Marketing opportunities for perennial peanut hay

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Marketing opportunities for perennial peanut hay
Series Title:
FAMRC Industry Report 03-1
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Degner, Robert L.
Morgan, Kimberly L.
Stevens, Thomas J. III
Olson, Clay
Publisher:
Florida Agricultural Market Research Center
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date:
Copyright Date:
2003

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida Institutional Repository
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All rights reserved, Board of Trustees of the University of Florida
System ID:
AA00000203:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text


:.. N DIVERSITY OF
, FLORIDA


Horse Industry Survey


Marketing Opportunities for Perennial Peanut Hay




by




Robert L. Degner, Kimberly L. Morgan,
Thomas J. Stevens III, and Clay Olson


Industry Report 03-1
May 2003







Florida Agricultural Market Research Center
Food and Resource Economics Department
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida






: UN DIVERSITY OF
Horse Industry Survey FLORIDA






: UN DIVERSITY OF
Horse Industry Survey rFLORIDA

TABLE OF CONTENTS
MARKETING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERENNIAL PEANUT HAY ............................ 1
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S ................................................................................ .................... 3
T A B L E O F T A B L E S .......... ........................................................................ .. ............. 4
TA B LE O F FIG U R E S .................................................................... .................... 4
A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S ............................................................. ................................... 5
A B S T R A C T .........7................................. ................................. ............... 7
E X E C U TIV E SU M M A R Y ........................................... ..................................................... 9
INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 13
O B JE C T IV E S ....................................................................................... 13
PROCEDURE............................................ .......... 14
F IN D IN G S ............................................................................................................. 1 5
D em graphics .................. ................................. 15
Respondent's Roles in the Horse Industry ................ ..... ...................................... 16
Sources of Hay, Satisfaction with Availability, Contracting, and Use of Delivery
Services............................ .... ... .. ...................... ........... 17
Sources of Information for Locating Hay Vendors.................................................. 19
Sources of Information on What Types of Hay to Buy .......................................... 20
H ay Purchases ........................ .............. .. .. . .. ............... ........... 2 1
Respondents' Evaluations of Alfalfa and Perennial Peanut Hay .............. .............. 27
Future Purchase Plans for Alfalfa........................... .... .......................... 29
Future Purchase Plans for Perennial Peanut Hay ................................. .............. 31
C O N C L U SIO N S.................................................................... ................. .. ......... 37
R E F E R E N C E S ....................................................................................................................... 3 9
APPENDIX A EQUINE OWNER QUESTIONNAIRE............. ..... ................. 41
A P P E N D IX B ......................................................................................................................... 5 0







.',UNIVERSITY OF

Horse Industry Survey rFLORIDA

TABLE OF TABLES

Table 1. Disposition of Mailed Questionnaires and Response Rates. ......................... .... ............ 15
Table 2. Ration Formulation and Hay Purchasing Activities by Survey Respondents. .............................. 16
Table 3. Respondents' Affiliation with the Horse Industry. a....................................................... 17
Table 4. Respondents' Participation in Activities within the Horse Industry. ......................................... 17
T able 5. Sources of H ay 200 1. ........................................ ............................................... ..................... 18
Table 6. Reported Satisfaction with Availability of Hay from 2001 Suppliers. ...................................... 18
Table 7. Respondents' Interest in Contracting for Hay Supply in Advance of Actual Delivery. a............... 19
Table 8. Number of Respondents That Pick Up Own Hay and/or Have Hay Delivered and Stacked.......... 19
Table 9. Sources of Information Used by Hay Buyers in Deciding Where to Buy Hay............................. 20
Table 10. Sources of Information Used by Hay Buyers in Deciding What Kinds of Hay to Buy............... 21
Table 11. Importance of Selected Hay Types as Reported by Survey Respondents, Overall and by Season.
..................................................................................................................................................... 2 2
Table 12. Total and Average Annual Hay Purchased in 2001 and Consumed by Horses Owned ............... 23
Table 13. Projected Consumption of Selected Hay Types by Florida USA Equestrian Members, Overall and
by S eason ................ ...... .. .... . ...... .............. ................... ............. 24
Table 14. Weighted Average Prices Paid for Selected Hay Types, by 2001 Season................................ 26
Table 15. Respondents Who Have Fed Both Alfalfa and Perennial Peanut Hay: Perceived Differences in
Selected Attributes of Alfalfa and Perennial Peanut Hay.............................. ....... ........... ...... 28
Table 16. Weighted Average Satisfaction Ratings for Selected Hay Types, by Season. a........................... 29
Table 17. Respondents' That Have Fed, and Future Willingness to Continue to Feed, Alfalfa and Perennial
P eanu t H ay ..................................................................... ..... .... ................ 30
Table 18. Reasons That 246 Alfalfa Purchasers WILL Continue to Feed Alfalfa Hay............................ 30
Table 19. Reasons That 171 Alfalfa Purchasers WILL NOT Continue to Feed Alfalfa Hay................... 31
Table 20. Respondents That Have NOTFed, and Future Willingness to Feed, Selected Hay................. 31
Table 21. Reasons That 51 Perennial Peanut Purchasers WILL Continue to Feed Perennial Peanut.......... 32
Table 22. Reasons That 204 Perennial Peanut Purchasers WILL NOT Continue to Feed Perennial Peanut
H a y ........................................ ... ........................................ .................. ........ .. ................. 3 2
Table 23. Willingness to Pay for Perennial Peanut Hay, by Season and Florida Regions. a........................ 34
Appendix Table B-1. Respondents' Education Levels. a............................................... 52
Appendix Table B-2. Respondents' Annual Income Levels Before Taxes, b............ ..... ................. 52
Appendix Table B-3. Respondents' Internet Access At Home and/or At Work. ....................................... 52
Appendix Table B-4. Number of Horses per Farm, by Florida Regions .................................................... 53
Appendix Table B-5. Seasonal Purchases of Alfalfa Hay, 2001. ...................................................... 53
Appendix Table B-6. Seasonal Purchases of Perennial Peanut Hay, 2001................................................ 53
Appendix Table B-7. Seasonal Purchases of Clover Hay, 2001....................................................... 54
Appendix Table B-8. Seasonal Purchases of Other Hay, 2001. .......................................................... 54

TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Reported 2001 Annual Hay Consumption by Selected Hay Type.............................................. 22
Figure 2. Importance of Selected Hay Types by Season, Florida Horse Industry Survey Respondents...... 25
Figure 3. Number of Perennial Peanut Hay Buyers in Respondent Sample, by Florida County, 2001........ 25
Figure 4. Weighted Average Prices Paid for Selected Hay Types, by 2001 Season. ................................ 26
Figure 5. Comparison of Reported Prices for Perennial Peanut Hay, 1988 and 2001.............................. 27
Figure 6. Respondents Who Have Fed Both Alfalfa and Perennial Peanut Hay: Perceived Differences in
Selected Attributes of Alfalfa and Perennial Peanut Hay........................................... ............ 28
Figure 7. Reasons Why Current Alfalfa and Perennial Peanut Hay Buyers WILL Continue to Feed.......... 33
Figure 8. Reasons Why Alfalfa and Perennial Peanut Hay Buyers WILL NOT Continue to Feed............ 33
Figure 9. Number of Respondents Per County and Region of Florida ................................................. 35






S:..'. UNIVERSITY OF
Horse Industry Survey : FLORIDA

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are particularly grateful to perennial peanut hay farmers Chuck
Paarlberg, Richard Cone, and Wayne Hudson for their insights into the intricacies of the
Florida hay market. They were especially helpful in the formative stages of this project.
The authors also express thanks to the hundreds of members of the National Equestrian
Federation of the United States (USA Equestrian, Inc.) for responding to the mail survey
and for the meticulous detail that they provided about their hay purchases.






, I UNIVERSITY OF
SFLORIDA Horse Industry Survey






S: UN DIVERSITY OF
Horse Industry Survey rFLORIDA

ABSTRACT
A survey of 3,400 Florida members of the USA Equestrian association was
conducted to determine the awareness and use of perennial peanut hay among horse
owners in Florida. While perennial peanut hay production and prices have improved
during the last 20 years, there remain several significant market barriers to perennial
peanut hay's widespread acceptance by Florida's horse industry. Ironically, the
availability of this hay is perhaps its biggest impediment to market expansion. Over 50
percent of survey respondents that had tried perennial peanut hay indicated they were
unwilling to use it in the future due to pronounced lack of availability. With respect to
quality, survey results also revealed a widespread misperception regarding the nutritional
value, palatability, and other qualitative aspects of perennial peanut hay. To overcome
these roadblocks to market expansion, producers must implement measures to improve
and promote the integrity of the perennial peanut hay industry, and to inform hay buyers
about the accurate virtues of perennial peanut hay produced with quality control
measures. The development and adoption of a widely recognized trade name along with a
system of grades and standards will accelerate the realization of this product's genuine
market potential.






: UN DIVERSITY OF
Horse Industry Survey FLORIDA






S: UN DIVERSITY OF
Horse Industry Survey rFLORIDA

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
* The perennial peanut is a warm season legume that produces few nuts, but has foliage
and stems that make very high quality hay. It was first introduced into Florida in
1936, but only after the release of several improved varieties in the late 1970s and
early 1980s were farmers able to successfully commercialize production. University
of Florida agronomists estimate that by the end of the 2001 planting season, perennial
peanut production in Florida had expanded to about 23,000 acres.

* Florida is one of the nation's leading states with respect to horse numbers, and the
horse industry represents one of the most lucrative markets for high quality legume
hay. A 1988 University of Florida study found that only about 10 percent of horse
owners in north-central Florida had first-hand experience with perennial peanut hay.
Because of the continued growth of perennial peanut hay production and continuing
demand for high-quality hay by the Florida horse industry, an updated assessment of
the perennial peanut hay market among Florida horse owners was conducted.

* The overall objective of this study was to determine the awareness and use of
perennial peanut hay among horse owners in Florida. Specific objectives were to
determine the types of hay preferred by horse owners, relative quantities purchased,
seasonality of demand and prevailing prices. Other important objectives were to
identify barriers to increased consumption of perennial peanut hay and sources of
information used by horse owners in deciding what types of hay to buy.

* A questionnaire was mailed to all 3,400 Florida members of USA Equestrian
soliciting detailed information on types and quantities of hay fed by season, prices
paid, numbers of horses owned, roles of the respondents in decision making with
respect to hay purchases, sources of information about hay and activities in the horse
industry. Respondents were also asked for basic demographic information such as
age, income, and education.

* A total of 549 usable questionnaires were received, for an overall response rate of 17
percent. About 86 percent of the respondents were female, over 62 percent had
college degrees, and over 60 percent had household incomes of $70,000 or more. The
average age was 45 years, and on average they had 23 years' experience in the horse
industry.

* Approximately 90 percent of all respondents were directly involved with formulating
rations for their horses or making decisions about hay purchases.

* The majority of respondents, 60 percent, buy some or all of their hay from retail feed
stores. Much smaller percentages buy their hay from hay brokers. About 23 percent
buy directly from hay growers with 50 miles of their horse farms, and about 11
percent buy from hay producers located more than 50 miles away.






, I i.,NIVERSITY OF
VFLORIDA
SFLORIDA_ Horse Industry Survey
* Respondents were asked about their satisfaction with the availability of hay from their
major suppliers. Only 13 percent were "very satisfied", but 31 percent were "very
dissatisfied". It appears that there are ample opportunities to improve the level of
satisfaction of horse owners by adequately addressing availability issues. More
emphasis on developing contractual agreements for future hay delivery could address
issues of availability.

* Respondents mentioned a number of sources of information as to where to buy hay.
Aside from their own personal experience, their network of friends was a prime
source. Hay suppliers and veterinarians were mentioned by 64 and 42 percent of
respondents, respectively. Sales representatives of feed retailers, Cooperative
Extension agents, horse shows, exhibitions, seminars and horse industry publications
were all mentioned by smaller numbers of respondents.

* In deciding what types of hay to buy, respondents mentioned many of the same
sources of information as above. However, veterinarians were cited by nearly two-
thirds of all respondents. Thus, a veterinarian who is adequately informed as to the
attributes of perennial peanut hay can be an important and influential conduit of
positive information to horse owners.

* Legume hays constituted about 28 percent of total hay purchases reported by
respondents for 2001. Alfalfa represented 19 percent of the total. Perennial peanut
had a 5.9 percent market share, and clover 3.0 percent.

* Projecting to the entire USA Equine membership, it is estimated that this group buys
533,000 square bales of legume hay annually. Perennial peanut hay currently has
about 20 percent of this legume hay market; an aggressive education and promotional
program, coupled with assurances of adequate supplies, could increase perennial
peanut hay's market share.

* Weighted average prices paid by respondents for alfalfa hay were nearly $9.25 per
bale in 2001, compared with about $7.00 per bale for perennial peanut hay. However,
it appears that the price premium enjoyed by alfalfa has been declining relative to
perennial peanut hay. If prices reported in a 1988 University of Florida study are
adjusted for inflation and compared with the prices reported by respondents for 2001,
real (constant) alfalfa prices have declined by about 10 percent, while real perennial
peanut hay prices have increased by over 90 percent.

* Respondents that had fed both alfalfa and perennial peanut hay were asked to
evaluate nine critical product attributes for each hay type using a rating scale where
zero represented "very dissatisfied" and 10 represented "very satisfied". Attributes
evaluated were smell, color, palatability, ease of handling, free of weeds, nutritional
value, free of mold/rot, free of insects, and price. Respondents rated alfalfa hay higher
on every attribute with the exception of price. All these rating differences were
statistically significant at the 0.01 probability level. Price was the only attribute where
perennial peanut hay received a superior rating.






S: UN DIVERSITY OF
Horse Industry Survey rFLORIDA

* A significant minority of respondents gave perennial peanut hay very low ratings for
most attributes. These respondents may have purchased poor quality perennial peanut
hay, or may have fed field peanut hay (grown for nuts). In any case, the pervasive
perception that perennial peanut hay is inferior poses a significant educational and
public relations challenge. On a positive note, ratings by the 40-plus respondents that
fed perennial peanut during 2001 were superior to all other types of hays over nearly
all seasons of the year.

* Of the 492 respondents responsible for hay selection and purchases, 255 said they had
fed perennial peanut hay. However, only 20 percent said they would feed it in the
future. The major reason cited was lack of availability, mentioned by nearly 53
percent. Other reasons included "no longer feed legume hay", appearance, and cost.
A few said their horses did not like it, and small numbers said it offered poor
nutritional value.

* Fortunately, most of the reasons given for not wanting to feed perennial peanut hay in
the future can be overcome with greater perennial peanut hay production and
assurance of adequate supplies, perhaps through forward contracting. Quality control
measures and market development programs that can serve to educate hay users on
the nutritional and palatability merits of perennial peanut hay can also pay dividends.

* There is also a pressing need for dissemination of factual information about perennial
peanut hay to the horse industry. An investment in a proactive educational and
promotional program aimed directly at horse owners and indirectly at individuals
such as veterinarians and Cooperative Extension agents is recommended. Nearly 93
percent of respondents have Internet access, which suggests that a professionally
developed Internet website would be a valuable product information dissemination
tool.

* The Perennial Peanut Producers Association is in a unique position to develop and
implement measures to improve and promote the integrity of the perennial peanut hay
industry, and to inform hay buyers about the true merits of perennial peanut hay when
quality control measures are in place. The development and adoption of widely
recognized trade name along with a system of grades and standards will accelerate the
realization of this product's true market potential.






: UN DIVERSITY OF
Horse Industry Survey FLORIDA






S: UN DIVERSITY OF
Horse Industry Survey rFLORIDA

INTRODUCTION
The perennial peanut, (Arachis glabrata Benth.) is a warm season legume that was
first introduced into Florida from Brazil in 1936 (French, et. al., 1998). It differs from
the common peanut in that it produces few nuts and its leaves and stems produce a very
high quality legume forage and hay. Its deep root system assures perennial production in
the absence of severe freezes. When grazed, it does not cause bloating like most other
legumes, and perennial peanut hay is very similar to alfalfa hay in nutritional
characteristics. Palatability studies have shown that most livestock prefer it to alfalfa; one
prominent horse breeder called it the "ice cream sundae of hay", stating: "Horses will
leave alfalfa to eat (perennial) peanut hay. Anytime it's an either-or feeding situation,
they go for the peanut" (Martin, 1998; Lieb, et. al. 1992).
Although its potential as a forage and hay crop was explored for many years, it
was only after the release of the 'Florigraze" variety in 1979 and the 'Arbrook" variety in
1986 that commercial production began to accelerate. Continuing economic problems
with traditional row crops such as corn and soybeans, united with strong demand for high
quality legume hay, has continued to fuel the growth of the perennial peanut hay industry
in Florida. While net returns to traditional row crops have been low, and sometimes
negative, economic returns to perennial peanut hay producers have generally been good
in recent years. Depending on prices and yields, returns have frequently amounted to
several hundred dollars per acre (French, Prine and Blount, 2001; Hewitt and Olsen,
1997). As a result, acreage of perennial peanut hay has continued to expand. At the
conclusion of the 2001 planting season, Prine and Blount estimated that 23,000 acres of
perennial peanut hay acreage were being grown in Florida, compared with only 17,000
acres at the end of the 1997 planting season. This continued growth in acreage makes it
imperative that growers identify viable market development strategies to assure long-term
profitability.
Horse owners in Florida represent the pre-eminent and most lucrative market for
high-quality hay. The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
estimated that there were approximately 300,000 horses and ponies in the state in 2000.
While exact numbers are unknown, there are large numbers of purebred, performance,
show, and breeding horses whose owners demand the best quality hay.
In the late 1980s, researchers at the University of Florida conducted a limited
study to determine the status of the perennial peanut hay market among horse owners in
the north-central part of the state. At that time, nearly 90 percent of the horse owners
surveyed had no experience with perennial peanut hay. While there was a strong
preference for high-quality alfalfa hay, few horse owners expressed negative reactions to
trying perennial peanut hay (Degner and Locascio, 1988). Because of the continued
growth of perennial peanut hay production and ongoing demand for high-quality hay by
the Florida horse industry, it is important to obtain an updated assessment of the
perennial peanut market among Florida horse owners.

