Unlocking the monetary value: investigating the importance of quality information in Australian red meat chains

Yue Zhang; Nam Hoang; Derek Baker; Emilio Morales; Garry Griffith

doi:10.1071/AN23180

RESEARCH ARTICLE (Open Access)

Previous Next Contents Vol 64(1)

Unlocking the monetary value: investigating the importance of quality information in Australian red meat chains

Yue Zhang

^A ^* , Nam Hoang ^A , Derek Baker ^A , Emilio Morales ^A and Garry Griffith

^A ^B

+ Author Affiliations

- Author Affiliations

^A UNE Business School, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2350, Australia.

^B School of Agriculture and Food, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Vic. 3052, Australia.

^* Correspondence to: nikkiyuezhang@gmail.com

Handling Editor: James Dougherty

Animal Production Science 64, AN23180 https://doi.org/10.1071/AN23180

Submitted: 19 May 2023 Accepted: 22 November 2023 Published: 18 December 2023

© 2024 The Author(s) (or their employer(s)). Published by CSIRO Publishing. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND)

Abstract

Context

This study assesses the monetary value of product quality information, specifically feedback from slaughter and production methods, within the Australian beef and sheep meat supply chains.

Aims

The primary objective was to investigate the value assigned by supply chain actors to product quality information, measured as willingness to pay for receiving it or willingness to accept payment for providing it. The study also aimed to explore how the value of this information varies based on information quality and quantity.

Methods

A contingent valuation approach was employed, utilising survey data from 104 producers. Logit models were used to identify the factors influencing meat producers’ willingness to accept payment and willingness to pay.

Key results

Over one-third of cattle and sheep producers expressed interest in receiving feedback from slaughter information and providing production methods information. Production methods information had the highest mean value at the premium information quality and quantity level, with values of AU$20.49/head in the beef industry and AU$10.13/head in the sheep industry. Conversely, feedback from slaughter information had the lowest mean value at the low information quality and quantity level, with values of AU$0.83/carcass in beef and AU$0.14/carcass in sheep. Farmers’ experience and education level significantly influenced their willingness to accept payment and willingness to pay for product quality information.

Conclusions

A significant proportion of producers within the Australian beef and sheep meat supply chains express a desire to provide or pay for product quality information. The value assigned to this information demonstrates a positive relationship with higher information quality and quantity. However, variations in expressed value of different information types, and the influence of farmer and farm characteristics, suggest the presence of chain failures that disrupt information valuation.

Implications

These findings have important implications for improving the performance of the red meat supply chains. Understanding the factors that influence the valuation of product quality information allows stakeholders to develop targeted strategies to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of information exchange. This may involve addressing chain failures, and implementing measures to ensure consistent and accurate valuation of information. Ultimately, these improvements can contribute to enhanced decision-making processes and overall supply chain performance in the Australian beef and sheep meat industry.

Keywords: beef, carcase feedback, chain failure, contingent valuation, product quality information, sheep meat, supply chain, value of information, willingness to accept, willingness to pay.

References

ABS (2019) Agricultural Commodities, Australia, 2017-18. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra, ACT.

Adrian AM, Norwood SH, Mask PL (2005) Producers’ perceptions and attitudes toward precision agriculture technologies. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 48, 256-271.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Ainembabazi JH, van Asten P, Vanlauwe B, Ouma E, Blomme G, Birachi EA, Manyong VM (2017) Improving the speed of adoption of agricultural technologies and farm performance through farmer groups: evidence from the Great Lakes region of Africa. Agricultural Economics 48, 241-259.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Asrat P, Belay K, Hamito D (2004) Determinants of farmers’ willingness to pay for soil conservation practices in the southeastern highlands of Ethiopia. Land Degradation and Development 15, 423-438.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2018) Cattle and Beef Market Study – Updated Report. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, Canberra, ACT.

Balistreri E, McClelland G, Poe G, Schulze W (2001) Can hypothetical questions reveal true values? A laboratory comparison of dichotomous choice and open-ended contingent values with auction values. Environmental and Resource Economics 18, 275-292.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Bennett R, Balcombe K (2012) Farmers’ willingness to pay for a tuberculosis cattle vaccine. Journal of Agricultural Economics 63, 408-424.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Bett RC, Bett HK, Kahi AK, Peters KJ (2009) Evaluation and effectiveness of breeding and production services for dairy goat farmers in Kenya. Ecological Economics 68, 2451-2460.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Bowler D (2014) Strategic review of technologies for information management through supply chains. Final report for MLA Project code B.SCC.0176. Meat and Livestock Australia, Sydney, NSW. Available at https://www.mla.com.au/download/finalreports?itemId=506

