Lombardi, Ginevra Virginia (author), Berni, Rossella (author), Rocchi, Benedetto (author), and Department of Economics and Management, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
Department of Statistics, Computer Science and Applications, University of Florence, Italy
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
2017-01-20
Published:
Italy: Elsevier Ltd.
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 163 Document Number: D08145
16 pages., Via online journal, Communicating the process quality of ethically produced food effectively is of highest interest to policy makers, organizations, retailers and producers in order to enhance ethical food production and increase ethical label use. The objective of this paper is to unveil the effectiveness of different communication treatments in regard to changing purchase behavior of different consumer groups. Different communication material for beef produced according to consumer expectations was compiled and applied in a consumer survey—incorporating a choice experiment and a questionnaire—with 676 respondents in three cities of Germany. A Latent Class Mixed Logit Model was basis to identify different consumer segments and their response to the different communication treatments. The effects of different communication treatments unveil the importance to address information in an objective manner. Target groups could be enlarged through the assessment of clear, objective information. Moreover, most consumers were more likely to refrain from choosing a cheap beef product from conventional, barn-based rearing. Hence, consumers might be interested in reducing their overall consumption of beef and prefer the consumption of high value ethical beef with less frequency. Producers, market actors and policy makers should realize that a high share of consumers, not only smaller target groups, value ethical food and may be ready to change their consumption habits, if they are adequately informed.
7 pages, via Online journal, Hair fescue (Festuca filiformis) is a tuft-forming perennial grass that reduces yields in lowbush blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium) fields. Nonbearing year foramsulfuron applications suppress hair fescue, but there is interest in increasing suppression through foramsulfuron use in conjunction with fall-applied herbicides. The objective of this research was to determine the main and interactive effects of fall-bearing year herbicide applications and spring-nonbearing year foramsulfuron applications on hair fescue. The experiment was a 5 × 2 factorial arrangement of fall-bearing year herbicide (none, terbacil, pronamide, glufosinate, dichlobenil) and spring-nonbearing year foramsulfuron application (0, 35 g·ha−1) arranged in a randomized complete block design at lowbush blueberry fields in Portapique and Stewiacke, Nova Scotia, Canada. Spring-nonbearing year foramsulfuron applications did not reduce total tuft density or consistently reduce flowering tuft density, flowering tuft inflorescence number, or flowering tuft seed production. Fall-bearing year pronamide applications reduced hair fescue density for the 2-year production cycle, although additional bearing year density reductions occurred when pronamide was followed by spring-nonbearing year foramsulfuron applications at Stewiacke. Fall-bearing year dichlobenil applications reduced total and flowering tuft density at each site, although reductions in flowering tuft inflorescence number and seed production were most consistent when followed by spring-nonbearing year foramsulfuron applications at Stewiacke. Suppression extended into the bearing year at each site, and dichlobenil should be examined further for hair fescue control. Fall-bearing year glufosinate applications reduced hair fescue total tuft density at each site and flowering tuft density and flowering tuft seed production at Stewiacke. Fall-bearing year glufosinate applications followed by spring-nonbearing year foramsulfuron applications also reduced nonbearing year flowering tuft inflorescence number and bearing year hair fescue seedling density at Stewiacke, indicating that this treatment may reduce hair fescue seedling recruitment at some sites. Fall-bearing year terbacil applications did not suppress hair fescue and are not recommended for hair fescue management in lowbush blueberry.
