Reservation and Market Demands for Sweet Potatoes at the Farm Level

Demand Relations of Fresh Sweetpotato in the St. Louis and Chicago Markets

“…The negative income flexibility coefficient clearly suggests that sweetpotato is an inferior product. This result is consistent with those reported in Mathia (1975), Schrimper and Mathia (1975), George andKing (1971), andRauniker et al (1966).…”

“…A 1% change in the fresh potato retail price index yields a downward change of 2.53% in the wholesale price of sweetpotatoes. Thus, sweetpotatoes and potatoes are strong substitutes, which is consistent with the results of Schrimper and Mathia (1975).…”

“…The result reported by Schrimper and Mathia (1975) also is consistent with the -0.07 income elasticity of demand reported in Raunikar et al (1966). They conducted a consumption and expenditure analysis for fruits and vegetables in Atlanta and reported an income elasticity coefficient that was not significantly different from zero.…”

“…The results of these studies suggest that sweetpotato is an inferior commodity (i.e., an increase in income would result in a decrease in the consumption of sweetpotatoes). The results also suggest that, with the exception of the elastic reservation demand reported by Schrimper and Mathia (1975), the price elasticity of demand for sweetpotatoes is inelastic.…”

“…Nonetheless, price, consumer age, and number of households did show statistically significant coefficients. Schrimper and Mathia (1975) estimated the reservation demand for on-farm use and market demand for sweetpotatoes in the United States. Their results indicated an inelastic (-0.65) commercial demand and an elastic (-1.25) reservation demand at the mean values.…”