EC400 Agribusiness Economics and Finance
EC400 Agribusiness Economics and
Finance
Semester 1, 2025
Assessment-2:
Research Assignment
Group no. |
Campus:
BNE/SYD |
||
|
First
name |
Last
name |
Student
no. |
1 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
EC400 Agribusiness Economics and Finance
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2.
Characteristics of Perfect Competition
3.
Characteristics of Monopoly
Example of
Perfect Competition: Cattle Farming
Example of
Monopoly: Australia Post
5.
Transition from Perfect Competition to Monopoly
Question 2:
Business Report Question
2.2 Market
Structure and Characteristics
2.4 Basis
of Competition, Market Concentration, and Major Issues
Major
Challenges Facing the Industry
Question 1: Perfect Competition vs
Monopoly: Market Characteristics and Economic Impacts in Australia
1. Introduction
Understanding the differences
between perfect competition and monopoly is central to the study of market
structures in economics. This question aims to explore the key characteristics
of both market types, illustrate real-world examples from Australia, and
analyze the economic impacts when an industry transitions from perfect
competition to monopoly. The analysis will include a detailed discussion on
changes in price, quantity, consumer surplus, producer surplus, and deadweight
loss, supported by appropriate diagrams. By examining these dynamics, the
significant differences in welfare outcomes under the two market structures
will become clear.
2. Characteristics of Perfect
Competition
Perfect competition represents the
idealized version of a market where numerous conditions are met to ensure
maximum efficiency and consumer welfare. The main characteristics are outlined
below.
First, a perfectly competitive
market consists of a large number of
small sellers and buyers, each with negligible market share. No single firm
can influence the market price, ensuring that individual firms act as price
takers (Mankiw, 2020).
Second, the products offered are homogeneous, meaning there is no
differentiation between goods produced by different firms. A consumer is
indifferent to which producer they purchase from because the goods are
identical.
Third, free entry and exit characterize the industry. Firms can enter when
profits are attractive and exit when they are making losses, ensuring that, in
the long run, firms only earn normal profit (Parkin, 2021).
Fourth, the firms are price takers. Each firm accepts the
market price as given and can sell as much as it wants at that price but cannot
influence it.
Lastly, in the short run, firms in perfect competition may make supernormal
profits or incur losses. However, in the long
run, free entry and exit will force economic profits to zero as new firms
enter or leave the market.
Thus, perfect competition results in
maximum consumer and producer surplus with no deadweight loss, achieving
allocative and productive efficiency.
3. Characteristics of Monopoly
In contrast, a monopoly represents
the other extreme of market structures, marked by a single firm dominating the
entire market.
Firstly, a monopoly consists of one seller who controls the entire supply of
the good or service (Case, Fair, & Oster, 2020). As a result, the firm has
significant market power to influence prices and output levels.
Secondly, the product offered is unique, with no close substitutes. Consumers
must purchase from the monopolist or go without the product.
Third, there are high barriers to entry, such as large
capital requirements, legal restrictions, economies of scale, or control over a
key resource. These barriers prevent potential competitors from entering the
market.
Fourth, the monopoly firm acts as a price maker, choosing the price and
quantity combination that maximizes its profits. However, it is constrained by
the demand curve: if it raises prices too much, quantity demanded will fall.
Finally, in both the short run and long run, a monopoly can
earn persistent supernormal profits due to the barriers preventing new entrants
from competing.
Monopoly results in a misallocation
of resources, leading to deadweight loss, reduced consumer surplus, and a
transfer of surplus from consumers to producers, thereby harming overall
economic welfare.
4. Australian Examples
Example of Perfect Competition: Cattle
Farming
An Australian industry that
approximates perfect competition is cattle
farming, particularly small-scale beef and livestock producers. In this
sector, there are thousands of independent farmers, and no single farmer has
the ability to influence the market price. The products beef cattle are largely
undifferentiated. Buyers choose cattle based on weight and quality grades but
do not usually exhibit brand loyalty towards individual farms (Meat &
Livestock Australia, 2023). Entry and exit are relatively easy, although
capital is needed for land and livestock. Over time, farmers will enter when
beef prices are high and exit during droughts or poor market conditions.
