An estimation of US horse-owner/caregiver willingness-to-pay for daily use and infectious upper respiratory disease treatment options.

BACKGROUND: Equine injury and disease cause two types of costs for those financially responsible for treating and caring for the infected horse(s); direct costs of treating the horse and indirect cost of lost use of the horse for a period of time to the user of the horse (daily horse use). Indirect costs are more difficult to estimate but pose significant financial implications for equine-owners/caregivers. Additionally, there exists a gap in existing research regarding the valuation of infectious treatment options in horses. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the value a US horse-owner/caregiver places on daily horse use and describe respondents' willingness-to-pay for various attributes of equine treatment options. STUDY DESIGN: Online questionnaire survey. METHODS: An online questionnaire was provided to equine-owners and caretakers, and owner demographic, horse care and horse use information from respondents were requested. Additionally, respondents were presented with hypothetical disease treatment options with the following attributes: daily dosage, number of days of rest required, route of administration and out-of-pocket cost to the owner/caretaker through a choice experiment. Data were analysed using a rank-ordered logit analysis and willingness-to-pay estimates for daily use and treatment options were calculated. RESULTS: Results suggest that the average horse-owner with an uninsured and insured horse is willing to pay $12.07 (95% confidence interval: -$15.01, -$9.69) and $17.95 (95% confidence interval: -$25.30, -$11.20) per day to reduce lost use days required (due to need for rest) respectively. Respondents showed preferences for oral administration over treatments requiring i.m. injections. MAIN LIMITATIONS: As this study employed an online survey it was subjected to self-selection bias and a sample size calculation was not performed. CONCLUSIONS: Veterinarians and pharmaceutical companies may use these results when promoting various treatment options to horse-owners/caregivers and in product development. Additionally, promotion efforts may be targeted towards equine-owners with higher daily use values (owners with insured horses).

National Beef Quality Audit-2016: Phase 1, Face-to-face interviews.

The National Beef Quality Audit (NBQA) is conducted every 5 yr and was most recently again conducted in 2016. Face-to-face interviews gauged progress in quality associated with live cattle production using procedures first utilized in NBQA 2011. The 2016 NBQA was the first in which interviews concerning fed steers and heifers were combined with an audit of market cow and bull beef. Face-to-face interviews were designed to illicit definitions for beef quality, estimate willingness to pay (WTP) for quality attributes, establish relative importance rankings for important quality factors, and assess images, strengths, weaknesses, potential threats, and shifting trends in the beef industry since the 2011 audit. Individuals making purchasing decisions in 5 market sectors of the steer/heifer and cow/bull beef supply chain were interviewed, including packers (n = 36), retailers (including large and small supermarket companies and warehouse food sales companies; n = 35), food service operators (including quick-serve, full-service, and institutional establishments; n = 29), further processors (n = 64), and peripherally-related government and trade organizations (GTO; n = 30). Face-to-face interviews were conducted between January and November of 2016 using a designed dynamic routing system. Definitions (as described by interviewees) for 7 pre-determined quality factors, including: (1) How and where the cattle were raised, (2) Lean, fat, and bone, (3) Weight and size, (4) Visual characteristics, (5) Food safety, (6) Eating satisfaction, and (7) Cattle genetics were recorded verbatim and categorized into similar responses for analysis. Compared to NBQA-2011, a higher percentage of companies were willing to pay premiums for guaranteed quality attributes, but overall were willing to pay lower average premiums than the companies interviewed in 2011. Food safety had the highest share of preference among all interviewees, generating a double-digit advantage over any other quality factor. The 2 beef industries have an overall positive image among interviewees, and despite lingering weaknesses, product quality continued to be at the forefront of the strengths category for both steer and heifer beef and market cow and bull beef.

Economic Assessment of Zoonotic Diseases: An Illustrative Study of Rift Valley Fever in the United States.

This study evaluates the economic consequences of a Rift Valley Fever outbreak, a virus that spreads from livestock to humans, often through mosquitoes. Developing a 'one health' economic framework, economic impacts on agricultural producers and consumers, government costs of response, costs and disruptions to non-agricultural activities in the epidemiologically impacted region, and human health costs (morbidity and mortality) are estimated. We find the agricultural firms bear most of the negative economic impacts, followed by regional non-agricultural firms, human health and government. Further, consumers of agricultural products benefit from small outbreaks due to bans on agricultural exports.

Definition, willingness-to-pay, and ranking of quality attributes of U.S. pork as defined by importers in Asia and Mexico.

