This study reports findings from a mail survey of Western Australian broadacre farmers participating inquality assurance (QA) accreditation. A 50 percent response rate generated a sample size of 78 usablereplies. The average farm in the survey spent $13,470 gaining QA accreditation, upgrading facilities andimplementing the QA system. Most of these costs were set-up costs incurred in the first year of QA training.Almost half of all farmers in the survey considered QA accreditation and implementation to be value formoney. A further 39 per cent were unsure of its value. Only 13 per cent of respondents felt it was not aworthwhile investment. Most respondents agreed that there were benefits, apart from price premia, inapplying a QA system and 84 per cent of growers viewed QA accreditation as the start of greater regulationof grain production.Even if no price premium was available for QA grain, 39% of respondents indicated they still believed QA tobe worthwhile. However, this same group of farmers also indicated that if the premium for QA grain was lessthan $8.9 per tonne they would begin to question the value of implementing the QA system on their farm.Overall, farmers in the survey suggested an average premium of $12.3 per tonne was required to preventthem questioning the merits of QA.A simple investment model suggested that to exactly offset the cost of QA accreditation and implementationa price premium of $11.7 per tonne was required. This premium was very close the price premium of $12.3per tonne identified by growers as being required before they would doubt the worth of adopting a QAsystem.
|Pages (from-to)||Article 1|
|Journal||Australian Agribusiness Review|
|Publication status||Published - 2003|