Brooks C (2014) ‘Introductory econometrics for finance,’ 3rd edn. (Cambridge University Press)

Burton M, Rigby D, Young T (1999) Analysis of the determinants of adoption of organic horticultural techniques in the UK. Journal of Agricultural Economics 50, 47-63.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Calnan H, Williams A, Peterse J, Starling S, Cook J, Connaughton S, Gardner GE (2021) A prototype rapid dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) system can predict the CT composition of beef carcases. Meat Science 173, 108397.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

Carrer MJ, de Souza Filho HM, Batalha MO (2017) Factors influencing the adoption of Farm Management Information Systems (FMIS) by Brazilian citrus farmers. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 138, 11-19.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Carson RT, Wilks L, Imber D (1994) Valuing the preservation of Australia’s Kakadu conservation zone. Oxford Economic Papers 46, 727-749.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Doss CR, Morris ML (2000) How does gender affect the adoption of agricultural innovations?: The case of improved maize technology in Ghana. Agricultural Economics 25, 27-39.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Druschke CG, Secchi S (2014) The impact of gender on agricultural conservation knowledge and attitudes in an Iowa watershed. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 69, 95-106.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

D’Souza G, Cyphers D, Phipps T (1993) Factors affecting the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 22, 159-165.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Finger R, Lehmann B (2012) Adoption of agri-environmental programmes in swiss crop production. EuroChoices 11, 28-33.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Frew EJ, Whynes DK, Wolstenholme JL (2003) Eliciting willingness to pay: comparing closed-ended with open-ended and payment scale formats. Medical Decision Making 23, 150-159.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

Gao Z, Schroeder TC (2009) Effects of label information on consumer willingness-to-pay for food attributes. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 91, 795-809.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Goers H, Craig P (2008) Sheep feedback systems. Final report for MLA reject V.MSL.0001. Meat and Livestock Australia, Sydney, NSW.

Greene WH (2018) ‘Econometric analysis.’ 8th edn. (Prentice Hall)

Griffith GR, Thompson JM (2012) The aggregate economic benefits to the Australian beef industry from the adoption of Meat Standards Australia: updated to 2010/11. Australasian Agribusiness Review 20, 11-38.
| Google Scholar |

Griffith GR, Thompson JM, Polkinghorne R, Gunner R (2010) Meat Standards Australia as an innovation in the Australian beef production and marketing system. In ‘2010 International European Forum’, 8–12 February 2010, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria. pp. 231–241. (International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks)

Griffith G, Gow H, Umberger W, Fleming E, Mounter S, Malcolm B, Baker D (2015) Refocussing on the value chain perspective to analyse food, beverage and fibre markets. Australasian Agribusiness Perspectives 104, 1–19. Available at https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/17880

Grunert KG, Sonntag WI, Glanz-Chanos V, Forum S (2018) Consumer interest in environmental impact, safety, health and animal welfare aspects of modern pig production: results of a cross-national choice experiment. Meat Science 137, 123-129.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

Grutters JPC, Anteunis LJC, Chenault MN, Joore MA (2009) Willingness to pay for a hearing aid: comparing the payment scale and open-ended question. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 15, 91-96.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

Guy SZY, Brown DJ, Banks RG (2018) Data capture through Australian beef cattle and meat sheep value chains: opportunities for enhanced feedback to commercial producers. Animal Production Science 58, 1497-1503.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Haab TC, McConnell KE (2002) ‘Valuing environmental and natural resources: the econometrics of non-market valuation.’ (Edward Elgar Publishing)

Hay R, Pearce P (2014) Technology adoption by rural women in Queensland, Australia: women driving technology from the homestead for the paddock. Journal of Rural Studies 36, 318-327.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Horna JD, Smale M, Von Oppen M (2007) Farmer willingness to pay for seed-related information: rice varieties in Nigeria and Benin. Environment and Development Economics 12, 799-825.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Hudson D, Hite D (2003) Producer willingness to pay for precision application technology: implications for government and the technology industry. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue Canadienne D’agroeconomie 51, 39-53.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Johnson HC, Ward CE (2006) Impact of beef quality on market signals transmitted by grid pricing. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 38, 77-90.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Jorgensen BS, Syme GJ, Bishop BJ, Nancarrow BE (1999) Protest responses in contingent valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics 14, 131-150.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Kallas Z, Serra T, Gil JM (2010) Farmers’ objectives as determinants of organic farming adoption: the case of Catalonian vineyard production. Agricultural Economics 41, 409-423.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Kim SA, Gillespie JM, Paudel KP (2008) Rotational grazing adoption in cattle production under a cost-share agreement: does uncertainty have a role in conservation technology adoption? Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 52, 235-252.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

