contingent choice surveys to inform national park management," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 3(2), pages 120-138, June.
    7. Fredrik Carlsson & Mitesh Kataria, 2008. "Assessing Management Options for Weed Control with Demanders and Non-Demanders in a Choice Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(3), pages 517-528.
    8. Alfnes, Frode & Steine, Gro, 2005. "None-of-These Bias in Stated Choice Experiments," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24761, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Ufer, Danielle J. & Ortega, David L. & Wolf, Christopher A. & McKendree, Melissa & Swanson, Janice, 2022. "Getting past the gatekeeper: Key motivations of dairy farmer intent to adopt animal health and welfare-improving biotechnology," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    10. De Valck, Jeremy & Vlaeminck, Pieter & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Chen, Wendy & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "The sources of preference heterogeneity for nature restoration scenarios," Working Papers 146522, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    11. Anastassiadis, Friederike & Liebe, Ulf & Musshoff, Oliver, 2012. "Finanzielle Flexibilität In Landwirtschaftlichen Investitionsentscheidungen: Ein Discrete Choice Experiment," 52nd Annual Conference, Stuttgart, Germany, September 26-28, 2012 137142, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    12. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    13. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Olynk, Nicole & Wolf, Christopher, 2009. "Consumer Preferences for Animal Welfare Attributes: The Case of Gestation Crates," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 713-730, December.
    14. Weller, Priska & Elsasser, Peter, 2018. "Preferences for forest structural attributes in Germany – Evidence from a choice experiment," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 1-9.
    15. Nguyen, Ly & Gao, Zhifeng & Anderson, James L., 2022. "Regulating menu information: What do consumers care and not care about at casual and fine dining restaurants for seafood consumption?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    16. Punel, Aymeric & Stathopoulos, Amanda, 2017. "Modeling the acceptability of crowdsourced goods deliveries: Role of context and experience effects," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 18-38.
    17. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.
    18. Galassi, Veronica & Madlener, Reinhard, 2017. "The Role of Environmental Concern and Comfort Expectations in Energy Retrofit Decisions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 53-65.
    19. Marit E. Kragt & J.W. Bennett, 2011. "Using choice experiments to value catchment and estuary health in Tasmania with individual preference heterogeneity," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(2), pages 159-179, April.
    20. Bechtold, Kai-Brit & Abdulai, Awudu, 2012. "Using Choice Experiments to Measure Consumers’ Preferences for Functional Dairy Products in Germany: Are Willingness-To-Pay Estimates Affected by Starting Point Bias?," 86th Annual Conference, April 16-18, 2012, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 135073, Agricultural Economics Society.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:gjagec:309976. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iahubde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.