Review: (Hushak et al., 1993) Survey of Wholesale and Retail Buyers in the Six Southern States of the North Central Region

Survey of Wholesale and Retail Buyers in the Six Southern States of the North Central Region 

Hushak, Leroy (Professor Dept of Ag Econ and Rural Sociology), Charles F. Cole (Professor School of Natural Resources), Douglas P. Gleckler (Research Associate School of Natural Resources) Ohio State University, Columbus, OH

Technical Bulletin Series #104 (Funding provided through USDA Grant #89-38500-4319), January 1993

Objectives
This study had four specific objectives:

(1)  Describe the marketing channels for farm-raised and wild-caught seafood in the North Central Region (NCR)

(2)    Describe processing function of wholesale and retail channel members in order to examine vertical integration and accurately describe distribution channels.

(3)    Describe attitudes and preferences of NCR buyers regarding product quality attributes of farm-raised versus wild-caught seafood

(4) Develop list of species with potential to be marketed as farm-raised

This study is meant to look beyond “farm gate” transactions into the traditional seafood channel to bridge gap between producer and consumer studies. Ultimately this study aimed to aid in the development of the seafood aquaculture industry. Business and industry planners could benefit from the uncovering of channel member processing functions in order to find penetration points within distribution channel.

Key Methods or Approach 
Mailed questionnaires were designed to collect demographics and information pertaining to the four specific objectives. The mailing list consisted for 430 survey units limited by presence in Yellow Pages ads for wholesale and retail fish and seafood business in cities with populations greater than or equal to 100,000. The total universe as reported by a mailing list service publication is 565 retailers and 264 wholesalers. One hundred twenty-nine response were expected, 362 of the 430 were deliverable and 103 were usable.

Market channel functional relationships consisted of: (1) specialty retailer, (2) wholesaler, (3) distributor, (4) retail grocer with seafood counter, (5) processor, (6) warehouse, (7) broker, (8) producer and (9) other.

Each market channel participant could perform one or many of the following functions: (1) production, (2) processing, (3) brokering, (4) wholesaling, (5) warehousing, (6) distribution, (7) grocery retail, (8) specialty retail and (9) other. Some participants also imported or traded.  (More specific processing forms for reference: process dressed products to fillets, process dressed products to steaks, process “in round” products to fillets, process “in round” products to steaks, repackage large shipments into smaller subunits, process “in round” to dressed products, dress and debone, cook/steam/fry/boil/etc., thaw frozen products for sale as “previously frozen,” freeze fresh products for sale as frozen, fillet live fish, bread fillets, dress live fish, marinate or season products, process products into nuggets, stuff products and process products into patties)

Results
Objective 1
Respondents from all channel classifications buy inventory from multiple sources, perform multiple functions and sell to multiple customer types. Because of this describing the marketing channel cannot be mapped in a straight forward manner. The general flow is from producer -> wholesaler -> retailer -> consumer. Transactions occur in all directions, but mainly forward or downstream as described. Farm-raised products are bought from fewer sources than wild-caught.

Objective 2
Processing forms range between species and occur at all classification types. More wholesalers have the facilities to process fish “as harvested.” This is also described as “in round” or “dressed.” Grocery retailers tend to do more end user convenient processing such as precooking, marinating/seasoning, breading or forming into nuggets. Stuffing is more often performed by a specialty grocer or wholesaler.

Objective 3
Attributes for cultured products were rated better than wild-caught products.  Current demand for farm-raised products in relation to supply is seen as higher. Because of this the market potential for farm-raised products is good due to current and future excess demand perceived b respondents.

Objective 4

The most frequently sold freshwater species are: (1) walleye, (2) salmon, (3) trout and (4) channel fish. The 5 seafood products respondents would like to sell if farm-raised are: (1) walleye, (2) yellow perch, (3) hybrid striped bass, (4) largebouth bass and (5) bluegill sunfish. The 5 least desired farm-raised products are: (1) common carp, (2) sturgeon, (3) crawfish, (4) tilapia and (5) salmon. A list of 19 species were divided into the following 4 types based on whether merchants would “liketo” sell the fish and actual market presence.

Type A: Has a low market presence and low demand (Carp)

Type B: Species generally satisfy demand as cultured products. (freshwater mussels, sturgeon and tilapia (these may increase if marketing efforts are aimed at product awareness); cultured catfish and salmon (have room for expansion in NCR); frogs, crawfish and freshwater shrimp (also have potential for expansion but less))

Type C: Have the highest potential for industry development based on market presence and buyer demand (walleye, yellow perch, white bass, white perch and buffalo fish)

Type D: Popular or many market participants would like to sell farm-raised product (trout (sold exclusively as farm-raised); hybrid striped bass, largemouth bass, bluegill and smallmouth bass)  

In regards to the overall expansion of the farm-raised seafood product industry, texture, value, price and stability are potential problems. In relation to wild-caught participants preferred the availability, uniformity of size, seasonality of supply, freshness and quality  of farm-raised seafood.

Assumptions 
This study promotes aquaculture over wild, but did not provide evidence that it was better nutritionally or environmentally.

General Comments and Opinion 
This study was cited 3 times according to Google Scholar by similar types of studies. The reference list also consisted of similar studies. However, there is one reference of interest: Redmayne, P. 1990. Follow that fish: Demistifying distribution, part 1. Seafood Leader, July/Aug.

Overall the stated objectives were met, but the data in the tables did not always coincide or were hard to follow. The discussion of the various types addressed by Objective 4 could have been more clearly stated. Also, the term “buyer demand” was used often, which is misleading since all participants were merchants and not end consumers. Many obvious but necessarily stated conclusions about the market channel were given such as grocers are dependent of wholesalers for both farm-raised and wild-caught products. Specialty and grocery retailers sell most of output to final consumers, whereas restaurants are primary customers of wholesalers and retailers secondarily. Some speculation was made about the processing industry for farm-raised and wild-caught products. At times limited data was also cited as an explanation for results.