King AA, Lenox MJ, Terlaak A (2005) The strategic use of decentralized institutions: exploring certification with the ISO 14001 management standard. Academy of Management Journal 48, 1091-1106.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Knowler D, Bradshaw B (2007) Farmers’ adoption of conservation agriculture: a review and synthesis of recent research. Food Policy 32, 25-48.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Lusk JL, Hudson D (2004) Willingness-to-pay estimates and their relevance to agribusiness decision making. Review of Agricultural Economics 26, 152-169.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Magne MA, Cerf M, Ingrand S (2010) A conceptual model of farmers’ informational activity: a tool for improved support of livestock farming management. Animal 4, 842-852.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

Mariano MJ, Villano R, Fleming E (2012) Factors influencing farmers’ adoption of modern rice technologies and good management practices in the Philippines. Agricultural Systems 110, 41-53.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Mazoudier PF, Campbell MA, Guy SZY, Henry MLE (2021) Quantifying disease and defect carcass losses at processing to improve feedback in the lamb supply chain: an arthritis case study. Animal Production Science 61, 230-236.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Meat and Livestock Australia (2021) Meat beef eating quality insigights. Available at https://www.mla.com.au/globalassets/mla-corporate/marketing-beef-and-lamb/documents/msa-2021-australian-beef-eating-quality-insights-report-_web.pdf

Morales LE, Griffith G, Wright V, Fleming E, Umberger W, Hoang N (2013) Variables affecting the propensity to buy branded beef among groups of Australian beef buyers. Meat Science 94, 239-246.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

Mounter S, Zhang Y, Griffith G (2019) Calibrating and validating an equilibrium displacement model of the Australian sheep meat industry. Australasian Agribusiness Review 27(5), 107-127.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Napolitano F, Braghieri A, Piasentier E, Favotto S, Naspetti S, Zanoli R (2010) Effect of information about organic production on beef liking and consumer willingness to pay. Food Quality and Preference 21, 207-212.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Olynk NJ, Tonsor GT, Wolf CA (2010a) Consumer willingness to pay for livestock credence attribute claim verification. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 35, 261-280.
| Google Scholar |

Olynk NJ, Tonsor GT, Wolf CA (2010b) Verifying credence attributes in livestock production. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 42, 439-452.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Pitchford WS, Trotta CM, Hebart ML, Miller SM, Rutley DL (2020) Yield measurement is valuable for pricing beef carcasses. Animal Production Science 61, 287-293.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Polkinghorne R, Thompson JW, Watson R, Gee A, Porter M (2008) Evolution of the Meat Standards Australia (MSA) beef grading system. Animal Production Science 48, 1351-1359.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Prado AM, Woodside AG (2015) Deepening understanding of certification adoption and non-adoption of international-supplier ethical standards. Journal of Business Ethics 132, 105-125.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Rehman F, Muhammad S, Ashraf I, Mahmood CK, Ruby T, Bibi I (2013) Effect of farmers’ socioeconomic characteristics on access to agricultural information: empirical evidence from Pakistan. Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences 23, 324-329.
| Google Scholar |

Storer C (2006) Information communication tools used to coordinate food chains. Australasian Agribusiness Review 14, 1-22.
| Google Scholar |

Szabó Z (2011) Reducing protest responses by deliberative monetary valuation: Improving the validity of biodiversity valuation. Ecological Economics 72, 37-44.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Ulimwengu J, Sanyal P (2011) Joint estimation of farmers’ stated willingness to pay for agricultural services. International Food Policy Research Institute Discussion Paper, discussion paper 01070. Available at https://www.ifpri.org/publication/joint-estimation-farmers%E2%80%99-stated-willingness-pay-agricultural-services#:~:text=As%20expected%2C%20farmers’%20income%2C,these%20services%20should%20be%20recommended

Verbeke W, Ward RW (2006) Consumer interest in information cues denoting quality, traceability and origin: an application of ordered probit models to beef labels. Food Quality and Preference 17, 453-467.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Wooldridge JM (2015) ‘Introductory econometrics: a modern approach.’ 6th edn. (Cengage Learning)

Zapata SD, Carpio CE (2014) The theoretical structure of producer willingness to pay estimates. Agricultural Economics 45, 613-623.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Zhang Y, Mounter S, Griffith G (2018) Updating and recalibrating equilibrium displacement models of the Australian livestock industries: beef. Australasian Agribusiness Review 26, 48-67.
| Google Scholar |

Zhang Y, Baker D, Griffith G (2020) Product quality information in supply chains: a performance-linked conceptual framework applied to the Australian red meat industry. The International Journal of Logistics Management 31, 697-723.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |