rr M- pA Retai6 Groer 6 akt fo Cafs CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ..................................... ....................... 3 SURVEY PROCEDURES ................................... .............. 4 SURVEY RESULTS ........................................ .................. 6 LOGIT ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL NEW MARKETS ........................ 19 R esult ........................................................ Market Potential ................................... ........ SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................. 21 24 26 REFERENCES ..................................... . ..................... 30 31 39 41 43 APPENDIX A ...................................................... APPENDIX B ................. .......................................................... APPENDI C ...................................................... APPENDIX D ......................................................... FIRST PRINTING 3.5M, JULY 1991 The work reported in this publication was supported in part by the Southern Regional Aquaculture Center through Grant No. 87-CSRS-23218 from the United States Department of Agriculture. Information contained herein is available to all persons without regard to race, color, sex, or national origin. RETAIL GROCERY MARKETS FOR CATFISH Upton Hatch, Carole Engle, Walter Zidack, and Surajudeen Olowolayemo' INTRODUCTION DEMAND FOR AQUACULTURAL products is increasing as a result of a relatively constant supply from capture fisheries, perceived health benefits associated with fish consumption, and increases in income and population. Aquaculture's ability to supply a consistent, high quality product throughout the year is a major comparative advantage relative to capture fisheries. This advantage has the potential of allowing aquacultural products to break the temporal and geographical bounds that have limited the traditional consumption markets of capture fisheries. There has been little research published that specifically addresses consumer and product characteristics for new and existing cultured fish species. Fish and seafood markets as a component of total household food expenditures have been investigated by Blaylock and Smallwood (2) and Hu (9). Cheng and Capps (4) recently completed a study analyzing demand for selected fish and seafood species that focused on explaining variation in expenditures. Kinnucan et al. (11) and Zidack and Hatch (15) analyzed demand for catfish at the processor level. Raulerson and Trotter in 1973 analyzed retail grocery demand for catfish (13). Boleware and Dillard (3) conducted consumer acceptance surveys for catfish in Mississippi and found the product attractive to consumers. This body of research, however, did not address specific product characteris'Respectively, Assistant Professor, former Research Associate (now Associate Professor, Department of Agriculture, University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff), Research Associate, and Research Assistant of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology. ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION tics and their importance with regard to consumer perception of cultured fish species. More recently, three studies of local markets for cultured fish species have begun to provide insights into emerging markets for these new products (5,7,8). The Dixon et al. (7) study, conducted in Mississippi in 1981, found that catfish was available at 24 percent of retail groceries and that average sales per week were 61 pounds. Results of the Cremer et al. study in Kentucky in 1982 (5) indicated that approximately 60 percent of retail groceries sell catfish but only about 20 percent of restaurants have the product on the menu. The Engle et al. study (8) was conducted in eastcentral Alabama and west-central Georgia. Marketing channels investigated included: retail groceries, seafood markets, restaurants, fish-out ponds, and seafood wholesalers. Catfish and shrimp were the only species found in the top five sellers in each of the channels. Marketing research commissioned by the Southern Regional Aquaculture Center and completed by a cooperative university research group focused on existing and potential markets for catfish and crawfish in the United States. This marketing study was undertaken to extend catfish marketing information beyond local marketing studies (5,7,8) to provide a more comprehensive picture of national and regional product and consumer characteristics. Consumers, retail grocery managers, and restaurant managers were surveyed. This report will focus on the results from the retail grocery survey and contains four sections: Survey Procedures, Survey Results, Logit Analysis of Potential New Markets, and Summary and Recommendations. The Procedures section describes the surveys and outlines the flow of questions in the grocery survey. The Survey Results discussion focuses on responses of stores in each region concerning whether they sell catfish or were likely to add the product within the next year. Quantity sold, years the product has been available, product form, reasons for not selling, supply and quality problems, advertising, and promotion and sales leaders were analyzed. SURVEY PROCEDURES A national telephone survey of 3,600 consumers, 1,800 retail grocery managers, and 1,800 restaurant managers was RETAIL GROCERY MARKETS FOR CATFISH r 5 1 M (11) WNC (17) ENC (42) NE (37) MA (12) SA (37) I I FIG. 1. Census regions of the United States with 1980 populations for each region (given as millions, in parentheses). conducted from April to June 1988. The primary data for this analysis were obtained from the retail grocery survey. Each of the nine census regions-New England (NE), Middle Atlantic (MA), East North Central (ENC), West North Central (WNC), South Atlantic (SA), East South Central (ESC), West South Central (WCS), Mountain (M), and Pacific (P)-were equally represented in the survey (200 completed surveys from each census region), figure 1. Appendix A contains the actual survey questions, accompanied by the respective response rate as a percentage of the total respondents replying to the given question. The survey consisted of three primary sections, with one section defined by questions pertaining to catfish, a second with questions about crawfish, and the third pertaining to demographic characteristics of the stores. In both the catfish and crawfish sections, a similar question format was pursued. The grocers were first asked whether or not they sold catfish (crawfish). If they did not sell catfish (crawfish), they were asked to give reasons why they did not sell the product and the likelihood of adding catfish (crawfish) to their product line in the next year. Grocers selling catfish (crawfish) were asked questions relating to time of product introduction, supply problems, 6 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION quality problems, product form, level of sales, price, and promotion of catfish (crawfish). In addition, stores that sold catfish were asked if the national advertising campaign for catfish resulted in their decision to add catfish to the stores' product line. The third, and final section, dealt with the socioeconomic characteristics of the stores surveyed. Socio-economic characteristics addressed included: weekly sales volume, store size, location (location included rural, urban, suburban, and census region information), income and race of the clientele, membership in a retail grocery chain, present or future availability of a specialized fish section, and top selling fish and seafood products. Results from the questions involving catfish are the focus of this analysis. No distinction was made between farm-raised and wild-caught catfish due to the expected low number of full-service stores that might sell wild-caught catfish. Appendix B contains a summary of socio-economic characteristics of survey respondents by region. Appendix C presents a summary of survey data for stores selling catfish by selected store classifications. Socio-economic characteristics cross-tabulated by selected store classifications are provided in Appendix D. SURVEY RESULTS Forty-five percent of all stores in the survey sold catfish, table 1. The traditional catfish consumption regions (ESC and WSC) had the highest percentage of retail groceries selling catfish, as expected, with 54 percent and 59 percent, respectively. Penetration of other areas was indicated by relatively high percentages in the ENC (47 percent), WNC (49 percent), and P (46 percent) regions. The east coast regions (NE, MA, SA) and the mountain region (M) had the lowest percentages. Sixty-one percent of stores selling catfish were members of a chain, relative to 41 percent chain stores for the entire sample. Thirty-seven percent of stores selling catfish had a specialized fish market section, compared to 23 percent of the entire sample. Thirty-nine percent of stores selling catfish had total store sales over $100,000, as opposed to 26 percent for the entire sample. Twenty-one percent of respondents who did not sell catfish said they were likely to add it in the next year, table 1. RETAIL GROCERY MARKETS FOR CATFISH TABLE 1. EXISTING AND POTENTIAL MARKETS FOR CATFISH, FROM NATIONAL AND REGIONAL RETAIL GROCERY SURVEY, 1988 U.S. weighted total NE Response, by region' MA ENCWNC SA ESC WSC M P Question Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. 1. Does your store sell catfish? Yes .......................... 45 2 Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. 49 40 54 59 41 46 27 27 47 lb. Within the next year, what is the likelihood of your store beginning to sell catfish?3 Very or somewhat 26 26 19 23 21 15 12 23 13 25 likely .................... 11. Did the National Advertising Campaign for catfish result in the addition of catfish 4 to your product line? 19 18 12 18 18 19 20 16 12 24 All sellers ..................... 38 13 14 29 22 14 21 21 17 19 2 yr. or less ................. 'Regional abbreviations used in this and following text tables are as follows: NE = New England; MA = Middle Atlantic; ENC = East North Central; WNC= West North Central; SA = South Atlantic; ESC = East South Central; WSC = West South Central; M = Mountain; and P = Pacific. 