OBJECTIVES
The basic objective of this study was to determine the extent of awareness and use
of perennial peanut hay among horse owners in Florida. This is similar to the objective of






. I, IN.,NIVERSITY OF
VFLORIDA
SFLORIDA_ Horse Industry Survey
the 1988 study conducted by Degner and Locascio. While the scope of the 1988 study
was limited to north-central Florida, the current study was expanded to include horse
owners and others active in the horse industry throughout the state.
Specific objectives of the current study were to (1) determine the varieties of hay
preferred by the Florida horse industry, including the relative quantities purchased and
prices paid; (2) determine current levels of consumer satisfaction with various quality
attributes of alfalfa and perennial peanut hays; (3) determine the seasonality of demand
for various types of hay; (4) identify major barriers to greater use of perennial peanut hay
and (5) identify sources of information used by the horse industry in deciding what type
of hay to buy. This information can be utilized to assist in developing an appropriate
educational program for perennial peanut hay.

PROCEDURE
In order to reach a broad spectrum of individuals involved with the horse industry
in Florida, a membership list of all Florida members of USA Equestrian, Inc. was
purchased in order to conduct a mail survey. This organization is also known as the
National Equestrian Federation of the United States, and until 2001 was known as the
American Horse Shows Association. Members of USA Equestrian represent an extremely
diverse array of horse owners, trainers and competitors. The organization recognizes 26
breeds and includes both English and Western riders. Nationally, USA Equestrian has
over 80,000 members, with over 3,400 in Florida.
After meeting with perennial peanut producers, a questionnaire was developed
and pre-tested with several horse owners. Following approval by the University of
Florida's Institutional Review Board, questionnaires were mailed in October 2002 via the
U.S. Postal Service to all 3,409 USA Equestrian members residing in Florida.
Approximately 10 days after the initial mailing, a reminder postcard was sent to non-
respondents. Only 24 of the initial 3,409 questionnaires were undeliverable. After
deducting undeliverable and ineligible responses, the final response rate was 17 percent
(Table 1).
Because the survey was conducted before the end of 2002, the questionnaire
sought purchase data from 2001 on alfalfa, perennial peanut, clover, and other major
types of hay commonly fed by the Florida horse industry. In addition to hay purchase
data, respondents were asked to evaluate specific characteristics of perennial peanut hay
and alfalfa, its major competitor. Respondents were also asked for basic demographic
information and other descriptive data to confirm their roles in deciding what kinds of
hay to buy and their sources of information on matters concerning ration formulation and
hay characteristics. A copy of the questionnaire is found in Appendix A. Data from the
eligible respondents were carefully checked for consistency and coded for computer
analyses.






S: UN DIVERSITY OF
Horse Industry Survey rFLORIDA
Table 1. Disposition of Mailed Questionnaires and Response Rates.

Description of items mailed and returned Number Percentb
----N---- -.---%-

Total questionnaires mailed 3,409 100.0
Undeliverable 24 0.7
Total questionnaires delivered 3,385 99.3


Questionnaires returned 576 100.0
Ineligible respondents 27 4.7
Usable questionnaires 549 95.3


Estimated number of eligible respondents 3,226 100.0
Adjusted response rate ------- 17.0


Number of respondents involved in hay
purchase decisions 492 89.6 b


Projected number of Florida USA Equestrian
members making hay purchasing decisions 2,891 ---
a Ineligible respondents included those no longer active in the horse industry and respondents under 18
years of age.
b Percentage is based upon 549 usable observations.

FINDINGS

Demographics
Demographics of the respondents corresponded very closely with those published
by USA Equestrian, providing some assurance that the sample is representative of the
organization's overall membership. For example, 86.2 percent of the returned
questionnaires were from women, and according to USA Equestrian, 85 percent of their
members are female. Also, 62.4 percent of the responses were from individuals that had a
minimum of a college degree, compared with 58 percent of the USA Equestrian
membership (Appendix Table B-1). Further, household incomes reported by respondents
were very high, with over 60 percent reporting incomes of $70,000 or more; while
income distributions were not available from USA Equestrian, Inc., they reported that
their members had an average household income of $134,000 in 2000 (Appendix Table
B-2). The average age of all respondents was 45 years, and on average, they had 23
years' experience in the horse industry. A high incidence of Internet accessibility was






. I, IN.,NIVERSITY OF
VFLORIDA
F- LORIDA Horse Industry Survey
reported, with nearly 93 percent of respondents able to surf online at home or at work
(Appendix Table B-3).

Respondent's Roles in the Horse Industry
Because the focus of this study was on decision making with respect to hay
products, particularly perennial peanut hay, respondents were asked to what extent they
made decisions about what their animals were fed and/or hay purchases. Nearly 90
percent of those responding were directly involved in one of these activities. Only 10
percent did not make decisions regarding feed rations or hay purchases. Unless otherwise
noted, the analyses that follow are based on the 492 respondents that make feed ration or
hay purchasing decisions (Table 2).

Table 2. Ration Formulation and Hay Purchasing Activities by Survey Respondents. a

Activity Number Percentb
----N---- ----%----
Ration formulation 419 76.3
Hay purchasing 470 85.6
Both ration formulation and hay purchasing 492 89.6
Neither ration formulation nor hay
purchasing 57 10.4
a Percentages are based upon a total of 549 respondents.
b Total does not sum to 100.0 % because of multiple responses.

Over 400 of the 492 respondents (82.9 percent) were horse owners (Table 3). The
average respondent owned nine horses or ponies, although there was considerable
variability in the number of horses owned. About 70 percent of all respondents owned
nine or less, while some horse farms reported owning large numbers (Appendix Table B-
4). About one-third of the respondents indicated that they were horse farm managers or
operators, and a similar number said they were trainers. Ten respondents, approximately
2 percent, were veterinarians (Table 3). Over half, 52 percent, said their horse-related
activities were classified as businesses for tax purposes.
While respondents reported a wide array of activities within the horse industry, a
very high percentage, nearly 90 percent, engaged in competitive events of various kinds
(Table 4). Other popular activities were horse training (71 percent) and non-competitive
pleasure riding (nearly 57 percent). Only seven respondents, just over 1 percent, provide
rental horses. Other miscellaneous activities included operating breeding farms, horse
sales, boarding, riding lessons, therapeutic riding, etc. (Table 4).






S: UN DIVERSITY OF
Horse Industry Survey rFLORIDA
Table 3. Respondents' Affiliation with the Horse Industry. a

Affiliation Number Percentb

----N---- --%----
Horse owner 408 82.9
Horse farm manager/operator 166 33.7
Horse trainer 162 32.9
Veterinarian 10 2.0
a Percentages are based upon 492 respondents that indicated responsibility for hay purchases.
b Total does not sum to 100.0 % because of multiple responses.


Table 4. Respondents' Participation in Activities within the Horse Industry. a

Activities Number Percentb

----N---- --%----
Competitive Events 432 87.8
Horse training 350 71.1
Pleasure (Non-Competitive) 280 56.9
Rental riding 7 1.4
Other c 138 28.1
a Percentages are based upon 492 respondents that indicated responsibility for hay purchases.
b Total does not sum to 100.0 % because of multiple responses.
Other activities include breeding farm operations, sales, boarding, lessons, therapeutic riding, etc.


Sources of Hay, Satisfaction with Availability, Contracting, and Use of Delivery
Services
The majority of respondents, 60 percent, buy some or all of their hay from retail
feed stores (Table 5). About 30 percent rely on hay brokers within 50 miles, and about 17
percent patronize hay brokers located further than 50 miles from their horse farms.
Nearly one-fourth buy directly from hay farmers within 50 miles, and another 10 percent
buy directly from farmers located more than 50 miles away. Limited numbers buy from
miscellaneous sources such as vendors at horse shows and a few grow their own hay
(Table 5).
Respondents were asked a general question about their satisfaction with the
availability of hay from their major suppliers. Only 13 percent were "very satisfied".
Fifty-three percent of respondents indicated that they were "somewhat satisfied".
Although only less than 3 percent of all respondents said they were "somewhat
dissatisfied", 148 or 31 percent of respondents were "very dissatisfied" with the
availability of hay from their suppliers (Table 6). Thus, there appear to be ample






S~.I N DIVERSITY OF
: FLORIDA


Horse Industry Survey


opportunities to improve the level of satisfaction of horse owners by adequately
addressing availability issues.

Table 5. Sources of Hay, 2001.

Source Number Percent
-----N---- ----%----
Feed Store 296 60.2
Hay broker, within 50 miles 146 29.7
Growers, within 50 miles 111 22.6
Hay broker, beyond 50 miles 83 16.9
Growers, beyond 50 miles 53 10.8
Other Sources b 27 5.5
a Percentages are based upon 492 respondents that indicated responsibility for hay purchases.
b Other sources includes people that grow their own hay, horse shows, etc.


Table 6. Reported Satisfaction with Availability of Hay from 2001 Suppliers. a

Satisfaction Rating Number Percent
----N---- ----%----
Very Satisfied 63 13.3
Somewhat Satisfied 252 53.1
Somewhat Dissatisfied 12 2.5
Very Dissatisfied 148 31.2
a Percentages are based upon 492 respondents that indicated responsibility for hay purchases.


Some availability problems could be overcome by forward contracting. About 22
percent of respondents said they contracted ahead of time for some or all of their hay
supplies. About three-fourths of respondents did not contract any hay in 2001, but nearly
one-fourth of respondents indicated that they would prefer to contract their hay supplies
in the future (Table 7).
Almost 40 percent of respondents have all of their hay delivered and stacked, and
about 35 percent have some of it delivered and stacked (Table 8). About 60 percent pick
up some or all of their hay requirements. The large number of horse owners that have hay
delivered and stacked points to their desire for and willingness to pay for this service.
Delivery and stacking, particularly for larger customers, might prove to be a profitable
value-added service. However, delivery and stacking costs should be analyzed very
carefully to make sure that all costs are covered and a reasonable net return realized.






S: UN DIVERSITY OF
Horse Industry Survey rFLORIDA
Table 7. Respondents' Interest in Contracting for Hay Supply in Advance of Actual
Delivery. a

Contracting Number Percent

----N---- %----
Contracted in 2001 108 21.9
Did not contract in 2001 362 73.6
Prefer to contract in future 90 24.9
Would not prefer to contract in future 227 62.7
a Percentages are based upon 492 respondents that indicated responsibility for hay purchases.


Table 8. Number of Respondents That Pick Up Own Hay and/or Have Hay Delivered and
Stacked.

Pick Up and/or Delivered and Number Percent
Stacked
----N---- ----%----
Some or all hay is picked up 292 59.4
All hay is delivered and stacked 187 38.0
Some hay is delivered and stacked 358 72.8
a Percentages are based upon 492 respondents that indicated responsibility for hay purchases. Total does
not sum to 100.0 % because of multiple responses.


Sources of Information for Locating Hay Vendors
Most respondents cited multiple sources of information for locating hay suppliers.
Nearly 90 percent said they relied on "personal experience", apparently gained through
years of trial and error. Almost two-thirds mentioned their network of friends as an
important source of information on where to buy hay, and over 40 percent said that
contacts with hay suppliers provided them with information (Table 9). Veterinarians were
mentioned as information sources by nearly one in five respondents. Other sources of
information on where to buy hay included sales representatives, the Cooperative
Extension Service, horse shows, exhibitions, seminars, and horse industry publications. A
few respondents mentioned Internet websites and direct mail (Table 9).






, I i.,NIVERSITY OF
VFLORIDA
SFLORIDA_ Horse Industry Survey
Table 9. Sources of Information Used by Hay Buyers in Deciding Where to Buy Hay.

Source Number of Respondents Percent of Total a
----N---- ----%----
Personal Experience 439 89.2
Friends 313 63.6
Hay Suppliers 209 42.5
Veterinarian 94 19.1
Sales Representatives 30 6.1
Agricultural Extension Service 29 5.9
Shows, Exhibitions or Seminars 26 5.3
Horse Industry
Magazines/Publications 17 3.5
Internet Websites 7 1.4
Direct Mail 5 1.0
Other Sources b 5 1.0
a Percentages are based upon 492 respondents that indicated responsibility for hay purchases.
b Miscellaneous sources include horse industry professionals (i.e. trainers, farriers), flyers, and newspapers.


Sources of Information on What Types of Hay to Buy
Many of the sources of information that help horse owners decide where to buy
hay also aid in their decisions as to what types of hay to buy. Again, personal experience
was the leading source, mentioned by nearly 92 percent of all respondents (Table 10).
Nearly two-thirds cited their veterinarians as sources of information on the types of hay
to feed, and half mentioned advice from their friends. Almost a third said they had
received information from hay suppliers such as feed stores that influenced their
decisions on hay types, and about 30 percent mentioned horse industry magazines and
other publications. About one in five said they had received information on hay types
from the Cooperative Extension Service, and about 16 percent cited shows, exhibitions
and seminars. Sales representatives, Internet websites, and direct mail were also
mentioned by smaller numbers of respondents (TablelO).






S: UN DIVERSITY OF
Horse Industry Survey rFLORIDA
Table 10. Sources of Information Used by Hay Buyers in Deciding What Kinds of Hay to
Buy.

Source Number of Respondents Percent of Total a

----N---- -----%-----
Personal Experience 452 91.9
Veterinarian 317 64.4
Friends 247 50.2
Hay Suppliers 161 32.7
Horse Industry
Magazines/Publications 146 29.7
Agricultural Extension Service 86 17.5
Shows, Exhibitions or Seminars 81 16.5
Sales Representatives 32 6.5
Internet Websites 23 4.7
Direct Mail 9 1.8
Other Sources b 5 1.0
a Percentages are based upon 492 respondents that indicated responsibility for hay purchases.
b Miscellaneous sources include horse industry professionals (i.e. trainers, farriers, spouses).


Hay Purchases

Types of hay bought
A wide variety of hay types were purchased by decision-making respondents. In
total, these respondents reported purchasing nearly 325,000 bales (55 pound square bale
equivalents) in 2001. Over 72 percent (233,980 bales) of reported hay purchases were
grass or grass-legume mix types. The remaining 28 percent of hay purchases (90,724)
were pure legume types (alfalfa, perennial peanut and clover). Of the legume hays,
alfalfa accounted for 61,592 bales (68 percent of legume purchases and 19 percent of
total hay purchases), perennial peanut hay accounted for 19,288 bales (21 percent of
legume purchases and 5.9 percent of all hay purchases) and clover 9,844 bales (11
percent of legume and 3 percent of all hay purchases). Non-legume or "other" hay
purchases were comprised primarily of Coastal Bermuda, Pensacola Bahia,
Timothy/alfalfa mixes, etc. (Table 11, Figure 1).






,~ I i.,NIVERSITY OF
:V ,,FLORIDA
F: LORIDA Horse Industry Survey
Table 11. Importance of Selected Hay Types as Reported by Survey Respondents,
Overall and by Season.

Season Alfalfa Perennial Clover Other Hay a All Hay
Peanut
#bales (%) #bales (%o) #bales (%) #bales (%) #bales (0%)
Winter 17,482 28.4 7,494 38.9 2,632 26.7 60,720 25.9 88,328 27.2
Spring 15,152 24.6 3,825 19.8 2,738 27.8 56,040 23.9 77,755 23.9
Summer 13,740 22.3 3,460 17.9 2,122 21.6 52,762 22.6 72,084 22.2
Fall 15,218 24.7 4,509 23.4 2,352 23.9 64,458 27.6 86,537 26.7
Total
Annual 61,592 100.0 19,288 100.0 9,844 100.0 233,980 100.0 324,704 100.0
a Other hay types include all grass hays and alfalfa/grass hay mixes, i.e. Coastal Bermuda, Pensacola Bahia,
Timothy/Alfalfa mix, etc.


Figure 1. Reported 2001 Annual Hay Consumption by Selected Hay Type.


Perennial Peanut
5.9%
Clover
3.0%


Other
72.1%


Hay consumption was also analyzed on a per horse basis for each of the types of
hay purchased. The 447 respondents who reported purchasing any type of hay in 2001
(324,704 bales) also reported that they owned a total of 4,218 horses (Table 12). Hay
consumption per horse by hay-type was calculated by dividing total purchases of each
type of hay by the total number of horses owned by purchasers of that hay type.
Respondents that reported purchasing a total of 233,980 bales of "other" type hay also
reported owning 3,378 horses. This represents just over 69 bales of "other" type hay
consumed per horse (Table 12). Respondents who reported purchasing alfalfa hay fed it
to 2,219 horses (52.6 percent of the horses owned by these 447 respondents). These
horses consumed nearly 28 bales of alfalfa hay each during the year (Table 12). A total
of 505 horses (12 percent of the horses owned by these 447 respondents) were fed
perennial peanut hay, and they consumed an average of about 38 bales per horse. Only
259 horses (6 percent of the horses owned by the 447 respondents) received clover hay,
consuming about 38 pounds each.






S: UN DIVERSITY OF
Horse Industry Survey rFLORIDA
Table 12. Total and Average Annual Hay Purchased in 2001 and Consumed by Horses
Owned.