Furthermore, individual farmers are price takers, with cattle auction prices
determined by aggregate demand and supply conditions. Thus, this industry
reflects key characteristics of perfect competition.
Example of Monopoly: Australia
Post
A strong example of a monopoly in
Australia is Australia Post in the
mail delivery sector. While it faces some competition in parcels and logistics,
Australia Post has an exclusive legal right to deliver letters under 250 grams,
effectively making it a monopoly in standard mail delivery (Australian
Competition and Consumer Commission, 2022). There are no close substitutes for
standard letter delivery, creating inelastic demand. Significant barriers to
entry, such as infrastructure costs and regulatory requirements, protect
Australia Post from competition. As a government-owned entity, it has
price-setting powers within regulated limits. This arrangement allows Australia
Post to retain monopoly characteristics despite partial exposure to competition
in other services.
5. Transition from Perfect
Competition to Monopoly
When an industry transitions from
perfect competition to monopoly, several important economic changes occur.
These changes are best illustrated through supply and demand analysis.
In a perfectly competitive market,
price and quantity are determined at the intersection of the market supply and
demand curves. Firms supply where price equals marginal cost (P=MC), ensuring
allocative efficiency. Consumer surplus and producer surplus are maximized, and
deadweight loss is zero.
However, when a monopoly emerges,
the monopolist reduces output to increase price and maximize profits. The firm
equates marginal cost (MC) to marginal revenue (MR) to find the
profit-maximizing quantity and then charges the price consumers are willing to
pay at that quantity on the demand curve.
The transition results in the following changes:
Price Increase:
The monopoly price is higher than
the perfectly competitive price. In the graph below, the price rises from Pc to
Pm.
Quantity Decrease:
The quantity produced under monopoly
(Qm) is less than the quantity produced under perfect competition (Qc).
Consumer Surplus Decreases:
Consumers lose some surplus due to
the higher prices and lower quantities available.
Producer Surplus Increases:
The monopolist gains additional
producer surplus compared to firms in perfect competition because of the higher
price and reduced output.
Deadweight Loss is Created:
The reduction in total surplus (the
area between Qc and Qm) represents the deadweight loss. It reflects the
inefficiency and loss of potential trades that would have benefited both
producers and consumers.
Figure 1: Perfect Competition and Monopoly Outcomes
Description of Graph:
● Demand curve slopes downward.
● MC curve is horizontal under perfect
competition.
● MR curve lies below the demand
curve.
● Perfect competition: Price Pc at
Quantity Qc (P=MC).
● Monopoly: Price Pm at Quantity Qm
(where MR=MC).
● Shaded areas showing loss of
consumer surplus and deadweight loss.
The graph illustrates the outcomes
under perfect competition and monopoly. The Demand (D) curve slopes downward, reflecting the inverse
relationship between price and quantity demanded. The Marginal Cost (MC) curve is drawn horizontally, indicating constant
marginal cost typical in a perfectly competitive market. The Marginal Revenue (MR) curve lies below
the demand curve due to the monopolist's need to lower prices to sell
additional units. Under perfect competition, the equilibrium occurs at point
(Pc, Qc) where P = MC, ensuring
allocative efficiency. A monopoly, though, produces at Qm (where MR = MC) and
charges a price Pm given by the demand curve. The diminution from Qc to Qm and
the addition from Pc to Pm show the extent to which the monopolist’s price may
be above that competition. Shaded areas on the graph illustrate the lost
consumer surplus and deadweight loss, which shows the welfare loss to society
if an unregulated monopoly operates rather than perfect competition.