2Percentage of stores selling catfish. 'Values were computed by adding the first two responses to each question and dividing the total number of valid responses for each respective question. Valid responses were those responses not recorded as "other," "don't know," or no response. 4 Percentage of stores reporting that advertising did influence their decision to add catfish to their product line. Stores outside the traditional consumption region (ESC and WSC) that were likely to add catfish were led by the SA (25 percent), ENC (23 percent), and P (23 percent) regions. Quantitative analysis of factors influencing the decision to add catfish to a retail grocery store's product line is presented in a later section. Eighteen percent of respondents who sold catfish replied that the national advertising campaign had resulted in a decision to add the product, table 1. The MA (20 percent) and SA (24 percent) regions reported the highest relative adoption of catfish as a result of the ad campaign. For stores that added catfish in the previous 2 years, the years of The Catfish Institute (TCI) generic advertising campaign, P (38 percent) and SA (29 percent) reported the highest adoption (14). Store promotion methods most frequently used included newspaper advertisements and store signs. Twenty-nine percent of retail groceries sold over 50 pounds of catfish per week, table 2. Stores selling over 50 pounds per week were more likely to be in the traditional consumption area, ESC (47 percent) and WSC (41 percent). The non-traditional consumption areas were led by WNC (35 percent) and ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 2. WEEKLY SALES AND TIME OF INTRODUCTION FOR CATFISH, FROM NATIONAL AND REGIONAL RETAIL GROCERY SURVEY, 19881 U.S. Question weighted Response, by region MA ENCWNC SA ESC WSC M P total NE Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pet. Pct. Pct. 6. How many pounds of catfish/crawfish, on the average, do you sell a. <50lb ............. 71 84 78 76 66 80 54 b. 51-99 lb .............. 16 13 15 15 21 14 22 c. 100-199lb .............. 8 2 2 6 10 3 16 d. >200lb. .............. 5 0 5 4 4 3 9 How many years has your store been selling catfish? a. <6 mo ................ 6 20 6 11 2 b. 6 mo.-1 yr............... 7 24 18 7 7 c. 1-2 yr ................. 12 26 16 16 10 d. >2 & <5 yr.............. 23 20 24 25 22 e. >5 yr .................. 52 10 35 41 59 9 7 14 22 49 2 6 10 11 70 weekly? 59 82 19 12 13 4 9 1 3 4 10 22 61 6 8 14 22 49 88 9 4 0 2 9 5 41 43 2. 'Percentages reported in this table were computed relative to the total number of "valid responses" for the question. Valid responses excluded "don't know," no response, and "it varies" replies from the data set. ENC (25 percent), followed by the MA (22 percent) and SA (20 percent) regions. Forty-four percent of stores selling more than 50 pounds of catfish per week had a specialized fish section, relative to 23 percent for the entire sample. Sixtyeight percent of stores with catfish sales exceeding 50 pounds per week were chain stores, whereas 41 percent of the entire sample were chain stores. Fifty-four percent of stores selling over 50 pounds of catfish per week had a weekly sales volume exceeding $100,000, compared to 26 percent for the entire sample. Table 2 also presents information on length of time stores have been selling catfish. Twenty-five percent of all respondents selling catfish had added the product in the last 2 years and 48 percent had added in the last 5 years. Seventy percent of stores selling catfish in New England had been selling it only 2 years or less. As expected, the traditional consumption area had a majority (over 80 percent) of its stores that had been selling the product for more than 2 years but, unexpectedly, the P (84 percent) and M (71 percent) regions also had a high level of stores that had been selling catfish more than 2 years. Stores selling for over 5 years were led by the ESC, WSC, and WNC regions. The Pacific region added the product at a rather rapid rate several years prior to the survey, but appeared to be slowing RETAIL GROCERY MARKETS FOR CATFISH down at the time of the survey. The WNC had been selling the product for a long time, but was not increasing at a particularly fast pace at the time of the survey relative to the traditional regions. NE and MA were adding the product at a rather rapid pace at the time of the survey; however, the relatively large percentages for these two regions reflect the small base of stores that had been selling for a long period. ENC and SA are the regions that seem to have both a reasonable base of stores that have been selling for a long time and above average rates of new stores adding catfish in the last 2 years. TiALE 3. CATFISH PRODUCT FORM AVAIALITmY, SALES VOLUME, AND PRICES, FROM NATIONAL AND REGIONAL RETAIL GROCERY SURVEY, 1988' Product form 2 U.S. weighted Response, by region total NE MA ENC WNC SA ESC WSC M 40 16 43 18 60 42 61 33 75 50 63 31 63 27 60 46 P 76 52 FRESH WHOLE DRESSED Sell, pct. ................ 64 Top seller, pct. 4 . . . . . . . . . . .. 37 Top seller price, dol. ....... 2.93 FRESH FILLETS Sell, pct...................... 63 Top seller, pct............. 33 Top seller price, dol......... 3.87 FROZEN WHOLE DRESSED Sell, pct. ....................... 26 Top seller, pct............5 Top seller price, dol.......2.64 FROZEN FILLETS Sell, pot..................... Top seller, pct............. Top seller price, dol ......... 38 14 3.00 83 68 81 51 66 31 46 16 72 31 50 28 62 38 66 27 60 32 18 6 14 4 22 5 44 18 22 1 22 6 31 4 36 8 24 3 6 1E 44 31 12 35 12 38 22 33 9 44 25 52 14 44 14 19 7 INDIVIDUALLY FROZEN FILLETS Sell, pct................13 0 Top seller, pct.................1 0 Top seller price, dol ......... 3.67 BREADED/PROCESSED Sell, pct...................... 25 Top seller, pct................. 2 Top seller price, dol ......... 3.25 4 24 44 15 6 11 0 12 1 16 1 10 0 17 1 11 0 3 0 29 4 25 1 23 5 24 4 22 1 33 1 17 1 13 1 'Percentages reported were computed relative to the total number of"valid responses" for the question. Valid responses excluded "don't know" no response the data set. 'Other productformsrepresented approximately 13 and 7percentofthe "sell"and "top sellers," respectively. 3Survey question 4. 4 Survey question 7. 5Survey question 8. and from 10 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Fresh catfish dominated product form availability and sales volume, table 3. In terms of availability, fresh whole dressed (64 percent) and fresh fillets (63 percent) were followed by frozen fillets (38 percent), frozen whole dressed catfish (26 percent), breaded/processed catfish (25 percent), and individually frozen fillets (13 percent). The top selling product forms were fresh whole dressed (37 percent), fresh fillets (33 percent), frozen fillets (14 percent), frozen whole dressed (5 percent), breaded/processed (2 percent), and individually frozen fillets (1 percent). The average prices per pound for product forms reported as "top selling" were: fresh fillets ($3.87), individually frozen fillets ($3.67), breaded/processed ($3.25), frozen fillets ($3.00), fresh whole dressed ($2.93), and frozen whole dressed ($2.64). Fresh whole dressed was the top seller in all regions except NE, MA, and WSC, where fresh fillets were the top sellers. Frozen whole dressed was the third preferred product form in the WNC, but this form was not highly rated in any other region. Frozen fillets were the third rank preference in all regions except NE (where breaded/ processed was third) and the WNC. Individually frozen fillets were generally not carried by stores in NE and P regions, but some popularity for them was indicated in the MA region. For stores that did not sell catfish on a nationwide basis, negative consumer attitudes (21 percent) and low demand (17 percent) were the primary reasons given for not selling catfish products, Appendix A. The third most common reason given was storage problems (11 percent), followed by lack of availability at certain times of the year (8 percent). Two percent each of respondents reported wholesale price being too high and lack of product freshness were significant problems. Table 4 presents the reasons cited for not selling catfish (survey question la) by regions and by type of problem mentioned. Cross-tabulation by problem responses revealed some interesting patterns. The largest frequency of grocers who had not heard of catfish occurred in the NE region (36 percent). Stores not selling catfish in the MA (18 percent), P (16 percent), and SA (10 percent) regions also cited not having heard of catfish as a reason for not selling catfish. As expected, stores not selling catfish in the traditional consumption regions did not cite non-awareness as a factor in deciding not to sell catfish products. Negative consumer attitudes m TABLE 4. REASONS FOR NOT SELLING CATFISH, FROM NATIONAL AND REGIONAL RETAIL GROCERY SURVEY, 1988 Ip- Question' U.S. weighted total Pct. Response, by region NE Pct. 73 MA Pct. 73 ENC Pct. 54 4 12 8 8 15 12 13 12 2 24 4 8 3 2 10 47 100 WNC Pct. 51 6 11 8 9 7 6 9 10 3 25 5 11 2 1 8 44 100 SA Pct. 61 10 8 9 13 4 12 12 12 4 16 5 14 1 2 10 47 100 ESC Pct. 47 2 6 11 13 26 0 13 8 1 16 7 17 7 0 13 38 100 WSC Pct. 41 0 6 9 15 4 12 7 8 0 17 7 23 1 2 7 41 100 M Pct. 60 8 15 18 8 11 12 12 11 3 28 10 8 2 2 9 38 100 P Pct. 55 N Total 2 Pct. O O 1. Does your store sell catfish? No ............................ 57 la. What are the reasons your store does not sell catfish? (by problem) a. Have not heard of it ...... .......... 36 18 15 14 b. Negative consumer attitudes ............ 15 8 c. Unreliable supply ............................... 12 .................. 11 d. Storage problem ..... 15 7 e. Wholesale price too high ................... 6 18 .............. .. f. Not fresh .. 9 13 g. Seasonal supply ............................ 16 14 h. Other ................................. ..... la. What are the reasons your store does not sell catfish? (by region) 6 12 4 .. a. Have not heard of it .................. 24 22 21 b. Negative consumer attitudes ......... 7 3 6 c. Unreliable supply ............................... 10 9 13 d. Storage problem ................................. 