Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:43:12.689Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cow-Calf Producer Perceptions Regarding Individual Animal Traceability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2015

Lee L. Schulz  and
Glynn T. Tonsor
Lee L. Schulz
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS
Glynn T. Tonsor
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study provides valuable insights into cow-calf producer voluntary participation in the National Animal Identification System and producers' perceptions of several issues critically impacting the success of voluntary traceability systems. Cow-calf producers believe that the most important issues to the U.S. beef industry in designing a national, individual animal traceability system are monitoring/managing disease, maintaining current foreign markets, accessing foreign markets, and increasing consumer confidence. Furthermore, producers are concerned with cost, liability, reliability of technology, failure of system to meet stated goals, and confidentiality of information associated with these systems.

Keywords

animal traceabilitycow-calfNational Animal Identification Systemvoluntary adoptionQ12Q18R38
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 42 , Issue 4 , November 2010 , pp. 659 - 677
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

Bailey, D., and Slade, J. “Factors Influencing Support for a National Animal Identification System for Cattle in the United States.” Paper presented at American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Denver, CO, August 1-4, 2004.Google Scholar
Becker, G.S. Animal Identification and Meat Traceability. Congressional Research Report prepared for members and committees of Congress. Washington, DC, January 18, 2007.Google Scholar
Boxall, P.C., and Adamowicz, W.L. “Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach.” Environmental and Resource Economics 23(2002):421–46.Google Scholar
Breiner, S.J. “Perceptions and Attitudes of Cow-Calf Producers toward Emerging Technologies and Policy Issues in the Beef Cattle Industry.” MS thesis, Kansas State University, 2007.Google Scholar
Buhr, B.L. 2003. Traceability, Trade and COOL: Lessons from the EU Meat and Poultry Industry. Working Paper, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium no. 03-5. Internet site: http:// purl.umn.edu/14577 (Accessed July 7, 2009).Google Scholar
Bulut, H., and Lawrence, J.D. “Meat Slaughter and Processing Plants' Traceability Levels Evidence from Iowa.” Paper presented at NCR-134 Conference on Applied Commodity Price Analysis, Forecasting, and Market Risk Management, Chicago, IL, April 16-17, 2007.Google Scholar
Cattle Network. 2008. “Five Minutes with Dr. John Wiemers, USDA, APHIS, NAIS.” Internet site: www.cattlenetwork.com/content.asp?ContentId= 194952 (Accessed January 5, 2008).Google Scholar
Dickinson, D and Bailey, D. “Meat Traceability: Are US Consumers Willing to Pay for It?” Journal of Agriculture and Resource Economics 27,2(2002):348–64.Google Scholar
Dickinson, D.L., Hobbs, J.E., and Bailey, D. “A Comparison of US and Canadian Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Red-Meat Traceability.” Paper presented at American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Montreal, Canada, July 27-30, 2003.Google Scholar
Golan, E., Krissoff, B., Kuchler, F., Calvin, L., Nelson, K., and Price, G. Traceability in the US Food Supply: Economic Theory and Industry Studies. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service for Agr. Econ. Rep. 830, March 2004.Google Scholar
Greene, W.H. Econometric Analysis. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 2003.Google Scholar
Gregory, A. “Optimal Economic Design of Mail Surveys: Influences of Response Rates and the Impact of Responses to a Second Mailing.” PhD dissertation, Kansas State University, 2008.Google Scholar
Krinsky, I., and Robb, A.L. “On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 64(1986): 715–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lusk, J., and Rozan, A. “Public Policy and Endogenous Beliefs: The Case of Genetically Modified Food.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 33,2(2008):270–89.Google Scholar
Murphy, R.G.L., Pendell, D.L., and Smith, G.C. “Lessons from the Canadian Cattle Industry for Developing the National Animal Identification System.” International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 12,2(2009): 1–18.Google Scholar
Park, T., Loomis, J., and Creel, M. “Confidence Intervals for Evaluating Benefits from Di-chotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Studies.” Land Economics 67,1(1991):64–73.Google Scholar
Roosen, J., Lusk, J., and Fox, J. “Consumer Demand for and Attitudes toward Alternative Beef Labeling Strategies in France, Germany, and the UK.” Paper presented at American Agricultural Economics Association annual meeting, Chicago, IL, August 5-8, 2001.Google Scholar
Saatkamp, H.W., Dijkhuizen, A.A., Geers, R., Huime, R.B.M., Noordhuizen, J.P.T.M., and Goedseels, V. “Economic Evaluation of National Identification and Recording Systems for Pigs in Belgium.” Preventive Veterinary Medicine 30(1997):121–35.Google Scholar
Saatkamp, H.W., Geersa, R., Noordhuizenb, J.P.T.M., Dijkhuizenc, A.A., Huirne, R.B.M., and Goedseels, V. “National Identification and Recording Systems for Contagious Animal Disease Control.” Livestock Production Science 43(1995):253–64.Google Scholar
Schroeder, T.C., Blasi, D.A., Brester, G.W., Crosby, C., Dhuyvetter, K.C., Freeborn, J., Pendell, D.L., Smith, G.C., Stroade, J., and Tonsor, G.T. 2009. “Benefit Cost Analysis of the National Animal Identification System.” Report for U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection, Internet site: http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/ naislibrary/documents/plans_reports/Benefit_ Cost_Analysis_NAIS.pdf (Accessed November 13, 2009).Google Scholar
Souza-Monteiro, D.M., and Caswell, J.A. “The Economics of Implementing Traceability in Beef Supply Chains: Trends in Major Producing and Trading Countries.” Working paper, Department of Resource Economics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 2004.Google Scholar
Tonsor, G.T., and Schroeder, T.C. “Livestock Identification: Lessons for the US Beef Industry from the Australian System.” Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing 18,3/4(2006): 103–18.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. National Animal Identification System (NAIS)—A User Guide and Additional Information Resources. Washington, DC, December 2007.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. A Business Plan to Advance Animal Disease Traceability. Washington, DC, September 2008a.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. 2008b. National Animal Identification System. Washington, DC. Internet site: http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/index.shtml (Accessed November 13, 2009).Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. 2009. Premise Registration Update. Internet site: http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/premises_id/update.shtml (Accessed November 13, 2009).Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Marketing Service. “Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling of Beef, Pork, Lamb, Chicken, Goat Meat, Wild and Farm-Raised Fish and Shellfish, Perishable Agricultural Commodities, Peanuts, Pecans, Ginseng, and Macadamia Nuts; Final Rule.” Federal Register 74,10(2009):2658–707.Google Scholar