IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ccsesa/230522.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Utilizing Conjoint Analysis to Develop Breeding Objectives for the Improvement of Pasture Species for Contrasting Environments When the Relative Values of Individual Traits Are Difficult to Assess

Author

Listed:
  • Smith, Kevin F.
  • Fennessy, Peter F.

Abstract

Despite the large number of active programs breeding improved forage plants, relatively little is known about the weightings that breeders consciously or sub-consciously give to specific traits when selecting individual plants, or that agronomists and producers use when assessing the relative merits of contrasting cultivars. This is in contrast to most modern animal breeding programs where the relative merits of novel genetics may be assessed against an index-based breeding objective. There are numbers of reasons why these technologies have not been used widely in plant breeding although applications in forest tree breeding are relatively common. A first step in defining breeding objectives for forage species can be to define the relative importance of specific traits and to interpret how these contribute to the relative potential advantage to a new plant or cultivar. One method of defining these weightings is through surveys of users followed by analyses of their combined experience. Therefore in this study, we have assessed the usefulness of discrete choice techniques in the development of weightings for specific traits in forage plant improvement based on views of both expert users (agronomists and farm consultants) and farmers who were asked to define their relative priorities when considering the renovation of a pasture. The surveys were conducted in three distinct regions of, or environments within, Australia of special relevance to meat production from beef and sheep (high rainfall, temperate (inland), and Mediterranean). In summary this study defines the focus of breeding objectives and selection criteria for different pasture species across production systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Smith, Kevin F. & Fennessy, Peter F., 2014. "Utilizing Conjoint Analysis to Develop Breeding Objectives for the Improvement of Pasture Species for Contrasting Environments When the Relative Values of Individual Traits Are Difficult to Assess," Sustainable Agriculture Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 3(2).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:ccsesa:230522
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.230522
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/230522/files/p44_44-55_.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.230522?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tano, Kouadio & Kamuanga, Mulumba & Faminow, Merle D. & Swallow, Brent, 2003. "Using conjoint analysis to estimate farmer's preferences for cattle traits in West Africa," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 393-407, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Roel Wijland & Paul Hansen & Fatima Gardezi, 2016. "Mobile nudging: Youth engagement with banking apps," Journal of Financial Services Marketing, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 21(1), pages 51-63, March.

    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. Girma T. Kassie & Awudu Abdulai & Clemens Wollny, 2009. "Valuing Traits of Indigenous Cows in Central Ethiopia," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(2), pages 386-401, June.
    2. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.
    3. Drucker, Adam G. & Gomez, Veronica & Anderson, Simon, 2001. "The economic valuation of farm animal genetic resources: a survey of available methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 1-18, January.
    4. Fadiga, Mohamadou L. & Makokha, Stella Nabwile, 2014. "Consumer valuations of the quality and safety attributes of milk and meat in Kenya," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 9(2), pages 1-15, April.
    5. Schreiner, Julia Anette, 2018. "Saving the breeds: German Farmers’ preferences for Endangered Dairy Breed conservation programs," 2018 International European Forum (163rd EAAE Seminar), February 5-9, 2018, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 276866, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    6. Kurt B. Waldman & David L. Ortega & Robert B. Richardson & Daniel C. Clay & Sieglinde Snapp, 2016. "Preferences for legume attributes in maize-legume cropping systems in Malawi," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 8(6), pages 1087-1099, December.
    7. Roessler, Regina & Drucker, Adam G. & Scarpa, Riccardo & Markemann, André & Lemke, Ute & Thuy, Le T. & Valle Zárate, Anne, 2008. "Using choice experiments to assess smallholder farmers' preferences for pig breeding traits in different production systems in North-West Vietnam," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 184-192, May.
    8. Evelyne Gbénou-Sissinto & Ygué P. Adegbola & Gauthier Biaou & Roch C. Zossou, 2018. "Farmers’ Willingness to Pay for New Storage Technologies for Maize in Northern and Central Benin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-21, August.
    9. Eric Ruto & Guy Garrod & Riccardo Scarpa, 2008. "Valuing animal genetic resources: a choice modeling application to indigenous cattle in Kenya," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 38(1), pages 89-98, January.
    10. Dominique Ouédraogo & Albert Soudré & Bernadette Yougbaré & Salifou Ouédraogo-Koné & Bienvenue Zoma-Traoré & Negar Khayatzadeh & Amadou Traoré & Moumouni Sanou & Gábor Mészáros & Pamela Anna Burger & , 2021. "Genetic Improvement of Local Cattle Breeds in West Africa: A Review of Breeding Programs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-16, February.
    11. Ahlheim, Michael & Fror, Oliver, 2003. "Valuing the non-market production of agriculture," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 52(08), pages 1-14.
    12. Acosta, Lilibeth A. & Enano, Nelson H. & Magcale-Macandog, Damasa B. & Engay, Kathreena G. & Herrera, Maria Noriza Q. & Nicopior, Ozzy Boy S. & Sumilang, Mic Ivan V. & Eugenio, Jemimah Mae A. & Lucht,, 2013. "How sustainable is bioenergy production in the Philippines? A conjoint analysis of knowledge and opinions of people with different typologies," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 241-253.
    13. Zander, Kerstin K. & Drucker, Adam G., 2008. "Conserving what's important: Using choice model scenarios to value local cattle breeds in East Africa," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 34-45, December.
    14. Mailu, Stephen & Wanyoike, M & Serem, Jared, 2013. "Rabbit breed characteristics, farmer objectives and preferences in Kenya: A correspondence analysis," MPRA Paper 48476, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. L. Zaibet & S. Traore & A. Ayantunde & K. Marshall & N. Johnson & M. Siegmund-Schultze, 2011. "Livelihood strategies in endemic livestock production systems in sub-humid zone of West Africa: trends, trade-offs and implications," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 87-105, February.
    16. Makokha, Stella Nabwile & Karugia, Joseph Thuo & Staal, Steven J. & Oluoch-Kosura, Willis, 2006. "Valuation of Cow Attributes by Conjoint Analysis: A Case Study in Western Kenya," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25752, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Ouma, Emily Awuor & Abdulai, Awudu, 2006. "Contribution of Economics to Design of Sustainable Cattle Breeding Programs in Eastern Africa: A Choice Experiment Approach," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25587, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Acosta-Michlik, Lilibeth & Lucht, Wolfgang & Bondeau, Alberte & Beringer, Tim, 2011. "Integrated assessment of sustainability trade-offs and pathways for global bioenergy production: Framing a novel hybrid approach," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(6), pages 2791-2809, August.
    19. Simianer, H., 2005. "Decision making in livestock conservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(4), pages 559-572, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Crop Production/Industries;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ags:ccsesa:230522. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.ccsenet.org/sar .

    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.