Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T17:32:08.568Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Verifying Credence Attributes in Livestock Production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2015

Nicole J. Olynk ,
Glynn T. Tonsor  and
Christopher A. Wolf
Nicole J. Olynk
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
Glynn T. Tonsor
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas
Christopher A. Wolf
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Livestock producers can respond to increasing consumer demand for certain production process attributes by providing verifiable information on the practices used. Consumer willingness to pay data were used to inform producer decision-making regarding selection of verification entities for four key production process attributes in the production of pork chops and milk. The potential for informing farm-level decision-making with information about consumer demand for product and production process attributes exists beyond the two products assessed as example cases in this analysis.

Keywords

animal welfarecertificationcredence attributeproducer decision supportresponse to consumer demandverificationwillingness to payQ11Q12Q19
Type
Invited Paper Sessions
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 42 , Issue 3 , August 2010 , pp. 439 - 452
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2010

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

Alfnes, F. “Stated Preferences for Imported and Hormone-Treated Beef: Application of a Mixed Logit Model.” European Review of Agriculture Economics 31 (2004):19–37.Google Scholar
Caswell, J.A. “How Labeling of Safety and Process Attributes Affects Markets for Food.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 27(1998):151–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caswell, J.A., and Mojduszka, E.M. “Using Informational Labeling to Influence the Market for Quality in Food Products.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78(1996):1248–53.Google Scholar
Davis, C.G., and Gillespie, J.M. “Factors Affecting the Selection of Business Arrangements by U.S. Hog Farmers.” Review of Agricultural Economics 29(2007):331–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R.J. “Social Desirability Bias and the Validity of Indirect Questioning.” The Journal of Consumer Research 20(1993):303–15.Google Scholar
Frewer, L.J., Kole, A., Van de Kroon, S.A.A., and de Lauwere, C. “Consumer Attitudes Towards the Development of Animal-Friendly Husbandry Systems.” Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics 18(2005):345–67.Google Scholar
Lusk, J.L., and Hudson, D. “Willingness-to-Pay Estimates and Their Relevance to Agribusiness Decision Making.” Review of Agricultural Economics 26(2004):152–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lusk, J.L., and Norwood, F.B. “Direct Versus Indirect Questioning: An Application to the Well-Being of Farm Animals.” Social Indicators Research 96(2010):551–65.Google Scholar
Norwood, F.B., Luter, R., and Massey, R. “Asymmetric Willingness-to-Pay Distributions for Livestock Manure.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 39(2005):431–48.Google Scholar
Norwood, F.B., Winn, C., Chung, C., and CE. Ward. “Designing a Voluntary Beef Checkoff.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 31(2006):74–92.Google Scholar
Olynk, N.J., Tonsor, G.T., and Wolf, CA. “Consumer Willingness to Pay for Livestock Credence Attribute Claim Verification.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Roe, B., Sporleder, T.L., and Belleville, B. “Hog Producer Preferences for Marketing Contract Attributes.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86(2004):15–23.Google Scholar
Schulz, L., and Tonsor, G.T. “Cow-Calf Producer Preferences for Voluntary Traceability Systems.” Journal of Agricultural Economics 61(2010):138–62.Google Scholar
Schulz, L., “Cow-Calf Producer Perceptions Regarding Individual Animal Traceability.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Tonsor, G.T., Olynk, N., and Wolf, C. “Consumer Preferences for Animal Welfare Attributes: The Case of Gestation Crates.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 41(2009):713–30.Google Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration Federal Grain Inspection Service Directive 9180.79. APPENDIX 1-Process Verified Program, 1-29-07. Internet site: http://archive.gipsa.usda.gov/reference-library/directives/9180-79.pdf (Accessed November 10, 2008).Google Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture. ERS/USDA Data-Meat Price Spreads. Pork Values and Price Spreads. Updated October 15, 2009a. Internet site: www.ers.usda.gov/Data/MeatPriceSpreads/ (Accessed November 5, 2009).Google Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture. ERS/USDA Data-Price Spreads from Farm to Consumer: At-Home Foods by Commodity Group. Whole Milk. Updated August 28, 2009b. Internet site: www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FarmToConsumer/pricespreads.htm (Accessed November 5, 2009).Google Scholar