Writing
Mexico has been a top export market for U.S. Beef, marketing homework help

Question Description

I need help with a Marketing question. All explanations and answers will be used to help me learn.

1 pg minimum for each answer 12pt font, 1inch margin, times new roman

Article #4

How and why retail dairy prices of whole Milk and Cheese respond differently to form Milk price shocks?

Article #5

Summarize what this study found as far as consumption of whole grain and refined bread after the implementation of 2005 Dietary Guidelines. In you answer, include the influence of price of each type of Bread as well as demographic factors of consumers?

Article #6

Historically, Mexico has been a top export market for U.S. Beef; However this has changed during past couple years. Making Mexico the Fourth largest exporter of Beef to the United States. According to the Article, explain how Mexico achieved this status.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

SEPTEMBER 2012 • VOLUME 10, ISSUE 3 • MARKETS & TRADE • FINDINGS ARTICLE Mexico Emerging as an Exporter of Beef to the United States Mexico has historically been a top export market for U.S. beef, but in 2003, it emerged as an important source of beef imports for the United States. U.S. beef imports from Mexico at least doubled in 2010 and 2011. In 2011, Mexico exported 59,000 metric tons of beef to the U.S., making it the fourth largest exporter of beef to the United States. The volume of boneless, fresh, or frozen meat cuts exported from Mexico to the U.S. increased by nearly 68 percent from 2010 to 2011, while the volume of exports of Mexican bone-in beef cuts increased by nearly 59 percent. Exports to the U.S. market are vital to the Mexican beef sector, and in 2011 they reached $325 million, or 61 percent of the value of all Mexican beef exports during the period. The increase in exports of Mexican beef to the United States is partly due to an increase in the number of TIF (Tipo Inspeccion Federal) plants inspected by Mexico’s Federal Government. Such plants must meet standards similar to those in the United States. Meat that is moved across State borders in Mexico or exported to the U.S. must be inspected at the Federal level. In the last 60 years, the number of operational TIF establishments increased from 15 to 365 across 27 States in Mexico. The growth of TIF plants has been particularly rapid in the last few years. Mexico has also increased its production of grain-fed beef, the quality and type of beef that is most preferred by U.S. U.S. beef imports from Mexico doubled in each of the last 2 years Thousand metric tons 30 Bone-in beef cuts, excluding processed fresh 25 Boneless beef, not processed, fresh, or chilled Boneless beef, fresh, chilled, or other, except processed 20 Boneless beef, processed, not elsewhere specified All other boneless, bone-in beef and edible offal 15 10 5 0 1994 96 98 2000 02 04 06 08 10 Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from USDA, Foreign Agricultural Service, Global Agricultural Trade System. consumers. Increasing numbers of cattle are being fed through semi-intensive and intensive feedlot operations, boosting the supply of grain-fed beef available for export. In addition, feed consumption of coarse grains in Mexico has trended up over the last two decades, as has the volume of distillers’dried grains (DDGs) exported to Mexico. DDGs are a byproduct of ethanol production and are used as feed for livestock. Increased DDG exports to Mexico have supported the expanding Mexican beef production and feedlot industry. The Mexican beef industry continues to improve its infrastructure and marketing channels but still faces challenges in competing with domestic crop production for inputs, feed sources, forage, and land. The effects of recent changes in cattle feeding and slaughter should increase Mexico’s potential to grow as a supplier of beef to the United States. Rachel J. Johnson, rjohnson@ers.usda.gov Amy D. Hagerman, ahagerman@ers.usda.gov This finding is drawn from… “Mexico’s Emerging Role as an Exporter of Beef to the United States,” by Rachel J. Johnson and Amy D. Hagerman, in Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook, LDP-M-211, USDA, Economic Research Service, January 2012, available at: www.ers.usda.gov/ media/290726/ldpm211_1_.pdf 1 Mexico Emerging as an Exporter of Beef to the United States / Amber Waves / September 2012 www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves • Economic Research Service/USDA DECEMBER 2012 • VOLUME 10, ISSUE 4 • DIET & HEALTH • FINDINGS ARTICLE Dietary Guidelines Have Encouraged Some Americans To Purchase More Whole-Grain Bread Since its inception in 1980, the Dietary Guidelines for Americans have provided consumers with science-based nutritional principles and advice for making healthy food choices. So far, there is little evidence that Americans’ overall diet quality has improved in response to updated Dietary Guidelines issued every 5 years. However, a recent study by ERS finds that, for whole grains, the 2005 Guidelines were able to nudge consumption patterns in the direction desired by the public health community--at least for some consumers. The 2005 Guidelines recommended that half of all grains consumed be whole grains. A comparison of grocery store bread purchases before and after the release of the 2005 Guidelines shows that the quantity of whole-grain bread purchased rose nearly 70 percent, while refined-grain bread purchases fell 13 percent. Of course, these purchase shifts cannot be fully attributed to the Dietary Guidelines. While overall bread prices were rising over this period, whole-grain bread prices relative to refined-grain bread prices were falling. Demand analysis by ERS, which separated the impact of the Dietary Guidelines from other economic factors affecting purchase decisions, shows that falling relative prices of whole-grain bread accounted for much of the shift toward whole-grain bread purchases. Nonetheless, after accounting for relative prices, changing consumer incomes, seasonality in bread demand, and regional differences in food preferences, there are additional changes in purchasing behavior that