IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v128y2014icp55-65.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Livestock farmer perceptions of successful collaborative arrangements for manure exchange: A study in Denmark

Author

Listed:
  • Asai, Masayasu
  • Langer, Vibeke
  • Frederiksen, Pia
  • Jacobsen, Brian H.

Abstract

Fulfilling the targets of the European Nitrate Directive (91/676/EEC) and the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) has required governments to take action to prevent excessive application of livestock manure. In Denmark, where intensive livestock production has caused serious nitrogen leaching to underground water, self-governing manure exchanges have been widely organised among farms in local communities. This allows large livestock farms to achieve the required balance between manure production and the agricultural production area although the importer rarely pays the full nutrient value for the manure received. Despite the potential for improved efficiency of manure use, few studies have examined livestock farmers’ perceptions of coordinated arrangements with recipient farms and factors in successful arrangements. A total of 644 manure exporters were asked about factors they consider important in identifying and selecting a new partner for manure export, including factors regarding the potential partner and the function of the partnership. They evaluated a total of 18 statements relating to possible perceptions. The results revealed that exporters appreciated especially four qualities: (1) timely communication regarding establishment of a contract; (2) the potential for a long-term partnership; (3) physical and social accessibilities to the partner/s; and (4) flexibility of acceptance of manure. Multiple regressions were then performed to detect associations between the variables on farm/farmer characteristics and on existing collaborative arrangements, and the factor scores derived from principal component analysis (PCA) of farmers’ perceptions. The results provided practical insights into how socio-demographic characteristics of farmers, their production enterprises, their past experiences of transactions and spatial location of farms influenced their decision-making in establishing partnerships. For instance, organic dairy farmers seemed to place less emphasis on the distance to and accessibility of their partner. Exporters on the islands where crop production dominates were significantly more concerned about the characteristics of the partner with respect to his/her professional skills and business expertise. Social aspects, e.g. previous knowledge of the partner, were perceived as more important by older than by younger farmers, while this aspects appeared to be less important for farmers with large business units as their primary aim of making agreements seems to comply with the regulations. These findings are applicable in intensive livestock production areas in other European countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Asai, Masayasu & Langer, Vibeke & Frederiksen, Pia & Jacobsen, Brian H., 2014. "Livestock farmer perceptions of successful collaborative arrangements for manure exchange: A study in Denmark," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 55-65.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:128:y:2014:i:c:p:55-65
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2014.03.007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X14000377
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agsy.2014.03.007?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. Mark Morrison & Eddie Oczkowski & Jenni Greig, 2011. "The primacy of human capital and social capital in influencing landholders’ participation in programmes designed to improve environmental outcomes," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(4), pages 560-578, October.
    2. Oliver E. Williamson, 2000. "The New Institutional Economics: Taking Stock, Looking Ahead," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(3), pages 595-613, September.
    3. Hanna L. Breetz & Karen Fisher-Vanden & Hannah Jacobs & Claire Schary, 2005. "Trust and Communication: Mechanisms for Increasing Farmers’ Participation in Water Quality Trading," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(2).
    4. Jill E. Hobbs, 1997. "Measuring the Importance of Transaction Costs in Cattle Marketing," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(4), pages 1083-1095.
    5. Barnes, A.P. & Willock, J. & Hall, C. & Toma, L., 2009. "Farmer perspectives and practices regarding water pollution control programmes in Scotland," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 96(12), pages 1715-1722, December.
    6. Nunez, Jennifer & McCann, Laura M.J., 2004. "Crop Farmers' Willingness to Use Manure," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 19932, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    7. Bart Van der Straeten & Jeroen Buysse & Stephan Nolte & Ludwig Lauwers & Dakerlia Claeys & Guido Van Huylenbroeck, 2010. "A multi-agent simulation model for spatial optimisation of manure allocation," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(8), pages 1011-1030.
    8. Jacobsen, Brian, 2011. "Costs of slurry separation technologies and alternative use of the solid fraction for biogas production or burning – a Danish perspective," International Journal of Agricultural Management, Institute of Agricultural Management, vol. 1(2), pages 1-12.
