IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jfpoli/v112y2022ics0306919222001270.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Getting past the gatekeeper: Key motivations of dairy farmer intent to adopt animal health and welfare-improving biotechnology

Author

Listed:
  • Ufer, Danielle J.
  • Ortega, David L.
  • Wolf, Christopher A.
  • McKendree, Melissa
  • Swanson, Janice

Abstract

The complexities of the decision to adopt gene-editing technology at the farm gate are likely to be greater than a simple matter of profitability. We investigate ex ante technology adoption intentions to address how non-pecuniary motivations influence a dairy producer’s decision to adopt gene-editing (GE) technology with animal health and welfare-improving benefits. Experimental vignette methodology and a correlated random parameters ordered logit modeling approach are employed to investigate U.S. dairy farmer intent to adopt GE genetics that confer resistance to Johne’s disease (M. avium ssp. paratuberculosis), a disease that costs the U.S. dairy industry close to $200 million per year. Findings point to a general resistance among dairy farmers towards GE genetics, even with an animal health and welfare-improving application. We find that profitability is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for adoption. Farmers can, however, become more amenable to the prospect of adopting GE genetics through situational influences. Our results indicate that the successful uptake of GE technologies may be influenced by policies which protect adopters from adverse market impacts but also consider the complexities of the producer’s decision-making process.