3 1 2 e. Wholesale price too high .............. 1 2 . 2 f. Not fresh ............................................ 5 8 8 g. Seasonal supply .................................. 46 42 43 h. Other .................................................. . Total2 .......................... ... .... .... . . ... .... .... . . . ... .. 16 14 14 11 11 24 10 9 7 29 8 11 3 3 8 33 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 .c 0 0 - a - 100 100 100 'Question la allowed for two responses. Both responses were combined into one data set for the purpose of computing the percentages. 2 Total may not add to 100 due to rounding. 12 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION tended to increase as a reason why stores did not sell catfish as one moved from the two south central regions. Unreliable supply was given as a reason for not selling catfish in the M (18 percent), MA (15 percent), and P (14 percent) regions more often than in the other six census regions. Storage problems were more frequently reported in the WSC (15 percent) and ESC (13 percent) regions. Grocers in the ESC (26 percent) region responded that high wholesale price was an important factor in the decision not to sell catfish products. The response rate was substantially higher for the ESC (26 percent) region regarding the issue of wholesale price being too high relative to the next highest regions, the MA (15 percent) and ENC (15 percent). Less than acceptable product freshness was cited more frequently in the P (24 percent) and NE (18 percent) regions. Generally, cross-tabulation of the reasons given by grocers for not selling catfish products by region were, with few exceptions, consistent with the response pattern observed for the aggregated U.S. sample, table 4. Responses in the unspecified "other" category were cited across the nine census regions as the most important factor in grocers deciding not to carry catfish products. The "other" response was separated into six categories after the survey was administered, Appendix A. "Low demand" represented almost 40 percent of the "other" category. Negative consumer attitudes were generally reported as the most important specific reason for not selling catfish. However, for the ESC and WSC regions, storage problems were slightly more a factor than negative consumer attitudes. Seasonality of supply and storage problems generally tended to be the most important problems following negative consumer attitudes for the other seven census regions. The major exception to this observation was found in the NE region, which reported that non-awareness was more important in deciding not to sell catfish than were seasonality of supply and storage problems. Analysis of the cross-tabulation of survey question la by problem and by region provided insights into important market obstacles. First, the survey results suggest that if technical, logistical, and market pricing problems could be rectified, some of the stores not currently selling catfish may decide to carry catfish products. Specific problems that need RETAIL GROCERY MARKETS FOR CATFISH 13 to be addressed, according to the survey results, include product storage, seasonality of supply, and grocery managers' perceptions of wholesale pricing practices in some areas. The latter observation appears to be more of a factor in the traditional catfish consuming regions (ESC and WSC). The second major market challenge in persuading grocers to sell catfish products is to change the perceptions concerning negative consumer attitudes in non-traditional consumption regions. Recent empirical evidence suggests the advertising campaign implemented by The Catfish Institute may be addressing this obstacle to market expansion (10,14,15). Store managers selling catfish were asked if they had any problems with the consistency of catfish product supply (survey question 3a). Eleven percent of the stores selling catfish responded that they had experienced supply problems on a nationwide basis, table 5. Seasonality of supply (31 percent) and insufficient quantities (27 percent) were reported to be the most significant supply problems. Unavailability of some product forms (11 percent), unspecified (16 percent), and unreliable quality (10 percent) constituted the next most frequently cited group of supply problems. Size of wholesale lots (6 percent) was reported as the least significant supply factor by the grocers. A summary of results for question 3a by problem and by region is presented in table 5. Cross-tabulation by supply problem yielded differences in regional rankings. Insufficient quantity was cited as a supply problem by grocers in the SA (25 percent), WSC (20 percent), and P (20 percent) regions more often than in other regions. Catfish availability was not frequently reported as a problem in the ENC (5 percent), WNC (5 percent), ESC (0 percent), and M (0 percent) regions. Seasonality of supply was reported by grocers selling catfish as a problem most frequently in P (20 percent), followed by WSC (16 percent), SA (16 percent), and WNC (12 percent) regions. Restrictions on the availability of some product forms for catfish were found to be a problem in the MA (18 percent), ENC (18 percent), ESC (18 percent), and P (18 percent) regions. Product form availability was not reported by grocers to be a problem in the SA (0 percent) and M (0 percent) regions. "Unreliable quality" was most frequently cited by grocers in the WNC (30 percent) region. Grocers in the ENC (20 percent) and M (20 percent) regions cited unre- TABLE 5. 1 CATFISH SUPPLY PROBLEMS, FROM NATIONAL AND REGIONAL RETAIL GROCERY SURVEY, 1988 Question U.S. weighted total Pct. Response, by region NE Pct. 13 15 9 0 MA Pct. 11 10 8 18 0 0 ENC Pct. 9 5 4 18 20 0 WNC Pct. 12 5 12 9 30 25 SA Pct. 13 25 16 0 10 25 ESC Pct. 6 0 8 18 10 0 WSC Pct. 11 20 16 9 0 25 M Pct. 6 0 8 0 20 0 P Pct. 17 20 20 18 10 25 Total Pct. 2 3. Has your catfish supply been consistent? No ............................................................ 11 3a. What supply problems have you had? (by problem) a. Insufficient quantity ........................... .8 ...................... b. Seasonality ..... c. Some product forms not available .... ...... d. Unreliable quality ............ e. Lotsizes........................................0 100 100 100 100 100 n f. Other ............................... .8 43 29 14 0 0 14 100 23 22 22 22 0 0 33 100 15 13 13 25 25 0 25 100 8 10 30 10 30 10 10 100 0 8 0 33 33 17 0 17 100 23 31 31 8 0 8 23 100 0 15 100 - 3a. What supply problems have you had? (by region) 27 a. Insufficient quantity........................... 31 b. Seasonality .......................................... 11 c. Some product forms not available ..... 10 d. Unreliable quality ............................... 6 .................... e. Lot sizes .... 16 f. Other .................................................... . . . . .. .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. 2 .. . . 100 Total 45 36 0 9 9 0 100 0 50 0 50 0 0 100 27 33 13 7 7 13* 100m r x 'Question 3a allowed for two responses. Both responses were combined into one data set for the purpose of computing the percentages reported above. 2 Total may not add to 100 due to rounding. m Z - 0 Z RETAIL GROCERY MARKETS FOR CATFISH 15 liable quality as an issue somewhat less frequently. Though lot size was ranked as a relatively minor supply problem for the entire national sample, the WNC (25 percent), SA (25 percent), WSC (25 percent), and P (25 percent) regions reported lot size as a supply problem. Perceived quality problems (survey questions 9 and 9a) can be used in conjunction with the previous discussion of results on supply problems to gain insight into problems experienced by stores that sell catfish. On a nationwide basis, only 9 percent of the grocers selling catfish indicated they were having quality problems, table 6. The national response rate regarding quality of catfish products was similar to the rate previously noted for catfish supply problems (11 percent) reported in table 5. The ENC (16 percent), P (12 percent), and WSC (10 percent) regions reported the largest percentages of quality problems. Nationally, freshness (42 percent) ranked as the highest quality concern, followed by off-flavor (27 percent). Of lesser importance was "other" (18 percent), packaging (11 percent), and product form (2 percent). Cross-tabulation by problem and by region was performed for survey question 9a, table 6. The majority of the grocers citing off-flavor as a problem were located in the ENC (33 percent) and WSC (33 percent) regions. "Freshness" was cited most frequently in the ENC, ESC, WSC, and P regions (16 percent each). Grocery store managers in the WNC (43 percent), P (43 percent), and M (14 percent) regions were the only respondents citing quality problems stemming from packaging. Of the store managers reporting product form as a quality issue, half were in the NE region and the other half in the P region. Grocers generally viewed freshness as a primary concern; however, two regions (MA and WNC) were exceptions. Grocery managers in the MA region reported "unspecified" (67 percent) and off-flavor (33 percent) as the most important quality issues. Quality issues concerning product packaging were reported to be the most important quality issues faced by grocers in the WNC (50 percent) region. Fish and seafood preferences were elicited to obtain a better picture of the competitive position of catfish in national and regional markets. The survey contained the questions: TABLE 6. CATFISH QUALITY PROBLEMS FROM NATIONAL AND REGIONAL RETAIL GROCERY SURVEY, 1988 Question1 U.S. weighted total Pct. Response, by region NE Pet. MA Pct. ENC Pct. 16 33 16 0 0 0 50 50 0 0 0 100 WNC Pct. 6 0 11 43 0 13 0 33 50 0 17 100 SA Pct. 6 11 5 0 0 13 33 33 0 0 33 100 ESC Pct. 8 0 16 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 WSC Pct. 10 33 16 0 0 13 43 43 0 0 14 100 M Pet. 6 0 11 14 0 0 0 67 33 0 0 100 P Pct. 12 11 16 43 50 38 9 27 27 9 27 100 100 100 100 100 100 Total 2 Pct. 9. Have you had any problems with the quality of catfish products? Yes ..................................... 9 7 6 11 0 0 0 25 33 0 0 0 67 100 9a. What catfish quality problems have you had? (by problem) a. Off-flavor ........................................... b. Freshness ..................................... 