Complementarity in the adoption of traceability of beef cattle in Brazil

Vinholis, Marcela de Mello Brandão; Souza Filho, Hildo Meirelles de; Carrer, Marcelo José; Barioni Junior, Waldomiro; Chaddad, Fabio Ribas

doi:10.1590/0103-6513.193615

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Articles • Prod 26 (3) • Jul-Sep 2016 • https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6513.193615 copy

Complementarity in the adoption of traceability of beef cattle in Brazil

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

Complementarity is an interesting approach to explain technology adoption. Taking account the other activities the farm performs in its production strategy can help understanding the decision on the adoption of new agricultural technology. This paper aims to evidence the existence of synergic effect resulting from the joint adoption of feedlot and traceability certification of beef cattle in Brazil. A sample of 84 beef cattle farms provided data to test hypotheses by using an OLS regression model. A measure of performance – revenue – is regressed on variables representing both isolated and joint adoption of capital-intensive production system and traceability. The results suggest the existence of synergic effect when joint adoption takes place. Joint adoption is influenced by a set of management practices, such as forward contracts, training of employees and zootechnical performance control, which are shared by both capital-intensive production systems and traceability.

Keywords
Technology diffusion; Technology adoption; Agriculture; Capital-intensive production system

OLS model
Dependent variable
LnRevenue	Natural logarithm of the farm’s livestock revenue. The revenue is determined by the quantity of cattle sold in 2010 multiplied by the cattle price in 2010.
Explanatory variables
Size	Total area of pasture in hectares
Associations	If farmer attends meetings of farmers’ associations both formally and informally organized = 1, otherwise = 0.
Schooling	Number of years of the farmer’s schooling
NoTraceability&Feedlot	Neither feedlot as long term strategy of fattening nor certification of traceability is adopted = 1, otherwise = 0
FeedlotOnly	Adoption of feedlot as long term strategy of fattening and non-adoption of traceability and its certification = 1, otherwise = 0
TraceabilityOnly	Adoption of traceability and its certification and non-adoption of feedlot as long term strategy of fattening = 1, otherwise = 0
Traceability&Feedlot	Joint adoption of feedlot as long term strategy of fattening and certification of traceability = 1, otherwise = 0
Logit models
Dependent variables
Forward contract	Farmers who adopted forward contract with slaughterhouse = 1, otherwise = 0
Training of employees	Farmers who train employees for production techniques or management practices = 1, otherwise = 0
Zootechnical performance control	Farmers who keep records to control the production system and to monitor zootechnical performance = 1, otherwise = 0
Explanatory variables
Size	Total area of pasture in hectares
Feedlot	Adoption of feedlot as long term strategy of fattening = 1, otherwise = 0
Traceability	Adoption of traceability and its certification = 1, otherwise = 0
Traceability&Feedlot	Joint adoption of feedlot as long term strategy of fattening and certification of traceability = 1, otherwise = 0

	Frequency of farms	Performance (LnRevenue)
	N=84	Weighted mean	Standard error
NoTraceability&Feedlot	49 (58%)	13.573 c	0.192
FeedlotOnly	3 (4%)	14.481 b	0.198
TraceabilityOnly	19 (23%)	14.043 b	0.197
Traceability&Feedlot	13 (15%)	15.945 a	0.200
Complementarity test		F(1,77) = 6.84
Traceability&Feedlot - TraceabilityOnly ≥ FeedlotOnly - NoTraceability&Feedlot		p-value = 0.021 (one-sided)

	Parameter estimate	Standard error	t Value	Pr>│t│
Size	0.5458	0.0559	9.77	<0001
Schooling	0.0616	0.0352	1.75	0.0842
Associations	0.6373	0.2779	2.29	0.0245
NoTraceability&Feedlot	8.8848	0.5811	15.29	<0001
FeedlotOnly	9.8097	0.7808	12.56	<0001
TraceabilityOnly	9.2828	0.6621	14.02	<0001
Traceability&Feedlot	11.1825	0.6856	16.31	<0001
Complementarity test
(θ₁₁- θ₁₀ ≥ θ₀₁ - θ₀₀)	F(1,77)=3.21	Pr > F	0.0772
	N = 84
Model
Adj R-Sq	0.997
F(7,77)	3965.23	Pr > F	<.0001
Shapiro-Wilk (W)	0.980102	PR < W	0.2198
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (D)	0.058556	PR > D	>0.1500

	Forward contract		Training of employees		Zootechnical performance control
Intercept	0.1372	0.1430	1.3686	0.8803	8.0186	3.3612
	(1.3776)	(1.3297)	(1.1220)	(1.0715)	(1.2983)	(1.1792)
Feedlot	4.1918^***		1.6150		2.4829^*
	(0.3935)		(0.3710)		(0.5524)
Traceability	1.1525		1.7076^*		1.7653^*
	(0.3341)		(0.2773)		(0.3128)
Traceability&Feedlot		4.6100^***		2.2374^**		2.6612^*
		(0.4221)		(0.4074)		(0.5395)
Size	1.3073	1.3367	1.0546	1.1472	0.9306	1.0395
	(0.1913)	(0.1798)	(0.1532)	(0.1427)	(0.1654)	(0.1492)
Model
N = 84
Χ ²	27.68^***	24.44^***	10.85^**	7.05^**	11.70^***	5.63^*

Associação Brasileira de Engenharia de Produção Av. Prof. Almeida Prado, Travessa 2, 128 - 2º andar - Room 231, 05508-900 São Paulo - SP - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: production@editoracubo.com.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] * marcela.vinholis@embrapa.br