Season Number of Percent of Total Hay Average Annual
Horses All Horses a Purchased in 2001 Consumption per
Horse in 2001
----N---- ---%---- ----55 lb. bales---- ----55 lb. bales--

Other Hay b 3,378 80.1 233,980 69.3
Alfalfa 2,219 52.6 61,592 27.8
Perennial
Peanut 505 12.0 19,288 38.2
Clover 259 6.1 9,844 38.0
All Hay 4218 ---- 324,704 77.0
a Percentages are based upon 4218 horses owned by 447 respondents that reported actual 2001 hay
purchases.
Other hay types include all grass hays and alfalfa/grass hay mixes, i.e. Coastal Bermuda, Pensacola
Bahia, Timothy/Alfalfa mix, etc.

Projecting the quantities reported by survey respondents to the entire membership
of USA Equestrian in Florida results in total hay purchases by this 3,400 member group
of about 1.9 million bales. Alfalfa hay purchases amount to about 362,000 bales,
perennial peanut hay to 113,336 bales, and clover to just under 59,000 bales. The "other"
hay category was estimated at nearly 1.4 million bales (Table 13). The combined quantity
of the three legume hays, i.e., alfalfa, perennial peanut and clover, was estimated at
533,000 bales; this gives perennial peanut a legume-hay market share of just over 20
percent. Clearly, there is room in this market to increase sales of perennial peanut hay.
An effective education and promotional campaign coupled with a reliable production and
distribution program could make significant gains in market share for this hay.






S'.I, UNIVERSITY OF
: FLORIDA


Horse Industry Survey


Table 13. Projected Consumption of Selected Hay Types by Florida USA Equestrian
Members, Overall and by Season.

Season Alfalfa Perennial Clover Other Hay a All Hay
Peanut
# bales # bales # bales # bales # bales
Winter 102,722 44,035 15,466 356,792 519,014
Spring 89,031 22,476 16,089 329,292 456,887
Summer 80,739 20,331 12,469 310,027 423,567
Fall 89,418 26,495 13,820 378,753 508,487
Total
Annual 361,910 113,337 57,844 1,374,864 1,907,954
a Other hay types include all grass hays and alfalfa/grass hay mixes, i.e. Coastal Bermuda, Pensacola Bahia,
Timothy/Alfalfa mix, etc.


Seasonality of hav consumption


As expected, the highest hay consumption period was during the winter season,
closely followed by the fall months. Summer was the lowest consumption period, with
spring the next lowest (Table 11, Figure 2). Alfalfa showed this same general seasonal
pattern, but to a noticeably lesser degree. Perennial peanut hay consumption, however,
showed a much more pronounced seasonality pattern than any of the other hay types. One
explanation is the fact that an overwhelming majority of respondents who purchased
perennial peanut hay in 2001 were located in north and north-central Florida. The annual
growing season in north Florida is considerably shorter than in the southern half of the
state, where many of the alfalfa buyers were located (Figure 3). The shorter growing
season of fresh pasture probably necessitates earlier supplemental feeding in the fall and
winter months. Detailed seasonal purchases of specific hay types, i.e., alfalfa, perennial
peanut, clover, and "other" are found in Appendix Tables B-5 through B-8.






: UN DIVERSITY OF
Horse Industry Survey rFLORIDA
Figure 2. Importance of Selected Hay Types by Season, Florida Horse Industry Survey
Respondents.
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
4- 30,000
20,000
E 10,000 -

Winter Spring Summer Fall
mAlfalfa Perennial Peanut Clover 0 Other


Figure 3. Number of Perennial Peanut Hay Buyers in Respondent Sample, by Florida
County, 2001.


B=lE


Respondents by County None 1-2 3-4 m 5-6 11






S'.' N DIVERSITY OF
SFLORIDA


Horse Industry Survey


Prices Paid for Selected Hay Types
Prices paid by individual respondents for various types of hay were extremely
variable because of a wide range of quality differences, sources (i.e., direct from growers
vs. retail feed stores), geographic location in the state, quantities purchased, and services
rendered, (i.e., delivered and stacked vs. picked up). For example, the reported prices
paid for alfalfa ranged from $5.00 per bale to $24.00. The price range for perennial
peanut hay was $4.50 to $10.00, and for clover $3.00 to $15.99. Prices paid for "other"
hay ranged from $1.18 to $18.00.
Whenever prices paid are weighted by quantities purchased, a much more realistic
picture emerges. Weighted average prices for alfalfa ranged from a low of $9.08 per 55-
pound bale in the spring to a high of $9.40 in the winter. The weighted average price for
alfalfa for the year (2001) was $9.24 (Table 14, Figure 4).

Table 14. Weighted Average Prices Paid for Selected Hay Types, by 2001 Season.

Season Alfalfa Perennial Peanut Clover Other
-----------------------Dollars ($) per bale--------------------------

Winter $9.40 $7.08 $6.25 $6.55
Spring 9.08 6.93 5.81 6.42
Summer 9.17 7.14 6.10 6.46
Fall 9.35 6.84 6.12 6.31
Annual Total 9.25 7.01 6.08 6.44


Figure 4. Weighted Average Prices Paid for Selected Hay Types, by 2001 Season.

$10.00

$8.00

a-
$6.00

a $4.00

I $2.00

$0.00
Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual Total


SAlfalfa 0 Perennial Peanut 0 Clover 0 Other






S: UN DIVERSITY OF
Horse Industry Survey rFLORIDA
Perennial peanut hay prices exhibited slightly different seasonal patterns, with a
low weighted average price of $6.84 reported for the fall, and a high price of $7.08 in the
winter. The annual weighted average price of perennial peanut hay was $7.01 per bale
(Table 14). When prices reported for alfalfa and perennial peanut hay by horse owners in
Degner and Locascio's 1988 study are adjusted for inflation and compared with the
prices paid in 2001 for these two types of hay, it appears that real prices for alfalfa have
fallen from $10.32 per bale to $9.24, a decline of 10.5 percent, while real prices for
perennial peanut hay have risen from $3.67 to $7.01, an increase of about 91 percent
(Figure 5). Even though the 2001 weighted average price for perennial peanut hay was
still $2.23 per bale below that of alfalfa, the changes in the relative prices of these two
hay types are a good indication that hay buyers are beginning to acknowledge the value
of perennial peanut hay.

Figure 5. Comparison of Reported Prices for Perennial Peanut Hay, 1988 and 2001.

$12.00 $10.32

$10.00 $9.24

$8.00 $6.90 $7.01

$6.00 -
$3.67
$4.00 $2.45

$2.00

$0.00
1988 Survey Real 2001 Prices 2001 Survey

*Alfalfa 0 Perennial Peanut



Respondents' Evaluations of Alfalfa and Perennial Peanut Hay
Respondents that had fed both alfalfa and perennial peanut hay were asked to
evaluate the two types of hay with respect to nine important characteristics using a zero
to 10 rating scale where zero represented "very dissatisfied" and 10 "very satisfied". The
characteristics evaluated were smell, color, palatability, ease of handling, purity (free of
weeds), nutritional value, free of mold or rot, free of insects, and acceptability of price.
These product attributes were rated by 90 to 101 respondents who had fed both types of
hay. Rating differences were evaluated using paired t-tests to determine if they were
statistically significant (Table 15).
Respondents rated alfalfa hay higher for every attribute examined with the
exception of price. All these rating differences were statistically significant at the 0.01
percent probability level. Positive rating differences of alfalfa over perennial peanut hay
ranged from 2.58 rating points for smell to 0.87 for freedom from insects. However,
respondents rated the acceptability of perennial peanut hay prices 1.15 points higher than






, I i.,NIVERSITY OF
:V,,FLORIDA
SFLORIDA Horse Industry Survey
Table 15. Respondents Who Have Fed Both Alfalfa and Perennial Peanut Hay: Perceived
Differences in Selected Attributes of Alfalfa and Perennial Peanut Hay.

Mean Ratingsa
Attribute Number of paired Alfalfa Perennial Rating
respondents Peanut differencesb

N (------0 = very dissatisfied, 10 = very satisfied-----)
Smell 97 9.0 6.4 2.6
Color 96 9.0 6.4 2.4
Palatability 101 9.2 7.2 2.0
Ease of Handling 98 7.9 6.2 1.7
Free of Weeds 95 8.2 6.5 1.7
Nutritional Value 97 9.1 7.6 1.5
Free of Mold/Rot 96 7.7 6.7 1.0
Free of Insects 90 8.7 7.8 0.9
Price 97 4.9 6.0 -1.1
a Attributes were rated on a scale where 10 = Very satisfied and 0 = Very dissatisfied.
b Ratings for perennial peanut hay were subtracted from alfalfa ratings. A paired-t was used to determine if
differences in ratings were statistically significant. All ratings differences were statistically significant at
the 0.01 probability level.

Figure 6. Respondents Who Have Fed Both Alfalfa and Perennial Peanut Hay: Perceived
Differences in Selected Attributes of Alfalfa and Perennial Peanut Hay.

10


* Alfalfa 0 Perennial Peanut U Rating differences






S: UN DIVERSITY OF
Horse Industry Survey rFLORIDA
that for alfalfa. This rating difference was also statistically significant at the 0.01
probability level (Table 15, Figure 6).
From the perspective of perennial peanut hay producers, it is disappointing and
difficult to accept the superiority of the alfalfa ratings, especially on several product
attributes where there is not only anecdotal evidence but quantitative analyses that show
perennial peanut hay to be equivalent or even superior to alfalfa. Specifically, these
attributes are palatability and nutritional qualities. One can argue that if definitive studies
have shown that horses prefer perennial peanut hay to alfalfa and that the nutritional
qualities are equivalent, then humans' evaluations of smell and color are irrelevant.
However, hay buyers' perception is reality, and they make the purchase decisions.
Some of the 90 to 101 respondents that rated the nine product attributes may have
had bad experiences with perennial peanut hay, or perhaps they fed too little of it to be
able to make an objective appraisal. Another possibility is that some respondents may
have fed field peanut hay (grown for nuts) and confused this type of peanut hay with
perennial peanut hay. In any event, the pervasive perception by relatively large numbers
of horse hay buyers that perennial peanut hay is inferior to alfalfa hay poses a significant
educational and public relations challenge.
On a positive note, respondents that had fed perennial peanut hay in 2001 (about
40 respondents) were asked to rate their overall satisfaction with it for each of the seasons
that they had fed it. They used the same rating scale where 0 represented "very
dissatisfied" and 10 represented "very satisfied". These respondents rated perennial
peanut hay very high; the average ratings ranged from 9.49 in the winter to 8.42 in the
fall. Except for the fall season, these ratings surpassed ratings for alfalfa, clover and
"other" hay types fed by respondents in 2001 (Table 16).

Table 16. Weighted Average Satisfaction Ratings for Selected Hay Types, by Season. a

Season Alfalfa Perennial Peanut Clover Other
(--------- 0 = very dissatisfied, 10 = very satisfied ------------)
Winter 8.40 9.49 8.46 7.51
Spring 8.53 8.63 8.30 7.65
Summer 8.58 8.85 7.66 7.80
Fall 8.51 8.42 8.29 7.75
a Satisfaction rating scale of 0 to 10 was defined as 0 = very dissatisfied, 10 = very satisfied. Individual
ratings were weighted by total bales of hay purchased of each hay type.


Future Purchase Plans for Alfalfa
Of the 492 respondents with hay selection or purchasing responsibilities, 417
(nearly 85 percent) indicated that they had bought alfalfa hay in the past. Of those that
had bought alfalfa, 246 or 59 percent said they would continue to feed it in the future
(Table 17). The major reasons cited were "good nutritional value", "horses like taste"
and the fact that it was readily available, mentioned by about 87 percent, 68 percent, and






S N ., UNIVERSITY OF
SFLORIDA


Horse Industry Survey


42 percent, respectively (Table 18, Figure 7). Good appearance was given as a reason for
continuing to feed alfalfa by about 30 percent, and good prices were mentioned by 17
percent.
Forty-one percent of the 417 respondents that had fed alfalfa said they would not
feed it in the future (Table 19). Over half, nearly 53 percent, said it was too expensive,
and almost half said that they no longer feed legume hay to their horses (Table 19, Figure
8). About 12 percent said alfalfa was not readily available in their locales, and just over
10 percent said that the alfalfa available to them did not look very good. A few
respondents felt that alfalfa offered poor nutritional value, and one said it was unpalatable
to her horses (Table 19).
Only 75 of the 492 respondents (15 percent) had not fed alfalfa in the past (Table
20). Of these 75, only 8 percent indicated that they would definitely feed it in the future,
and an additional 16 percent said they might feed it in the future. Over half said they
definitely would NOT feed alfalfa in the future (Table 20).

Table 17. Respondents' That Have Fed, and Future Willingness to Continue to Feed,
Alfalfa and Perennial Peanut Hay.

Hay Alfalfa b Perennial Peanut b
---N--- ---%--- ---N--- -%---
Will continue to feed 246 59.0 51 20.0
Will NOT continue to feed 171 41.0 204 80.0
Have fed a 417 84.8 255 51.8
aPercentages are based upon 492 respondents.
bPercentages for alfalfa and perennial peanut are based upon 417 and 255 observations, respectively.


Table 18. Reasons That 246 Alfalfa Purchasers WILL Continue to Feed Alfalfa Hay.

Reasons Number Percenta
----N---- ----%----

Good nutritional value 214 86.9
Horses like taste 168 68.3
Available 103 41.9
Appearance 72 29.3
Need legume hay 60 24.4
Good price 42 17.1
a Percentages are based upon 246 respondents that indicated they have fed, and will continue to feed, alfalfa
hay.






S:.i N DIVERSITY OF
' FLORIDA


Horse Industry Survey


Table 19. Reasons That 171 Alfalfa Purchasers WILL NOT Continue to Feed Alfalfa
Hay.

Reasons Number Percenta
-----N---- ----%----

Too expensive 90 52.6
Do not feed legume hay 84 49.1
Not available 20 11.7
Poor appearance 18 10.5
Poor nutritional value 6 3.5
Horses dislike taste 1 0.6
SPercentages are based upon 17 respondents that indicated they have ted, and will NOT continue to teed,
alfalfa hay.

Table 20. Respondents That Have NOT Fed, and Future Willingness to Feed, Selected
Hay.

Hay Alfalfa b Perennial Peanut b
---N- ---%--- ---N--- ---%---
Will feed 6 8.0 37 15.6
Will NOT feed 39 52.0 51 21.5
May feed 12 16.0 124 52.3
No response 18 24.0 25 10.6
Have NOTfed a 75 15.2 237 48.2
aPercentages are based upon 492 respondents.
b Percentages for alfalfa and perennial peanut are based upon 75 and 237 observations, respectively.


Future Purchase Plans for Perennial Peanut Hay
Of the 492 respondents responsible for hay selection and purchases, 255 said they
had fed perennial peanut hay. However, only 20 percent said they would continue to feed
it in the future (Table 17). Major reasons given for continuing to feed it were: "good
nutritional value" (80 percent), "horses like taste" (about 71 percent), readily available
(61 percent) and "good prices" (53 percent). About 39 percent said they would continue
to feed perennial peanut hay because they needed legume hay, and about 31 percent
would continue feeding it because of its appearance (Table 21, Figure 7).
Of the 255 respondents that had fed perennial peanut hay in the past, 204 or 80
percent said they would NOT feed it in the future (Table 17). The major reason given for
not continuing to feed perennial peanut hay was lack of availability, mentioned by nearly
53 percent of the 204 respondents (Table 22). Other reasons given were that they no
longer feed legume hay (18 percent), poor appearance (13 percent), and too expensive






S'.I, UNIVERSITY OF
SFLORIDA


Horse Industry Survey


(10 percent). About 10 percent of these respondents also said that their horses disliked
the taste, and about 6 percent felt that perennial peanut hay offered poor nutritional value
(Table 22, Figure 8). Fortunately for the perennial peanut hay industry, most of these
obstacles can be overcome with a larger production base, assurance of adequate supplies
(perhaps through forward contracting), quality control measures, and market
development programs which serve to educate hay users on the nutritional and
palatability merits of perennial peanut hay.
Of the 492 hay decision-makers, nearly half (48 percent) had never fed perennial
peanut hay (Table 20). However, of those that had never tried it, about 16 percent said
they would definitely feed it in the future, and 52 percent said there was a possibility they
would feed it. Only 21 percent said they definitely would not consider feeding perennial
peanut hay (Table 20). Thus, approximately two-thirds of those having no experience
with perennial peanut hay expressed a willingness to try it. This is an indication that there
is considerable potential for expanding the market for perennial peanut hay in the horse
industry.

Table 21. Reasons That 51 Perennial Peanut Purchasers WILL Continue to Feed
Perennial Peanut.

Reasons Number Percent
----N---- ----%----

Good nutritional value 41 80.4
Horses like taste 36 70.6
Available 31 60.8
Good price 27 52.9
Need legume hay 20 39.2
Appearance 16 31.4

Table 22. Reasons That 204 Perennial Peanut Purchasers WILL NOT Continue to Feed
Perennial Peanut Hay.
Reasons Number Percent
----N---- ----%----

Not available 108 52.9
Do not feed legume hay 36 17.7
Poor appearance 26 12.8
Too expensive 21 10.3
Horses dislike taste 20 9.8
Poor nutritional value 13 6.4







:l_ N DIVERSITY OF
S.FLORIDA


Horse Industry Survey


Figure 7. Reasons Why Current Alfalfa and Perennial Peanut Hay Buyers WILL
Continue to Feed.


