IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/joaaec/117945.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumer Interest in Environmentally Beneficial Chicken Feeds: Comparing High Available Phosphorus Corn and Other Varieties

Author

Listed:
  • Pesek, John D., Jr.
  • Bernard, John C.
  • Gupta, Meeta

Abstract

One source of phosphorous pollution in areas of high chicken production is runoff from fields using fertilizer from these operations. A potential solution is to feed chicken high available phosphorus (HAP) corn, reducing phosphorus in manure. This study examined consumer purchase likelihood of chickens fed HAP, created traditionally or through genetic modification, and other genetically modified (GM) corn including Bt and Roundup-ready. Survey results from the Delmarva Peninsula found considerable interest in non-GM HAP corn, although GM HAP corn was not typically viewed as more acceptable than other GM varieties. Overall, the marketplace appears open to products geared toward environmental benefits.

Suggested Citation

  • Pesek, John D., Jr. & Bernard, John C. & Gupta, Meeta, 2011. "Consumer Interest in Environmentally Beneficial Chicken Feeds: Comparing High Available Phosphorus Corn and Other Varieties," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 43(4), pages 1-15, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:joaaec:117945
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.117945
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/117945/files/jaae277-pesek.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.117945?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Huffman, Wallace E. & Shogren, Jason F. & Rousu, Matthew C. & Tegene, Abebayehu, 2003. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Genetically Modified Food Labels in a Market with Diverse Information: Evidence from Experimental Auctions," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 28(3), pages 1-22, December.
    2. Kaneko, Naoya & Chern, Wen S., 2005. "Willingness to Pay for Genetically Modified Oil, Cornflakes, and Salmon: Evidence from a U.S. Telephone Survey," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 37(3), pages 701-719, December.
    3. Harrison, R. Wes & Mclennon, Everald, 2004. "Analysis of Consumer Preferences for Biotech Labeling Formats," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 36(1), pages 159-171, April.
    4. Baker, Gregory A. & Burnham, Thomas A., 2001. "The Market For Genetically Modified Foods: Consumer Characteristics And Policy Implications," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 4(4), pages 1-10.
    5. Bonham, John G. & Bosch, Darrell J. & Pease, James W., 2004. "Cost Effectiveness Of Nutrient Management And Buffers: Comparisons Of Four Spatial Scenarios," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20069, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    6. Baker, Gregory A. & Burnham, Thomas A., 2001. "Consumer Response To Genetically Modified Foods: Market Segment Analysis And Implications For Producers And Policy Makers," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 1-17, December.
    7. Onyango, Benjamin M., 2004. "Consumer Acceptance Of Genetically Modified Foods: The Role Of Product Benefits And Perceived Risks," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 35(01), pages 1-8, March.
    8. Harrison, R. Wes & Stringer, Timothy & Prinyawiwatkul, Witoon, 2002. "An Analysis of Consumer Preferences for Value-Added Seafood Products Derived from Crawfish," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 31(2), pages 157-170, October.
    9. Costa-Font, Montserrat & Gil, José M. & Traill, W. Bruce, 2008. "Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 99-111, April.
    10. Bernard, John C. & Pesek, John D. & Pan, Xiqian, 2007. "Consumer Likelihood to Purchase Chickens with Novel Production Attributes," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(3), pages 581-596, December.
    11. Michelle A. Haefele & John B. Loomis, 2001. "Improving Statistical Efficiency and Testing Robustness of Conjoint Marginal Valuations," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(5), pages 1321-1327.
    12. Fields, Deacue & Gillespie, Jeffrey, 2008. "Beef Producer Preferences and Purchase Decisions for Livestock Price Insurance," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 40(3), pages 789-803, December.
    13. Jayson L. Lusk & Jutta Roosen & John A. Fox, 2003. "Demand for Beef from Cattle Administered Growth Hormones or Fed Genetically Modified Corn: A Comparison of Consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(1), pages 16-29.
    14. Harrison, R. Wes & Sambidi, Pramod R., 2004. "A Conjoint Analysis of the U.S. Broiler Complex Location Decision," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 36(3), pages 639-655, December.
    15. Bernard, John C. & Zhang, Chao & Gifford, Katie, 2006. "An Experimental Investigation of Consumer Willingness to Pay for Non-GM Foods When an Organic Option Is Present," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 35(2), pages 1-12, October.
    16. Bernard, John C. & Pesek, John D., Jr. & Pan, Xiqian, 2007. "Consumer Likelihood to Purchase Chickens with Novel Production Attributes," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 39(3), pages 1-16, December.
    17. W. Bruce Traill, 2004. "Effect of information about benefits of biotechnology on consumer acceptance of genetically modified food: evidence from experimental auctions in the United States, England, and France," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 31(2), pages 179-204, June.