    9. Medlin, Christopher J. & Aurifeille, Jacques-Marie & Quester, Pascale G., 2005. "A collaborative interest model of relational coordination and empirical results," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 214-222, February.
    10. Prabhu Pingali & Yasmeen Khwaja & Madelon Meijer, 2005. "Commercializing Small Farms: Reducing Transaction Costs," Working Papers 05-08, Agricultural and Development Economics Division of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO - ESA).
    11. Henry Kaiser, 1970. "A second generation little jiffy," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 35(4), pages 401-415, December.
    12. Oecd, 2005. "Manure Policy and MINAS: Regulating Nitrogen and Phosphorus Surpluses in Agriculture of the Netherlands," OECD Papers, OECD Publishing, vol. 5(5), pages 1-47.
    13. Pingali, Prabhu & Khwaja, Yasmeen & Meijer, Madelon, 2005. "Commercializing small farms: reducing transaction cost," ESA Working Papers 289070, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Agricultural Development Economics Division (ESA).
    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. Jianguo Li & Xinyue Xu & Lili Liu, 2021. "Attribution and causal mechanism of farmers’ willingness to prevent pollution from livestock and poultry breeding in coastal areas," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(5), pages 7193-7211, May.
    2. Alberto Finzi & Gabriele Mattachini & Daniela Lovarelli & Elisabetta Riva & Giorgio Provolo, 2020. "Technical, Economic, and Environmental Assessment of a Collective Integrated Treatment System for Energy Recovery and Nutrient Removal from Livestock Manure," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-18, April.
    3. Okello, Afrika & Nzuma, Jonathan & Otieno, David Jakinda & Kidoido, Michael & Tanga, Chrysantus, 2021. "Farmers’ Perceptions of Commercial Insect-Based Feed for Sustainable Livestock Production in Kenya," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315215, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Takashi Hayashi & Daisuke Sawauchi & Daisuke Kunii, 2017. "Forest Maintenance Practices and Wood Energy Alternatives to Increase Uses of Forest Resources in a Local Initiative in Nishiwaga, Iwate, Japan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-13, October.
    5. Catarino, Rui & Therond, Olivier & Berthomier, Jérémy & Miara, Maurice & Mérot, Emmanuel & Misslin, Renaud & Vanhove, Paul & Villerd, Jean & Angevin, Frédérique, 2021. "Fostering local crop-livestock integration via legume exchanges using an innovative integrated assessment and modelling approach based on the MAELIA platform," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    6. Case, S.D.C. & Oelofse, M. & Hou, Y. & Oenema, O. & Jensen, L.S., 2017. "Farmer perceptions and use of organic waste products as fertilisers – A survey study of potential benefits and barriers," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 84-95.
    7. Erich von Stroheim & Dana Loyd Keske Hoag, 2021. "Valuing Cattle Manure as an Agricultural Resource for Efficiency and Environmental Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-21, August.
    8. Ryschawy, Julie & Tiffany, Sara & Gaudin, Amélie & Niles, Meredith T. & Garrett, Rachael D., 2021. "Moving niche agroecological initiatives to the mainstream: A case-study of sheep-vineyard integration in California," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    9. Afrika Onguko Okello & Jonathan Makau Nzuma & David Jakinda Otieno & Michael Kidoido & Chrysantus Mbi Tanga, 2021. "Farmers’ Perceptions of Commercial Insect-Based Feed for Sustainable Livestock Production in Kenya," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-13, May.
    10. Ryschawy, Julie & Grillot, Myriam & Charmeau, Anaïs & Pelletier, Aude & Moraine, Marc & Martin, Guillaume, 2022. "A participatory approach based on the serious game Dynamix to co-design scenarios of crop-livestock integration among farms," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    11. Asai, Masayasu & Moraine, Marc & Ryschawy, Julie & de Wit, Jan & Hoshide, Aaron K. & Martin, Guillaume, 2018. "Critical factors for crop-livestock integration beyond the farm level: A cross-analysis of worldwide case studies," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 184-194.
    12. Ole Bonnichsen & Bran H. Jacobsen & Juan Tur-Cardona, 2018. "Danish farmers’ preferences for bio-based fertilisers – a choice experiment," IFRO Working Paper 2020/15, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    13. Lechenet, Martin & Makowski, David & Py, Guillaume & Munier-Jolain, Nicolas, 2016. "Profiling farming management strategies with contrasting pesticide use in France," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 40-53.
    14. Masayasu Asai & Takashi Hayashi & Mitasu Yamamoto, 2019. "Mental Model Analysis of Biogas Energy Perceptions and Policy Reveals Potential Constraints in a Japanese Farm Community," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-20, January.
    15. Willems, Jaap & van Grinsven, Hans J.M. & Jacobsen, Brian H. & Jensen, Tenna & Dalgaard, Tommy & Westhoek, Henk & Kristensen, Ib Sillebak, 2016. "Why Danish pig farms have far more land and pigs than Dutch farms? Implications for feed supply, manure recycling and production costs," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 122-132.

    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. Asai, Masayasu & Moraine, Marc & Ryschawy, Julie & de Wit, Jan & Hoshide, Aaron K. & Martin, Guillaume, 2018. "Critical factors for crop-livestock integration beyond the farm level: A cross-analysis of worldwide case studies," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 184-194.
    2. Phiri, Isaac, 2020. "The effect of access to finance on commercialisation of smallholder maize farmers in Eswatini," Research Theses 334755, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    3. Rob Kuijpers, 2019. "Value Chain Development as Public Policy: Conceptualization and Evidence from the Agri-Food Sector in Bangladesh," LICOS Discussion Papers 41419, LICOS - Centre for Institutions and Economic Performance, KU Leuven.
    4. Hou, Jianyun & Huo, Xuexi, 2015. "Transaction Costs and Farm-to-Market Linkages: Empirical Evidence from China Apple Producers," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211746, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Kuijpers, Rob, 2020. "Integrated Value Chain Development: Evidence from Bangladesh," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    6. Kherallah, Mylène & Kirsten, Johann, 2001. "The new institutional economics," MSSD discussion papers 41, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    7. Justin Kagin & J. Edward Taylor & Antonio Yúnez-Naude, 2016. "Inverse Productivity or Inverse Efficiency? Evidence from Mexico," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(3), pages 396-411, March.
    8. Mailu, S.K, 2010. "'Mavenism' and 'innovativeness' among small ruminant keepers in Kenys'a Isiolo and Marsabit Districts," MPRA Paper 27091, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 29 Nov 2010.
    9. Maria Costanza Torri, 2012. "Innovative Farmer Institutions and Market Imperfections," Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Emerging Economies, Entrepreneurship Development Institute of India, vol. 21(1), pages 59-90, March.
    10. Vellema, W. & Buritica Casanova, A. & Gonzalez, C. & D’Haese, M., 2015. "The effect of specialty coffee certification on household livelihood strategies and specialisation," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 13-25.
    11. Ebata, Ayako & Pacheco, Pamela Alejandra & Cramon-Taubadel, Stephan von, 2015. "Distance to market and farm-gate prices of staple beans in rural Nicaragua," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211582, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Hobbs, J., 2018. "Transaction Costs, Institutions and the Organization of Supply Chains: Three Good Questions," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277411, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Hellin, Jon & Lundy, Mark & Meijer, Madelon, 2009. "Farmer organization, collective action and market access in Meso-America," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 16-22, February.
    14. Salil Bhattarai & Michael C. Lyne & Sandra K. Martin, 2015. "Analysing the robustness of spice chains in Nepal from a smallholder perspective," Asian Journal of Agriculture and rural Development, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 5(4), pages 88-102, April.
    15. Herbert, Ainembabazi & Asten, Piet & Vanlauwe, Bernard & Ouma, Emily & Blomme, Guy & Birachi, Eliud & Manyong, Victor M. & Macharia, Ibrahim, 2015. "Improving the adoption of agricultural technologies and farm performance through farmer groups: Evidence from the Great Lakes Region of Africa," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 210939, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. Corsi, Stefano & Marchisio, Laura Viviana & Orsi, Luigi, 2017. "Connecting smallholder farmers to local markets: Drivers of collective action, land tenure and food security in East Chad," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 39-47.
    17. Kedar, Vishnu Shankarrao & Kumar, Parmod & Neharkar, Pratibha, 2020. "Do transaction costs prevent smallholder’s participation in Supermarket? Empirical Evidences from India," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304504, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. Hudson, Darren, 2001. "Cross-Commodity Perspective On Contracting: Evidence From Mississippi," Research Reports 15800, Mississippi State University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    19. Pingali, Prabhu, 2007. "Westernization of Asian diets and the transformation of food systems: Implications for research and policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 281-298, June.
    20. Oliver Maaß & Philipp Grundmann, 2018. "Governing Transactions and Interdependences between Linked Value Chains in a Circular Economy: The Case of Wastewater Reuse in Braunschweig (Germany)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-29, April.

    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:agisys:v:128:y:2014:i:c:p:55-65. 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/agsy .

    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.