IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/joaaec/352119.html

Selection of Breeding Stock by U.S. Meat Goat Producers

Author

Listed:
  • Nyaupane, Narayan
  • Gillespie, Jeffrey
  • McMillin, Kenneth
  • Harrison, Robert
  • Sitienei, Isaac

Abstract

Using nationwide survey data, we investigate U.S. meat goat producer preferences and willingness to pay for meat goat breeding stock attributes. Discrete choice experiments were employed, and mixed logit and latent class models were used for analysis. Results showed that producers preferred animals that were highly masculine/feminine, had good structure and soundness, and were of the Boer breed, whereas they preferred fewer animals that were older, of Kiko and Spanish breeds, and priced higher. Significant preference heterogeneity was found among the respondents. Larger-scale producers had greater preference for high masculinity/femininity, good structure and soundness, and Boer bucks.

Suggested Citation

  • Nyaupane, Narayan & Gillespie, Jeffrey & McMillin, Kenneth & Harrison, Robert & Sitienei, Isaac, . "Selection of Breeding Stock by U.S. Meat Goat Producers," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 49(3).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:joaaec:352119
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.352119
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/352119/files/selection-of-breeding-stock-by-us-meat-goat-producers.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.352119?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Daniele Pacifico & Hong il Yoo, 2012. "Iclogit: a Stata module for estimating a mixed logit model with discrete mixing distribution via the Expectation-Maximization algorithm," Working Papers 6, Department of the Treasury, Ministry of the Economy and of Finance.
    3. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, January.
    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. Frith, Michael J., 2019. "Modelling taste heterogeneity regarding offence location choices," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 33(C).
    2. Peng, Marcus & Oleson, Kirsten L.L., 2017. "Beach Recreationalists' Willingness to Pay and Economic Implications of Coastal Water Quality Problems in Hawaii," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 41-52.
    3. Wendong Zhang & Brent Sohngen, 2018. "Do U.S. Anglers Care about Harmful Algal Blooms? A Discrete Choice Experiment of Lake Erie Recreational Anglers," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(3), pages 868-888.
    4. Kara R. Grant & R. Karina Gallardo & Jill J. McCluskey, 2021. "Consumer preferences for foods with clean labels and new food technologies," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(4), pages 764-781, October.
    5. Dolores Garrido & Rosa Karina Gallardo, 2022. "Are improvements in convenience good enough for consumers to prefer new food processing technologies?," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(1), pages 73-92, January.
    6. Christopher J. Cronin & David K. Guilkey & Ilene S. Speizer, 2019. "Measurement error in discrete health facility choice models: An example from urban Senegal," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(7), pages 1102-1120, November.
    7. Jihee Lee & HyungBin Moon & Jongsu Lee, 2021. "Consumers’ heterogeneous preferences toward the renewable portfolio standard policy: An evaluation of Korea’s energy transition policy," Energy & Environment, , vol. 32(4), pages 648-667, June.
    8. Saint-Cyr, Legrand D. F., 2016. "Accounting for farm heterogeneity in the assessment of agricultural policy impacts on structural change," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235778, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Marianne Lefebvre & Pauline Laille & Masha Maslianskaia-Pautrel, 2020. "Individual preferences regarding pesticide-free management of green-spaces: a discret choice experiment with French citizens," Working Papers 2020.02, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
    10. Emily Lancsar & Denzil G. Fiebig & Arne Risa Hole, 2017. "Discrete Choice Experiments: A Guide to Model Specification, Estimation and Software," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(7), pages 697-716, July.
    11. Saint-Cyr, Legrand D. F., "undated". "Farm heterogeneity and agricultural policy impacts on size dynamics: evidence from France," Working Papers 258013, Institut National de la recherche Agronomique (INRA), Departement Sciences Sociales, Agriculture et Alimentation, Espace et Environnement (SAE2).
    12. Uddin, Azhar & Gallardo, R. Karina, . "Consumers' willingness to pay for organic, clean label, and processed with a new food technology: an application to ready meals," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 24(3).
    13. Dan Yavorsky & Elisabeth Honka & Keith Chen, 2021. "Consumer search in the U.S. auto industry: The role of dealership visits," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 1-52, March.
    14. Laser, Falk & Hellwig, Michael, 2019. "Agony of Choice – Trading off Stability and Competition in the Banking Markets," VfS Annual Conference 2019 (Leipzig): 30 Years after the Fall of the Berlin Wall - Democracy and Market Economy 203536, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    15. Cheng, Leilei & Yin, Changbin & Chien, Hsiaoping, 2015. "Demand for milk quantity and safety in urban China: evidence from Beijing and Harbin," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 59(2), April.
    16. Sebastian Heidenreich & Andrea Phillips-Beyer & Bruno Flamion & Melissa Ross & Jaein Seo & Kevin Marsh, 2021. "Benefit–Risk or Risk–Benefit Trade-Offs? Another Look at Attribute Ordering Effects in a Pilot Choice Experiment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(1), pages 65-74, January.
    17. Juan Carlos Suárez Serrato & Owen Zidar, 2016. "Who Benefits from State Corporate Tax Cuts? A Local Labor Markets Approach with Heterogeneous Firms," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(9), pages 2582-2624, September.
    18. Wen, Chieh-Hua & Huang, Chia-Jung & Fu, Chiang, 2020. "Incorporating continuous representation of preferences for flight departure times into stated itinerary choice modeling," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 10-20.
    19. Saraswata Chaudhuriy & David T. Frazierz & Eric Renault, 2016. "Indirect Inference with Endogenously Missing Exogenous Variables," CIRANO Working Papers 2016s-15, CIRANO.
    20. Gao, Kun & Sun, Lijun & Yang, Ying & Meng, Fanyu & Qu, Xiaobo, 2021. "Cumulative prospect theory coupled with multi-attribute decision making for modeling travel behavior," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 1-21.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    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:joaaec:352119. 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: https://edirc.repec.org/data/saeaaea.html .

    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.