6. Conclusion
This case exemplifies the high
contrast between perfect competition and monopoly. In pure competition,
numerous firms have no market power (i.e., a firm's pricing decision does not
affect market price) and offer undifferentiated products; entry and exit are
free. How Execution Costs and Prices Are Determined Prices are designed to
reflect marginal costs and are chosen to maximize total welfare and efficiency.
Contrastingly, monopolies are price makers that restrict output and control
prices to produce at an inefficient level to maximize profits as aggregate
output is at a lower level overall. Thus, a higher price level is also in
place, which in turn experiences a reduction in total welfare in society.
Consumer surplus falls, producer surplus rises, and a deadweight loss
represents the loss of mutually beneficial exchanges. These concepts are
illustrated with examples from the real world, such as Australian beef
production and Australia Post. Therefore, a movement from perfect competition
to monopoly is a move from a more efficient to a less efficient allocation of
resources. Instead of being spread in reasonable amounts to many business
people, the total business income from production is concentrated in a few
hands.
References
·
Mankiw, N. G. (2020). Principles of Economics
(9th ed.). Cengage Learning.
·
Meat & Livestock Australia. (2023). Australian
beef industry overview. Retrieved from https://www.mla.com.au/marketing-beef/industry-overview/
·
Parkin, M. (2021). Economics (13th ed.).
Pearson.
·
Lean, I. J., & Moate, P. J. (2021). Cattle,
climate and complexity: food security, quality and sustainability of the
Australian cattle industries. Australian veterinary journal, 99(7), 293-308.https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ian-Lean/publication/351490811_Cattle_climate_and_complexity_food_security_quality_and_sustainability_of_the_Australian_cattle_industries/links/658c92606f6e450f19a8ba67/Cattle-climate-and-complexity-food-security-quality-and-sustainability-of-the-Australian-cattle-industries.pdf
·
Axford, M., Santos, B., Stachowicz, K., Quinton, C.,
Pryce, J. E., & Amer, P. (2021). Impact of a multiple-test strategy on
breeding index development for the Australian dairy industry. Animal Production
Science.https://www.publish.csiro.au/an/pdf/AN21058
·
Black, J. L., Davison, T. M., & Box, I. (2021).
Methane emissions from ruminants in Australia: Mitigation potential and
applicability of mitigation strategies. Animals, 11(4), 951.https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/11/4/951
·
Reichelt, N., & Nettle, R. (2023). Practice
insights for the responsible adoption of smart farming technologies using a
participatory technology assessment approach: The case of virtual herding
technology in Australia. Agricultural Systems, 206, 103592.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X22002281
·
Fariña, S., Moreno, O. V., Candioti, F., Villanueva,
C., Ledezma, W. S., Moscoso, C. J., ... & Stirling, S. (2024). Milk
production systems in Latin America and the Caribbean: Biophysical,
socio-economic, and environmental performance. Agricultural Systems, 218,
103987.https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm?abstractid=4661520
·
Cullen, B. R., Harrison, M., Mayberry, D., Cobon, D.
H., Davison, T. M., & Eckard, R. J. (2021). Climate change impacts and
adaption strategies for pasture-based industries: Australian perspective.https://figshare.utas.edu.au/articles/journal_contribution/Climate_change_impacts_and_adaption_strategies_for_pasture-based_industries_Australian_perspective/23001104/1/files/40751291.pdf
·
Hendriks, S. J., Edwards, J. P., Shirley, A. K.,
Clark, C. E., Schütz, K. E., Verhoek, K. J., & Jago, J. G. (2025). Heat
stress amelioration for pasture-based dairy cattle: challenges and
opportunities. Animal Frontiers, 15(2), 32-42.https://academic.oup.com/af/article-pdf/15/2/32/62988272/vfae043.pdf
·
Shi, Z., Li, J., & Hu, X. (2023). From large to
powerful: International comparison, challenges and strategic choices for
China’s livestock industry. Agriculture, 13(7), 1298.https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/13/7/1298/pdf
Question 2: Business Report
Question
1. Introduction
History of the Dairy Industry in
Australia The Australian dairy industry, which has played a key role in the
country’s agricultural economy, has undergone several development rounds since
it was established in the early 19th century. It started as a localized industry
but quickly grew with improved transport and food preservation. The
deregulation of the industry in 2000 changed the dynamics of competition and
drove companies to become more efficient and productive in a more hostile
environment. Today's industry functions under monopolistic competition with a
large variety of differentiated products and scattered production despite
moderate concentration at the processing stage. Nonprice competition in
branding, product differentiation, and investment in R&D has been key as
firms have vied for differentiation in a crowded market. However, the industry
faces significant challenges, including climate change, increasing input costs,
supply chain disruptions, and labor shortages. These forces still affect the
Australian dairy industry's profitability, organizational configuration, and
future direction.