100
90
90 n = 246 Alfalfa
80
n = 51 Perennial Peanut
S 70
00
o
S60 -
4- 50 -
40

30
20
a.
10
0
Good Horses like Available Good Need legume Good price
nutritional taste appearance hay
value
SAlfalfa [OPeanut



Figure 8. Reasons Why Alfalfa and Perennial Peanut Hay Buyers WILL NOT Continue
to Feed.

60


Too Do not feed Not available Poor Poor Horses
expensive legume appearance nutritional dislike taste
value
*Alfalfa OPeanut






, I i.,NIVERSITY OF
V'FLORIDA
F- LORIDA Horse Industry Survey
In an effort to pinpoint the effects of geographical location on the prices
respondents indicated that they were willing to pay for a square bale of perennial peanut
hay, questionnaires were sorted into North, Central and South Florida regions (Figure 9).
Respondents that had never fed perennial peanut hay, but said they would or would
possibly feed perennial peanut hay in the future were asked how much they would be
willing to pay per bale during each of the four seasons. Overall, anywhere from 88 to 92
respondents answered the "willingness to pay" question, depending on the season. Most
respondents answered with prices that were reasonably close to prevailing recent market
prices. In an effort to pinpoint the effects of geographical location on the prices
respondents' indicated that they were willing to pay for a square bale of perennial peanut
hay, prices were sorted into North, Central and South Florida regions (Figure 9).
Respondents from the northern region were willing to pay from $5.35 per bale in the
summer to $5.84 in the winter (Table 23). Those in the central region were willing to pay
approximately $7.00 per bale, regardless of season, and in the south, respondents were
willing to pay an average of about $7.50 per bale (Table 23).

Table 23. Willingness to Pay for Perennial Peanut Hay, by Season and Florida Regions. a

Region
Season North Central South All Florida
N $ N $ N $ N $
Winter 24 $5.84 26 $7.00 42 $7.42 92 $6.89
Spring 23 5.75 26 7.00 40 7.58 89 6.94
Summer 22 5.35 26 6.96 40 7.58 88 6.84
Fall 24 5.51 26 7.02 40 7.55 90 6.85
aRespondents are those who have no previous experience with perennial peanut hay, and may be or are
willing to add it to their feeding programs.







:. .UNIVERSITY OF
W FLORIDA


Horse Industry Survey


Figure 9. Number of Respondents Per County and Region of Florida.


6 ROS I
N:J1T


NORTH = 23.6%



t -, *'*a
Z*yat I~wc Pru IL,


Y /r *"


CENTRAL = 31.9%


LEGEND
* 20 responses
O 10 responses
O 5 responses
* 1 response


PO--



.. CHAR


\SOT LEE

SOUTH =44.5%


rr-
xi'






: UN DIVERSITY OF
Horse Industry Survey FLORIDA






:.'.. UN DIVERSITY OF
Horse Industry Survey rFLORIDA

CONCLUSIONS
The overall objective of this study was to determine the awareness and use of
perennial peanut hay among horse owners in Florida. The perennial peanut is a warm
season legume that makes very high quality hay. An estimated 23,000 acres were under
production in Florida during 2001. A questionnaire was mailed to 3,400 Florida
members of USA Equestrian, soliciting detailed information on the knowledge and use of
hay by horse owners in the State. A total of 549 usable questionnaires were received from
respondents whose demographic characteristics were very similar to those of USA
Equestrian membership as a whole.
Only 13 percent of survey respondents were "very satisfied" with the availability
of any type of hay from their suppliers, and 31 percent were "very dissatisfied". It
appears that there are ample opportunities to improve the level of satisfaction of horse
owners by adequately addressing availability issues. One way of addressing availability
of hay is through contracting. Nearly 25 percent of respondents expressed a desire to
forward contract their hay supplies in the future.
It is estimated that the USA Equestrian membership buys approximately 533,000
square bales of legume hay annually. Currently, perennial peanut hay has about 20
percent share of this market. Weighted average prices reported by respondents for alfalfa
hay were nearly $9.25 per bale in 2001, compared with about $7.00 per bale for perennial
peanut hay. It appears that the price premium enjoyed by alfalfa over perennial peanut
hay is declining. Compared to prices reported in a 1988 University of Florida study, real
alfalfa hay prices have declined by about 10 percent, while real perennial peanut hay
prices have increased by over 90 percent.
Respondents that had fed both alfalfa and perennial peanut hay were asked to
evaluate nine critical product attributes for each hay type using a rating scale where zero
represented "very dissatisfied" and 10 represented "very satisfied". Attributes evaluated
were smell, color, palatability, ease of handling, free of weeds, nutritional value, free of
mold/rot, free of insects, and price. Respondents rated alfalfa hay better with respect to 8
out of 9 different attributes. Perennial peanut hay received a higher rating for price
compared to alfalfa. All rating differences were statistically significant at the 0.01
probability level.
There appear to be a minority of respondents that have had extremely negative
experiences with perennial peanut hay. They may have purchased poor quality perennial
peanut hay or have confused perennial peanut hay with field peanut hay (grown for nuts).
In any case, there is a pervasive perception among those currently not feeding perennial
peanut hay that it is inferior. This poses a significant educational and public relations
challenge. On a positive note, ratings by the 40-plus respondents that had fed perennial
peanut during 2001 were superior to all other types of hays over nearly all seasons of the
year. An impressive 398, or 79 percent, of all respondents are willing to receive
educational email messages specific to perennial peanut hay.
Thus, there is a pressing need for the dissemination of factual information about
perennial peanut hay to the horse industry. This study documents widespread
misconceptions that can be corrected through a proactive educational and promotional






. I, I N DIVERSITY OF
VFLORIDA
-FLORIDA Horse Industry Survey
program aimed directly at horse owners and indirectly at individuals such as veterinarians
and Cooperative Extension agents. A significant investment in direct mail, factual
brochures, and a first-class Internet website should be considered. Aggressive education
and promotional programs, coupled with assurances of adequate supplies, can increase
perennial peanut hay's market share.
The Perennial Peanut Producers Association is in a unique position to develop and
implement a consumer awareness program, which would enlighten hay buyers about the
merits of their product. On the supply side, assurances of product quality can be achieved
through the development and adoption of industry grades and standards. Better product
availability can be accomplished by encouraging horse owners to forward contract
deliveries and by growers cooperatively allocating production and distribution. This
combination of directed consumer awareness and industry cooperation represents the
biggest challenge and greatest opportunity for developing perennial peanut hay into a
premium equine forage and hay for Florida horse owners.






:.'.. UN DIVERSITY OF
Horse Industry Survey rFLORIDA

REFERENCES

Degner, Robert L., Locascio, J. David, Acceptance of Perennial Peanut Hay by Florida
Horsemen (Staff Report 15) Florida Agricultural Market Research Center, Food and
Resource Economics Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. November,
1988.

Florida Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services. "PerennialPeanut: The
Winners Choice ", http://www.florida-agriculture.com/peanuthay

French, E. A., Prine, G. M., and Blount, A. R., Perennial Peanut: An Alternative Forage
of Growing Importance, (SS-AGR-39) Agronomy Department, Florida Cooperative
Extension Service, IFAS, University of Florida, Gainesville FL, Rev. August, 2001.

French, E.C., Prine, G. M., Agronomy Facts: Perennial Peanut Establishment Guide (SS-
AGR-35) Florida Cooperative Extension Service, IFAS, University of Florida,
Gainesville, FL, August, 1991.

Hewitt, Timothy D., Olsen, Clay B., "Economics ofPerennial Peanut Hay Production"
Marianna NFREC Research Report 97-5. Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences,
University of Florida.

Lieb, Sandi, Ott, E. A., Johnson, E. L., French, E. C., "Digestibility ofNutrients for
Perennial Peanut, Alfalfa, Bermudagrass and Bahiagrass Hays in Equine" University of
Florida, Gainesville FL, 1992.

Martin, Gary, "Alfalfa Meets Its Match"
http://www.newholland.com/News/nhn/JulAug98/v44No5_ .html

Progressive Farmer, "Perennial Peanut Growers Can't Meet Demand",
http://progressivefarmer.com/issue/0900/forages/demand.asp

USA Equestrian,(National Equestrian Federation of the United States), Lexington,
Kentucky, 2002.






: UN DIVERSITY OF
Horse Industry Survey FLORIDA






:.. N DIVERSITY OF
.,FLORIDA


Horse Industry Survey


Appendix A Equine Owner Questionnaire






: UN DIVERSITY OF
Horse Industry Survey FLORIDA






:.'.. UN DIVERSITY OF
Horse Industry Survey rFLORIDA





Please complete this questionnaire and return it in the enclosed business reply envelope.

Throughout the questionnaire, the term horses) refers to all equine-type
livestock, including horses, ponies, miniature horses, mules and donkeys.

Q1. Are you involved in one or more of the following? (Check all that apply)
E Diet formulation decisions for horses.
O Feed purchasing transactions for horses.
SI am not involved in either diet formulation or feed purchasing transactions for
horses.

If you do not purchase and/or feed hay for horses, please proceed to Question 17.

Q2. How satisfied are you with the availability of hay types from the supplier you use
most frequently?
O Very satisfied
E Somewhat satisfied
O Somewhat dissatisfied
E Very dissatisfied

Q3. Where did you buy hay in 2001? (Check all that apply)
O Local feed store
E Grower, within 50 miles
O Grower, beyond 50 miles
E Hay broker, within 50 miles
O Hay broker, beyond 50 miles
E Other (specify)

Q4. Did you contract for your hay supply in advance of actual delivery in 2001?
E Yes
O No Would you prefer to contract in advance?
E Yes, I would prefer to contract in advance.
O No, I would not prefer to contract in advance.

Q5. What percent of your hay purchases do you:
Pick up yourself %
Have delivered and stacked %
TOTAL 100 %






S'.I, UNIVERSITY OF
SFLORIDA


Horse Industry Survey


Q6. Approximately how many square bales of each of the following hay types did you
buy in the winter, spring, summer and fall seasons of 2001 (assume average square
bale is between 50 60 pounds)?


WINTER
Jan.-March


SPRING
April-June


SUMMER
July-Sept.


FALL
Oct.-Dec.


HAY TYPE -----------Number of square bales purchased-----------

Alfalfa

Perennial peanut

Clover/Clover mix

All other hay types

Q7. What is the average price per square bale for each of the hay types you bought in
the winter, spring, summer and fall seasons of 2001 (assume average square bale is
between 50 60 pounds)?
WINTER SPRING SUMMER FALL
Jan.-March April-June July-Sept. Oct.-Dec.
HAY TYPE -----------Average price per square bale in dollars-----------

Alfalfa

Perennial peanut

Clover/Clover mix

All other hay types

Q8. Using a rating scale where 10 = very satisfied and 0 = very dissatisfied, how would
you rate your overall satisfaction with the hay types you bought in the winter,
spring, summer and fall seasons of 2001? (You may choose any number from 0 to
10)
WINTER SPRING SUMMER FALL
Jan.-March April-June July-Sept. Oct.-Dec.
HAY TYPE ------Rate: 10 = very satisfied, 0 = very dissatisfied--------

Alfalfa

Perennial peanut

Clover/Clover mix

All other hay types






S: UN DIVERSITY OF
Horse Industry Survey rFLORIDA
Q9. If you have fed alfalfa hay, will you or will you not keep it in your feeding
program? (Check all that apply)


Yes Why?
Available
Appearance
Good price
Feed legume hay
Good nutritional value
Horses like taste


No Why not?
Not available
Poor appearance
Too expensive
Do not feed legume hay
Poor nutritional value
Horses dislike taste


Q10. If you have fed perennial peanut hay, will you or will you not keep it in your
feeding program? (Check all that apply)


Yes Why?
Available
Appearance
Good price
Feed legume hay
Good nutritional value
Horses like taste


No Why not?
Not available
Poor appearance
Too expensive
Do not feed legume hay
Poor nutritional value
Horses dislike taste


Q11. If you have NOT fed alfalfa hay, would you or would you not add it to your
feeding program?
O Yes, I would add alfalfa to my feeding program.
O No, I would not add alfalfa to my feeding program.
E Not Sure

Q12. If you have NOT fed perennial peanut hay, would you or would you not add it to
your feeding program?
O Yes, I would add perennial peanut to my feeding program.
E No, I would not add perennial peanut to my feeding program.
O Not Sure

Q13. What price per square bale would you be willing to pay for perennial peanut hay in
each of the following seasons (assume average square bale is between 50 60
pounds)?
Winter (Jan.-March) $ per bale
Spring (April-June) $ per bale
Summer (July-Sept.) $ per bale
Fall (Oct.-Dec.) $ per bale






S'.I, UNIVERSITY OF
SFLORIDA


Horse Industry Survey


Q14. Based on your past experiences and beliefs, please evaluate the following attributes
for alfalfa hay and perennial peanut hay. Use a rating scale where 10 = very
satisfied and 0 = very dissatisfied (You may choose any numberfrom 0 to 10).







S: UN DIVERSITY OF
Horse Industry Survey FLORIDA

Alfalfa Perennial Peanut
10 = very satisfied 10 = very satisfied
ATTRIBUTES 0 = very dissatisfied 0 = very dissatisfied

Palatability

Nutritional value

Free of insects

Price

Smell

Color

Free of weeds

Free of mold/rot

Ease of handling

Q15. What sources of information do you use in deciding what kind of hay to feed to
horses? (Check all that apply)
O Personal experience
E Horse industry magazines or publications
O Direct mail
D Internet websites
O From hay suppliers
O From friends or colleagues
O From sales representatives
O From shows, exhibitions or seminars
O Agricultural Extension Service recommendations
O Veterinarian recommendations
O Other (please specify)

Q16. What sources of information do you use in deciding where to buy hay?
(Check all that apply)
O Personal experience
D Horse industry magazines or publications
O Direct mail
D Internet websites
O From hay suppliers
O From friends or colleagues
O From sales representatives
O From shows, exhibitions or seminars
O Agricultural Extension Service recommendations
O Veterinarian recommendations
O Other (please specify)


Q17. Which occupation best describes your affiliation with the horse industry?






, I i.,NIVERSITY OF
VFLORIDA
F- LORIDA Horse Industry Survey
E Owner
E Farm Manager/Operator
E Trainer
E Veterinarian

Q18. Approximately how many years have you been involved with the horse industry?
Number of years

Q19. Is your horse-related operation classified, for tax purposes, as a business?
E Yes
O No

Q20. How many acres of land are used in any way for your horses? acres

Q21. In what County are the majority of your horses located?

Q22. In what types of activities do you participate with your horses?
(Check all that apply)
O Training
E Rental Riding (by hour or day)
E Competition
E Pleasure
E Other (specify)

Q23. Of the horses that you own, manage or train, how many are:
Broodmares
Stud horses

Q24. How many horses do you have in the following age categories?
0 3 years old
4 6 years old
7 10 years old
11 15 years old
Greater than 15 years old

Q25. Are you...?
E Male
E Female

Q26. In what year were you born? 19






:.'.. UN DIVERSITY OF
Horse Industry Survey rFLORIDA
Q27. Do you have access to the Internet at home?
O Yes
E No

Q28. Do you have access to the Internet at work?
E Yes
O No

Q29. What is the highest level of education that you have completed?
O 8th grade or less
O Some high school
E High school graduate
E Technical / Vocational school
E Some college
E College graduate
E Graduate or professional school

Q30. Just for statistical purposes, please indicate your family's total yearly income before
taxes.
E Under $20,000
E $20,000 $34,999
E $35,000 $49,999
O $50,000 $69,999
O $70,000 or more




If you would like to receive information on perennial peanut hay, please
check the "Yes" box below:.

E Yes, I would like to receive educational information about perennial
peanut hay. Please enter your email address:

E No, I would not like to receive educational information about
perennial peanut hay.


Thank you for participating in this survey.






:.. N DIVERSITY OF
.,FLORIDA


Horse Industry Survey


Appendix B






: UN DIVERSITY OF
Horse Industry Survey FLORIDA






S: UN DIVERSITY OF
Horse Industry Survey rFLORIDA

Appendix Table B-1. Respondents' Education Levels.a

Education Levels Number Percent

----N---- --%----

College graduate 179 36.9
Some college 129 26.7
Graduate/Professional 123 25.4
school
High school graduate 41 8.5
Technical/Vocational school 9 1.9
Some high school 3 0.6
a Percentages are based upon 492 respondents that indicated responsibility for hay purchases.


Appendix Table B-2. Respondents' Annual Income Levels Before Taxes. a b

Income Levels Number Percent

----N---- --%----

Under $20,000 6 1.4
$20,000 to $34,999 40 9.0
$35,000 to $49,999 48 10.8
$50,000 to $69,999 74 16.7
$70,000 or more 276 62.2
a Percentages are based upon 492 respondents that indicated responsibility for hay purchases.
b USA Equestrian reported an average household income of $134,500 for all of its members.


Appendix Table B-3. Respondents' Internet Access At Home and/or At Work.

Internet Access Number Percent a
----N---- --------

Internet Access at Home 424 86.2

Internet Access at Work 317 64.4
Internet Access at Home and/or Work 447 92.6
No Internet Access 36 7.5
a Percentages are based upon 492 respondents that indicated responsibility for hay purchases.






: l N DIVERSITY OF
SFLORIDA


Horse Industry Survey


Appendix Table B-4. Number of Horses per Farm, by Florida Regions.

Region
Farm Size North Central South All Florida
Number of horses Number of Farms
10 or less 92 112 164 368
11-20 16 19 285 63
21-30 4 13 19 36
31 or more 4 13 8 25


Appendix Table B-5. Seasonal Purchases of Alfalfa Hay, 2001.