11 c. Packaging .................................. 0 d. Productform.........................................50 e. Other ................................................... 0 9a. What catfish quality problems have you had? (by region) a. Off-flavor .............................................. 27 0 b. Freshness ............................................. 42 67 c. Packaging ............................................. 11 0 d. Product form ........................................ 2 33 e. Other .................................................... 18 0 Total 2 ..................... .... .... .... .... . . . ... ... 100 100 'Question 9a allowed for two responses. Both responses were combined into one data set for the purpose of computing the percentages reported above. 2 Total may not add to 100 due to rounding. RETAIL GROCERY MARKETS FOR CATFISH 17 1. What are the top five fish and seafood products in terms of sales? (survey question 26) 2. What are the three fish and seafood items with fastest growth in the last year? (survey question 27) Results from the two questions, presented in detail in Appendix A, are similar and this discussion will focus on results from survey question 26. Shrimp dominated preferences at the national level, with catfish and cod tied for second place in terms of sales, as shown below: Percent Species Shrim p ..................................... 9 Catfish ........................................... 7 7 Cod .................................... .......... Perch ............................................. 4 Orange roughy ........................... 4 Red snapper .................................. 3 Flounder ..................................... 3 Haddock ..................................... 3 .3 Sole ..................................... Salmon .................................... 3 Halibut.......................................... 3 Regional disaggregation of preferences provided useful information in specific markets. Shrimp was the preferred fish and seafood item in the MA, M, and P regions, figure 2. Catfish was the top seller in the WSC, ESC, and WNC regions and ranked third in the SA region. Cod, flounder, and perch were the leaders in the NE, SA, and ENC regions, respectively. Cod was among the top sellers in the NE, MA, ENC, WNC, and M regions and shrimp was among the top sellers in all regions except the north central regions (ENC and WNC). Orange roughy was on the preferred list in several regions (WNC, ENC, and WSC). Shrimp......11 Halibut......11 Cod ....... 9 Catfish ...... 15 Orange roughy 12 Cod. 14 Perch ....... 11 Perch.....15 Cod........... Red snapper 9 Cod ......... 11 13 Shrimp...13 Haddock... 12 Cod.......12 Haddock 13 Shrimp.... 8 Scallops.. Lobster.... 8 Orange roughy 11 8 I- w C) C C I-l Flounder... 13 Shrimp...13 Catfish...11 3.5 I- m x m Ko m z 1 grocery~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~: manager ciig htspce i epos uveqetin2, Wataehetpiv ih saod ntrmfsae? FIG.2. ellng ishandseaoodprouct, b t reionin 988 Nuberfolowig secis nmen eprsen pecenagef rtai op 0 z RETAIL GROCERY MARKETS FOR CATFISH 19 LOGIT ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL NEW MARKETS Assessment of potential markets for catfish will assist industry planners in determining market areas upon which to concentrate marketing or advertising efforts. The previous sections have focused on descriptive statistics for existing markets. This section provides a quantitative estimate of regional rankings that might be helpful in indicating relative market potential. The survey results reflect how various socioeconomic and demographic factors individually affect the sales of catfish in the grocery stores. A logit model was used to quantify the interactive effects of these variables on the likelihood of a store selling catfish. Logit analysis has well understood statistical and estimating properties (12) and has been used in related studies involving qualitative decisions (1,6). The logit model was used to analyze the effect of sales volume, race, income, and other demographic factors on the store manager's decision to add catfish. Grocery store managers were asked if they sell catfish (survey question 1). If they answered "no," they were then asked to express their position regarding the possibility of adding catfish within the next year (survey question ib). Stores defined as "likely to add catfish" were those with store managers selecting responses one or two for question la. Respondents selecting choices three or four constituted the "unlikely to add catfish" group. "Don't knows" were not included in the analysis. A binary choice (logit) model was developed with the qualitative dependent variables being the likelihood of a store to add catfish to its product line. The stores likely to add catfish were assigned a value of one and those that are unlikely to add catfish were assigned a value of zero. The specific logit model estimated was: (1) log (P /(1-Pi) ) = o 1* SALESVOL + 02 " URBAN + 3 " RURAL+ 04 IRACE + 0. CHAIN +[6 NE [08 ENC+ 39" WNC+10 * SA + [7+MA+ + 11 " WSC + 012 13 P + V where, Pi SALESVOL URBAN RURAL = = = = probability that a store manager will add catfish, dollar amount of sales per week, 1 if store is located in an urban area, 0 otherwise, 1 if store is located in a rural area, 0 otherwise, 20 IRACE CHAIN NE MA ENC WNC SA = = = = = = = ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION an interaction variable between income and race, 1 if clientele is middle or high income white, 0 otherwise, 1 if store is a member of a chain, 0 otherwise, 1 if store located in New England Region, 0 otherwise, 1 if store located in Middle Atlantic Region, 0 otherwise, 1 if store located in East North Central Region, 0 otherwise, 1 if store located in West North Central Region, 0 otherwise, 1 if store located in South Atlantic Region, 0 other- WSC M P = = = wise, 1 if store located in West South Central Region, 0 otherwise, V. 1 if store located in Mountain Region, 0 otherwise, 1 if store located in Pacific Region, 0 otherwise, and = random error term. Increases in sales volume (SALESVOL) were hypothesized to be positively associated with the decision to sell catfish. This is plausible since stores with large sales volume tend to diversify and carry larger inventories. This is supported by the survey results which showed that 39 percent of stores selling catfish had total store sales over $100,000, compared to 26 percent for the entire sample. Due to historical and traditional factors, stores in the rural area were hypothesized to be able to sell more catfish compared to those in suburban areas. This may be due to the fact that people in the rural areas are traditionally more exposed to catfish consumption through fishing for leisure, and in some cases for subsistence. Based on survey results, stores in the urban areas are expected to be less likely to sell catfish than stores in suburban areas. The interaction term (IRACE) captures the effect of both income and race on the decision to add catfish to a store's product line. Stores with clientele comprised of primarily middle or high income white clientele were hypothesized to be less likely to add catfish. In the past, the largest per capita consumption of catfish was thought to be among low income earners, especially low income blacks in the South. However, the survey results tend to suggest that the high income black and low income white clientele stores added the product several years ago and have slowed their relative rate of addition recently, whereas the high income white clientele stores have recently increased their speed of acceptance. The RETAIL GROCERY MARKETS FOR CATFISH 21 public image of catfish being perceived as a low-income food commodity may be changing. This may be due to several factors, including the purported benefits of fish consumption and the "upscale" advertising approach taken by the catfish industry. Thus, while the sign of IRACE is expected to be negative, the magnitude and statistical significance of the parameter estimate is likely to be relatively small. Store membership in a chain was hypothesized to be positively associated with the decision to sell catfish. In fact, the survey results showed that 61 percent of stores selling catfish were members of a chain, as opposed to 41 percent chain stores for the entire sample. East South Central was selected as the base region since it is the census region that is most representative of the traditional catfish consumption area that includes much of the lower Mississippi River. Fifty-four percent of the retail groceries in ESC were selling catfish at the time of the survey. In other words, it is not clear from the survey that the remaining stores currently not selling catfish in the ESC region are more or less likely to add catfish relative to stores in other regions of the country. A priori sign expectations are not obvious for the various regional variables. Results The maximum likelihood estimates of the logit model and their asymptotic ratios are presented in table 7. The maximum likelihood estimation procedure has the properties of producing consistent as well as asymptotically efficient parameter estimates, especially for large samples. Also, all parameter estimates are known to be distributed asymptotically normal. In this instance, a test using the chi-square distribution replaces the usual F-test as a means of testing the significance of the entire logit model. The test statistic, -2 log X = -2(Log(L0 ) - Log(Lmax)), asymptotically follows a chisquare distribution with K degrees of freedom, where K is the number of parameters in the equation (excepting the constant), Lo equals the value of likelihood function L when all independent variables are constrained to be equal to zero, and Lmax equals the unconstrained likelihood function evaluated at its maximum (12). 22 TABLE 7. ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES OF THE LOGIT MODEL PARAMETERS FOR THE LIKELIHOOD OF GROCERY STORES TO ADD CATFISH Explanatory variables SALESVOL URBAN RURAL IRACE CHAIN NE Expected signs + + + Coefficients 0.74379 0.12942 0.42149 -0.33684 0.30486 -1.2473 Asymptotic t-ratio 3.92951 0.3395 1.3699 -1.1784 1.0004 -2.16701 MA ENC WNC SA WSC M P CONSTANT -1.3750 -0.32847 -1.4229 0.04458 0.28568 -0.97376 -0.05452 -1.8475 -2.43771 -0.61536 -2.43421 0.08763 0.54216 -1.83302 -0.10903 -3.49661 N = 395 LIKELIHOOD RATIO TEST = 45.9485 WITH 13 D.F. R2 = 0.116 Pct. of right predictions = 76.709 'Significant at 5 percent level. 2 Significant at 10 percent level. A The significance of all logit coefficients was evaluated at P < 0.05 and P < 0.10 probability levels of rejection. The likelihood ratio test statistic, 45.9485 with 13 degrees of freedom, was significant at the 0.05 probability level of rejection. A measure of goodness of fit analogous to R 2 was computed for the model, R2 = 0.116, which explains the variation in the dependent variable explained by the variation in the explanatory variables (12). The logit coefficient associated with SALESVOL was positive and significant at .05 probability level of rejection, indicating that the probability of a grocery store selling catfish increases with an increase in the total dollar sales volume of the store. As mentioned earlier, stores with large sales volume tend to diversify and carry larger inventories. The sign associated with the coefficient of the URBAN variable was negative but insignificant (P < 0.10), indicating that the probability of selling catfish decreases if the store is located in an urban area, but the probability is insignificantly different from that of a store located in a suburban area. Though the sign associated with the coefficient of the RURAL variable was positive, as expected, it was also statistically insignificant (P < 0.10). This RETAIL GROCERY MARKETS FOR CATFISH 23 lends support to the fact that catfish consumption is spreading from the historical rural base to both urban and suburban areas. The sign associated with the income and race interaction term (IRACE) came out as expected, but was statistically insignificant (P < 0.10). The negative sign associated with IRACE variable indicates that the probability of a store manager with high and middle income white clientele choosing to sell catfish may be slightly lower, but not statistically significant from stores with clientele comprised of low income whites and non-whites of all income groups. This may be due to increased acceptance of catfish consumption across all ethnic groups and various income levels. The sign of the coefficient associated with the CHAIN variable was positive as expected, but statistically insignificant (P <0.10). However, when the size of the stores in square feet was substituted for dollar amount of sales, the coefficient associated with the CHAIN variable became statistically significant. 2 A possible reason for this result may be the slight collinearity between dollar sales and the chain variables. This makes economic sense, since the chain stores are likely to be more cost efficient due to distributional marketing network and to economies of scale. All these factors together may result in more diverse inventories and larger sales, implying a more positive influence on the probability of selling catfish. In fact, the correlation coefficient between the SALESVOL and CHAIN variables was 0.43221, which shows slight positive correlation between the two variables. The correlation coefficient between the SIZE and CHAIN variable was -0.27183. The signs of the logit coefficients associated with NE, MA, and WNC were all negative and significant (P < 0.05), while the sign associated with the logit coefficient of P was negative and slightly less significant (P <0.10). This suggests that the probability of selling catfish is lower in the NE, MA, WNC, and P regions compared to the traditional catfish region (ESC). The remaining regions did not have coefficients that were statistically different from that of the ESC region. Table 8 presents the estimated probabilities for different A separate regression was performed by substituting a store size (square feet) variable for the store sales volume variable. 2 24 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 8. ESTIMATED PROBABILITIES OF U.S. RETAIL GROCERY STORES ADDING CATFISH TO THEIR PRODUCT LINE' Sales volume, thousands of dollars Estimated probabilities, by region NE MA ENC WNC Pct. 21 36 54 26 43 61 Pct. 8 16 28 11 20 34 SA Pct. 28 45 63 34 52 70 ESC WSC Pct. 27 44 62 33 51 69 Pct. 33 51 68 40 57 74 M P Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. 12 23 38 16 28 45 26 42 61 32 50 67 URBAN <40 ................................... 40-99 ................................. >100 .................................. RURAL <40 ................................... 40-99 ................................ >100 .................................. 10 18 32 12 23 39 9 16 29 11 21 36 1 Estimated probabilities are based on the assumption that the store characteristics consist of a chain with middle and high income white clientele. levels of sales volumes across the various census regions. A chain store with primarily middle or high income white clientele was assumed. The probabilities were calculated by substituting the estimated values into equation 1. For example, the estimated probability of a store located in an urban area of NE region with a SALESVOL of less than $40,000 adding catfish, table 8, is 1 (2) P = z. e -2 .24997 _- 0.1054 0.10 z e 1+e 1 +e 24 1 +e -2. 997 1.1054 The probabilities estimated for regions ENC, SA, ESC, WSC, and P are similar to one another in magnitude with slight variations. This confirms the results of the logit model where the coefficients associated with these regions (ENC, SA, WSC, and P) are not significantly different from the base region (ESC). The estimated probabilities in table 8 also reflect increases in the likelihood to add catfish for all regions as the sales volume increases. In addition, the probabilities of product adoption associated with rural areas are slightly higher than those associated with the urban area. Market Potential Quantitative assessment of regional market potential is an important consideration in expanding the market for a new product. By ranking regional market potential, industry plan- RETAIL GROCERY MARKETS FOR CATFISH 25 ners can target advertising and marketing efforts in a manner that maximizes the returns to these efforts. Regional market potential was analyzed using information generated by the survey and quantified by the logit model. In an effort to simplify the computation, a representative store type is assumed for all regions. The representative base store was assumed to be a member of a chain located in an urban area with middle and high income white clientele and sales less than $40,000. Probabilities by region for the selected base store to add catfish to the product line, given that it currently does not sell catfish, are presented in the first row of table 8. Furthermore, it was assumed that there is a proportional relationship between population and quantity of base stores that remains constant for all nine census regions. As a quantitative measure of market potential, the following market potential index (MI) was proposed: (3) MI = (POP - SELL * POPi) * PROB, where = index of the nine census regions, = market index for the ith region, = regional population (1980 census), in millions, = proportion of stores currently selling catfish in the it region (survey question 1), and PROB. = predicted probability from logit model of base store adding i MI. POP SELLi catfish to the store product line given that it does not currently sell catfish. Alternatively stated, MI is defined as simply the portion of the population in a given region who are associated with stores not currently selling catfish multiplied by the estimated probability that these stores will add catfish to their product line. MI is then an empirical measure of market potential. The larger the MI is for a particular region, the greater is the number of stores likely to add catfish to their product line. Ranking of the computed index values suggests that the top three regions in terms of new market development, in decreasing order of potential, are SA, ENC, and P regions, table 9. Results from the time path of adoption reported in the survey results section support SA and ENC as the two regions with both a good base of stores that have been sell- 26 TABLE 9. ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION ESTIMATED REGIONAL RETAIL GROCERY MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CATFISH BASED ON SURVEY DATA AND LOGIT PROBABILITIES, 1988 Region Population Mil. Sell Pct. 28 27 46 49 40 53 59 41 46 Probability Pct. 10 9 21 8 28 27 35 12 26 Market index Rank New England ....................... Middle Atlantic ............. East North Central ............ West North Central ......... South Atlantic ...................... East South Central .............. West South Central ......... Mountain ............................. Pacific ................................... 12.3 36.8 41.7 17.2 36.9 14.7 23.7 11.4 31.8 0.9 2.4 4.7 .7 6.2 1.9 3.4 .8 4.5 7 5 2 9 1 6 4 8 3 ing the product for several years and a greater proportion of stores that are likely to add, relative to the other census regions. Sensitivity analysis was performed by changing the store clientele among various ethnic and income groups. This was done to test the robustness of the computed probabilities and the consequent effect on the ranking of the regions based on the computed market index. These rankings retained the earlier assumption of stores located in rural areas with sales less than $40,000. The ranking remained consistent for the regions with the six highest market indexes (MI). Thus, the regional rankings appear to be robust for the regions with the greatest potential for catfish market expansion. