9 pages, via online journal, Grain marketing arrangements in modern Russia are far from what they were in the 1990s. Given that grain marketing is crucial for farm revenues and an adequate functioning of the agri-food system, this paper examines why different grain marketing contracts co-exist and how well they fit the local agri-food context. Semi-structured interviews with farmers, grain buyers and regional authorities were conducted in the region of Tyumen in 2013-2014. The analysis, grounded in new institutional economics, found that the traders’ contracts, compared to those offered by grain elevators, are often better suited to account for uncertainty as a salient property of marketing transactions, but discourage quality improvements and differentiation of grain. Furthermore, both contract types encourage strategic behaviour on the part of grain buyers. The paper also discusses the case in a broader theoretical and international context and offers a number of policy implications, such as those related to independent grain quality assessments and extension.
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 71 Document Number: D10778
Notes:
Claude W. Gifford Collection. Beyond his materials in the ACDC collection, the Claude W. Gifford Papers, 1919-2004, are deposited in the University of Illinois Archives. Serial Number 8/3/81. Locate finding aid at https://archives.library.illinois.edu/archon/, Pages 2-4 in Research Library Newsletter, Farm Journal, April 15, 1964., Number 16 in a series of annual home-interview surveys of products on hand and in use among Minnesota Star and Tribune newspaper (Minneapolis, Minnesota) reader households, farm and non-farm.
9 pages., Via online journal., Certain pesticides are coming under scrutiny because of their impact on pollinator insects. Although most consumers express willingness to aid pollinators, the reasons for consumers’ preferences or barriers to purchasing pollinator-friendly plants and the types of pollinators’ that consumers are trying to protect are less understood. Using an online survey of 1200 Connecticut (CT) consumers, of which 841 had home landscapes, we find that 46% of consumers with home landscapes purchased pollinator-friendly plants to attract pollinators to their landscape. Consistent with past research that focused on consumers’ preferences for pollinator-friendly plants, the data also reveal that some consumers are willing to pay premiums for plants that contribute to pollinator’s health. However, only 17% stated that attracting pollinators was their primary motivation; a finding that suggests labeling alone will likely not motivate consumers to purchase plants. The major barriers to purchasing pollinator-friendly plants included lack of labeling (cited by 28%), followed by high price (28%). Consumers purchasing pollinator-friendly plants were trying to attract butterflies (Lepidoptera) (78%), bees (Apidae) (59%), hummingbirds (Trochilidae) (59%), and other birds (41%). We also find that demographics and purchasing behavior affect barriers and types of pollinators desired. Simply labeling plants has the potential to increase purchasing, but increasing price could be detrimental as many consumers feel pollinator-friendly plants are highly priced. Implications for ornamental horticulture stakeholders are discussed.