2. Case Study Analysis
2.1 Industry Overview
The Australian dairy industry has a
long history, with the first dairy opening on the banks of the Hawkesbury River
in New South Wales in the early 1800s. Focused initially on local consumption,
the trade skyrocketed, particularly as the spread of railroads eased the
movement of produce from rural areas to the cities and as the emergence of food
canning and refrigeration technologies extended the shelf life of fresh milk.
The industry spread to other product lines throughout the 20th century,
including milk, cheese, butter, and yogurt (Lean & Moate, 2021).
The Australian dairy industry has undergone considerable change in recent
decades. The 2000 market deregulation removed pricing protections and allowed
dairy farmers to compete in a free market. This change in focus put greater
pressure on farmers to achieve higher efficiency and productivity, as they now
needed to remain viable in the new competitive environment. ABARES reports
indicate that productivity growth has been mixed across the sector. Some areas and
farming businesses have experienced substantial growth from adopting new
technologies and achieving scale efficiencies. However, there have been
producers and regions where there has been little growth due to adverse
weather, high costs of inputs, and financial limitations (ABARES, 2023a;
ABARES, 2023b). Key findings of the ABARES analysis are that although
Australia’s productivity as a whole has increased modestly, the gap has
increased between high-performing and low-performing farms. Regions like Victoria,
with better irrigation infrastructure, have achieved above-average productivity
growth, whereas farms in New South Wales and Queensland have struggled with
drought and rising costs. Additionally, the share of milk produced by
large-scale farms has increased, signaling a gradual consolidation trend within
the industry.
2.2 Market Structure and Characteristics
The Australian dairy industry can be
characterized as a market operating under conditions of monopolistic competition. This conclusion is based on an analysis
of the industry's structure and behavior, aligning with the economic definition
of monopolistic competition where many sellers offer differentiated products
with some degree of market power.
The industry comprises a large number of sellers, ranging from
small family-owned farms to large corporate dairy operations. Although
consolidation is increasing, the market remains fragmented enough that no
single producer can dominate the national supply on its own (Axford et al.,
2021). For example, even the largest processors like Saputo Dairy Australia or
Bega Cheese hold only partial market shares, not absolute control.
In terms of product type, the Australian dairy industry produces a wide range
of differentiated products. While basic milk remains relatively standardized,
there is significant product differentiation through branding, organic
certifications, specialty dairy products, and region-specific attributes (Shi
et al., 2023). Consumers often perceive differences among brands and products
based on quality, taste, sustainability practices, and ethical considerations,
leading to brand loyalty and non-price competition.
Entry conditions in the industry are moderately
restrictive. New entrants require substantial capital investments in land,
livestock, milking equipment, and compliance with health and environmental
regulations. Furthermore, market entry is difficult without these supply chain
relationships and brand names. However, entry is not infeasible, indeed, not
with niche market opportunities such as organic dairy farming (Black et al.,
2021). As for short- and long-run supernormal profits, dairy farms can enjoy
short periods above normal profits thanks to good economic conditions or
novelty. However, in the longer term, the tendency is towards average profits
as new firms will be lured into the market, and price cuts by competitors serve
to dissipate abnormal profits. This accords with the theory of monopolistic
competition, in which firms may earn some temporary profits but not in the long
run. The impact of non-price competition is dominant in the market outcome.