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS A market survey of 1,800 retail grocery managers was commissioned by the Southern Regional Aquaculture Center in an effort to gather information on existing and potential markets for catfish and crawfish in the United States. Two hundred retail grocers from each of the nine census regions were asked if they sold catfish (crawfish). Those not selling catfish (crawfish) were asked to give reasons why they did not sell the product, and the likelihood of adding the product. Stores selling catfish (crawfish) were asked questions concerning quality and supply problems, influence and use of advertising, time of product introduction, product form, level of sales, and product price. All survey respondents were also RETAIL GROCERY MARKETS FOR CATFISH 27 asked several questions regarding socio-economic characteristics of the store. Analysis in this report focused on catfish. Forty-five percent of all stores surveyed sold catfish. Stores in the traditional catfish consumption regions, comprised of the ESC and WSC regions, reported percentages above the national mean, while the east coast (NE, MA, and SA) and mountain (M) regions were below the national mean. Generally, store characteristics associated with an increased likelihood of selling catfish included: (1) members of a chain; (2) a specialized fish market section; and 3) total monthly store sales over $100,000. Eighteen percent of the store managers reported that the national advertising campaign for catfish influenced their decision to add catfish to their product line. Regional impact of the national advertising campaign on catfish product adoption was greatest in the SA and MA regions. Stores in the P and SA regions reported the largest rate of catfish product adoption for the 2-year period prior to the time of the survey (a period overlapping The Catfish Institute's generic advertising campaign). Twenty-five percent of all respondents selling catfish had added the product in the last 2 years and 48 percent had added in the last 5 years. A general pattern of earlier adoption in the ESC and the WSC regions with later expansion into other regions was noted. Twenty-nine percent of the retail groceries selling catfish sold over 50 pounds of catfish per week. Fresh whole dressed and fresh fillets were found to be the most available and best selling catfish product forms. Fresh whole dressed was the top seller in all regions except NE, MA, and WSC, where fresh fillet was the top selling product form. Store managers selling catfish were asked if they had any problems with the consistency of catfish product supply and quality. Eleven percent of the stores selling catfish reported that they had experienced supply problems. Seasonality of supply and insufficient quantities were cited as the major supply problems. Seasonality of supply was reported most frequently in the P region, while insufficient quantities were most often a problem in the SA region. Exhibiting a response rate similar to that reported for product supply problems, 9 percent of grocers selling catfish indicated that they were 28 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION having catfish quality problems. The ENC and P regions reported the largest percentages of quality problems. Lack of freshness and off-flavor were the two primary quality issues. Store managers not selling catfish were asked to categorize their reasons for not carrying the product. Ranked in decreasing order of importance, the following reasons for not selling catfish were reported: (1) negative consumer attitudes; (2) low demand; (3) storage problems; (4) lack of availability at certain times of the year; (5) wholesale price being too high; and (6) lack of product freshness. Negative consumer attitudes tended to increase as a reason why a store did not sell catfish as one moved from the two south central regions. Continued advertising efforts in the non-south central areas should provide a source of positive information about catfish, thus changing its consumer image. Industry expansion efforts may be further advanced by addressing supply availability, particularly in the M, MA, and P regions, and reported storage problems in the WSC and ESC regions. The largest frequency of grocers who had not heard of catfish was reported in the NE region. Information on fish and seafood preferences, in terms of sales, indicated the competitive position of catfish. Catfish and cod tied for second place in sales behind shrimp. Catfish was the top seller in the WSC, ESC, and WNC regions, and ranked third in the SA region. Shrimp, cod, flounder, perch, and orange roughy appear to be the primary competitors with catfish for the fish and seafood market. Quantitative assessment of the socio-economic factors influencing a store manager's decision to add catfish to the product line was analyzed using a logit model. Variables in the model included weekly sales volume, urban/suburban/ rural location, income and race of clientele, membership in a chain, and census region. The estimated model was significant based on a likelihood ratio test at the 5 percent level. Probabilities for a selected representative base store type were then computed from the estimated logit model. Ranking of regional markets was quantified by a market potential index that incorporated the estimated logit probabilities, regional population, and the percentage of stores not selling catfish. The top three prospects in terms of new market development, in decreasing order of potential, were found to be the SA, ENC, and P regions. RETAIL GROCERY MARKETS FOR CATFISH 29 Survey results indicate that a substantial potential exists for catfish market expansion if some obstacles can be surmounted. Obstacles obstructing the path of catfish development include: (1) negative consumer image; (2) supply problems in the form of seasonality and insufficient quantities; (3) freshness and off-flavor of catfish products; and (4) competition from other fish and seafood products. Continued advertising and other promotional activities should enhance the image of catfish among consumers. New production strategies and increased acreage may reduce seasonality and alleviate product shortages, respectively. Further infrastructure development should also aid in addressing these supply issues. A high level of quality control must be maintained that effectively limits off-flavor and other substandard quality catfish from entering market channels. Competition from other fish and seafood products may become tougher for some species, while becoming less of a factor for other species. Species such as shrimp that are increasingly being produced in aquacultural production systems may continue to be highly competitive. Conversely, fish and seafood species dependent on declining natural stocks may generally become less competitive due to reduced availability and increased price. Areas of further research into markets for catfish include: (1) comparison of results from the restaurant, consumer, and grocery store surveys; (2) a follow-up survey of similar form for time-series comparison; and (3) detailed surveys of selected census regions or market segments. Analytical comparison of the three surveys may give insight into market outlet interactions and possible market signaling failures. For example, a comparison of results from the grocery survey with those of the consumer survey may suggest that consumer demand exists in a particular region, however, catfish products may not be available in the region's grocery stores. Product adoption changes in consumers' perception, perspectives on quality, and supply issues, etc. are questions that could potentially be answered by performing another survey. Finally, detailed surveys of census regions or market segments, e.g., middle income earners, could help the catfish industry identify and develop specific catfish market niches. 30 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION REFERENCES (1) F.S. 1983. A Logit Model of Farmers' Decisions About Credit. Sou. Jour. of Agr. Econ. 15:13-19 (2) BLAYLOCK, J.R. AND D.M. SMALLWOOD. 1986. U.S. Demand for Food: Household Expenditures, Demographics and Projections. Tech. Bull. No. 1713, National Economics Division, Econ. Res. Ser., USDA, Washington, D.C. (3) BOLEWARE, V. AND J.G. DILLARD. 1984. Consumer Awareness and Acceptance of Farm-Raised Catfish. Infor. Bull. 54, Miss. Agr. and For. Exp. Sta., Miss. State Univ. (4) CHENG, H. AND O. CAPPS, JR. 1988. Demand Analysis of Fresh and Frozen Finfish and Shellfish in the United States. Amer. Jour. of Agr. Econ. 70:533-542. BAGI, (5) CREMER, M., D.C. WILLIAMSON, AND D.R. WHEELER. 1983. Kentucky Catfish and Trout Market Survey. Aquaculture and Natural Resources Research Prog. Area Res. Bull. No. 1, Ky. State Univ. Community Res. Service Program, Frankfort, Ky. (6) DELLENBARGER, E.L., J. DILLARD, AND A.R. SCHUPP. 1990. Socioeconomic Factors Associated with Catfish Consumption in the United States. La. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. La. State Univ. (7) DixON, D.A., J.S. MILLER, J.R. CONNER, AND J.E. WALDROP. 1982. Survey of Market Channels for Farm-Raised Catfish. AEC Res. Rep. No. 132, Miss. Agr. and For. Exp. Sta., Miss. State Univ. (8) ENGLE, C.E., U. HATCH, S. SWINTON, AND T. THORPE. 1989. Marketing Alternatives for East Alabama Catfish Producers. Ala. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. No. 596, Auburn Univ. (9) Hu, T. 1985. Analysis of Seafood Consumption in the U.S.: 1970, 1974, 1978, 1981. Penn. State Univ. Institute for Policy Research and Evaluation. (10) KINNUCAN, H., M. VENKATESWARAN, AND U. HATCH. 1990. Effects of Catfish Advertising on Consumers' Attitudes, Purchase Frequency, and Farmers' Income. Ala. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 607. Auburn Univ. (11) , S. SINDELAR, D. WINEHOLT, AND U. HATCH. 1989. Proces- (12) (13) (14) (15) sor Demand and Price-Markup Functions for Catfish: A Disaggregated Analysis with Implications for the Off-Flavor Problem. Sou. Jour. of Agr. Econ. 20:81-91. PINDYCK, R.S. AND D.L. RUBINFELD. 1981. Econometric Models and Economic Forecasts. McGraw Hill, New York. RAULERSON, R. AND W. TROTTER. 1973. Demand for Farm-Raised Catfish in Supermarkets: Analysis of Selected Market. Mktg. Res. Rept. No. 993. Econ. Res. Ser., USDA, Washington, D.C. THE RICHARDS GROUP. 