Why don't producers adopt best management practices? An analysis of the beef cattle industry

Gillespie, Jeffrey M.; Kim, Seon Ae; Paudel, Krishna P.

doi:10.1111/j.1574-0862.2007.00179.x

Cited by 112 publications

(114 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

109

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…BMPs are backed by research as the most effective, environmentally sustainable, and long-term economically efficient way to manage an operation (Feather & Amacher, 1994;Gillespie, Kim, & Paudel, 2007;Paudel et al, 2008). BMP adoption increases the resiliency in not only individual producers' operations, but also the overall sustainability of the environment, cattle industry, and the economies of rural areas.…”

Section: Best Management Practicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…grassed waterways, rotational grazing, and nutrient management, were not relevant to their operations (Gillespie et al, 2007). The second most common reason for non-adoption was a lack of familiarity with BMPs; information about BMPs still had not reached all producers.…”

Section: Bmp Adoptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It was likely that these reasons overlap, in that many of these producers lacked an overall understanding of BMPs and, therefore, how BMPs could be applied on his or her operation leading to a lack of motivation to adopt them. Producers with lower BMP adoptions also tended to have less contact with Extension services (Gillespie et al, 2007). The number of producers who chose not to adopt BMPs because of cost was relatively low.…”

Section: Bmp Adoptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The number of producers who chose not to adopt BMPs because of cost was relatively low. A substantial number of producers simply did not adopt because they preferred not to (Gillespie et al, 2007). This phenomenon has yet to be explained.…”

Section: Bmp Adoptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Journal of Applied Communications, 2017, vol. 101, no. 1 Full Issue

Ellis¹

2017

Journal of Applied Communications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Best Management Practicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Bmp Adoptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Bmp Adoptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Bmp Adoptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Journal of Applied Communications, 2017, vol. 101, no. 1 Full Issue

Ellis¹

2017

Journal of Applied Communications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…These include; household and farm characteristics, technology attributes, perception of land degradation problem, profitability of the technology/practice, institutional factors, such as, land tenure, access to credit, information and markets and risks and uncertainty (Ervin and Ervin 1982;Norris and Batie 1987;Pagiola 1996;Shiferaw and Holden 1998;Kazianga and Masters 2002;Shively 2001;Bamire et al 2002;Barrett et al 2001;Gebremedhin and Swinton 2003;Habron 2004;Kim et al 2005;Park and Lohr 2005;Pender et al 2006;Gillespie et al 2007;Prokopy et al 2008).…”

Section: Relevant Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Economics of Land Degradation and Improvement in Tanzania and Malawi

Kirui

2015

Economics of Land Degradation and Improvement – A Global Assessment for Sustainable Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Land degradation is a serious impediment to improving rural livelihoods in Tanzania and Malawi. This paper identifies major land degradation patterns and causes, and analyzes the determinants of soil erosion and sustainable land management (SLM) in these two countries. The results show that land degradation hotspots cover about 51 and 41 % of the terrestrial areas in Tanzania and Malawi, respectively. The analysis of nationally representative household surveys shows that the key drivers of SLM in these countries are biophysical, demographic, regional and socio-economic determinants. Secure land tenure, access to markets and extension services are major factors incentivizing SLM adoption. The implications of this study are that policies and strategies that facilitate secure land tenure and access to SLM information are likely to stimulate investments in SLM. Local institutions providing credit services, inputs such as seed and fertilizers, and extension services must be included in the development policies. Following a Total Economic Value approach, we find that the annual cost of land degradation due to land use and land cover change during the 2001-2009 period is about $244 million in Malawi and $2.3 billion in Tanzania (expressed in constant 2007 USD). These represent about 6.8 and 13.7 % of GDP in Malawi and Tanzania, respectively. Use of land degrading practices in croplands (maize, rice and wheat) resulted in losses amounting to $5.7 million in Malawi and $1.8 million in Tanzania. Consequently, we conclude that the costs of action against land degradation are lower than the costs of inaction by about 4.3 times in Malawi and 3.8 times in Tanzania over the 30 year horizon. This implies that a dollar spent to restore/rehabilitate degraded lands returns about 4.3 dollars in Malawi and 3.8 dollars in Tanzania, respectively. Some of the actions taken by communities to address the loss of ecosystem services or enhance or maintain ecosystem services improvement include afforestation programs, enacting of bylaws to protect existing forests, area closures and controlled grazing, community sanctions for overgrazing, and integrated soil fertility management in croplands.

show abstract