However, producers also spend a lot on branding, marketing, innovation, and
quality improvements to differentiate themselves from their rivals. This is
consistent with the predictions of the theory of monopolistic competition:
differentiation and brand-loyal customers give firms some ability to set prices,
but it does not create insurmountable barriers to entry.
2.3 Non-Price Competition
Non-price competition is an
important aspect of the Australian dairy industry's strategy environment. It
allows firms to attract new customers (spending and consuming) without relying
on price-based competition.
Dairy branding is the most powerful
tool for both significant and niche producers. It highlighted that companies
like Devondale, Dairy Farmers, and Norco have created intense market
penetration by creating trust, selling reliability, quality, and what would be
an emotional connection in the case of Norco (Reichelt & Nettle, 2023).
Branding allows producers to distinguish ingredients that are otherwise similar
and provide for premium pricing.
Product differentiation is also key
to non-price competition. Producers sell niche products like organic milk,
lactose-free dairy, high-protein yogurt, or artisan cheeses (Hendriks et al.,
2025). These product complements respond to individual consumer tastes, diets,
and lifestyle choices, strengthening brand loyalty and reducing price
elasticities of demand.
Advertisements draw attention to the
taste peculiarities of dairy products and to the merit of various brands.
Marketing emphasizes sustainability, animal welfare, nutrition, and regional
origin (Fariña et al., 2024). The efforts are designed to create brand equity
and perceived product differentiation between customers.
Research and Development (R&D)
also promotes non-price competition in the dairy industry. Investing in R&D
has implications for production methods, packaging, product fortification
(e.g., calcium-enriched milk), and efficiency enhancement. Technological
progress, e.g., introducing robotic milking systems and enhancing herd
genetics, increases productivity and quality and makes a firm more competitive
without conducting low-price strategies.
Collectively, branding,
product differentiation, advertising, and R&D emphasize the monopolistic
competition-based nature of the Australian dairy sector in which the firms want
to differentiate themselves in a crowded and competitive market, albeit in ways
that make the product different rather than compete on price.
2.4 Basis of Competition, Market
Concentration, and Major Issues
Basis of Competition
There is competition from various
suppliers in the Australian dairy industry, including price, quality, and
innovation. Price competition continues to be intense, especially for commodity
products such as fresh milk, and differentiation through quality and innovation
is becoming more important. Producers focus on value-added products such as
organic milk, lactose-free offerings, specialty cheeses, and fortified dairy to
win premium market segments. ABARES (2023a) has said that innovations in
production systems, such as better breed and automatic milking systems, have
also given progressive farms advantages. Quality assurance programs, including
certifications for animal welfare and sustainability, further influence
consumer preferences. In recent years, innovation in packaging, shelf life
extension, and nutritional enhancement (e.g., high-protein yogurts) have
allowed firms to differentiate products without necessarily engaging in price
wars (DAFF, 2024).
Market Concentration Analysis
Although there are many individual
dairy farms, the processing segment
of the dairy supply chain shows a higher degree of market concentration. A few major companies dominate dairy
processing and retail branding.
● Saputo Dairy Australia is the largest dairy processor,
accounting for around 22% of
Australia's national milk intake (Saputo, 2024).
● Fonterra Australia processes approximately 18% of total milk production.
● Bega Cheese Limited, after acquiring Lion Dairy &
Drinks in 2021, now processes about 13%
of national milk volumes (Bega, 2024).
Together, the top three companies
handle over 50% of Australia's milk
production, indicating a moderately concentrated processing industry.
However, at the farm production level, concentration remains low, with
thousands of small-to-medium scale farms operating independently. This
fragmented production base means processors can exert considerable bargaining
power over farmers, influencing milk pricing and contract terms.