can reasonably be attributed to the Dietary Guidelines. The 2005 Guidelines appear to have encouraged Americans to reduce purchases of refined-grain breads by 3 percent and increase purchases of whole grain bread by 14 percent. Response to the whole-grains recommendation in the 2005 Dietary Guidelines (DGs) varied by income Average pounds per month 4.5 Residual effect of DGs: +3% 4.0 { Residual effect of DGs: { -5% 3.5 3.0 Purchases before DGs Predicted purchases after DGs, due to price changes only 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 Residual effect of DGs: +19% { Residual effect of DGs: 0% 0.5 0 0.48 0.66 0.79 3.42 3.13 2.98 Whole-grain bread Refined-grain bread Higher income shoppers 0.35 0.59 0.59 Whole-grain bread 4.26 3.65 3.77 Refined-grain bread Lower income shoppers Source: USDA, Economic Research Service analysis of Nielsen Homescan data. Predicted purchases after DGs, due to price changes and DGs After accounting for price effects and other factors influencing demand, ERS finds that the 2005 Guidelines were responsible for households with incomes above 185 percent of the Federal poverty level increasing their whole-grain bread purchases by 19 percent (from 0.66 to 0.79 pounds per month) and decreasing refinedgrain purchases by 5 percent (from 3.13 to 2.98 pounds per month). When looking at lower income households, there was no evidence that the Dietary Guidelines provided much of a nudge. While lower income households also increased their purchases of whole-grain bread, this was found to be almost entirely due to declining relative prices of whole-grain bread. The 2005 whole-grain recommendation may owe its positive impact to a couple factors. The advice on healthy substitutes was specific and relatively easy to follow--buying a loaf of whole-grain bread is very much like buying a loaf of refined-grain bread. At the same time, the 2005 Dietary Guidelines may have provided manufacturers with incentives to reformulate their products in anticipation of increased demand for whole-grain products, and this may have created a spillover benefit. When manufacturers ramped up their whole-grain production, they likely created some scale economies, lowering per unit production costs and thereby lowering the relative price of whole-grain bread for all consumers. Lisa Mancino, lmancino@ers.usda.gov Fred Kuchler, fkuchler@ers.usda.gov This finding is drawn from… “Demand for Whole-Grain Bread Before and After the Release of the Dietary Guidelines,” by Lisa Mancino and Fred Kuchler, in Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Vol. 34, No. 1, Spring, 2012, pp. 76-101. 1 Dietary Guidelines Have Encouraged Some Americans To Purchase More Whole-Grain Bread / Amber Waves / December 2012 www.ers.usda.gov/amberwaves • Economic Research Service/USDA SEPTEMBER 2012 • VOLUME 10, ISSUE 3 • MARKETS & TRADE • FINDINGS ARTICLE Retail Dairy Prices Respond Differently to Farm Milk Price Shocks Retail and farm values track more closely for whole milk than Cheddar cheese Whole milk, farm and retail prices Retail Jul-10 Jan-11 Jul-11 Jan-11 Jul-11 Jan-10 Jul-10 Jul-09 Jan-10 Jan-09 Jul-09 Jul-08 Jan-08 Jul-07 Jan-07 Jul-06 Jan-06 Jul-05 Jan-05 Jul-04 Jan-04 Jul-03 Jul-02 Jan-03 Jul-01 Farm Jan-02 Jul-00 Jan-01 Jan-00 Dollars/gallon 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0 Cheddar cheese, farm and retail prices Dollars / lb. 6.0 Retail 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 Farm 1.0 Jan-09 Jul-08 Jan-08 Jul-07 Jan-07 Jul-06 Jan-06 Jul-05 Jan-05 Jul-04 Jan-04 Jul-03 Jul-02 Jan-03 Jul-01 Jan-02 Jul-00 Jan-01 0 Jan-00 Changes in farm milk prices may not be matched by changes in retail prices for dairy products like fluid milk and cheese. ERS derived the farm value of whole milk and Cheddar cheese and then estimated models to measure the response of retail prices to changes in these farm values. Simulations based on model results revealed that farm milk price shocks are not transmitted instantaneously to retail for either dairy product. The nature of price transmission is also very different for whole milk and Cheddar cheese. Changes in the farm value and retail price of whole milk tend to track relatively closely over time. Milk moves from farms to retail outlets, via fluid milk processors, in a matter of days. Prices paid at each end of the supply chain are thus close together in time, and changes may be transmitted quickly from level to level. The relationship between the farm value and retail price is weaker for Cheddar cheese. The farm value of 1 pound of Cheddar cheese fell 12 cents from October to November 2008 while the retail price rose 13 cents. Cheese manufacturing is a lengthier process than fluid milk processing, and cheese may pass through several intermediaries before reaching retail outlets. Prices at each end of the supply chain are thus farther apart in time, and changes at one level are not reflected as quickly at the other. Significant farm price declines not “seen” at the retail level may often be viewed by some as evidence that marketers are making extra profits while dairy farmers are at a disadvantage. But is that the case? Findings suggest that retail prices do move when farm milk prices drop, but it takes time for the shocks to pass through the firms that manufacture and distribute whole milk and Cheddar cheese. Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service and U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Don P. Blayney, dblayney@ers.usda.gov Hayden Stewart, hstewart@ers.usda.gov This finding is drawn from… “Retail Dairy Prices Fluctuate With the Farm Value of Milk,” in Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Vol. 40, No. 2 (August 2011), pp. 201-217. 1 Retail Dairy Prices Respond Differently to Farm Milk Price Shocks / Amber Waves / September 2012 www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves • Economic Research Service/USDA ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment
Student has agreed that all tutoring, explanations, and answers provided by the tutor will be used to help in the learning process and in accordance with Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Final Answer