Suggested Citation

  • Ufer, Danielle J. & Ortega, David L. & Wolf, Christopher A. & McKendree, Melissa & Swanson, Janice, 2022. "Getting past the gatekeeper: Key motivations of dairy farmer intent to adopt animal health and welfare-improving biotechnology," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jfpoli:v:112:y:2022:i:c:s0306919222001270
    DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2022.102358
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919222001270
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.foodpol.2022.102358?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sok, J. & Hogeveen, H. & Elbers, A.R.W. & Oude Lansink, A.G.J.M., 2015. "Farmers’ beliefs and voluntary vaccination schemes: Bluetongue in Dutch dairy cattle," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 40-49.
    2. David W. Bullock & William W. Wilson & Joseph Neadeau, 2021. "Gene Editing Versus Genetic Modification in the Research and Development of New Crop Traits: An Economic Comparison," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(5), pages 1700-1719, October.
    3. Enoch Owusu-Sekyere & Helena Hansson & Evgenij Telezhenko, 2022. "Use and non-use values to explain farmers’ motivation for the provision of animal welfare [Risk factors associated with on-farm mortality in Swedish dairy cows]," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(2), pages 499-525.
    4. Michele C. Marra & Nicholas E. Piggott, 2006. "The Value of Non-Pecuniary Characteristics of Crop Biotechnologies: A New Look at the Evidence," Natural Resource Management and Policy, in: Richard E. Just & Julian M. Alston & David Zilberman (ed.), Regulating Agricultural Biotechnology: Economics and Policy, chapter 0, pages 145-177, Springer.
    5. Hansson, Helena & Lagerkvist, Carl Johan, 2015. "Identifying use and non-use values of animal welfare: Evidence from Swedish dairy agriculture," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 35-42.
    6. Vigani, Mauro & Olper, Alessandro, 2013. "GMO standards, endogenous policy and the market for information," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 32-43.
    7. Jeremy D. Foltz & Hsiu-Hui Chang, 2002. "The Adoption and Profitability of rbST on Connecticut Dairy Farms," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(4), pages 1021-1032.
    8. Jaffe, Adam B. & Newell, Richard G. & Stavins, Robert N., 2005. "A tale of two market failures: Technology and environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2-3), pages 164-174, August.
    9. Harvey E. Lapan & Giancarlo Moschini, 2004. "Innovation and Trade with Endogenous Market Failure: The Case of Genetically Modified Products," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(3), pages 634-648.
    10. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    11. Nicole J. Olynk & Christopher A. Wolf & Glynn T. Tonsor, 2012. "Production technology option value: the case of rbST in Michigan," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 43, pages 1-9, November.
    12. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
    13. Clark, Beth & Stewart, Gavin B. & Panzone, Luca A. & Kyriazakis, Ilias & Frewer, Lynn J., 2017. "Citizens, consumers and farm animal welfare: A meta-analysis of willingness-to-pay studies," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 112-127.
    14. Ariel BenYishay & A Mushfiq Mobarak, 2019. "Social Learning and Incentives for Experimentation and Communication," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 86(3), pages 976-1009.
    15. Annemie Maertens & Christopher B. Barrett, 2013. "Measuring Social Networks' Effects on Agricultural Technology Adoption," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 95(2), pages 353-359.
    16. Jill E. Hobbs & Marni D. Plunkett, 1999. "Genetically Modified Foods: Consumer Issues and the Role of Information Asymmetry," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 47(4), pages 445-455, December.
    17. Wolf, Christopher A. & Tonsor, Glynn T., 2017. "Cow Welfare in the U.S. Dairy Industry: Willingness-to-Pay and Willingness-to-Supply," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 42(2), May.
    18. Timothy G. Conley & Christopher R. Udry, 2010. "Learning about a New Technology: Pineapple in Ghana," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(1), pages 35-69, March.
    19. Rieple, Alison & Snijders, Sylvia, 2018. "The role of emotions in the choice to adopt, or resist, innovations by Irish dairy farmers," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 23-31.
    20. C. Klotz & A. Sana & L.J. (Bees) Butler, 1995. "The Role of Information in Technology Adoption: The Case of rbST in the California Dairy Industry," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 17(3), pages 287-298.
    21. Lee, Lung-Fei, 1992. "On Efficiency of Methods of Simulated Moments and Maximum Simulated Likelihood Estimation of Discrete Response Models," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(4), pages 518-552, December.
    22. Bhattacharyya, Arunava & Harris, Thomas R. & Kvasnicka, William G. & Veserat, Gary M., 1997. "Factors Influencing Rates Of Adoption Of Trichomoniasis Vaccine By Nevada Range Cattle Producers," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 22(1), pages 1-17, July.
    23. Julia A. Schreiner & Sebastian Hess, 2017. "The Role of Non-Use Values in Dairy Farmers’ Willingness to Accept a Farm Animal Welfare Programme," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(2), pages 553-578, June.
    24. Sarrias, Mauricio, 2016. "Discrete Choice Models with Random Parameters in R: The Rchoice Package," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 74(i10).
    25. Marra, Michele C. & Carlson, Gerald A., 1987. "The Role Of Farm Size And Resource Constraints In The Choice Between Risky Technologies," Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 12(2), pages 1-10, December.
    26. Glynn Tonsor & Ted Schroeder, 2015. "Market impacts of E. Coli vaccination in U.S. Feedlot cattle," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 3(1), pages 1-15, December.
    27. Ufer, Danielle & Ortega, David L. & Wolf, Christopher A. & Swanson, Janice & McKendree, Melissa, 2022. "Market Acceptance of Animal Welfare-Improving Biotechnology: Gene-Editing and Immunocastration in U.S. Pork," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 47(2), May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gustavo Ahumada & Victor Iturra & Mauricio Sarrias, 2020. "We Do Not Have the Same Tastes! Evaluating Individual Heterogeneity in the Preferences for Amenities," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 53-74, January.
    2. Julia A. Schreiner & Sebastian Hess, 2017. "The Role of Non-Use Values in Dairy Farmers’ Willingness to Accept a Farm Animal Welfare Programme," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(2), pages 553-578, June.
    3. Mauricio Sarrias, 2020. "Random Parameters and Spatial Heterogeneity using Rchoice in R," REGION, European Regional Science Association, vol. 7, pages 1-19.
    4. Bonan, Jacopo & Battiston, Pietro & Bleck, Jaimie & LeMay-Boucher, Philippe & Pareglio, Stefano & Sarr, Bassirou & Tavoni, Massimo, 2021. "Social interaction and technology adoption: Experimental evidence from improved cookstoves in Mali," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    5. Nguyen, Ly & Gao, Zhifeng & Anderson, James L., 2022. "Regulating menu information: What do consumers care and not care about at casual and fine dining restaurants for seafood consumption?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    6. Nguyen, Ly & Gao, Zhifeng & Anderson, James L. & House, Lisa A., 2022. "The Impacts of Covid-19 on Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Information Transparency at Casual and Fine Dining Restaurants," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322463, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Mergenthaler, Marcus & Schröter, Iris, 2020. "Institutionelle Grenzen und Perspektiven bei der ökonomischen Bewertung und der Bereitstellung von Tierwohl," 60th Annual Conference, Halle/ Saale, Germany, September 23-25, 2020 305598, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    8. Islam, Asadul & Ushchev, Philip & Zenou, Yves & Zhang, Xin, 2019. "The Value of Information in Technology Adoption," IZA Discussion Papers 12672, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    9. Faulques, Martin & Bonnet, Jean & Bourdin, Sébastien & Juge, Marine & Pigeon, Jonas & Richard, Charlotte, 2022. "Generational effect and territorial distributive justice, the two main drivers for willingness to pay for renewable energies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    10. Ching-Hua Yeh & Monika Hartmann, 2021. "To Purchase or Not to Purchase? Drivers of Consumers’ Preferences for Animal Welfare in Their Meat Choice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-25, August.
    11. Arslan, Cansın & Wollni, Meike & Oduol, Judith & Hughes, Karl, 2022. "Who communicates the information matters for technology adoption," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    12. Mergenthaler, Marcus & Schröter, Iris, 2020. "Institutionelle Grenzen und Perspektiven bei der ökonomischen Bewertung und der Bereitstellung von Tierwohl," 60th Annual Conference, Halle/ Saale, Germany, September 23-25, 2020 305598, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    13. Petersen, Julian & Hess, Sebastian, 2018. "Die Zukunft der Milch-Lieferbeziehungen aus Sicht deutscher Landwirte," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 67(2), June.
    14. Sarrias, Mauricio, 2016. "Discrete Choice Models with Random Parameters in R: The Rchoice Package," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 74(i10).
    15. Sarrias, Mauricio & Daziano, Ricardo, 2017. "Multinomial Logit Models with Continuous and Discrete Individual Heterogeneity in R: The gmnl Package," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 79(i02).
    16. Mekonnen, Daniel Ayalew & Gerber, Nicolas & Matz, Julia Anna, 2018. "Gendered Social Networks, Agricultural Innovations, and Farm Productivity in Ethiopia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 321-335.
    17. Giuseppe Maggio & Marina Mastrorillo & Nicholas J. Sitko, 2022. "Adapting to High Temperatures: Effect of Farm Practices and Their Adoption Duration on Total Value of Crop Production in Uganda," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(1), pages 385-403, January.
    18. Leavens, Laura & Bauchet, Jonathan & Ricker-Gilbert, Jacob, 2021. "After the project is over: Measuring longer-term impacts of a food safety intervention in Senegal," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    19. Sauer, Johannes & Zilberman, David, 2009. "Innovation Behaviour At Farm Level – Selection And Identification," 83rd Annual Conference, March 30 - April 1, 2009, Dublin, Ireland 51073, Agricultural Economics Society.
    20. Illichmann, R. & Abdulai, A., 2014. "Analysis of Consumer Preferences and Wilingness-To-Pay for Organic Food Products in Germany," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 49, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jfpoli:v:112:y:2022:i:c:s0306919222001270. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/foodpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.