Swine producers' perceptions of alternative waste management systems

Journal of Sustainable Agriculture

Volumn 29, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 53-74

  Cates, Sheryl C ^a   Chvosta, Jan ^b   Wossink, Ada ^c  

^a RTI INTERNATIONAL   (United States)

^b SAS INSTITUTE INC   (United States)

^c NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Adoption; CAFO; Lagoon; North Carolina; Perceptions; Sprayfield; Swine; Waste management

Indexed keywords

SUIDAE;

EID: 33847647565     PISSN: 10440046     EISSN: 15407578     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1300/J064v29n01_06     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Adesina, A.A., and J. Baidu-Forson. 1995. Farmer perceptions and adoptions of new agricultural technology. Agricultural Economics 13 (1): 1-9.
2. Cates, S., H. Carter-Young, Y. Ji, J. Chvosta, K. Zering, and A. Wossink. 2003. Evaluation of swine producers' perceptions of alternative waste management systems. RTI report 08252.005. RTI International and NCSU (http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/waste_mgt/3-year%20Smithfield%20Report/ economic%20reports/Final%20Report.pdf).
3. Chiu, I., and M. Brennan. 1990. The effectiveness of some techniques for improving mail survey response rates: A meta-analysis. Marketing Bulletin 1: 13-18.
4. Dillman, D. 2000. Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. Second edition. John Wiley & Sons, NY.
5. Drabenstott, M. 1998. This little piggy went to market: Will the new pork industry call the heartland home? Economic Review 1998 (Third Quarter). Pp. 79-90. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.
6. Henry, W.R., and J.A. Seagraves. 1960. Economic aspects of broiler production density. Journal of Farm Economics 42 (1): 1-17.
7. Holmes T., and W. Adamowicz. 2003. Attribute based methods. Pp. 171-219. In P. Champ, K. Boyle, and T. Brown (eds.) A primer on nonmarket valuation. Kluwer Academic Press, Boston, Mass.
8. Letson, D., N. Gollehon, V. Breneman, C. Kascal, and C. Mose. 1998. Confined animal production and groundwater protection. Review of Agricultural Economics 20: 348-364.
9. Miner, J.R. 1999. Alternatives to minimize the environmental impact of large swine production units. Journal of Animal Science 77: 440-444.
10. North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) Animal Operations Database (as obtained May 15, 2002).
11. Nowlin, M., and G.W. Boyd. 1997. Point counter point: Regulating large hog lots. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 52(5): 314-319.
12. Palmquist, R.B., F.M. Roka, and T. Vukina. 1997. Hog operations, environmental effects, and residential property values. Land Economics 73 (1): 114-124.
13. Petit, J., and H.M.G. van der Werf. 2003. Perception of the environmental impacts of current and alternative modes of pig production by stakeholder groups. Journal of Environmental Management 68: 377-386.
14. Ribaudo, M., A. Cattaneo, and J. Agapoff. 2004. Cost of meeting manure nutrient application standards in hog production: The roles of EQIP and fertilizer offsets. Review of Agricultural Economics 26 (4): 430-444.
15. SAS Institute, Inc. 1999. SAS/STAT user's guide, version 8. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.
16. Schiffman, S.S., J.L. Bennett, and J.H. Raymer. 2001. Quantification of odors and odorants from swine operations in North Carolina. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 108 (3): 213-240.
17. Sherrick, B.J., P.J. Barry, G.D. Schnitkey, P.N. Ellinger, and B. Wansink. 2003. Farmers' preferences for crop insurance attributes. Review of Agricultural Economics 25 (2): 415-429.
18. Stonehouse, D.P., G.W. de Vos, and A. Weersink. 2002. Livestock manure systems for swine finishing enterprises. Agricultural Systems 73: 279-296.
19. Vukina, T. 2003. The relationship between contracting and livestock waste pollution. Review of Agricultural Economics 25 (1): 66-88.
20. Wossink G.A.A., A.J. de Buck, J.H. van Niejenhuis, and H.C.M. Haverkamp. 1997. Farmers' perceptions of weed control techniques in sugarbeet. Agricultural Systems 55: 409-423.