Season Number of Percent of all Total Alfalfa Hay Average
Respondents Respondents a Purchases Purchases
-----N----.. ----%-. ----55 lb. bales---- ----55 lb. bales-


Winter 188 38.2 17,482 92.9
Spring 165 33.5 15,152 91.8
Summer 155 31.5 13,740 88.7
Fall 177 35.9 15,218 85.9
Total Annual 204 41.5 61,592 301.9
a Percentages are based upon 492 respondents that indicated responsibility for hay purchases.


Appendix Table B-6. Seasonal Purchases of Perennial Peanut Hay, 2001.

Season Number of Percent of all Total Perennial Average
Respondent Respondents a Peanut Hay Purchases
s Purchases
-----N---- -------- ----55 lb. bales---- ----55 lb. bales-


Winter 28 5.7 7,494 267.6
Spring 26 5.3 3,825 147.2
Summer 22 4.5 3,460 157.3
Fall 29 5.9 4,509 155.4
Total Annual 42 8.5 19,288 459.2
a Percentages are based upon 492 respondents that indicated responsibility for hay purchases.






S N ., UNIVERSITY OF
L FLORIDA

Appendix Table B-7. Seasonal Purchases of Clover Hay, 2001.


Horse Industry Survey


Season Number of Percent of all Total Clover Hay Average
Respondent Respondentsa Purchases Purchases
s
----N--- ----%---- ----55 lb. bales---- --55 lb. bales-


Winter 16 3.3 2,632 164.5
Spring 18 3.7 2,738 152.1
Summer 15 3.0 2,122 141.5
Fall 17 3.5 2,352 138.4
Total Annual 20 4.1 9,844 492.2
a Percentages are based upon 492 respondents that indicated responsibility for hay purchases.


Appendix Table B-8. Seasonal Purchases of Other Hay, 2001.

Season Number of Percent of all Total Other Hay Average
Respondents Respondents a Purchases Purchases
-----N ----%---- ----55 lb. bales---- --55 lb. bales--
Winter 356 72.4 60,720 170.6
Spring 348 70.7 56,040 161.0
Summer 336 68.3 52,762 157.0
Fall 366 74.4 64,458 176.1
Total 389 79.1 233,980 601.4
Annual
a Percentages are based upon 492 respondents that indicated responsibility for hay purchases.




Full Text

PAGE 1

Horse Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1 Marketing Opportunities for Perennial Peanut Hay by Robert L. Degner, Ki mberly L. Morgan, Thomas J. Stevens III, and Clay Olson Industry Report 03-1 May 2003 Florida Agricultural Market Research Center Food and Resource Economics Department Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences University of Florida Gainesville, Florida

PAGE 2

Horse Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2

PAGE 3

Horse Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 3TABLE OF CONTENTS MARKETING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERENNIAL PEANUT HAY................................1 TABLE OF CONTENTS..........................................................................................................3 TABLE OF TABLES...............................................................................................................4 TABLE OF FIGURES..............................................................................................................4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS......................................................................................................5 ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... .......7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................................9 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................1 3 OBJECTIVES..................................................................................................................... ....13 PROCEDURE...................................................................................................................... ...14 FINDINGS....................................................................................................................... .......15 Demographics................................................................................................................15 Respondent’s Roles in the Horse Industry....................................................................16 Sources of Hay, Satisfaction with Availabi lity, Contracting, and Use of Delivery Services....................................................................................................................... ...17 Sources of Information for Locating Hay Vendors.......................................................19 Sources of Information on What Types of Hay to Buy.................................................20 Hay Purchases................................................................................................................21 Respondents’ Evaluations of Alfalf a and Perennial Peanut Hay..................................27 Future Purchase Plans for Alfalfa..................................................................................29 Future Purchase Plans for Perennial Peanut Hay..........................................................31 CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................................... .37 REFERENCES..................................................................................................................... ..39 APPENDIX A – EQUINE OWNER QUESTIONNAIRE.....................................................41 APPENDIX B..................................................................................................................... ....50

PAGE 4

Horse Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 4TABLE OF TABLES Table 1. Disposition of Mailed Questi onnaires and Resp onse Rates...........................................................15 Table 2. Ration Formulation and Hay Purchasing Activities by Survey Respondents. a..............................16 Table 3. Respondents’ Affiliation with the Horse Industry. a.......................................................................17 Table 4. Respondents’ Participation in Activities within the Horse Industry. a............................................17 Table 5. Sources of Hay, 2001.................................................................................................. ...................18 Table 6. Reported Satisfaction with Availability of Hay from 2001 Suppliers. a.........................................18 Table 7. Respondents’ Interest in Contracting for Hay Supply in Advance of Actual Delivery. a...............19 Table 8. Number of Respondents That Pick Up Own Hay and/or Ha ve Hay Delivered and Stacked..........19 Table 9. Sources of Informatio n Used by Hay Buyers in De ciding Where to Buy Hay...............................20 Table 10. Sources of Information Used by Hay Buye rs in Deciding What Kinds of Hay to Buy................21 Table 11. Importance of Selected Ha y Types as Reported by Survey Respondents, Overall and by Season. ............................................................................................................................... ......................22 Table 12. Total and Average Annual Hay Purchase d in 2001 and Consumed by Horses Owned................23 Table 13. Projected Consumption of Selected Hay Types by Florida USA Equestrian Members, Overall and by Season...................................................................................................................... ..............24 Table 14. Weighted Average Pr ices Paid for Selected Hay Types, by 2001 Season....................................26 Table 15. Respondents Who Have Fed Both Alfalfa and Perennial Peanut Hay: Perceived Differences in Selected Attributes of Alfalf a and Perennial Peanut Hay............................................................28 Table 16. Weighted Average Satisfaction Ratings for Selected Hay Types, by Season. a...........................29 Table 17. Respondents’ That Have Fed, and Future W illingness to Continue to Feed, Alfalfa and Perennial Peanut Hay..................................................................................................................... .............30 Table 18. Reasons That 246 Alfalfa Purchasers WILL Continue to Feed Alfalfa Hay................................30 Table 19. Reasons That 171 Alfalfa Purchasers WILL NOT Continue to Feed Alfalfa Hay.......................31 Table 20. Respondents That Have NOT Fed, and Future Willingness to Feed, Sel ected Hay.....................31 Table 21. Reasons That 51 Perennial Peanut Purchasers WILL Continue to Feed Perennial Peanut..........32 Table 22. Reasons That 204 Perennial Peanut Purchasers WILL NOT Continue to Feed Perennial Peanut Hay............................................................................................................................ ..................32 Table 23. Willingness to Pay for Perennial Peanut Hay, by Season and Florida Regions. a........................34 Appendix Table B-1. Respondents’ Education Levels. a..............................................................................52 Appendix Table B-2. Respondents’ Annual Income Levels Before Taxes. a, b.............................................52 Appendix Table B-3. Respondents’ Internet Access At Home a nd/or At Work..........................................52 Appendix Table B-4. Number of Horses per Farm, by Florida Regions......................................................53 Appendix Table B-5. Seasonal Purc hases of Alfalfa Hay, 2001..................................................................53 Appendix Table B-6. Seasonal Purchase s of Perennial Peanut Hay, 2001...................................................53 Appendix Table B-7. Seasonal Pu rchases of Clove r Hay, 2001...................................................................54 Appendix Table B-8. Seasonal Purc hases of Other Hay, 2001....................................................................54 TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1. Reported 2001 Annual Hay Co nsumption by Select ed Hay Type................................................22 Figure 2. Importance of Selected Hay Types by Season Florida Horse Industry Survey Respondents......25 Figure 3. Number of Perennial Peanut Hay Buyers in Respondent Sample, by Florida County, 2001........25 Figure 4. Weighted Average Prices Paid fo r Selected Hay Types, by 2001 Season....................................26 Figure 5. Comparison of Reported Prices for Perennial Peanut Ha y, 1988 and 2001..................................27 Figure 6. Respondents Who Have Fed Both Alfalfa and Perennial Peanut Hay: Perceived Differences in Selected Attributes of Alfalf a and Perennial Peanut Hay............................................................28 Figure 7. Reasons Why Current Alfalfa and Perennial Peanut Hay Buyers WILL Continue to Feed..........33 Figure 8. Reasons Why Alfalfa and Perennial Peanut Hay Buyers WILL NOT Continue to Feed..............33 Figure 9. Number of Respondents Per County and Region of Florida.........................................................35

PAGE 5

Horse Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 5ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors are particularly grateful to perennial peanut hay farmers Chuck Paarlberg, Richard Cone, and Wayne Hudson for th eir insights into the intricacies of the Florida hay market. They were especially helpfu l in the formative stages of this project. The authors also express thanks to the hundr eds of members of th e National Equestrian Federation of the United States (USA Equestrian, Inc.) for responding to the mail survey and for the meticulous detail that th ey provided about their hay purchases.

PAGE 6

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Horse Industry Survey 6

PAGE 7

Horse Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 7ABSTRACT A survey of 3,400 Florida members of the USA Equestrian association was conducted to determine the awareness and use of perennial peanut hay among horse owners in Florida. While perennial pea nut hay production and prices have improved during the last 20 years, ther e remain several significant market barriers to perennial peanut hay’s widespread acceptance by Fl orida’s horse industry. Ironically, the availability of this hay is pe rhaps its biggest impediment to market expansion. Over 50 percent of survey respondents that had tried perennial pean ut hay indicated they were unwilling to use it in the future due to pronounced lack of avai lability. With respect to quality, survey results also revealed a wide spread misperception regarding the nutritional value, palatability, and other qualitative aspe cts of perennial peanut hay. To overcome these roadblocks to market expansion, produc ers must implement measures to improve and promote the integrity of the perennial pe anut hay industry, and to inform hay buyers about the accurate virtues of perennial peanut hay produced with quality control measures. The development and adoption of a widely recognized trade name along with a system of grades and standards will accelerat e the realization of this product’s genuine market potential.

PAGE 8

Horse Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 8

PAGE 9

Horse Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 9EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The perennial peanut is a warm season legum e that produces few nuts, but has foliage and stems that make very high quality hay. It was first introduced into Florida in 1936, but only after the release of several improved varieties in the late 1970s and early 1980s were farmers able to successf ully commercialize production. University of Florida agronomists estimate that by th e end of the 2001 planting season, perennial peanut production in Florida ha d expanded to about 23,000 acres. Florida is one of the nation’s leading stat es with respect to horse numbers, and the horse industry represents one of the most lucrative markets for high quality legume hay. A 1988 University of Florida study found that only about 10 percent of horse owners in north-central Florida had firsthand experience with perennial peanut hay. Because of the continued growth of pere nnial peanut hay production and continuing demand for high-quality hay by the Florida horse industry, an updated assessment of the perennial peanut hay market amo ng Florida horse owners was conducted. The overall objective of this study was to determine the awareness and use of perennial peanut hay among horse owners in Florida. Spec ific objectives were to determine the types of hay preferred by hor se owners, relative quantities purchased, seasonality of demand and prevailing pric es. Other important objectives were to identify barriers to increased consumpti on of perennial peanut hay and sources of information used by horse owners in deciding what types of hay to buy. A questionnaire was mailed to all 3,400 Florida members of USA Equestrian soliciting detailed information on types an d quantities of hay fed by season, prices paid, numbers of horses owned, roles of the respondents in decision making with respect to hay purchases, sources of inform ation about hay and activities in the horse industry. Respondents were also asked for basic demographic information such as age, income, and education. A total of 549 usable questionnaires were rece ived, for an overall response rate of 17 percent. About 86 percent of the res pondents were female, over 62 percent had college degrees, and over 60 percent had household incomes of $70,000 or more. The average age was 45 years, and on average th ey had 23 years’ experience in the horse industry. Approximately 90 percent of all respondents were directly involved with formulating rations for their horses or making decisions about hay purchases. The majority of respondents, 60 percent, buy so me or all of their hay from retail feed stores. Much smaller percentages buy thei r hay from hay brokers. About 23 percent buy directly from hay growers with 50 mile s of their horse farms, and about 11 percent buy from hay producers loca ted more than 50 miles away.

PAGE 10

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Horse Industry Survey 10 Respondents were asked about th eir satisfaction with the ava ilability of hay from their major suppliers. Only 13 percent were “v ery satisfied”, but 31 percent were “very dissatisfied”. It appears th at there are ample opportunitie s to improve the level of satisfaction of horse owners by adequately addressing availability issues. More emphasis on developing contractual agreemen ts for future hay delivery could address issues of availability. Respondents mentioned a number of sources of information as to where to buy hay. Aside from their own persona l experience, their networ k of friends was a prime source. Hay suppliers and veterinarians were menti oned by 64 and 42 percent of respondents, respectively. Sa les representatives of f eed retailers, Cooperative Extension agents, horse shows, exhibitions seminars and horse industry publications were all mentioned by smaller numbers of respondents. In deciding what types of hay to buy, respondents mentioned many of the same sources of information as above. However, veterinarians were c ited by nearly twothirds of all respondents. Thus, a veterinari an who is adequately informed as to the attributes of perennial pea nut hay can be an important and influential conduit of positive information to horse owners. Legume hays constituted about 28 percent of total hay purchases reported by respondents for 2001. Alfalfa represented 19 pe rcent of the total. Perennial peanut had a 5.9 percent market shar e, and clover 3.0 percent. Projecting to the entire USA Equine membership, it is estimated that this group buys 533,000 square bales of legume hay annually. Perennial peanut hay currently has about 20 percent of this legume hay market; an aggressive education and promotional program, coupled with assurances of ade quate supplies, could increase perennial peanut hay’s market share. Weighted average prices paid by responde nts for alfalfa hay were nearly $9.25 per bale in 2001, compared with about $7.00 per bale for perennial peanut hay. However, it appears that the price premium enjoyed by alfalfa has been de clining relative to perennial peanut hay. If prices reported in a 1988 University of Florida study are adjusted for inflation and compared with the prices reported by respondents for 2001, real (constant) alfalfa prices have declined by about 10 pe rcent, while real perennial peanut hay prices have increased by over 90 percent. Respondents that had fed both alfalfa and perennial peanut hay were asked to evaluate nine critical product attributes fo r each hay type using a rating scale where zero represented “very dissatisfied” and 10 represented “very satisfied”. Attributes evaluated were smell, color, palatability, ease of handli ng, free of weeds, nutritional value, free of mold/rot, free of insects, and price. Responde nts rated alfalfa hay higher on every attribute with the exception of price. All these rating differences were statistically significant at th e 0.01 probability level. Price was the only attribute where perennial peanut hay rece ived a superior rating.

PAGE 11

Horse Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 11 A significant minority of respondents gave pe rennial peanut hay very low ratings for most attributes. These respondents may have purchased poor quality perennial peanut hay, or may have fed field peanut hay (gro wn for nuts). In any case, the pervasive perception that perennial peanut hay is in ferior poses a significant educational and public relations challenge. On a positive note, ratings by the 40-plus respondents that fed perennial peanut during 2001 were superior to all other types of hays over nearly all seasons of the year. Of the 492 respondents responsible for hay se lection and purchases, 255 said they had fed perennial peanut hay. However, only 20 percent said they would feed it in the future. The major reason cited was lack of availability, mentioned by nearly 53 percent. Other reasons included “no longer feed legume hay”, appearance, and cost. A few said their horses did not like it, and small numbers said it offered poor nutritional value. Fortunately, most of the reasons given for not wanting to feed perennial peanut hay in the future can be overcome with great er perennial peanut hay production and assurance of adequate supp lies, perhaps through forward contracting. Quality control measures and market development programs that can serve to educate hay users on the nutritional and pala tability merits of perennial p eanut hay can also pay dividends. There is also a pressing need for dissemina tion of factual inform ation about perennial peanut hay to the horse i ndustry. An investment in a proactive educational and promotional program aimed directly at horse owners and indirec tly at individuals such as veterinarians and Cooperative Exte nsion agents is reco mmended. Nearly 93 percent of respondents have Internet access, which sugge sts that a professionally developed Internet website would be a valuable product information dissemination tool. The Perennial Peanut Producers Associati on is in a unique position to develop and implement measures to improve and promote the integrity of the perennial peanut hay industry, and to inform hay buyers about the tr ue merits of perennial peanut hay when quality control measures are in place. The development and adoption of widely recognized trade name along with a system of grades and standards will accelerate the realization of this product’ s true market potential.