1988. The Catfish Institute 1988 Marketing Plan. Dallas, Texas. ZIDACK, W. AND U. HATCH. In press. An Econometric Estimation of Market Growth for the U.S. Processed Catfish Industry. Jour. of the World Aquac. Soc. RETAIL GROCERY MARKETS FOR CATFISH 31 APPENDIX A Summary of Grocery Survey Responses, 19881 1. Does your store sell catfish? (1) Yes-skip to Q. 2 (43%) (2) No (57%) la. What are the reasons your store does not sell catfish? (1) Haven't heard of it (4%) (2) Negative consumer attitudes (21%) (3) Unreliable supply (6%) (4) Storage problem (11%) (5) Wholesale price too high (2%) (6) Not fresh (2%) (7) Unavailable at certain times of the year (8%) (8) Other (write in) 2 a. Low demand (17%) b. Catch own (2%) c. Store size (4%) d. Not available (4%) e. Miscellaneous (11%) (9) Don't know (9%) lb. Within the next year, what is the likelihood of your store beginning to sell catfish? Would you say...? (1) Very likely (4%) (2) Somewhat likely (14%) (3) Somewhat unlikely (9%) (4) Very unlikely (65%) (5) Don't know (8%) SKIP TO Q. 12 2. How many years has your store been selling catfish? (1) Less than 6 months (6%) (2) 6 months-1 year (8%) 'Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding. 2 "Other" was separated into the six categories listed after the survey was administered. This was done primarily to reflect the number of respondents citing "low demand" as a reason for not selling catfish. 32 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION (3) (4) (5) (9) Between 1 and 2 years (12%) More than 2, but less than 5 years (21%) More than 5 years (45%) Don't know (8%) 3. Has your catfish supply been consistent? (1) Yes-skip to Q. 4 (89%) (2) No (11%) 3a. What problem(s) have you had? RECORD UP TO TWO RESPONSES. (1) Insufficient quantity (27%) (2) Unavailable at certain times of the year (30%) (3) Certain product forms not always available (13%) (4) Unreliable quality of product (12%) (5) Inconveniently sized purchase lots (5%) (8) Other (write in) (13%) 4. What forms of catfish do you sell? 3 (1) Sell (2) Do not sell (9) Don't know a. Fresh whole-dressed (61%) b. Fresh fillet (62%) c. Frozen whole-dressed (27%) d. Frozen fillet (36%) e. Individually frozen fillet (11%) f. Breaded or processed (23%) 5. What other forms of catfish do you sell? 6. How many pounds of catfish, on the average, do you sell weekly? (1) Less than 50 (60%) (2) 51-99 (13%) (3) 100-199 (6%) (4) More than 200 (3%) (7) It varies (4%) (9) Don't know (13%) 3Percentages of stores selling a given product form relative to the total number of stores for each response. RETAIL GROCERY MARKETS FOR CATFISH 33 7. What is your top selling catfish product? (1) Fresh whole dressed (34%) (2) Fresh catfish fillets (32%) (3) Frozen whole dressed (6%) (4) Frozen catfish fillets (13%) (5) Individually frozen fillets (1%) (6) Breaded or processed (2%) (8) Other (write in) (6%) (9) Don't know - skip to Q. 9 (6%) 8. What is this week's retail price of your top selling catfish product? (dollars per pound)? (999) Don't know Price % 1. <$1.00 1 2. $1.00-1.99 14 3. $2.00-2.99 39 4. $3.00-3.99 28 5. $4.00-4.99 14 4 6. $5.00-5.99 1 7. $6.00-9.00 9. Have you had any problems with the quality of catfish products? (1) Yes (9%) (2) No-skip to Q. 10 (91%) 9a. What problems have you had? RECORD UP TO TWO RESPONSES. (1) Off-flavor (17%) (4) Form of product (4%) (8) Other (write in) (7%) (2) Freshness (50%) (3) Packaging (13%) (9) Don't know (9%) 10. Does your store promote catfish? (1) Yes (57%) (2) No-skip to Q. 11 (43%) 10a. What means of promotion do you use? UP TO 3 RESPONSES. (1) In store signs (30%) (2) Discounted specials (9%) (3) News circular (14%) (4) Radio (2%) (5) TV (1%) (6) Newspaper (36%) RECORD 34 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION (7) In store samples (5%) (8) Other (write in) (2%) (9) Don't know (0%) 11. Did the National Advertising Campaign for catfish result in the addition of catfish to your product line? (1) Yes (13%) (2) No (61%) (9) Don't know (26%) Does your store sell crawfish? (1) Yes--skip to Q. 13 (8%) (2) No (92%) 12a. What is (are) the reason(s) your store does not sell crawfish? RECORD UP TO TWO RESPONSES. (1) Haven't heard of it (5%) (2) Consumer attitudes (11%) (3) Wholesale price too high (2%) (4) Not fresh (2%) (5) Lack of demand (53%) (8) Other (write in) (20%) (9) Don't know (8%) 12b. Within the next year, what is the likelihood of your store beginning to sell crawfish? Would you say...? (1) Very likely (2%) (2) Somewhat likely (8%) (3) Somewhat unlikely (9%) (4) Very unlikely (72%) (9) Don't know (9%) 13. How many years has your store been selling crawfish? (1) Less than 6 months (14%) (2) 6 months-1 year (14%) (3) Between 1 and 2 years (13%) (4) More than 2 years, but less than 5 years (19%) (5) More than 5 years (29%) (9) Don't know (12%) 12. RETAIL GROCERY MARKETS FOR CATFISH 35 14. Which of the following forms of crawfish does your store sell?4 (1) Sell (2) Don't sell (9) Don't know a. Fresh tail meat (38%) b. Frozen tail meat (33%) c. Individually frozen tail meat (16%) d. Fresh whole crawfish (46%) e. Frozen whole crawfish (35%) f. Breaded or processed tail meat (17%) What other forms of crawfish does your store sell? Has your crawfish supply been consistent? (1) Yes-skip to Q. 17 (85%) (2) No (15%) 16a. What problems have you had? RECORD UP TO TWO RESPONSES. (1) Insufficient quantity (31%) (2) Unavailable at certain times of the year (42%) (3) Certain product forms not always available (8%) (4) Inconveniently sized purchased lots (4%) (8) Other (write in) (15%) (9) Don't know (0%) 15. 16. 17. How many pounds of crawfish do you sell weekly? (1) Less than 10 (39%) (2) 11-50 (25%) (3) 51-99 (1%) (4) More than 100 (11%) (9) Don't know (23%) Have you had any problems with the quality of crawfish products? (1) Yes (6%) (2) No-skip to Q. 19 (94%) 18. 4 Percentages of stores selling a given product form relative to the total number of stores for each response. 36 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 18a. What problems have you had? RECORD UP TO TWO RESPONSES. (1) Freshness (13%) (2) Packaging (25%) (3) Wholesale price too high (0%) (4) Form of product (25%) (8) Other (write in) (38%) (9) Don't know (0%) 19. Does your store promote crawfish? (1) Yes (35%) (2) No-skip to Q. 20 (65%) 19a. What means of promotion do you use? UP TO THREE RESPONSES. (1) In-store signs (35%) (2) Discounted specials (9%) (3) News circular (12%) (4) Radio (5%) RECORD (5) TV (0%) (6) Newspaper (32%) (7) In-store samples (6%) (8) Other (1%) 20. What is the overall weekly sales volume of your store? IF NECESSARY, ASK "IS IT..." (1) Less than $40,000 (22%) (2) $40,000-75,000 (8%) (3) $76,000-99,000 (2%) (4) $100,000-149,000 (5%) (5) $150,000-200,000 (3%) (6) over $200,000 (4%) (8) Refused (33%) (9) Don't know (23%) How many square feet does your store have? (1) Less than 20,000 (41%) (2) 20,000-29,000 (13%) (3) 30,000-39,000 (7%) (4) 40,000 or more (9%) (9) Don't know (30%) 21. RETAIL GROCERY MARKETS FOR CATFISH 37 22. Is your store located in a: (1) Rural (43%) (2) Suburban (32%) (3) Urban area (26%) Which two of these groups make up the largest part of your customer base: (1) Low income black (9%) (2) Low income white (13%) (3) Middle class black (23%) (4) Middle class white (39%) (5) High income black (2%) (6) High income white (6%) (7) Asian (1%) (8) Hispanic (4%) (9) Other (1%) What is the name of your store? 24a. Is your store part of a chain? (1) Yes (41%) (2) No-skip to Q. 25 (59%) 24b. How many stores does it have nationwide? (99) Don't know 23. 24. 25. Does your store have a specialized fish market section separate from the meat counter? (1) Yes-skip to Q. 26 (23%) (2) No (77%) 25a. What is the likelihood of your store adding such a seafood section? (1) Very likely (6%) (2) Somewhat likely (10%) (3) Somewhat unlikely (9%) (4) Very unlikely (68%) (9) Don't know (7%) 26. What are the top five fish and seafood products in terms of sales? Shrimp-9% Catfish-7% 38 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Cod-7% Perch-4% Orange roughy-4% Red snapper-3% Flounder-3% Haddock-3% Sole-3% Salmon-3% Halibut-3% Other-51% 27. What are the three seafood items with fastest sales growth in the last year? Shrimp-10% Catfish-8% Cod-6% Orange roughy-4% Red snapper-3% Perch-3% Haddock-3% Flounder-3% Halibut-3% Other-57% 28. Census Subdivision 29. Area Code RETAIL GROCERY MARKETS FOR CATFISH 39 APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF SocIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS FOR RETAIL GROCERY SURVEY, BY CENSUS REGION, 19881 Response, by region 2 Question Total NE MA ENCWNC SA ESC WSC M P Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. 20. What is the overall weekly sales volume of your store? ENTIRE SAMPLE a. <$40,000 ................ 49 24 b. $40-99,000 ............. c. >$100,000 .............. 26 54 23 23 45 19 36 48 28 25 28 43 30 58 28 14 51 29 20 51 21 28 27 24 49 60 24 15 36 40 24 51 22 27 33 27 41 44 32 24 20 37 43 35 21 44 21 15 65 SELL CATFISH 31 46 a. <$40,000 ................... 20 b. $40-99,000 ............. 30 25 24 29 56 c. >$100,000 ............... 39 21. How many square feet does your store have? ENTIRE SAMPLE 1. <20,000 .................. 2. 20-29,000 ............... 3. >30,000 .................. SELL CATFISH 1. <20,000 ..................... 2. 20-29,000 ............... 3. >30,000 .................. 59 19 22 43 23 33 63 17 20 44 15 41 64 17 19 44 19 37 55 22 24 45 23 31 57 20 23 47 21 32 55 28 16 42 37 21 70 19 11 62 23 15 60 17 23 46 22 32 55 12 33 21 21 57 56 18 26 35 23 42 22. Is your store located in a rural, suburban, or urban area? ENTIRE SAMPLE a. Rural ..................... b. Suburban ................ c. Urban ....................... 43 32 26 35 41 25 34 32 34 38 31 31 54 26 20 44 34 22 45 33 22 35 36 29 49 28 23 38 33 29 40 32 27 33 39 27 50 29 21 32 42 26 40 32 28 29 34 37 SELL CATFISH a. Rural ........................ 36 35 28 30 37 b. Suburban ................ 37 46 36 c. Urban ....................... 27 28 26 34 23. What two of the groups make up the largest part of your customer base? (two responses combined) ENTIRE SAMPLE a. Black/low ................. 9 b. White/low ................ 13 c. Black/middle ........... 23 d. White/middle ........... 39 e. Black/high ............... 2 f. White/high .............. 6 g. Asian ....................... 1 h. Hispanic ................. 4 i. Other ....................... 