A survey was conducted from November 2009 to April 2010 to determine how importers of pork define 7 predetermined quality categories (food safety, customer service, eating quality, product specification, packaging, visual characteristics, and production history) and to estimate willingness-to-pay (WTP) and establish best-worst (B/W) scaling (rank) for the 7 quality categories. Interviews were conducted in Hong Kong/China (n = 83), Japan (n = 48), Mexico (n = 70) and Russia (n = 54) with importers of U.S. pork or those who had purchased U.S. pork from distributors in the last 3 yr. Interviews used dynamic routing software and were structured such that economic factors for purchase were addressed first, allowing all responses to focus on quality. Questions about WTP and B/W were asked and then each respondent was asked to define what each quality category meant to them. Generalized linear mixed models were used to analyze frequency data. Over 70% of interviewees in Hong Kong/China, Japan, and Mexico responded that purchase price was influential in deciding whether or not to purchase imported pork. This number was lower in Russia, where respondents stated tariff rates were also important, indicating market access was a larger issue in Russia. Food safety was the most important quality category (price was not included as a part of quality) for imported pork followed by specifications. Respondents indicated some form of government inspection was how they defined food safety, whereas product size, weight, and subcutaneous fat were all included in the definition of specifications. Interviewees were more likely to pay premiums for customer service and less likely to pay premiums for packaging (P < 0.05). The premiums that were willing to be paid for guarantees of quality for imported pork variety meats were numerically lower than for whole muscle cuts or processed products. A guarantee associated with food safety of processed pork products was found to be the quality attribute for which importers would be willing to pay the highest premium. Production history was found to be the least important quality attribute for importers of all types of U.S. pork, except those in Japan. Exporters could increase profitability if a guarantee of customer service was made. Price, tariffs, and exchange rates are important to pork importers; these results indicated that if certain quality attributes could be guaranteed, exporters could increase profitability.

Phase I of The National Beef Quality Audit-2011: quantifying willingness-to-pay, best-worst scaling, and current status of quality characteristics in different beef industry marketing sectors.

The National Beef Quality Audit (NBQA)-2011 benchmarked the current status of and assessed progress being made toward quality and consistency of U.S. cattle, carcasses, and beef products after the completion of the first NBQA in 1991. Unlike previous NBQA, objectives of the 2011 Phase I study were to determine how each beef market sector defined 7 quality categories, estimate willingness-to-pay (WTP) for the same quality categories by market sector, and establish a best-worst (B/W) scaling for the quality categories. Structured face-to-face interviews were conducted and responses were recorded using dynamic routing software over an 11-mo period (February to December 2011) with decision makers in each of the following beef market sectors: Feeders (n = 59), Packers (n = 26), Food Service, Distribution, and Further Processors (n = 48), Retailers (n = 30), and Government and Allied Industries (n = 47). All respondents participated in a structured interview consisting of WTP and B/W questions that were tied to 7 quality categories and then were asked to "define" each of the 7 categories in terms of what the category meant to them, resulting in completely unbiased results. The 7 quality categories were a) how and where the cattle were raised, b) lean, fat, and bone, c) weight and size, d) cattle genetics, e) visual characteristics, f) food safety, and g) eating satisfaction. Overall, "food safety" and "eating satisfaction" were the categories of greatest and second most importance, respectively, to all beef market sectors except for Feeders. Feeders ranked "how and where the cattle were raised" and "weight and size" as the most important and second most important, respectively. Overall, "how and where the cattle were raised" had the greatest odds of being considered a nonnegotiable requirement before the raw material for each sector would be considered for purchase and was statistically more important (P < 0.05) as a requirement for purchase than all other categories except "food safety." When all market sectors were considered, "eating satisfaction" was shown to generate the greatest average WTP percentage premium (11.1%), but that WTP premium value only differed statistically (P < 0.05) from "weight and size" (8.8%). Most notably, when a sector said that "food safety" was a nonnegotiable requirement, no sector was willing to purchase the product at a discounted price if the "food safety" of the product could not be assured.

Post-slaughter traceability.

Traceability programs can cover the whole of life, or parts of it, for individual animals or groups/lots of animals. Of 13 country or community traceability programs for cattle/beef, 11 are mandatory (4 encompass, or are scheduled to encompass, birth to retail; 7 cover birth to slaughter) while 2 are voluntary and encompass birth to slaughter. Of 10 country or community traceability programs for swine/pork, 2 are mandatory (1 covers birth to retail; 1 covers birth to slaughter) while 8 are voluntary. Of 6 country or community traceability programs for sheep/sheep-meat, 3 are mandatory (1 encompasses birth to retail; 2 encompass birth to slaughter) while 3 are voluntary. Mandatory birth to retail programs that include "post-slaughter individual animal identification (IAID) traceability" have been implemented for cattle/beef, swine/pork and sheep/sheep-meat by the European Union and for cattle/beef by Japan. Many of the voluntary as well as mandatory, birth to slaughter traceability programs for all three species are presumed (though that is not specified) to include "post-slaughter group/lot identification (GLID) traceability" - e.g., those qualifying products for shipment to the European Union. "Post-slaughter IAID traceability" can be accomplished in very-small, small, medium, large and very-large packing plants using single-carcass processing units, tagging and separation/segregation, and/or deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) fingerprinting technology but all of these approaches are time-consuming and costly; and, to-date, in most countries, there has been no reason compelling enough to cause industry to adopt such protocols or technology.