PAGE 12

Horse Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 12

PAGE 13

Horse Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 13INTRODUCTION The perennial peanut, (Arachis glabrata Benth.) is a warm season legume that was first introduced into Florida from Brazil in 1936 (French, et. al., 1998). It differs from the common peanut in that it produces few nuts and its leaves and stems produce a very high quality legume forage and hay. Its deep root system assures pe rennial production in the absence of severe freezes. When grazed, it does not cause bloating like most other legumes, and perennial peanut hay is very similar to alfalfa hay in nutritional characteristics. Palatability studies have shown that most livestock prefer it to alfalfa; one prominent horse breeder called it the “ice cream sundae of hay”, stating: “Horses will leave alfalfa to eat (perenni al) peanut hay. Anytime it’s an either-or feeding situation, they go for the peanut” (Mar tin, 1998; Lieb, et. al. 1992). Although its potential as a forage and hay crop was explored fo r many years, it was only after the release of the ‘Florigraze” variety in 1979 and the ‘Arbrook” variety in 1986 that commercial producti on began to accelerate. Co ntinuing economic problems with traditional row crops such as corn and soybeans, unite d with strong demand for high quality legume hay, has continued to fuel the growth of the perennial peanut hay industry in Florida. While net returns to traditi onal row crops have been low, and sometimes negative, economic returns to perennial p eanut hay producers have generally been good in recent years. Depending on prices and yields, returns have frequently amounted to several hundred dollars per acre (French, Prine and Blount, 2001; Hewitt and Olsen, 1997). As a result, acreage of perennial p eanut hay has continued to expand. At the conclusion of the 2001 planting season, Prine and Blount estimated that 23,000 acres of perennial peanut hay acreage were being grown in Florid a, compared with only 17,000 acres at the end of the 1997 planting season. Th is continued growth in acreage makes it imperative that growers identify viable market development strategies to assure long-term profitability. Horse owners in Florida represent the pr e-eminent and most lucrative market for high-quality hay. The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services estimated that there were approximately 300,000 horses and ponies in the state in 2000. While exact numbers are unknown, there are large numbers of purebred, performance, show, and breeding horses whose owners demand the best quality hay. In the late 1980s, researchers at the Un iversity of Florid a conducted a limited study to determine the status of the perennial peanut hay market among horse owners in the north-central part of the state. At that time, nearly 90 percen t of the horse owners surveyed had no experience with perennia l peanut hay. While there was a strong preference for high-quality alfalfa hay, few hor se owners expressed negative reactions to trying perennial peanut hay (Degner and Locascio, 1988). Because of the continued growth of perennial peanut hay producti on and ongoing demand for high-quality hay by the Florida horse industry, it is important to obtain an updated assessment of the perennial peanut market among Florida horse owners. OBJECTIVES The basic objective of this study was to de termine the extent of awareness and use of perennial peanut hay among horse owners in Fl orida. This is similar to the objective of

PAGE 14

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Horse Industry Survey 14 the 1988 study conducted by Degner and Locasc io. While the scope of the 1988 study was limited to north-central Florida, the current study was expanded to include horse owners and others active in the horse industry throughout the state. Specific objectives of the current study were to (1) determine the varieties of hay preferred by the Florida horse industry, incl uding the relative quan tities purchased and prices paid; (2) determine current levels of consumer satisfaction with various quality attributes of alfalfa and pere nnial peanut hays; (3) determ ine the seasonality of demand for various types of hay; (4) identify major barriers to greater use of perenn ial peanut hay and (5) identify sources of info rmation used by the horse industry in deciding what type of hay to buy. This information can be utiliz ed to assist in developing an appropriate educational program for perennial peanut hay. PROCEDURE In order to reach a broad spectrum of i ndividuals involved with the horse industry in Florida, a membership list of all Flor ida members of USA Equestrian, Inc. was purchased in order to conduct a mail survey This organization is also known as the National Equestrian Federation of the Un ited States, and until 2001 was known as the American Horse Shows Association. Members of USA Equestrian represent an extremely diverse array of horse owners, trainers and competitors. The organization recognizes 26 breeds and includes both English and Wester n riders. Nationally, USA Equestrian has over 80,000 members, with over 3,400 in Florida. After meeting with perennial peanut producers, a questionnaire was developed and pre-tested with several horse owners Following approval by the University of Florida’s Institutional Review Board, questionnaires were mailed in October 2002 via the U.S. Postal Service to all 3,409 USA Eque strian members residing in Florida. Approximately 10 days after the initial mailing, a reminder postcard was sent to nonrespondents. Only 24 of the initial 3,409 questionnaires were undeliverable. After deducting undeliverable and ineligible respons es, the final response rate was 17 percent (Table 1). Because the survey was conducted before the end of 2002, the questionnaire sought purchase data from 2001 on alfalfa, pe rennial peanut, clover, and other major types of hay commonly fed by th e Florida horse industry. In addition to hay purchase data, respondents were asked to evaluate spec ific characteristics of perennial peanut hay and alfalfa, its major competitor. Respondent s were also asked for basic demographic information and other descriptiv e data to confirm their roles in deciding what kinds of hay to buy and their sources of information on matters concerning ra tion formulation and hay characteristics. A copy of the questionnai re is found in Appendix A. Data from the eligible respondents were ca refully checked for consistency and coded for computer analyses.

PAGE 15

Horse Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 15 Table 1. Disposition of Mailed Qu estionnaires and Response Rates. Description of items mailed and returned Number Percent b ----N-------%---Total questionnaires mailed 3,409 100.0 Undeliverable 24 0.7 Total questionnaires delivered 3,385 99.3 Questionnaires returned 576 100.0 Ineligible respondents a 27 4.7 Usable questionnaires 549 95.3 Estimated number of eligible respondents 3,226 100.0 Adjusted response rate ------17.0 Number of respondents involved in hay purchase decisions 492 89.6 b Projected number of Fl orida USA Equestrian members making hay purchasing decisions 2,891 ------a Ineligible respondents included those no longer active in the horse industry and respondents under 18 years of age. b Percentage is based upon 549 usable observations. FINDINGS Demographics Demographics of the respondents corres ponded very closely with those published by USA Equestrian, providing some assurance th at the sample is representative of the organization’s overall membership. For ex ample, 86.2 percent of the returned questionnaires were from women, and according to USA Equestrian, 85 percent of their members are female. Also, 62.4 percent of the re sponses were from individuals that had a minimum of a college degree, compared with 58 percent of the USA Equestrian membership (Appendix Table B-1). Furthe r, household incomes reported by respondents were very high, with over 60 percent reporting income s of $70,000 or more; while income distributions were not available from USA Equestrian, Inc., they reported that their members had an average household income of $134,000 in 2000 (Appendix Table B-2). The average age of all respondents was 45 years, and on average, they had 23 years’ experience in the horse industry. A high incidence of Internet accessibility was

PAGE 16

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Horse Industry Survey 16 reported, with nearly 93 percen t of respondents able to surf online at home or at work (Appendix Table B-3). Respondent’s Roles in the Horse Industry Because the focus of this study was on decision making with respect to hay products, particularly perennial peanut hay, respondents were asked to what extent they made decisions about what their animals we re fed and/or hay purchases. Nearly 90 percent of those responding we re directly involved in one of these activities. Only 10 percent did not make decisions regarding feed rations or hay purchases. Unless otherwise noted, the analyses that follow are based on th e 492 respondents that make feed ration or hay purchasing decisions (Table 2). Table 2. Ration Formulation and Hay Purcha sing Activities by Survey Respondents. a Activity Number Percent b ----N-------%---Ration formulation 419 76.3 Hay purchasing 470 85.6 Both ration formulation and hay purchasing 492 89.6 Neither ration formulation nor hay purchasing 57 10.4 a Percentages are based upon a total of 549 respondents. b Total does not sum to 100.0 % because of multiple responses. Over 400 of the 492 respondents (82.9 percent) were horse owners (Table 3). The average respondent owned nine horses or ponies, although there was considerable variability in the number of horses owned. About 70 percent of all respondents owned nine or less, while some horse farms re ported owning large numbers (Appendix Table B4). About one-third of the respondents indicate d that they were horse farm managers or operators, and a similar number said they we re trainers. Ten respondents, approximately 2 percent, were veterinarians (Table 3). Over half, 52 percen t, said their horse-related activities were classified as businesses for tax purposes. While respondents reported a wide array of activities within the horse industry, a very high percentage, nearly 90 percent, engaged in competitive events of various kinds (Table 4). Other popular activities were horse training (71 percent) and non-competitive pleasure riding (nearly 57 percent). Only seve n respondents, just over 1 percent, provide rental horses. Other miscellaneous activit ies included operating br eeding farms, horse sales, boarding, riding lessons, ther apeutic riding, etc. (Table 4).

PAGE 17

Horse Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 17 Table 3. Respondents’ Affiliation with the Horse Industry. a Affiliation Number Percent b ----N-------%---Horse owner 408 82.9 Horse farm manager/operator 166 33.7 Horse trainer 162 32.9 Veterinarian 10 2.0 a Percentages are based upon 492 respondents that indicated responsibility for hay purchases. b Total does not sum to 100.0 % because of multiple responses. Table 4. Respondents’ Participation in Activities within the Horse Industry. a Activities Number Percent b ----N-------%---Competitive Events 432 87.8 Horse training 350 71.1 Pleasure (Non-Competitive) 280 56.9 Rental riding 7 1.4 Other c 138 28.1 a Percentages are based upon 492 respondents that indicated responsibility for hay purchases. b Total does not sum to 100.0 % because of multiple responses. c Other activities include breeding farm operations, sa les, boarding, lessons, therapeutic riding, etc. Sources of Hay, Satisfaction with Availa bility, Contracting, and Use of Delivery Services The majority of respondents, 60 percent, buy some or al l of their hay from retail feed stores (Table 5). About 30 percent rely on hay brokers within 50 miles, and about 17 percent patronize hay brokers located further than 50 miles from their horse farms. Nearly one-fourth buy directly from hay farmers within 50 m iles, and another 10 percent buy directly from farmers lo cated more than 50 miles aw ay. Limited numbers buy from miscellaneous sources such as vendors at horse shows and a few grow their own hay (Table 5). Respondents were asked a general questi on about their satisfaction with the availability of hay from their major supplie rs. Only 13 percent were “very satisfied”. Fifty-three percent of responde nts indicated that they we re “somewhat satisfied”. Although only less than 3 percent of all respondents said they were “somewhat dissatisfied”, 148 or 31 percent of responde nts were “very dissatisfied” with the availability of hay from thei r suppliers (Table 6). Thus, there appear to be ample

PAGE 18

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Horse Industry Survey 18 opportunities to improve the level of satis faction of horse owners by adequately addressing availability issues. Table 5. Sources of Hay, 2001. Source Number Percent a ----N-------%---Feed Store 296 60.2 Hay broker, within 50 miles 146 29.7 Growers, within 50 miles 111 22.6 Hay broker, beyond 50 miles 83 16.9 Growers, beyond 50 miles 53 10.8 Other Sources b 27 5.5 a Percentages are based upon 492 respondents that indicated responsibility for hay purchases. b Other sources includes people that grow their own hay, horse shows, etc. Table 6. Reported Satisfaction with Availability of Hay from 2001 Suppliers. a Satisfaction Rating Number Percent ----N-------%---Very Satisfied 63 13.3 Somewhat Satisfied 252 53.1 Somewhat Dissatisfied 12 2.5 Very Dissatisfied 148 31.2 a Percentages are based upon 492 respondents that indicated responsibility for hay purchases. Some availability problems could be ove rcome by forward cont racting. About 22 percent of respondents said they contracted ahead of time fo r some or all of their hay supplies. About three-fourths of respondents did not contract any hay in 2001, but nearly one-fourth of respondents indicated that they wo uld prefer to contract their hay supplies in the future (Table 7). Almost 40 percent of respondents have all of their hay delivered and stacked, and about 35 percent have some of it delivered a nd stacked (Table 8). About 60 percent pick up some or all of their hay requirements. The large number of horse owners that have hay delivered and stacked points to their desire for and willingness to pay for this service. Delivery and stacking, particularly for larger customers, might prove to be a profitable value-added service. However, delivery a nd stacking costs should be analyzed very carefully to make sure that all costs are c overed and a reasonable net return realized.

PAGE 19

Horse Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 19 Table 7. Respondents’ Interest in Contracting for Hay Supply in Advance of Actual Delivery. a Contracting Number Percent ----N-------%---Contracted in 2001 108 21.9 Did not contract in 2001 362 73.6 Prefer to contract in future 90 24.9 Would not prefer to contract in future 227 62.7 a Percentages are based upon 492 respondents that indicated responsibility for hay purchases. Table 8. Number of Respondents That Pick Up Own Hay and/or Have Hay Delivered and Stacked. Pick Up and/or Delivered and Stacked Number Percent a. ----N-------%---Some or all hay is picked up 292 59.4 All hay is delivered and stacked 187 38.0 Some hay is delivered and stacked 358 72.8 a Percentages are based upon 492 respondents that in dicated responsibility for hay purchases. Total does not sum to 100.0 % because of multiple responses. Sources of Information for Locating Hay Vendors Most respondents cited multiple sources of information for locating hay suppliers. Nearly 90 percent said they relied on “per sonal experience”, apparently gained through years of trial and error. Almost two-thirds mentioned their network of friends as an important source of information on where to buy hay, and over 40 percent said that contacts with hay suppliers provided them with information (Table 9). Veterinarians were mentioned as information sources by nearly one in five respondents. Other sources of information on where to buy hay included sales representatives, the Cooperative Extension Service, horse shows, exhibitions, seminars, and horse i ndustry publications. A few respondents mentioned Internet we bsites and direct mail (Table 9).

PAGE 20

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Horse Industry Survey 20 Table 9. Sources of Information Used by Ha y Buyers in Deciding Where to Buy Hay. Source Number of Respondents Percent of Total a ----N-------%---Personal Experience 439 89.2 Friends 313 63.6 Hay Suppliers 209 42.5 Veterinarian 94 19.1 Sales Representatives 30 6.1 Agricultural Extension Service 29 5.9 Shows, Exhibitions or Seminars 26 5.3 Horse Industry Magazines/Publications 17 3.5 Internet Websites 7 1.4 Direct Mail 5 1.0 Other Sources b 5 1.0 a Percentages are based upon 492 respondents that indicated responsibility for hay purchases. b Miscellaneous sources include horse industry professionals (i.e. trainers, farriers), flyers, and newspapers. Sources of Information on What Types of Hay to Buy Many of the sources of information that help horse owners de cide where to buy hay also aid in their decisions as to what types of hay to buy. Again, personal experience was the leading source, mentioned by nearly 92 percent of all respondents (Table 10). Nearly two-thirds cited their veterinarians as sources of information on the types of hay to feed, and half mentioned advice from th eir friends. Almost a third said they had received information from hay suppliers such as feed stores that influenced their decisions on hay types, and about 30 perc ent mentioned horse industry magazines and other publications. About one in five said they had received information on hay types from the Cooperative Extension Service, a nd about 16 percent cite d shows, exhibitions and seminars. Sales representatives, Intern et websites, and dir ect mail were also mentioned by smaller numbers of respondents (Table10).

PAGE 21

Horse Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 21 Table 10. Sources of Information Used by Hay Buyers in Deciding What Kinds of Hay to Buy. Source Number of Respondents Percent of Total a ----N--------%----Personal Experience 452 91.9 Veterinarian 317 64.4 Friends 247 50.2 Hay Suppliers 161 32.7 Horse Industry Magazines/Publications 146 29.7 Agricultural Extension Service 86 17.5 Shows, Exhibitions or Seminars 81 16.5 Sales Representatives 32 6.5 Internet Websites 23 4.7 Direct Mail 9 1.8 Other Sources b 5 1.0 a Percentages are based upon 492 respondents that indicated responsibility for hay purchases. b Miscellaneous sources include horse industry pr ofessionals (i.e. trainers, farriers, spouses). Hay Purchases Types of hay bought A wide variety of hay types were purcha sed by decision-making respondents. In total, these respondents reported purchasi ng nearly 325,000 bales (55 pound square bale equivalents) in 2001. Over 72 percent (233,980 bales) of reported hay purchases were grass or grass-legume mix types. The rema ining 28 percent of hay purchases (90,724) were pure legume types (alfalfa, perennial pe anut and clover). Of the legume hays, alfalfa accounted for 61,592 bales (68 percent of legume purchases and 19 percent of total hay purchases), perennial peanut hay accounted for 19,288 bales (21 percent of legume purchases and 5.9 percent of all hay purchases) and clover 9,844 bales (11 percent of legume and 3 percent of all ha y purchases). Non-legume or “other” hay purchases were comprised primarily of Coastal Bermuda, Pensacola Bahia, Timothy/alfalfa mixes, etc. (Table 11, Figure 1).

PAGE 22

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Horse Industry Survey 22 Table 11. Importance of Selected Hay Type s as Reported by Survey Respondents, Overall and by Season. Season Alfalfa Perennial Peanut Clover Other Hay a All Hay #bales (%) #bales (%) #bale s (%) #bales (%) #bales (%) Winter 17,482 28.4 7,494 38.92,632 26.760,720 25.9 88,328 27.2 Spring 15,152 24.6 3,825 19.8 2,738 27.8 56,040 23.9 77,755 23.9 Summer 13,740 22.3 3,460 17.92,122 21.652,762 22.6 72,084 22.2 Fall 15,218 24.7 4,509 23.4 2,352 23.9 64,458 27.6 86,537 26.7 Total Annual 61,592 100.0 19,288 100.09,844 100.0233,980 100.0 324,704 100.0 a Other hay types include all grass hays and alfalfa/gr ass hay mixes, i.e. Coastal Bermuda, Pensacola Bahia, Timothy/Alfalfa mix, etc. Figure 1. Reported 2001 Annual Hay Consumption by Selected Hay Type. Other 72.1%Perennial Peanut 5.9% Alfalfa 19.0% Clover 3.0% Hay consumption was also analyzed on a pe r horse basis for eac h of the types of hay purchased. The 447 respondents who report ed purchasing any type of hay in 2001 (324,704 bales) also reported that they ow ned a total of 4,218 horses (Table 12). Hay consumption per horse by hay-type was calcu lated by dividing total purchases of each type of hay by the total number of horses owned by purchasers of that hay type. Respondents that reported purchasing a tota l of 233,980 bales of “other” type hay also reported owning 3,378 horses. This represents just ov er 69 bales of “other” type hay consumed per horse (Table 12). Respondents who reported purchasing alfalfa hay fed it to 2,219 horses (52.6 percent of the horses owned by these 447 respondents). These horses consumed nearly 28 bales of alfalfa ha y each during the year (Table 12). A total of 505 horses (12 percent of the horses owned by these 447 respondents) were fed perennial peanut hay, and they consumed an average of about 38 bales per horse. Only 259 horses (6 percent of the horses owned by the 447 respondents) r eceived clover hay, consuming about 38 pounds each. Grass and mixed grass/ legume hays

PAGE 23

Horse Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 23 Table 12. Total and Average Annual Hay Purchased in 2001 and Consumed by Horses Owned. Season Number of Horses Percent of All Horses a Total Hay Purchased in 2001 Average Annual Consumption per Horse in 2001 ----N-------%-------55 lb. bales-------55 lb. bales-Other Hay b 3,378 80.1 233,980 69.3 Alfalfa 2,219 52.6 61,592 27.8 Perennial Peanut 505 12.0 19,288 38.2 Clover 259 6.1 9,844 38.0 All Hay 4218 ---324,704 77.0 a Percentages are based upon 4218 horses owned by 447 respondents that reported actual 2001 hay purchases. b Other hay types include all grass hays and alfalfa/ grass hay mixes, i.e. Coastal Bermuda, Pensacola Bahia, Timothy/Alfalfa mix, etc. Projecting the quantities repor ted by survey respondents to the entire membership of USA Equestrian in Florida results in total hay purchases by this 3,400 member group of about 1.9 million bales. Alfalfa hay purchases amount to about 362,000 bales, perennial peanut hay to 113,336 bales, and clov er to just under 59,000 bales. The “other” hay category was estimated at nearly 1.4 milli on bales (Table 13). The combined quantity of the three legume hays, i.e., alfalfa, pere nnial peanut and clover, was estimated at 533,000 bales; this gives perennia l peanut a legume-hay mark et share of just over 20 percent. Clearly, there is room in this market to increase sales of pe rennial peanut hay. An effective education and promotional cam paign coupled with a reliable production and distribution program could ma ke significant gains in market share for this hay.

