Buse, Rueben C. (author), Driscoll, James L., eds. (author), and Buse: Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI; Driscoll: Research and Development, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, USDA, Kansas City, MO
Format:
Book
Publication Date:
1992
Published:
USA
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 90 Document Number: C06498
Notes:
Contains Table of Contents only; See C06499-C06505 for individual chapters; James F. Evans Collection, Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. 1992. 458 p.
18 pages., via online journal, As food products marketed as “gluten-free” become increasingly popular, many consumers start to exclude sources of gluten (e.g., wheat, barley, and rye) from their diets for both medical and non-medical purposes. The grain industry is facing a growing challenge to (re)boost consumers’ confidence in the healthiness and safety of its commodities. Using 561 participants recruited from the Amazon Mechanical Turk workers’ panel, this study implemented a 2 (pretzels vs. potato chips) * 2 (positive- vs. negative- frame) * 2 (wheat image vs. no wheat image) experiment to examine the effects of gluten-free labels on consumers’ perceived healthiness and safety of wheat, perceived benefits of labeled products, and their evaluation of the shown labels. Results showed that consumers evaluate the gluten-free labels most positively when they appear on products that could have contained gluten. For products that are naturally gluten-free, adding a gluten-free label only decreased consumers’ confidence in such labels. The presence of gluten-free labels increased consumers’ perceived benefits of the labeled products when they do not contain any misleading information (e.g., image of a wheat head). However, some gluten-free labels could have negative impacts on consumers’ perceptions of the healthiness and safety of wheat. Overall, food producers and marketers might have undervalued consumers’ literacy and overestimated their susceptibility to marketing strategies. We discussed the implications for food marketers, regulators, and communicators.
13 pages, via Online Journal, This paper contributes to our understanding of farm data value chains with assistance from 54 semi-structured interviews and field notes from participant observations. Methodologically, it includes individuals, such as farmers, who hold well-known positionalities within digital agriculture spaces—platforms that include precision farming techniques, farm equipment built on machine learning architecture and algorithms, and robotics—while also including less visible elements and practices. The actors interviewed and materialities and performances observed thus came from spaces and places inhabited by, for example, farmers, crop scientists, statisticians, programmers, and senior leadership in firms located in the U.S. and Canada. The stability of “the” artifacts followed for this project proved challenging, which led to me rethinking how to approach the subject conceptually. The paper is animated by a posthumanist commitment, drawing heavily from assemblage thinking and critical data scholarship coming out of Science and Technology Studies. The argument’s understanding of “chains” therefore lies on an alternative conceptual plane relative to most commodity chain scholarship. To speak of a data value chain is to foreground an orchestrating set of relations among humans, non-humans, products, spaces, places, and practices. The paper’s principle contribution involves interrogating lock-in tendencies at different “points” along the digital farm platform assemblage while pushing for a varied understanding of governance depending on the roles of the actors and actants involved.
26 pages, via online journal, Purpose
This paper is concerned with the impact of the University of California Cooperative Extension (UCCE) on regional productivity in California agriculture. UCCE is responsible for agricultural research and development (R&D), and dissemination of agricultural know-how in the state.
Method/methodology/approach
We estimate the effect of UCCE on county-level agricultural productivity for the years 1992–2012, using an agricultural production function with measures of agricultural extension inputs alongside the traditional agricultural production inputs at the county level.
Findings
Results show a positive impact of UCCE through its stock of depreciated expenditures. For an additional dollar spent on UCCE expenditures stock, agricultural productivity, measured as value of sales at the county level, improves by $1–9 per acre of farmland for knowledge/expenditure depreciation rates between 0 and 20 percent.
Practical implications
Results suggest that county differences in productivity could affect extension expenditures. The high level of contribution found in the results would be especially useful during a period of political pressure to reduce public spending for agricultural extension in the state.
Theoretical implications
Theoretical implications suggest that agricultural systems with higher level of knowledge depreciation are associated with higher resulting incremental agricultural productivity per an additional dollar spent on UCCE expenditures stock. This suggests that extension policy should consider also the agricultural system (crop mix).
Originality
We use original budgetary data that was collected especially for answering our research questions from archives of UCCE. We estimate impact of extension at the county level in California, on the value of agricultural sales (of crops and livestock). We developed an extension expenditure stock, using current and past expenditures data, and different depreciation rates, following the theory of Knowledge Production Function.