Please find attached. Thank you.

Running head: ARTICLE SUMMARY

1

Article summary
Name
Professor
Institution
Course
Date

ARTICLE SUMMARY

2
Article summary

How and why retail dairy prices of whole Milk and Cheese respond differently to form
Milk price shocks?
The prices of dairy products vary from one type to the other. The prices of whole milk
and cheese respond in a different way from the shock prices of milk. The reason behind this
happening is the fact that the processing methods applied for each of the products are different.
For instance, the processing of fluid milk is not as long as processed cheese. On the other hand,
fluid milk gets to retailers quickly as compared to cheese which goes through a number of
intermediaries (Economic Research Services, 2012). This implies that in most cases, the milk
shocks will not be directly proportional to the dairy prices of both milk and cheese. In this case,
the farm value of the milk and its products vary from the market value in a big way. For instance,
farmers may receive a small amount of money for their milk while the changes in prices will not
be implemented by the retailers. As a result, the farm value of the milk and its products will be
declined while the retailers will continue enjoying the high prices for the same.
In most cases, the farmers have to sell their milk at prices that are highly reduced since
that is the amount of...

peachblack (36295)
Cornell University

Anonymous
Top quality work from this tutor! I’ll be back!

Anonymous
It’s my second time using SP and the work has been great back to back :) The one and only resource on the Interwebs for the work that needs to be done!

Anonymous
Thanks, good work

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4