IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i19p10682-d643423.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Socio-Economic and Governance Conditions Corresponding to Change in Animal Agriculture: South Dakota Case Study

Author

Listed:
  • Jacqueline S. Welles

    (Biological and Agricultural Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA)

  • Noelle Cielito T. Soriano

    (Bioproducts and Biosystems Engineering, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108, USA)

  • Freda Elikem Dorbu

    (Computational Data Science and Engineering, North Carolina A&T State University, Greensboro, NC 27411, USA)

  • G. M. Pereira

    (Animal Science, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108, USA)

  • Laura M. Rubeck

    (School of Natural Resources, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588, USA)

  • Erica L. Timmermans

    (Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA)

  • Benjamin Ndayambaje

    (School of Natural Resources, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588, USA)

  • Alison V. Deviney

    (Biological and Agricultural Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA)

  • John J. Classen

    (Biological and Agricultural Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA)

  • Jacek A. Koziel

    (Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA)

  • Erin L. Cortus

    (Bioproducts and Biosystems Engineering, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108, USA)

Abstract

Understanding sustainable livestock production requires consideration of both qualitative and quantitative factors in a temporal and/or spatial frame. This study adapted Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) to relate conditions of social, economic, and governance factors to changes in livestock inventory across several counties and over time. This paper presents an approach that (1) identified factors with the potential to relate to a change in livestock inventory and (2) analyzed commonalities within these factors related to changes spatially and temporally. This paper illustrates the approach and results when applied to five counties in eastern South Dakota. The specific response variables were periods of increasing, no change, or decreasing beef cattle, dairy cattle, and swine inventories in the specific counties for five-year census periods between 1992 and 2017. In the spatial analysis of counties, stable beef inventories and decreasing dairy inventories related to counties with increasing gross domestic products. The presence of specific social communities related to increases in county swine inventories. In the temporal analysis of census periods, local governance and economic factors, particularly market price influences, were more prevalent. Swine inventory showed a stronger link to cash crop markets than to livestock markets, whereas cattle market price increases associated with stable inventories for all animal types. Local governance tools had mixed effects for the different animal types across space and time. The factors and analysis results are context-specific. However, the process considers the various socio-economic processes in livestock production and community development applicable to agricultural sustainability questions in the Midwest and beyond.

