Purpose
This research aims to analyze consumer sentiment and demand for biochar-enriched products, with a focus on their willingness to pay. By assessing how consumers perceive and value biochar’s environmental and agricultural benefits—such as reduced greenhouse gas emissions, carbon sequestration, improved soil health, enhanced water efficiency, and increased yields—the study explores how these factors influence purchasing decisions.
Understanding these preferences is essential for determining the market viability of biochar-enriched products and identifying potential price premiums. Additionally, the study provides insights into policy recommendations on eco-labeling, sustainability certifications, and incentives for biochar adoption. As the biochar market is still emerging, these findings will help producers and suppliers assess whether investment in biochar-based systems is financially viable based on consumer demand.
What Did We Do?
For our analysis, we employed the contingent valuation method (CVM), a widely used approach in consumer studies. In this method, consumers are asked whether they are willing to pay a premium for products after being informed about their environmental and health benefits compared to conventional options. Our analysis is based on the premise that consumers care about the products they purchase, particularly in terms of the environmental and health benefits they offer.
To capture a broad range of consumer sentiments, the survey was designed to gather data from approximately 1,006 U.S. respondents aged 18 and older who consume meat, selected randomly through Qualtrics. The sample was evenly balanced, with 50.4% female and the remaining respondent’s male. The survey aimed to understand meat consumers’ preferences regarding sustainably produced feed, particularly focusing on corn silage produced using biochar. It collected demographic information and insights into participants’ meat purchasing habits, such as the frequency of purchases and their preferred locations. Participants ranked factors like taste, price, health benefits, environmental impact, and brand when selecting meat products. We also assessed their awareness of sustainable agriculture practices, environmental claims, and the effects of traditional farming.
Since biochar is a relatively new concept, respondents unfamiliar with biochar were shown an educational video explaining its benefits as a soil amendment. Respondents were then asked to choose between sustainable feed and conventional feed, as well as to rank the importance of sustainable feed sources in meat production. Following this, respondents listing benefits of biochar in silage production, including reduced greenhouse gas emissions, reduced water usage, decreased chemical fertilizer use, reduced carbon footprint, and improved soil health. Finally, respondents were asked about their willingness to pay a premium for meat produced with sustainably raised feed (silage produced using biochar) and whether additional product information or certifications, such as USDA , Organic, would influence their purchasing decisions.
What Have We Learned?
From our survey, we learned that demographic factors such as marital status, education level, urban residence, and full-time employment are associated with greater concern for health and a willingness to pay a premium for higher-quality meat. Nearly 94% of participants purchased meat from supermarkets, with 66% doing so weekly, with taste and price being the most important factors in their decision-making. Health benefits were considered, but they were secondary to taste and price. Environmental sustainability and brand identity had a minimal influence on purchasing choices, and most consumers did not actively seek information about food production processes. A significant portion of respondents, particularly those unfamiliar with sustainable farming practices, did not let environmental claims impact their meat purchases.
Additionally, our findings revealed that over 92% of respondents were initially unaware of biochar and its benefits. However, after being exposed to an informational clip, 49% expressed interest in learning more about biochar, and 35% felt informed enough to make a purchasing decision. Participants recognized key benefits of biochar, including reduced chemical fertilizer use, lower water consumption, and improved soil health. By the end of the survey, more than 69% of respondents indicated a willingness to pay a premium for sustainably raised meat.
Moreover, familiarity with sustainable agriculture and consideration of environmental claims played a significant role in purchasing decisions, emphasizing the impact of awareness on consumer behavior. Certification and detailed product information, both of which were statistically significant at the 1% level, further enhanced consumer trust and perceived value, increasing the likelihood of premium pricing acceptance.
Future Plans
The analyses conducted thus far are based on survey results, utilizing descriptive statistics and an ordered logit regression model. Moving forward, we plan to apply these findings to estimate market demand for biochar-based products and compare the profitability of biochar-based production with conventional practices. This expanded analysis will offer deeper insights into consumer preferences, the potential price premium for biochar products, and the economic viability of integrating biochar into agricultural production systems.
Authors
Presenting & Corresponding author
Sunita Bandane Pahari, Graduate Research Assistant, University of Idaho, paha0494@vandals.uidaho.edu
Additional author
Jason Winfree, Professor, University of Idaho
Additional Information
Idaho Sustainable Agriculture Initiative for Dairy (ISAID)
This informational clip derived from You Tube is used for survey to provide information on what is biochar and its benefits to participants: https://youtu.be/7qVcEvKEfGc?si=Isxex7E4lJCQrfGc
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the USDA Sustainable Agricultural Systems Initiative through the Idaho Sustainable Agriculture Initiative for Dairy (ISAID) grant (Award No. 2020-69012-31871).
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2025. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Boise, ID. April 7-11, 2025. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.