PAGE 24

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Horse Industry Survey 24 Table 13. Projected Consumption of Select ed Hay Types by Florida USA Equestrian Members, Overall and by Season. Season Alfalfa Perennial Peanut Clover Other Hay a All Hay # bales # bales # bales # bales # bales Winter 102,722 44,035 15,466 356,792 519,014 Spring 89,031 22,476 16,089 329,292 456,887 Summer 80,739 20,331 12,469 310,027 423,567 Fall 89,418 26,495 13,820 378,753 508,487 Total Annual 361,910 113,337 57,844 1,374,864 1,907,954 a Other hay types include all grass hays and alfalfa/gr ass hay mixes, i.e. Coastal Bermuda, Pensacola Bahia, Timothy/Alfalfa mix, etc. Seasonality of hay consumption As expected, the highest hay consumpti on period was during the winter season, closely followed by the fall months. Summer was the lowest consumption period, with spring the next lowest (Table 11, Figure 2). Alfalfa showed this same general seasonal pattern, but to a noticeably lesser degree. Perennial peanut hay consumption, however, showed a much more pronounced seasonality patter n than any of the othe r hay types. One explanation is the fact that an overwhelm ing majority of respondents who purchased perennial peanut hay in 2001 were located in north and north-central Florida. The annual growing season in north Florida is considerably shorter than in the southern half of the state, where many of the alfalfa buyers we re located (Figure 3) The shorter growing season of fresh pasture probably necessitates earlier supplemental feeding in the fall and winter months. Detailed seasonal purchases of specific hay types, i.e ., alfalfa, perennial peanut, clover, and “other” are found in Appendix Tables B-5 through B-8.

PAGE 25

Horse Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 25 Figure 2. Importance of Selected Hay Types by Season Florida Horse Industry Survey Respondents. 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 WinterSpringSummerFallNumber of 55 lb. bales Alfalfa Perennial Peanut Clover Other Figure 3. Number of Perennial Peanut Hay Buyers in Respondent Sample, by Florida County, 2001. N=42

PAGE 26

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Horse Industry Survey 26 Prices Paid for Selected Hay Types Prices paid by individual respondents for various types of hay were extremely variable because of a wide range of quality differences, sources (i.e ., direct from growers vs. retail feed stores), geographic location in the state, quantities purchased, and services rendered, (i.e., delivered and stacked vs. pick ed up). For example, the reported prices paid for alfalfa ranged from $5.00 per ba le to $24.00. The price range for perennial peanut hay was $4.50 to $10.00, and for clove r $3.00 to $15.99. Prices paid for “other” hay ranged from $1.18 to $18.00. Whenever prices paid are weighted by qua ntities purchased, a much more realistic picture emerges. Weighted average prices for alfalfa ranged from a low of $9.08 per 55pound bale in the spring to a high of $9.40 in th e winter. The weighted average price for alfalfa for the year (2001) was $9.24 (Table 14, Figure 4). Table 14. Weighted Average Prices Paid for Selected Hay Types, by 2001 Season. Season Alfalfa Perennial Peanut Clover Other ---------------------------Dollars ($) per ba le---------------------------Winter $9.40 $7.08 $6.25 $6.55 Spring 9.08 6.93 5.81 6.42 Summer 9.17 7.14 6.10 6.46 Fall 9.35 6.84 6.12 6.31 Annual Total 9.25 7.01 6.08 6.44 Figure 4. Weighted Average Prices Paid for Selected Hay Types, by 2001 Season. $0.00 $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00 $10.00 WinterSpringSummerFallAnnual TotalHay Prices Paid Alfalfa Perennial Peanut Clover Other

PAGE 27

Horse Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 27 Perennial peanut hay prices exhibited slig htly different seasonal patterns, with a low weighted average price of $6.84 reported fo r the fall, and a high price of $7.08 in the winter. The annual weighted average price of perennial peanut hay was $7.01 per bale (Table 14). When prices re ported for alfalfa and perennial peanut hay by horse owners in Degner and Locascio’s 1988 study are adjusted for inflation and compared with the prices paid in 2001 for these two types of hay, it appe ars that real prices for alfalfa have fallen from $10.32 per bale to $9.24, a decline of 10.5 percent, while real prices for perennial peanut hay have risen from $3.67 to $7.01, an increase of about 91 percent (Figure 5). Even though the 2001 weighted average price fo r perennial peanut hay was still $2.23 per bale below that of alfalfa, the changes in the relative prices of these two hay types are a good indication that hay buyers are beginning to acknowledge the value of perennial peanut hay. Figure 5. Comparison of Reported Prices for Perennial Peanut Hay, 1988 and 2001. Respondents’ Evaluations of Al falfa and Perennial Peanut Hay Respondents that had fed both alfalfa and perennial peanut hay were asked to evaluate the two types of hay with respect to nine important characteristics using a zero to 10 rating scale where zero represented “very dissatisfied” and 10 “very satisfied”. The characteristics evaluated were smell, color, palatability, ease of handling, purity (free of weeds), nutritional value, free of mold or rot, free of insects, and acceptability of price. These product attributes were rated by 90 to 101 respondents who had fed both types of hay. Rating differences were evaluated using paired t-tests to determine if they were statistically significant (Table 15). Respondents rated alfalfa ha y higher for every attribute examined with the exception of price. All these rating differen ces were statistically significant at the 0.01 percent probability level. Positive rating differences of alfalfa over perennial peanut hay ranged from 2.58 rating points for smell to 0.8 7 for freedom from insects. However, respondents rated the acceptability of perennial peanut hay prices 1.15 points higher than $6.90 $2.45 $10.32 $3.67 $9.24 $7.01 $0.00 $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00 $10.00 $12.00 1988 SurveyReal 2001 Prices2001 Survey Alfalfa Perennial Peanut

PAGE 28

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Horse Industry Survey 28 Table 15. Respondents Who Have Fed Both Alfa lfa and Perennial Peanut Hay: Perceived Differences in Selected Attributes of Alfalfa and Perennial Peanut Hay. Mean Ratingsa Attribute Number of paired respondents Alfalfa Perennial Peanut Rating differencesb N (------0 = very dissatisfied, 10 = very satisfied-----) Smell 97 9.0 6.4 2.6 Color 96 9.0 6.4 2.4 Palatability 101 9.2 7.2 2.0 Ease of Handling 98 7.9 6.2 1.7 Free of Weeds 95 8.2 6.5 1.7 Nutritional Value 97 9.1 7.6 1.5 Free of Mold/Rot 96 7.7 6.7 1.0 Free of Insects 90 8.7 7.8 0.9 Price 97 4.9 6.0 -1.1 a Attributes were rated on a scale where 10 = Very satisfied and 0 = Very dissatisfied. b Ratings for perennial peanut hay were subtracted from alfalfa ratings. A paired-t was used to determine if differences in ratings were statistically significant. All ratings differ ences were statistically significant at the 0.01 probability level. Figure 6. Respondents Who Have Fed Both Alfa lfa and Perennial Peanut Hay: Perceived Differences in Selected Attributes of Alfalfa and Perennial Peanut Hay. -2 0 2 4 6 8 10S m e l l C o l o r P a l a t a b l e N o W e e d s H a n d l i n g N u t r i V a l u e N o M o l d N o B u g s P r i c eRating Alfalfa Perennial Peanut Rating differences

PAGE 29

Horse Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 29 that for alfalfa. This rating difference wa s also statistically significant at the 0.01 probability level (Table 15, Figure 6). From the perspective of perennial peanut hay producers, it is disappointing and difficult to accept the superiority of the alfa lfa ratings, especially on several product attributes where there is not only anecdotal ev idence but quantitative analyses that show perennial peanut hay to be e quivalent or even s uperior to alfalfa. Specifically, these attributes are palatability and nutritional qual ities. One can argue that if definitive studies have shown that horses prefer perennial peanut hay to alfa lfa and that the nutritional qualities are equivalent, then humans’ evalua tions of smell and color are irrelevant. However, hay buyers’ perception is realit y, and they make the purchase decisions. Some of the 90 to 101 respondents that rate d the nine product attributes may have had bad experiences with perenni al peanut hay, or perhaps they fed too little of it to be able to make an objective appraisal. Anothe r possibility is that some respondents may have fed field peanut hay (grown for nuts) an d confused this type of peanut hay with perennial peanut hay. In any event, the perv asive perception by relatively large numbers of horse hay buyers that perennial peanut hay is inferior to alfalfa hay poses a significant educational and public relations challenge. On a positive note, respondents that had fed perennial peanut hay in 2001 (about 40 respondents) were asked to rate their overall satisfaction with it fo r each of the seasons that they had fed it. They used the sa me rating scale where 0 represented “very dissatisfied” and 10 represented “very sati sfied”. These respondents rated perennial peanut hay very high; the average ratings ranged from 9.49 in the winter to 8.42 in the fall. Except for the fall season, these ratings surpassed ratings for alfalfa, clover and “other” hay types fed by respondents in 2001 (Table 16). Table 16. Weighted Average Satisfaction Ra tings for Selected Hay Types, by Season. a Season Alfalfa Perennial Peanut Clover Other (--------------0 = very dissatisfied, 10 = very satisfied ------------) Winter 8.40 9.49 8.46 7.51 Spring 8.53 8.63 8.30 7.65 Summer 8.58 8.85 7.66 7.80 Fall 8.51 8.42 8.29 7.75 a Satisfaction rating scale of 0 to 10 was defined as 0 = very dissatisfied, 10 = very satisfied. Individual ratings were weighted by total bales of hay purchased of each hay type. Future Purchase Plans for Alfalfa Of the 492 respondents with hay selec tion or purchasing responsibilities, 417 (nearly 85 percent) indicated th at they had bought alfalfa hay in the past. Of those that had bought alfalfa, 246 or 59 percent said they would continue to f eed it in the future (Table 17). The major reasons cited were “good nutritional value”, “horses like taste” and the fact that it was readily available, mentioned by about 87 per cent, 68 per cent, and

PAGE 30

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Horse Industry Survey 30 42 percent, respectively (Table 18, Figure 7). Good appearance was given as a reason for continuing to feed alfalfa by about 30 per cent, and good prices were mentioned by 17 percent. Forty-one percent of the 417 respondents th at had fed alfalfa said they would not feed it in the future (Table 19). Over half, nearly 53 percent, said it was too expensive, and almost half said that they no longer feed legume hay to their horses (Table 19, Figure 8). About 12 percent said alfa lfa was not readily available in their locales, and just over 10 percent said that the alfalfa availa ble to them did not look very good. A few respondents felt that alfalfa offered poor nutriti onal value, and one said it was unpalatable to her horses (Table 19). Only 75 of the 492 respondents (15 percent) had not fed alfalfa in the past (Table 20). Of these 75, only 8 percent indicated that they would definitely feed it in the future, and an additional 16 percent said they might f eed it in the future. Over half said they definitely would NOT feed alfa lfa in the future (Table 20). Table 17. Respondents’ That Have Fed, and Future Willingness to Continue to Feed, Alfalfa and Perennial Peanut Hay. Hay Alfalfa b Perennial Peanut b ---N-----%-----N-----%--Will continue to feed 246 59.0 51 20.0 Will NOT continue to feed 171 41.0 204 80.0 Have fed a 417 84.8 255 51.8 a Percentages are based upon 492 respondents. b Percentages for alfalfa and perennial peanut are based upon 417 and 255 observations, respectively. Table 18. Reasons That 246 Alfalfa Purchasers WILL Continue to Feed Alfalfa Hay. Reasons Number Percent a ----N-------%---Good nutritional value 214 86.9 Horses like taste 168 68.3 Available 103 41.9 Appearance 72 29.3 Need legume hay 60 24.4 Good price 42 17.1 a Percentages are based upon 246 respondents that indicated they have fed, and will continue to feed, alfalfa hay.

PAGE 31

Horse Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 31 Table 19. Reasons That 171 Alfalfa Purchasers WILL NOT Continue to Feed Alfalfa Hay. Reasons Number Percent a ----N-------%---Too expensive 90 52.6 Do not feed legume hay 84 49.1 Not available 20 11.7 Poor appearance 18 10.5 Poor nutritional value 6 3.5 Horses dislike taste 1 0.6 a Percentages are based upon 171 respondents that indicat ed they have fed, and will NOT continue to feed, alfalfa hay. Table 20. Respondents That Have NOT Fed, and Future Willingness to Feed, Selected Hay. Hay Alfalfa b Perennial Peanut b ---N-----%-----N-----%--Will feed 6 8.0 37 15.6 Will NOT feed 39 52.0 51 21.5 May feed 12 16.0 124 52.3 No response 18 24.0 25 10.6 Have NOT fed a 75 15.2 237 48.2 a Percentages are based upon 492 respondents. b Percentages for alfalfa and perennial peanut are based upon 75 and 237 observations, respectively. Future Purchase Plans for Perennial Peanut Hay Of the 492 respondents responsible for hay selection and purchases, 255 said they had fed perennial peanut hay. However, only 20 percent said they woul d continue to feed it in the future (Table 17). Major reasons given for conti nuing to feed it were: “good nutritional value” (80 percent), “horses like taste” (about 71 percent), readily available (61 percent) and “good prices” (53 percent). About 39 percent said they would continue to feed perennial peanut hay because th ey needed legume hay, and about 31 percent would continue feeding it because of its appearance (Table 21, Figure 7). Of the 255 respondents that had fed perenni al peanut hay in the past, 204 or 80 percent said they would NOT feed it in the future (Table 17). The major reason given for not continuing to feed perennial peanut hay wa s lack of availability, mentioned by nearly 53 percent of the 204 respondents (Table 22). Other reasons given were that they no longer feed legume hay (18 percent), poor a ppearance (13 percent), and too expensive

PAGE 32

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Horse Industry Survey 32 (10 percent). About 10 percent of these respon dents also said that their horses disliked the taste, and about 6 percent felt that pere nnial peanut hay offered poor nutritional value (Table 22, Figure 8). Fortunately for the pere nnial peanut hay industry, most of these obstacles can be overcome with a larger pro duction base, assurance of adequate supplies (perhaps through forward contracting), quality control measures, and market development programs which serve to educate hay users on the nutritional and palatability merits of perennial peanut hay. Of the 492 hay decision-makers, nearly ha lf (48 percent) had never fed perennial peanut hay (Table 20). Howeve r, of those that had never tr ied it, about 16 percent said they would definitely feed it in the future, an d 52 percent said there was a possibility they would feed it. Only 21 percent said they defi nitely would not consider feeding perennial peanut hay (Table 20). Thus, approximately two-thirds of those having no experience with perennial peanut hay expres sed a willingness to try it. This is an indication that there is considerable potential for expanding the mark et for perennial peanut hay in the horse industry. Table 21. Reasons That 51 Perennial Peanut Purchasers WILL Continue to Feed Perennial Peanut. Reasons Number Percent ----N-------%---Good nutritional value 41 80.4 Horses like taste 36 70.6 Available 31 60.8 Good price 27 52.9 Need legume hay 20 39.2 Appearance 16 31.4 Table 22. Reasons That 204 Pere nnial Peanut Purchasers WILL NOT Continue to Feed Perennial Peanut Hay. Reasons Number Percent ----N-------%---Not available 108 52.9 Do not feed legume hay 36 17.7 Poor appearance 26 12.8 Too expensive 21 10.3 Horses dislike taste 20 9.8 Poor nutritional value 13 6.4

PAGE 33

Horse Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 33 Figure 7. Reasons Why Current Alfalfa and Perennial Peanut Hay Buyers WILL Continue to Feed. Figure 8. Reasons Why Alfalfa and Perennial Peanut Hay Buyers WILL NOT Continue to Feed. n = 246 Alfalfa 0 10 20 30 40 50 60Too expensive Do not feed legume Not availablePoor appearance Poor nutritional value Horses dislike tastePercentage of Respondents Alfalfa Peanut n = 204 Perennial Peanut n = 171 Alfalfa n = 51 Perennial Peanut 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Good nutritional value Horses like taste AvailableGood appearance Need legume hay Good pricePercentage of Respondents Alfalfa Peanut n = 246 Alfalfa n = 51 Perennial Peanut

PAGE 34

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Horse Industry Survey 34 In an effort to pinpoint the effects of geographical loca tion on the prices respondents indicated that they were willing to pay for a square bale of perennial peanut hay, questionnaires were sorted into North, Central and Sout h Florida regions (Figure 9). Respondents that had never fed perennial pe anut hay, but said they would or would possibly feed perennial peanut hay in the future were asked how much they would be willing to pay per bale during each of the four seasons. Overall, anywhere from 88 to 92 respondents answered the “wil lingness to pay” question, de pending on the season. Most respondents answered with prices that were reasonably close to prevailing recent market prices. In an effort to pi npoint the effects of geogra phical location on the prices respondents’ indicated that they were willing to pay for a squa re bale of perennial peanut hay, prices were sorted in to North, Central and South Florida regions (Figure 9). Respondents from the northern region were w illing to pay from $5.35 per bale in the summer to $5.84 in the winter (T able 23). Those in the central region were willing to pay approximately $7.00 per bale, regardless of season, and in the south, respondents were willing to pay an average of about $7.50 per bale (Table 23). Table 23. Willingness to Pay for Perennial Peanut Hay, by Season and Florida Regions. a Region Season North Central South All Florida N $ N $ N $ N $ Winter 24 $5.84 26 $7.00 42 $7.42 92 $6.89 Spring 23 5.75 26 7.00 40 7.58 89 6.94 Summer 22 5.35 26 6.96 40 7.58 88 6.84 Fall 24 5.51 26 7.02 40 7.55 90 6.85 a Respondents are those who have no previous experience with perennial peanut hay, and may be or are willing to add it to their feeding programs.

