IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Quality Assurance Certification and Implementation: Growers' Costs and Perceived Benefits

Listed author(s):
  • Kingwell, Ross S.
Registered author(s):

    This study reports findings from a mail survey of Western Australian broadacre farmers participating in quality assurance (QA) accreditation. A 50 percent response rate generated a sample size of 78 usable replies. The average farm in the survey spent $13,470 gaining QA accreditation, upgrading facilities and implementing the QA system. Most of these costs were set-up costs incurred in the first year of QA training. Almost half of all farmers in the survey considered QA accreditation and implementation to be value for money. A further 39 per cent were unsure of its value. Only 13 per cent of respondents felt it was not a worthwhile investment. Most respondents agreed that there were benefits, apart from price premia, in applying a QA system and 84 per cent of growers viewed QA accreditation as the start of greater regulation of grain production. Even if no price premium was available for QA grain, 39% of respondents indicated they still believed QA to be worthwhile. However, this same group of farmers also indicated that if the premium for QA grain was less than $8.90 per tonne they would begin to question the value of implementing the QA system on their farm. Overall, farmers in the survey suggested an average premium of $12.30 per tonne was required to prevent them questioning the merits of QA. A simple investment model suggested that to exactly offset the cost of QA accreditation and implementation a price premium of $11.70 per tonne was required. This premium was very close the price premium of $12.30 per tonne identified by growers as being required before they would doubt the worth of adopting a QA system.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Article provided by University of Melbourne, Melbourne School of Land and Environment in its journal Australasian Agribusiness Review.

    Volume (Year): 11 (2003)
    Issue (Month): ()

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:ags:auagre:132535
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:auagre:132535. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.