1 7 15 17 41 4 10 0 4 2 10 11 27 41 1 4 1 4 1 8 13 22 45 3 7 0 1 1 7 14 21 49 1 6 1 2 0 16 15 25 33 2 4 1 1 3 11 15 27 39 1 5 0 0 1 13 11 28 35 2 3 1 6 1 4 11 20 41 2 8 2 11 0 8 14 16 31 5 9 3 12 1 Continued 40 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SUMMARY OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS FOR RETAIL GROCERY SURVEY, BY CENSUS REGION, 19881(CONTINUED) Response, by region 2 Question Total NE MA ENCWNC SA ESC WSC M P Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. SELL CATFISH 6 8 a. Black/low ............ 10 b. White/low .............. 10 18 c. Black/middle ......... 25 39 d. White/middle ......... 39 3 4 e. Black/high ................ 12 f. White/high ........... 7 1 g. Asian ................. 1 7 h. Hispanic ............ 5 2 1 i. Other .................. 24a. Isyour store part of a chain? ENTIRE SAMPLE Yes .............................. SELL CATFISH Yes .............................. 41 61 42 63 10 13 28 40 0 5 0 3 1 9 12 23 41 4 9 0 1 1 8 13 23 45 2 6 1 2 0 13 9 29 36 2 4 1 2 4 9 10 32 40 2 6 0 0 2 9 7 31 36 4 5 0 7 1 3 6 25 45 0 8 2 11 0 9 12 15 29 7 12 3 14 0 38 62 42 53 39 46 43 75 37 58 41 57 44 74 47 65 25. Does your store have a specialized fish market section separate from the meat counter? ENTIRE SAMPLE 25 30 23 23 Yes ................................. 21 SELL CATFISH 41 48 62 37 Yes ................................. 32 23 36 15 26 22 31 24 43 22 32 25a. What is the likelihood of your store adding such a seafood section? ENTIRE SAMPLE .. . ... ..... 3 Likely ........... . .. 17 21 16 23 11 18 14 27 14 24 9 16 15 30 17 43 SELL CATFISH 27 33 26 Likely3 .......................... 29 'Regional abbreviations used in this and following Appendix tables are as follows: NE = New England; MA = Middle Atlantic; ENC = East North Central; WNC = West North Central; SA = South Atlantic; ESC = East South Central; WSC = West South Central; M = Mountain; and P = Pacific. 2 Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding. 3 "Very likely" and "somewhat likely" responses were combined into "likely" category. RETAIL GROCERY MARKETS FOR CATFISH 41 APPENDIX C SUMMARY OF RETAIL GROCERY SURVEY FOR STORES THAT SELL CATFISH, BY SELECTED STORE CLASSIFICATIONS, 1988 Sell catfish Question Sell catfish Catfish in top 5 Pct. 2. How many years has your store been selling catfish? 6 <6 months ............................ 9 6 mo.-1 yr ............................. 13 1 yr.-2 yr .............................. 23 2 yr.- 5 yr .............................. 50 >5 years ............................... Has your catfish supply been consistent? 90 Yes .................................. 10 N o .............................................. Pct. 5 7 11 21 56 91 9 <50 lb./wk. Pct. 4 7 11 16 62 92 8 3. 3A1-3A2. What catfish supply problems have you had? (both responses combined) 18 23 24 Quantity ............................... 27 26 30 Seasonality ........................... 18 11 13 Forms .................................. 18 11 12 Quality ................................. 9 9 5 Lot size ...................................... 9 20 16 Other ..................................... 4A-F and 5. What forms of catfish do you sell? 62 Fresh whole dressed ................. 63 Fresh fillets ............................ 27 Frozen whole dressed ............... 37 Frozen fillet ............................ 11 Individually frozen fillets .......... 23 Breaded/processed ................. 13 Other ........................................ 6. 2 67 60 30 40 12 24 16 72 71 25 34 13 23 19 0 58 27 15 How many pounds of catfish, on the average, does your store sell weekly? 62 73 <50 ............................................ 21 16 51-99 ......................................... 11 7 100-199 ..................................... 6 4 >200 .......................................... What is your top selling catfish product? FRESH 36 Whole dressed .......................... 34 Fillet ......................................... FROZEN Whole dressed .......................... Fillet ......................................... Individually frozen .................... BREADED/PROCESSED ......... OTHER ...................................... 6 14 1 2 7 7. 38 31 6 16 1 2 8 37 38 4 10 2 1 8 Continued 42 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SUMMARY OF RETAIL GROCERY SURVEY FOR STORES THAT SELL CATFISH, BY SELECTED STORE CLASSIFICATIONS, 1988 (CONTINUED) Question 8. Sell catfish Sell catfish Catfish in top 5 <50 lb./wk. 0 14 45 27 12 1 1 9 91 What is this week's retail price/pound of your top selling catfish product? 0 1 >$1.00 ........................................ 17 14 $1-1.99 .................................... 43 39 $2-2.99 .................................... 28 27 $3-3.99 .................................... 10 14 $4-4.99 .................................... 4 2 $5-5.99 .................................... 0 1 $6-6.99 .................................... Have you had any problems with quality of catfish products? 7 9 Yes ..................................... 93 91 N o .............................................. 9. 9A1-9A2. What catfish quality problems have you had? (two responses combined) 11 22 21 Off-flavor ................................ 56 56 44 Freshness ............................... 33 22 16 Packaging ............................ 0 0 5 ....... Form ............. 0 0 14 Other ..................................... 10. Does your store promote catfish? Yes ............. ..................... ... No .............................................. 57 43 59 41 67 33 10A1-10A3. What means of promotion do you use? (three combined responses) 28 30 30 1. Store signs ............. .............. 11 9 9 2. Discount specials ................. 14 14 14 3. News circulars .................... 3 2 2 4. Radio ................................... 2 1 1 5. Television ............................ 35 37 37 6. Newspaper ............. .............. 6 5 5 7. Samples ................................ 2 2 8. O ther.....................................2 11. Did the National Advertising Campaign for catfish result in the addition of catfish to your product line? 18 20 17 Yes ............................................. 82 80 83 N o ............................................. 1"Sell catfish" represents respondents who answered "yes" to question 1; "catfishin top 5" represents respondents who cited catfish for question 26; ">50 lb./wk." represents respondents who reported catfish sales exceeding 50 pounds per week. 2Reported percentages are for those respondents selling the product form. RETAIL GROCERY MARKETS FOR CATFISH RETAIL GROCERY MARKETS FOR CATFISH 43 4 APPENDIX D SUMMARY OF Soclo-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS FOR RETAIL GROCERY SURVEY BY SELECTED SToRE CLASSIFICATIONS, 1988' Response, by store classification Question Entire sample Pct. Sell catfish Pct. Sell catfish top 5 Pct. Sell catfish >50lb./wk. Pct. Do not sell catfish Pct. Do not sell catfish but likely next year Pct. 20. What is the overall weekly sales volume of your store? 22 64 51 31 32 <$40,000 ......... 49 30 24 20 22 $40-99,000 ........... 24 30 >$100,000 ...... 26 39 37 54 16 27 21. How many square feet does your store have? 66 44 47 39 72 >20,000 ............... 59 20-29,000 ............. 19 23 24 24 15 18 16 29 37 13 33 >30,000 ............... 22 22. Is your store located in a rural, urban, or suburban area? Rural .................. 35 43 35 28 49 51 Suburban ...... 32 37 37 41 27 25 Urban ......... 26 28 29 31 23 23 23. Which two of these groups make up the largest part of your customer base? (combined responses) INCOME/RACE Low/black .......... Low/white ........... Middle/black ....... Middle/white....... High/black .......... High/white .......... Asian ................... Hispanic ............ Other..........1 10 13 23 39 2 6 1 4 8 10 25 39 3 7 1 5 1 9 10 28 38 2 5 1 5 1 7 7 32 38 2 7 1 4 2 10 16 21 40 2 6 1 4 1 9 15 21 31 3 6 1 5 1 24A. Is your store part of a chain? 61 Yes .............. 41 No ............... 59 39 24B. How many stores does your chain have 1-10 ............... 28 23 11-100 ............ 34 35 >100 ............ 60 68 40 32 nationwide? 24 17 32 41 44 42 27 73 38 32 30 40 60 37 37 26 38 42 25. Does your store have a specialized fish market section? 44 12 21 Yes .............. 23 37 32 79 No ............... 77 63 68 56 88 25A. What is the likelihood of your store adding a specialized fish market section? Likely ........... 17 26 24 28 11 28 76 72 89 72 Unlikely.........83 74 '"Entiresample" represents all survey respondents; "sell catfish" represents respondents who sell catfish; "sell catfish top 5" represents respondents who sell catfish and report it among their top 5 sellers; "sell catfish > 50 lbi/wk." represents those who sell more than 50 pounds ofcatfish perweek; "do not sell catfish" represents all respondents who do not sell catfish; "do not sell catfish but likely next year" represents respondents who did not sell catfish at time of survey but indicated "verylikely" or"somewhat likely" to sell catfish next year. Alabama's Agricultural Experiment Station System AUBURN UNIVERSITY With an agricultural research unit in every major soil area, Auburn University serves the needs of field crop, livestock, forestry, and horticultural producers in each region in Alabama. Every citizen of the 5 4a 6 7 8 State has a stake in this research program, since any advantage from new1, " 9 N 10 1z and more economical ways of producing and handling farm products directly benefits the consuming public. 9 Research Unit Identification ® a 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Main Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn. E. V. Smith Research Center, Shorter. Tennessee Valley Substation, Belle Mina. Sand Mountain Substation, Crossville. North Alabama Horticulture Substation, Cullman. Upper Coastal Plain Substaton, Winfield. Forestry Unit, Fayette County. Chilton Area Horticulture Substation, Clanton. Forestry Unit, Coosa County. Piedmont Substation, Camp Hill. Forestry Unit, Autauga County. Prattville Experiment Field, Prattville. Black Belt Substation, Marion Junction. The Turnipseed-lkenberry Place, Union Springs. Lower Coastal Plain Substation, Camden. Forestry Unit, Barbour County. Monroeville Experiment Field, Monroeville. Wiregrass Substation, Headland. Brewton Experiment Field, Brewton. Ornamental Horticulture Substation, Spring Hill. Gulf Coast Substation, Fairhope.