Suggested Citation

  • Jacqueline S. Welles & Noelle Cielito T. Soriano & Freda Elikem Dorbu & G. M. Pereira & Laura M. Rubeck & Erica L. Timmermans & Benjamin Ndayambaje & Alison V. Deviney & John J. Classen & Jacek A. Koz, 2021. "Socio-Economic and Governance Conditions Corresponding to Change in Animal Agriculture: South Dakota Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-19, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:19:p:10682-:d:643423
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/19/10682/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/19/10682/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. MacDonald, James M. & McBride, William D., 2009. "The Transformation of U.S. Livestock Agriculture: Scale, Efficiency, and Risks," Economic Information Bulletin 58311, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    2. Kyle Nelson & Philip Garboden & Brian J. McCabe & Eva Rosen, 2021. "Evictions: The Comparative Analysis Problem," Housing Policy Debate, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(3-5), pages 696-716, September.
    3. Tamara J. Bergstra & Henk Hogeveen & Elsbeth N. Stassen, 2017. "Attitudes of different stakeholders toward pig husbandry: a study to determine conflicting and matching attitudes toward animals, humans and the environment," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(2), pages 393-405, June.
    4. Diersen, Matthew A., 2001. "South Dakota's Hog Market: Developments and Prospects," Economics Staff Papers 32021, South Dakota State University, Department of Economics.
    5. Dimitri, Carolyn & Effland, Anne & Conklin, Neilson C., 2005. "The 20th Century Transformation of U.S. Agriculture and Farm Policy," Economic Information Bulletin 59390, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    6. Taylor, Gary, "undated". "Economic Impact of the Dairy Industry in South Dakota," Issue Briefs 2015555, South Dakota State University, Department of Economics.
    7. Drabenstott, Mark, 2000. "A New Structure For Agriculture: A Revolution For Rural America," Journal of Agribusiness, Agricultural Economics Association of Georgia, vol. 18(1), pages 1-10, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items 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. Spiegal, Sheri & Kleinman, Peter J.A. & Endale, Dinku M. & Bryant, Ray B. & Dell, Curtis & Goslee, Sarah & Meinen, Robert J. & Flynn, K. Colton & Baker, John M. & Browning, Dawn M. & McCarty, Greg & B, 2020. "Manuresheds: Advancing nutrient recycling in US agriculture," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    2. Coleman, Jane A. & Shaik, Saleem, 2009. "Time-Varying Estimation of Crop Insurance Program in Altering North Dakota Farm Economic Structure," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49516, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Bev Wilson & Mallory L. Rahe, 2016. "Rural prosperity and federal expenditures, 2000–2010," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 8(1-2), pages 3-26, March.
    4. He, Xi, 2018. "Bigger Farms and Bigger Food Firms-The Agricultural Origin of Industrial Concentration in the Food Sector," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274206, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Velasco-Fernández, Raúl & Dunlop, Tessa & Giampietro, Mario, 2020. "Fallacies of energy efficiency indicators: Recognizing the complexity of the metabolic pattern of the economy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    6. Scott A. Carson, 2017. "Assessing Cumulative Net Nutrition and the Transition from 19th Century Bound to Free-Labor by Ethnic Status," CESifo Working Paper Series 6813, CESifo.
    7. Chad M. Baum, 2013. "Mass-Produced Food: the Rise and Fall of the Promise of Health and Safety," Papers on Economics and Evolution 2013-03, Philipps University Marburg, Department of Geography.
    8. Rachel M. Shellabarger & Rachel C. Voss & Monika Egerer & Shun-Nan Chiang, 2019. "Challenging the urban–rural dichotomy in agri-food systems," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 36(1), pages 91-103, March.
    9. Rachael Goodhue & Leo Simon, 2016. "Agricultural contracts, adverse selection, and multiple inputs," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 4(1), pages 1-33, December.
    10. Jeremy G. Weber & Conor Wall & Jason Brown & Tom Hertz, 2015. "Crop Prices, Agricultural Revenues, and the Rural Economy," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 37(3), pages 459-476.
    11. Lijuan Du & Li Xu & Yanping Li & Changshun Liu & Zhenhua Li & Jefferson S. Wong & Bo Lei, 2019. "China’s Agricultural Irrigation and Water Conservancy Projects: A Policy Synthesis and Discussion of Emerging Issues," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-20, December.
    12. Glauber, Joseph W. & Effland, Anne, 2016. "United States agricultural policy: Its evolution and impact:," IFPRI discussion papers 1543, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    13. Dong, Diansheng & Stewart, Hayden & Dong, Xiao & Hahn, William, 2022. "Quantifying Consumer Welfare Impacts of Higher Meat Prices During the COVID-19 Pandemic," Amber Waves:The Economics of Food, Farming, Natural Resources, and Rural America, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, vol. 2022(Economic ), April.
    14. Roeger, Edward & Leibtag, Ephraim S., 2011. "How Retail Beef and Bread Prices Respond to Changes in Ingredient and Input and Costs," Economic Research Report 102757, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    15. Kai Ding & Filippo Rebessi, 2020. "Optimal Agricultural Policy: Small Gains?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 58(4), pages 1907-1928, October.
    16. Roka, Fritz m. & Simnitt, Skyler & Farnsworth, Derek, 2016. "Pre-employment costs associated with H-2A agricultural workers and the effects of the ‘60-minute rule’," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 20(3), December.
    17. Elanor Starmer & Aimee Witteman & Timothy A. Wise, "undated". "Feeding the Factory Farm: Implicit Subsidies to the Broiler Chicken Industry," GDAE Working Papers 06-03, GDAE, Tufts University.
    18. Hailey Wilmer & María E. Fernández-Giménez & Shayan Ghajar & Peter Leigh Taylor & Caridad Souza & Justin D. Derner, 2020. "Managing for the middle: rancher care ethics under uncertainty on Western Great Plains rangelands," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 37(3), pages 699-718, September.
    19. Rachael D. Garrett & Meredith Niles & Juliana Gil & Philip Dy & Julio Reis & Judson Valentim, 2017. "Policies for Reintegrating Crop and Livestock Systems: A Comparative Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-22, March.
    20. Helena Kahiluoto & Janne Kaseva, 2016. "No Evidence of Trade-Off between Farm Efficiency and Resilience: Dependence of Resource-Use Efficiency on Land-Use Diversity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-16, September.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:19:p:10682-:d:643423. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.