An approach to derive economic weights in breeding objectives using partial profile choice experiments

Animal

Volumn 1, Issue 9, 2007, Pages 1254-1262

  Nielsen, H M ^a,c   Amer, P R ^b  

^a NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES   (Norway)

^b ABACUSBIO LIMITED   (New Zealand)

^c NOFIMA   (Norway)

Author keywords

Breeding objective; Choice experiment; Economic weight

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREEDING METHOD; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DATA ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; ECONOMIC ASPECT; GENE FLOW; GENETIC TRAIT; GENOTYPE; HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

ANIMALIA;

EID: 34948829090     PISSN: 17517311     EISSN: 1751732X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S1751731107000729     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Alfnes F, Guttormsen AG, Steine G and Kolstad K 2006. Consumers' willingness to pay for the color of salmon: a choice experiment with real economic incentives. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 88, 1050-1061.
2. Amer PR and Fox GC 1992. Estimation of economic weights in genetic improvement using neoclassical production theory: an alternative to rescaling. Animal Production 54, 341-350.
3. Amer PR and Hofer A 1994. Optimum bias in selection index parameters estimated with uncertainty. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 111, 89-101.
4. Arentze T, Borgers A, Timmermans H and DelMistro R 2003. Transport stated choice responses: effects of task complexity, presentation format and literacy. Transportation Research E 39, 229-244.
5. Carlsson F and Martinsson P 2001. Do hypothetical and actual marginal willingness to pay differ in choice experiments. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 41, 179-192.
6. Carson RT, Louviere JJ, Anderson DA, Arabie P, Bunch DS, Hensher DA, Johnson RM, Kuhfeld WF, Steinberg D, Swait J, Timmermans H and Wiley JB 1994. Experimental analysis of choice. Marketing Letters 5, 351-367.
7. Chrzan K 1999. Full version partial profile choice experiments: aggregate andSan Diego, CA.
8. Chrzan K and Elrod T 1995. Choice-based approach for large numbers of attributes. Marketing News 29, 1, 4pp.
9. Caussade S, de Dios Ortúzar J, Rizzi LI and Hensher DA 2005. Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates. Transportation Research B 39, 621-640.
10. Groen AF, Steine T, Colleau J-J, Pedersen J, Pribyl J and Reinsch N 1997. Economic values in dairy cattle breeding, with special reference to functional traits. Report of an EAAP-working group. Livestock Production Science 49, 1-21.
11. Kuhfeld WF 2005. Marketing research methods in SAS. SAS 9.1 edition. TS-922.
12. McClintock AE and Cunningham EP 1974. Selection in dual purpose cattle populations: defining the breeding objective. Animal Production 18, 237-247.
13. Nielsen HM, Christensen LG and Ødegård J 2006. A method to define breeding goals for sustainable dairy cattle production. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 3615-3625.
14. Olesen I, Navrud S and Kolstad K 2006. Economic value of animal welfare in breeding goals. Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, 13-18 August, 2006, Belo Horizonte, Brazil. CD-ROM: 31_538-1710.pdf. 5pp.
15. Statistical Analysis Systems Institute 1999. SAS/STAT®R user's guide, version 8. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.
16. Smith C 1983. Effects of changes in economic weights on the efficiency of index selection. Journal of Animal Science 56, 1057-1064.
17. So Y and Kuhfeld WF 2005. Multinomial logit models. In Marketing research methods in SAS. SAS 9th edition, TS-722.
18. Sy HA, Faminow MD, Johnson GV and Crow G 1997. Estimating the values of cattle characteristics using an ordered probit model. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79, 463-476.
19. Tano K, Kamuanga M, Faminow MD and Swallow B 2003. Using conjoint analysis to estimate farmer's preferences for cattle traits in West Africa. Ecological Economics 45, 393-407.
20. Toubia O, Simester DI, Hauser JR and Dahan E 2003. Fast polyhedral adaptive conjoint estimation. Marketing Science 22, 273-303.
21. Train KE 2003. Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
22. Von Rohr P, Hofer A and Künzi N 1999. Economic values for meat quality traits in pigs. Journal of Animal Science 77, 2633-2640.
23. Wurzinger M, Ndumu D, Baumung R, Drucker AG, Okeyo AM, Semambo DK and Sölkner J 2006. Assessing stated preferences through the use of choice experiments: valuing (re)production v. aesthetics in the breeding goals of Ugandan Ankole cattle breeders. Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, 13-18 August, 2006, Belo Horizonte, Brazil. CD-ROM: 31_439-608.pdf. 4pp.