PAGE 35

Horse Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 35 Figure 9. Number of Respondents Per County and Region of Florida.

PAGE 36

Horse Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 36

PAGE 37

Horse Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 37CONCLUSIONS The overall objective of this study was to determine the awareness and use of perennial peanut hay among horse owners in Florida. The perennial peanut is a warm season legume that makes very high quality hay. An estimated 23,000 acres were under production in Florida during 2001. A que stionnaire was mailed to 3,400 Florida members of USA Equestrian, soliciting detail ed information on the knowledge and use of hay by horse owners in the State. A total of 549 usable questionnaires were received from respondents whose demographic characteristics were very similar to those of USA Equestrian membership as a whole. Only 13 percent of survey respondents were “very satisfied” w ith the availability of any type of hay from their suppliers, a nd 31 percent were “ver y dissatisfied”. It appears that there are ample opportunities to improve the le vel of satisfaction of horse owners by adequately addressing availability issues. One way of addressing availability of hay is through contracting. Nearly 25 percent of respon dents expressed a desire to forward contract their hay supplies in the future. It is estimated that the USA Equest rian membership buys approximately 533,000 square bales of legume hay annually. Curr ently, perennial peanut hay has about 20 percent share of this market. Weighted aver age prices reported by respondents for alfalfa hay were nearly $9.25 per bale in 2001, compared with about $7.00 per bale for perennial peanut hay. It appears that the price prem ium enjoyed by alfalfa over perennial peanut hay is declining. Compared to prices report ed in a 1988 University of Florida study, real alfalfa hay prices have declin ed by about 10 percent, whil e real perennial peanut hay prices have increased by over 90 percent. Respondents that had fed both alfalfa and perennial peanut hay were asked to evaluate nine critical product attributes for each hay type using a rating scale where zero represented “very dissatisfied” and 10 represented “very sati sfied”. Attributes evaluated were smell, color, palatability, ease of hand ling, free of weeds, nutritional value, free of mold/rot, free of insects, and price. Respondents rated alfalf a hay better with respect to 8 out of 9 different attributes. Perennial p eanut hay received a higher rating for price compared to alfalfa. All rating differences were statistically si gnificant at the 0.01 probability level. There appear to be a minority of res pondents that have had extremely negative experiences with perennial p eanut hay. They may have purchased poor quality perennial peanut hay or have confused perennial peanut hay with field peanut hay (grown for nuts). In any case, there is a pervasive perception among those currently not feeding perennial peanut hay that it is inferior. This poses a significant educational and public relations challenge. On a positive note, ratings by the 40-plus responde nts that had fed perennial peanut during 2001 were superior to all other ty pes of hays over nearly all seasons of the year. An impressive 398, or 79 percent, of all respondents are willing to receive educational email messages speci fic to perennial peanut hay. Thus, there is a pressing need for the dissemination of factual information about perennial peanut hay to the horse indu stry. This study documents widespread misconceptions that can be corrected thr ough a proactive educational and promotional

PAGE 38

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Horse Industry Survey 38 program aimed directly at horse owners and indi rectly at individuals such as veterinarians and Cooperative Extension agents. A signifi cant investment in direct mail, factual brochures, and a first-class Inte rnet website should be cons idered. Aggressive education and promotional programs, coupled with assu rances of adequate supplies, can increase perennial peanut hay’s market share. The Perennial Peanut Producers Association is in a unique position to develop and implement a consumer awareness program, wh ich would enlighten hay buyers about the merits of their product. On the supply side, a ssurances of product quality can be achieved through the development and adoption of indus try grades and standards. Better product availability can be accomplished by encour aging horse owners to forward contract deliveries and by growers cooperatively allo cating production and distribution. This combination of directed consumer awarene ss and industry cooperation represents the biggest challenge and greatest opportunity fo r developing perennial peanut hay into a premium equine forage and ha y for Florida horse owners.

PAGE 39

Horse Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 39REFERENCES Degner, Robert L., Locascio, J. David, Acceptance of Perennial Peanut Hay by Florida Horsemen (Staff Report 15) Florida Agricultural Market Research Center, Food and Resource Economics Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. November, 1988. Florida Department of Agricu ltural and Consumer Services. “Perennial Peanut: The Winners Choice”, http://www.florida-agriculture.com/peanuthay French, E. A., Prine, G. M., and Blount, A. R., Perennial Peanut: An Alternative Forage of Growing Importance, (SS-AGR-39) Agronomy Depart ment, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, IFAS, University of Florida, Gainesville FL, Rev. August, 2001. French, E.C., Prine, G. M., Agronomy Facts: Perennial Peanut Establishment Guide (SSAGR-35) Florida Cooperative Extension Se rvice, IFAS, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, August, 1991. Hewitt, Timothy D., Olsen, Clay B., “Economics of Perennial Peanut Hay Production” Marianna NFREC Research Report 97-5. Institu te of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. Lieb, Sandi, Ott, E. A., Johnson, E. L., French, E. C., “Digestibility of Nutrients for Perennial Peanut, Alfalfa, Bermudagrass and Bahiagrass Hays in Equine” University of Florida, Gainesville FL, 1992. Martin, Gary, “Alfalfa Meets Its Match” http://www.newholland.com/ News/nhn/JulAug98/v44No5_1.html Progressive Farmer “Perennial Peanut Grow ers Can’t Meet Demand”, http://progressivefarmer.com /issue/0900/forages/demand.asp USA Equestrian ,(National Equestrian Federation of the United States), Lexington, Kentucky, 2002.

PAGE 40

Horse Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 40

PAGE 41

Horse Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 41 Appendix A – Equine Owner Questionnaire

PAGE 42

Horse Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 42

PAGE 43

Horse Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 43 Please complete this questionnair e and return it in the enclosed business reply envelope. Throughout the questionnaire, the term horse(s) refers to all equine-type livestock, including horses, ponies, miniature horses, mules and donkeys. Q1. Are you involved in one or more of the following? (Check all that apply) Diet formulation decisions for horses. Feed purchasing transactions for horses. I am not involved in either diet formulat ion or feed purchasin g transactions for horses. If you do not purchase and/or feed hay for horses, please proceed to Question 17. Q2. How satisfied are you with the availabi lity of hay types from the supplier you use most frequently? Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Q3. Where did you buy hay in 2001? (Check all that apply) Local feed store Grower, within 50 miles Grower, beyond 50 miles Hay broker, within 50 miles Hay broker, beyond 50 miles Other (specify) _____________________ Q4. Did you contract for your hay supply in advance of actual delivery in 2001? Yes No Would you prefer to contract in advance? Yes, I would prefer to contract in advance. No, I would not prefer to contract in advance. Q5. What percent of your hay purchases do you: Pick up yourself __________ % Have delivered and stacked __________ % TOTAL _______100 %

PAGE 44

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Horse Industry Survey 44 Q6. Approximately how many square bales of each of the following hay types did you buy in the winter, spring, summer and fall seasons of 2001 (assume average square bale is between 50 – 60 pounds)? WINTER Jan.-March SPRING April-June SUMMER July-Sept. FALL Oct.-Dec. HAY TYPE -----------Number of square bales purchased----------Alfalfa Perennial peanut Clover/Clover mix All other hay types Q7. What is the average price per square bale for each of the hay types you bought in the winter, spring, summer and fall seasons of 2001 (assume average square bale is between 50 60 pounds)? WINTER Jan.-March SPRING April-June SUMMER July-Sept. FALL Oct.-Dec. HAY TYPE -----------Average price per square bale in dollars----------Alfalfa Perennial peanut Clover/Clover mix All other hay types Q8. Using a rating scale where 10 = very satisfied and 0 = very dissatisfied how would you rate your overall satisfaction with the hay types you bought in the winter, spring, summer and fall seasons of 2001? (You may choose any number from 0 to 10) WINTER Jan.-March SPRING April-June SUMMER July-Sept. FALL Oct.-Dec. HAY TYPE ------Rate: 10 = very satisfied, 0 = very dissatisfied-------Alfalfa Perennial peanut Clover/Clover mix All other hay types

PAGE 45

Horse Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 45 Q9. If you have fed alfalfa hay will you or will you not k eep it in your feeding program? (Check all that apply) Yes Why? No Why not? ____Available ____Appearance ____Good price ____Feed legume hay ____Good nutritional value ____Horses like taste ____Not available ____Poor appearance ____Too expensive ____Do not feed legume hay ____Poor nutritional value ____Horses dislike taste Q10. If you have fed perennial peanut hay will you or will you not keep it in your feeding program? (Check all that apply) Yes Why? No Why not? ____Available ____Appearance ____Good price ____Feed legume hay ____Good nutritional value ____Horses like taste ____Not available ____Poor appearance ____Too expensive ____Do not feed legume hay ____Poor nutritional value ____Horses dislike taste Q11. If you have NOT fed alfalfa hay would you or would you not add it to your feeding program? Yes, I would add alfalfa to my feeding program. No, I would not add alfalfa to my feeding program. Not Sure Q12. If you have NOT fed perennial peanut hay would you or would you not add it to your feeding program? Yes, I would add perennial peanut to my feeding program. No, I would not add perennial pe anut to my feeding program. Not Sure Q13. What price per square bale would you be willing to pay for perennial peanut hay in each of the following seasons (assume av erage square bale is between 50 60 pounds)? Winter (Jan.-March) $_______per bale Spring (April-June) $_______per bale Summer (July-Sept.) $_______per bale Fall (Oct.-Dec.) $_______per bale

PAGE 46

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Horse Industry Survey 46 Q14. Based on your past experiences and beliefs please evaluate the following attributes for alfalfa hay and perennial pea nut hay. Use a rating scale where 10 = very satisfied and 0 = very dissatisfied (You may choose any number from 0 to 10).

PAGE 47

Horse Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 47 Alfalfa Perennial Peanut ATTRIBUTES 10 = very satisfied 0 = very dissatisfied 10 = very satisfied 0 = very dissatisfied Palatability Nutritional value Free of insects Price Smell Color Free of weeds Free of mold/rot Ease of handling Q15. What sources of information do you use in deciding what kind of hay to feed to horses? (Check all that apply) Personal experience Horse industry magazines or publications Direct mail Internet websites From hay suppliers From friends or colleagues From sales representatives From shows, exhibitions or seminars Agricultural Extension Service recommendations Veterinarian recommendations Other (please specify) _____________________ Q16. What sources of information do you use in deciding where to buy hay? (Check all that apply) Personal experience Horse industry magazines or publications Direct mail Internet websites From hay suppliers From friends or colleagues From sales representatives From shows, exhibitions or seminars Agricultural Extension Service recommendations Veterinarian recommendations Other (please specify) _____________________ Q17. Which occupation best describes your affiliation with the horse industry?

PAGE 48

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Horse Industry Survey 48 Owner Farm Manager/Operator Trainer Veterinarian Q18. Approximately how many years have you been involved with the horse industry? Number of years _________________ Q19. Is your horse-related ope ration classified, for tax pur poses, as a business? Yes No Q20. How many acres of land are used in any way for your horses? ___________ acres Q21. In what County are the majo rity of your hor ses located? _____________________ Q22. In what types of activities do you participate with your horses? (Check all that apply) Training Rental Riding (by hour or day) Competition Pleasure Other (specify)__________________ Q23. Of the horses that you own, ma nage or train, how many are: ________ Broodmares ________ Stud horses Q24. How many horses do you have in the following age categories? ________ 0 3 years old ________ 4 6 years old ________ 7 10 years old ________ 11 15 years old ________ Greater than 15 years old Q25. Are you...? Male Female Q26. In what year were you born? 19____

PAGE 49

Horse Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 49 Q27. Do you have access to the Internet at home? Yes No Q28. Do you have access to the Internet at work? Yes No Q29. What is the highest level of ed ucation that you have completed? 8th grade or less Some high school High school graduate Technical / Vocational school Some college College graduate Graduate or pr ofessional school Q30. Just for statistical purposes please indicate your family's total yearly income before taxes. Under $20,000 $20,000 $34,999 $35,000 $49,999 $50,000 $69,999 $70,000 or more If you would like to receive informa tion on perennial peanut hay, please check the “Yes” box below:. Yes, I would like to receive educat ional information about perennial peanut hay. Please enter your email address: ____________________ No, I would not like to receive educational information about perennial peanut hay. Thank you for participating in this survey.

PAGE 50

Horse Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 50 Appendix B

PAGE 51

Horse Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 51

PAGE 52

Horse Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 52 Appendix Table B-1. Responde nts’ Education Levels. a Education Levels Number Percent ----N-------%---College graduate 179 36.9 Some college 129 26.7 Graduate/Professional school 123 25.4 High school graduate 41 8.5 Technical/Vocational school 9 1.9 Some high school 3 0.6 a Percentages are based upon 492 respondents that indicated responsibility for hay purchases. Appendix Table B-2. Respondents’ Annua l Income Levels Before Taxes. a, b Income Levels Number Percent ----N-------%---Under $20,000 6 1.4 $20,000 to $34,999 40 9.0 $35,000 to $49,999 48 10.8 $50,000 to $69,999 74 16.7 $70,000 or more 276 62.2 a Percentages are based upon 492 respondents that indicated responsibility for hay purchases. b USA Equestrian reported an average household income of $134,500 for all of its members. Appendix Table B-3. Respondent s’ Internet Access At Home and/or At Work. Internet Access Number Percent a ----N-------%---Internet Access at Home 424 86.2 Internet Access at Work 317 64.4 Internet Access at Home and/or Work 447 92.6 No Internet Access 36 7.5 a Percentages are based upon 492 respondents that indicated responsibility for hay purchases.

PAGE 53

Horse Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 53 Appendix Table B-4. Number of Hors es per Farm, by Florida Regions. Region Farm Size North Central South All Florida Number of horses Number of Farms 10 or less 92 112 164 368 11 20 16 19 285 63 21 30 4 13 19 36 31 or more 4 13 8 25 Appendix Table B-5. Seasonal Purchases of Alfalfa Hay, 2001. Season Number of Respondents Percent of all Respondents a Total Alfalfa Hay Purchases Average Purchases ----N-------%-------55 lb. bales-------55 lb. balesWinter 188 38.2 17,482 92.9 Spring 165 33.5 15,152 91.8 Summer 155 31.5 13,740 88.7 Fall 177 35.9 15,218 85.9 Total Annual 204 41.5 61,592 301.9 a Percentages are based upon 492 respondents that indicated responsibility for hay purchases. Appendix Table B-6. Seasonal Purcha ses of Perennial Peanut Hay, 2001. Season Number of Respondent s Percent of all Respondents a Total Perennial Peanut Hay Purchases Average Purchases ----N-------%-------55 lb. bales-------55 lb. balesWinter 28 5.7 7,494 267.6 Spring 26 5.3 3,825 147.2 Summer 22 4.5 3,460 157.3 Fall 29 5.9 4,509 155.4 Total Annual 42 8.5 19,288 459.2 a Percentages are based upon 492 respondents that indicated responsibility for hay purchases.

PAGE 54

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Horse Industry Survey 54 Appendix Table B-7. Seasonal Purchases of Clover Hay, 2001. Season Number of Respondent s Percent of all Respondents a Total Clover Hay Purchases Average Purchases ----N-------%-------55 lb. bales-----55 lb. balesWinter 16 3.3 2,632 164.5 Spring 18 3.7 2,738 152.1 Summer 15 3.0 2,122 141.5 Fall 17 3.5 2,352 138.4 Total Annual 20 4.1 9,844 492.2 a Percentages are based upon 492 respondents that indicated responsibility for hay purchases. Appendix Table B-8. Seasonal Purchases of Other Hay, 2001. Season Number of Respondents Percent of all Respondents a Total Other Hay Purchases Average Purchases ----N-------%-------55 lb. bales-----55 lb. bales-Winter 356 72.4 60,720 170.6 Spring 348 70.7 56,040 161.0 Summer 336 68.3 52,762 157.0 Fall 366 74.4 64,458 176.1 Total Annual 389 79.1 233,980 601.4 a Percentages are based upon 492 respondents that indicated responsibility for hay purchases.