    18. Bernard, John C. & Zhang, Chao & Gifford, Katie, 2006. "An Experimental Investigation of Consumer Willingness to Pay for Non-GM Foods When an Organic Option Is Present," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 35(2), pages 374-385, October.
    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. repec:ags:afjare:225655 is not listed 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. Costa-Font, Montserrat & Gil, José M. & Traill, W. Bruce, 2008. "Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 99-111, April.
    2. Lusk, Jayson L. & Jamal, Mustafa & Kurlander, Lauren & Roucan, Maud & Taulman, Lesley, 2005. "A Meta-Analysis of Genetically Modified Food Valuation Studies," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 30(01), pages 1-17, April.
    3. Wendy J. Umberger & Dawn D. Thilmany McFadden & Amanda R. Smith, 2009. "Does altruism play a role in determining U.S. consumer preferences and willingness to pay for natural and regionally produced beef?," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(2), pages 268-285.
    4. Zhao, Li & Gu, Haiying & Yue, Chengyan & Ahlstrom, David, 2013. "Consumer welfare and GM food labeling: A simulation using an adjusted Kumaraswamy distribution," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 58-70.
    5. Kaneko, Naoya & Chern, Wen S., 2005. "Willingness to Pay for Genetically Modified Oil, Cornflakes, and Salmon: Evidence from a U.S. Telephone Survey," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 37(3), pages 1-19, December.
    6. Hu, R. & Deng, H., 2018. "A Crisis of Consumers’ Trust in Scientists and Influence on Consumer Attitude," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 276047, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Harrison, R. Wes & Han, Jae-Hwan, 2005. "The Effects of Urban Consumer Perceptions on Attitudes for Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 36(2), pages 1-10, July.
    8. Dannenberg, Astrid, 2008. "Is it Who You Ask or How You Ask? Findings of a Meta-Analysis on Genetically Modified Food Valuation Studies," ZEW Discussion Papers 08-096, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    9. Katarzyna Zagórska & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley, 2022. "“GMO – Doesn’t Have To Go!” – Consumers’ Preferences Towards Genetically Modified Products Labelling and Sale," Working Papers 2022-07, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    10. Ehmke, Mariah D. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Tyner, Wallace E., 2006. "The Relative Importance of Preferences for Country-of-Origin in China, France, Niger and the United States," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25408, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Yuan, Xiaotong & Zhang, Yu Yvette & Palma, Marco A. & Ribera, Luis A., 2018. "Understanding Consumer response to GMO Information," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266720, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    12. Yan Heng & Sungeun Yoon & Lisa House, 2021. "Explore Consumers’ Willingness to Purchase Biotechnology Produced Fruit: An International Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-10, November.
    13. Dannenberg, Astrid, 2009. "The dispersion and development of consumer preferences for genetically modified food -- A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2182-2192, June.
    14. Bond, Craig A. & Thilmany, Dawn D. & Bond, Jennifer Keeling, 2008. "What to Choose? The Value of Label Claims to Fresh Produce Consumers," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 33(3), pages 1-26.
    15. Bansal, Sangeeta & Chakravarty, Sujoy & Ramaswami, Bharat, 2013. "The informational and signaling impacts of labels: experimental evidence from India on GM foods," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(6), pages 701-722, December.
    16. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:3:y:2006:i:23:p:1-11 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Shi, Lijia & House, Lisa & Gao, Zhifeng, 2012. "Consumers’ Willingness-to-pay for Organic and Local Blueberries: A Multi-store BDM Auction Controlling for Purchase Intentions," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124998, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. McFadden, Jonathan R. & Huffman, Wallace E., 2017. "Willingness-to-pay for natural, organic, and conventional foods: The effects of information and meaningful labels," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 214-232.
    19. Xie, Jing & Hyeyoung, Kim & House, Lisa, 2014. "Valuing Information on GM Foods in the presence of Country-of-Origin Labels," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 4(3), pages 1-14, February.
    20. Houman Hashemzadeh & Alireza Karbasi & Hosein Mohammadi & Ali Firoozzare & Flavio Boccia, 2022. "Investigating the Effect of Nudges on Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Genetically Modified Corn Oil," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-18, October.
    21. Lucy Mallinson & Jean Russell & Duncan D. Cameron & Jurriaan Ton & Peter Horton & Margo E. Barker, 2018. "Why rational argument fails the genetic modification (GM) debate," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 10(5), pages 1145-1161, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy;

    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:117945. 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.