Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T00:39:46.319Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of organic and sustainable fed cattle production: A South Dakota case study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Donald C. Taylor ,
Dillon M. Feuz  and
Ming Guan
Donald C. Taylor
Affiliation:
Professor, Economics Department, South Dakota State University, Box 504A, Brookings, SD 57007-0895.
Dillon M. Feuz
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Economics Department, South Dakota State University, Box 504A, Brookings, SD 57007-0895.
Ming Guan
Affiliation:
A former Graduate Research Assistant, Economics Department, South Dakota State University, Box 504A, Brookings, SD 57007-0895.
Get access

Abstract

Organic and sustainable fed cattle production are compared through development and estimation of two production indexes: a Producer Organic Index (POI) and a Producer Sustainability Index (PSI). The POI reflects current production standards for organically certified beef The PSI reflects a broader range of concerns, including long-term natural resource conservation and economic staying-power of cattle producers.

The study shows there may be only a loose connection between the two. The method used to develop the indexes can provide insights to beef cattle extension specialists and individual cattle producers on the strengths and weaknesses of current feedlot management practices.

Keywords

organic productionsustainable productionbeef cattle
Type
Articles
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , March 1996 , pp. 30 - 38
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.California Certified Organic Farmers. 1993. California Certified Organic Farmer Handbook. Santa Cruz, California.Google Scholar
2.Ewbank, R. 1988. Animal welfare. In Management of Welfare of Farm Animals. The UFAW Handbook. 3rd ed.Bailliere Tindall, London, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
3.Gershuny, G. 1993. Editorial: Organic and sustainable: Debate or dialogue? Organic Farmer: Digest of Sustainable Agric. 4(1):7.Google Scholar
4.Guan, M. 1994. Sustainable production practices adopted by beef cattle producers in South Dakota. M.S. thesis. Economics Dept, South Dakota State Univ., Brookings.Google Scholar
5.International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements. 1989. General standards for livestock husbandry. Soil Assoc., Bristol, England.Google Scholar
6.International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements. 1991. Minutes: Animal standards sub-committee meeting. Soil Assoc., Bristol, England.Google Scholar
7.Manley, R. 1994. Comment: A mess in the market. New Farmer & Grower. Issue 44(Autumn):12–13.Google Scholar
8.New, Farmer and Grower, . 1994. Changes to organic regulations proposed. Issue 42 (Spring):7.Google Scholar
9.National Organic Standards Board. 1992. Report of the National Organic Standards Board on results of a mail survey of 252 organic producers. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
10.National Organic Standards Board. 1993. National standards for organic production. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
11.National Research Council. 1993. Soil and Water Quality: An Agenda for Agriculture. Board on Agriculture. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
12.Northern Plains Sustainable Agriculture Soc. 1992. A guiding philosophy for sustainable agriculture: Organic production standards and principles. Maida, North Dakota.Google Scholar
13.Organic Crop Improvement Association. 1993. OCIA certification standards. Bellefontaine, Ohio.Google Scholar
14.Organic Farmer: Digest of Sustainable Agric. 1993. Organic and sustainable: Debate or dialogue? Vol. 4(1):14–21.Google Scholar
15.Organic Foods Production Act of 1990. In Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990, Public Law 101–624, 101st Congress, 11 28. pp. 3359–4078.Google Scholar
16.Organic Food Producers Association of North Amer. and Organic Farmers Assoc. Council. 1992. Draft livestock standards.Google Scholar
17.SAS Institute, Inc. 1988. SAS/STAT User's Guide, Release 6.03 Edition. Cary, North Carolina.Google Scholar
18.Skal. 1991. Eko standards: Standards for sustainable organic agriculture and for processing organic agricultural products. Skal (Inspection organization for organic production methods), Zwolle, Netherlands.Google Scholar
19.Taylor, D.C., and Feuz, D.M.. 1993. Beef cattle producer sustainability and organic indices. Economics Staff Paper 93–6. Economics Dept., South Dakota State Univ., Brookings.Google Scholar
20.Taylor, D.C., and Feuz, D.M.. 1994. Cattle feedlot management in South Dakota. Economics Research Rep. 94–1. Economics Dept., South Dakota State Univ., Brookings.Google Scholar
21.Taylor, D.C., Mohammed, Z.A., Shamsudin, N.N., Mohayidin, M.G., and Chiew, E.F.C.. 1993. Creating a farmer sustainability index: A Malaysian case study. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 8:175–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.U.S. Dept. of Agric. 1995. National Organic Standards Board documents. Agric. Marketing Service, Transportation and Marketing Div., Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
23.U.S. Dept. of Commerce. 1994. 1992 Census of Agriculture. Vol 1, Geographic Area Series. Part 41: South Dakota and County Data. Bureau of the Census. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
24.Wilder, J.R. 1991. Sustainable agriculture and the U.S. cattle industry: An examination of laws, production practices, and research studies. Master of Laws thesis. Univ. of Arkansas, Fayetteville.Google Scholar