Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-94d59 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-27T13:55:16.024Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Value in the values: pasture-raised livestock products offer opportunities for reconnecting producers and consumers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2008

David S. Conner*
Affiliation:
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA.
Victoria Campbell-Arvai
Affiliation:
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA.
Michael W. Hamm
Affiliation:
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA.
*
*Corresponding author: connerd@msu.edu

Abstract

Pasture-based livestock production holds promise in helping to reinvigorate small and mid-scale farming, as well as farm communities, across the United States. In this study, in-depth interviews of pasture-based livestock producers, meat processors and buyers were conducted to determine behaviors, attitudes and expectations with regard to pasture-based livestock production. In addition, consumers were polled to determine their attitudes with respect to how food animals are raised and treated. Results revealed many shared values between those involved in raising, processing and distributing animal products, as well as consumers, indicating an opportunity for a ‘re-embedding’ of livestock production based on these shared values. The concurrent development of both direct and extended markets, e.g. values-based value chains, is suggested as one way of addressing the difficulties faced by individual farmers in processing and distributing animal products with their provenance and underlying values intact.

Type
Research Papers
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Gomez, M. and Zhang, L. 2000. Impacts of Concentration in Hog Production on Economic Growth in Rural Illinois: An Econometric Analysis. Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meetings, 2000, Tampa, FL.Google Scholar
Lobao, L. 1990. Locality and Inequality. Farm Structure and Socioeconomic Conditions. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.Google Scholar
USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2002. Table 8. Land: 2002 and 1997. Available at Web site http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/volume1/mi/st26_1_008_008.pdf (cited 9 August 2006).Google Scholar
Kriegl, T. Undated. Good News for Many Wisconsin Dairy Farms. Center for Dairy Profitability, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
Honeyman, M. 1996. Swine System Option for Iowa. Outdoor Pig Production: An Approach that Works. Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State University Ames, IA.Google Scholar
Krohn, C.C. and Munksgaard, L. 1993. Behaviour of dairy cows kept in extensive (loose housing/pasture) or intensive (tie stall) environments. II. Lying and lying-down behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 36:116.Google Scholar
Ostrom, M.R. and Jackson-Smith, D.B. 2000. The Use and Performance of Management Intensive Rotational Grazing among Wisconsin Dairy Farms in the 1990. Program on Agricultural Technology Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
Digiacomo, G., Iremonger, C., Kemp, L., Schaik, Cv., and Murray, H. 2001. Sustainable Farming Systems: Demonstrating Environmental and Economic Performance. Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture, St. Paul, MN.Google Scholar
Bishop, P.L., Hively, W.D., Stedinger, J.R., Rafferty, M.R., Lojpersberger, J.L., and Bloomfield, J.A. 2005. Multivariate analysis of paired watershed data to evaluate agricultural best management practice effects on stream water phosphorus. Journal of Environmental Quality 34:10871101.Google Scholar
10 Guo, L.B. and Gifford, R.M. 2002. Soil carbon stocks and land use change: a meta analysis. Global Change Biology 8(4):345360.Google Scholar
11 Dupuis, E.M. 2000. Not in my body: rBGH and the rise of organic milk. Agriculture and Human Values 17:285295.Google Scholar
12 Petit, J. and van der Werf, H.M.G. 2003. Perception of the environmental impacts of current and alternative modes of pig production by stakeholder groups. Journal of Environmental Management 68:377386.Google Scholar
13 Renting, H., Marsden, T., and Banks, J. 2003. Understanding alternative food networks: exploring the role of short food supply chains in rural development. Environment and Planning A 35:393411.Google Scholar
14 Winter, M. 2003. Embeddedness, the newfood economy and defensive localism. Journal of Rural Studies 19:2332.Google Scholar
15 Phan-Huy, S.A. and Fawaz, R.B. 2003. Swiss market for meat from animal friendly production—responses of public and private actors in Switzerland. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 16:119136.Google Scholar
16 Murdoch, J., Marsden, T., and Banks, J. 2000. Quality, nature and embeddedness: some theoretical considerations in the context of the food sector. Economic Geography 76(2):107125.Google Scholar
17 Hinrichs, C.C. 2000. Embeddedness and local food systems: notes on two types of direct agricultural market. Agriculture and Human Values 16:295303.Google Scholar
18 Sage, C. 2003. Social embeddedness an relations of regard: alternative ‘good food’ networks in South-West Ireland. Journal of Rural Studies 19:4760.Google Scholar
19 Goodman, D. 2004. Rural Europe redux? Reflections on alternative agro-food networks and paradigm changes. Sociologia Ruralis 44(1):316.Google Scholar
20 Lyson, T. 2000. Moving toward civic agriculture. Choices 15(3):4245.Google Scholar
21 Food Processing Center. 2001. Attracting Customers with Locally Grown Products. Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE.Google Scholar
22 Barham, E. 2002. Towards a theory of values-based labeling. Agriculture and Human Values 19:349360.Google Scholar
23 Stevenson, G. and Pirog, R. Undated. Values-based food supply chains: strategies for agri-food enterprises-of-the-middle. Available at Web site http://www.agofthemiddle.org/papers/valuechain.pdf (cited 9 August 2006).Google Scholar
24 Pirog, R. 2004. Sharing risks and rewards across partners in pastured livestock value chains. Proceedings of the Animals in the Food System Conference, 3–4 November, Kellogg Biological Station, Hickory Corners, MI. Available at Web site http://www.mottgroup.msu.edu/portals/mottgroup/animals_in_food_files/AITFS-Pirog.pdf (cited 9 August 2006).Google Scholar
25 Maxwell, J.A. 1996. Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
26 Hembroff, L. and Silver, B. 2005. Methodological Report Michigan State University State of the State Survey (MSU SOSS-39). Summer 2005. Available at Web site http://www.ippsr.msu.edu/Documents/SOSSArchive/Method%20report%20PDF/soss39_meth.pdf (cited 9 August 2006).Google Scholar
27 Howard, P.H. 2006. Central coast consumers want more food-related information, from safety to ethics. California Agriculture 60:1419.Google Scholar
28 McEachern, M.G. and Schroder, M.J.A. 2004. Integrating the voice of the consumer within the value chain: a focus on value-based labelling communications in the fresh-meat sector. Journal of Consumer Marketing 21(7):497509.Google Scholar
29 Verhaegen, I. and Van Huylenbroeck, G. 2001. Costs and benefits for farmers participating in innovative marketing channels for quality food products. Journal of Rural Studies 17:443456.Google Scholar
30 Marsden, T., Banks, J., and Bristow, G. 2000. Food supply chain approaches: exploring their role in rural development. Sociologia Ruralis 40(4):424438.Google Scholar