Table 1: Market Share of Major Dairy Processors in Australia
(2024)
Company |
Estimated Market Share (%) |
Saputo Dairy Australia |
22% |
Fonterra Australia |
18% |
Bega Cheese Limited |
13% |
Others |
47% |
(Source: Adapted from Saputo (2024)
and Bega (2024))
Major Challenges Facing the Industry
Several significant challenges confront the Australian dairy
sector, influencing both productivity and profitability:
1. Climate Change and Weather Variability
Extreme weather events, including
prolonged droughts and flooding, have directly impacted feed availability, herd
health, and water resources. According to ABARES (2023b), between 2017 and
2020, drought conditions reduced national milk production by 7%. Climate variability continues to
create uncertainty, driving up costs and reducing farm incomes.
2. Rising Input Costs
Feed, energy, water, and labor costs
have increased sharply. Feed costs alone rose by approximately 25% from 2020 to 2023 (ABARES, 2023b).
This surge reduces farmers' margins, particularly for smaller operations less
able to absorb shocks.
3. Supply Chain Disruptions
The COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent
global logistical challenges highlighted vulnerabilities in the dairy supply
chain. Export delays, container shortages, and fluctuating international demand
have all affected Australian dairy exporters, particularly in the powdered milk
and cheese segments (DAFF, 2024).
4. Labor Shortages
The dairy industry continues to
suffer from a shortage of skilled labor, exacerbated by reduced migration
during the pandemic (Cullen et al., 2021). Mechanization and robotics offer
partial solutions, but require substantial capital investment, favoring larger
farms.
Figure 2: Annual Milk Production Trends in Australia
(2010–2024)
(Source: Self created)
(Data collected from: DAFF, 2024)
Overall, while Australian dairy
producers innovate and adapt to market demands, structural issues such as
climate volatility, cost pressures, and processor concentration continue to
shape the sector's challenges and opportunities.
3. Conclusion
The nature of the Australian dairy
industry represents a combination of resilience and adaptation within a
monopoly competitive structure. Despite product differentiation and innovation
that has provided firms with niche markets and price security, the industry is
still exposed to external shocks that bring it under pressure, such as changing
climate, increasing costs, and the strong bargaining position of processors.
Nevertheless, focused technology investments, acceptable, sustainable
practices, and effective brand positioning were found to be potential growth
and consolidation accelerators. Looking ahead, the industry's performance in
striking a balance between efficiency and sustainability and capacity to adapt
actively to market and environmental pressures will ultimately dictate its fate
in the challenging global market.
References
·
ABARES. (2023b). Dairy productivity growth – A
glass half full. Retrieved from
https://www.agriculture.gov.au/about/news/dairy-productivity
·
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
(DAFF). (2024). Australian Dairy Industry Report 2024. Retrieved from https://www.agriculture.gov.au/agriculture-land/farm-food-drought/industries/dairy
·
Saputo. (2024). Company Profile and Annual Report
2024. Retrieved from https://www.saputo.com/en/Our-Products/Our-Dairy-Products
·
Bega Cheese Limited. (2024). Annual Report 2024.
Retrieved from https://www.begacheese.com.au/investors/annual-reports
·
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.
(2022). Australia Post and the evolving communications market. Retrieved
from https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/regulated-infrastructure/australia-post
·
Case, K. E., Fair, R. C., & Oster, S. M. (2020). Principles
of Economics (13th ed.). Pearson.https://thuvienso.hoasen.edu.vn/bitstream/handle/123456789/12624/Contents.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
·
Axford, M., Santos, B., Stachowicz, K., Quinton, C., Pryce,
J. E., & Amer, P. (2021). Impact of a multiple-test strategy on breeding
index development for the Australian dairy industry. Animal Production Science.https://www.publish.csiro.au/an/pdf/AN21058
·
Black, J. L., Davison, T. M., & Box, I. (2021). Methane
emissions from ruminants in Australia: Mitigation potential and applicability
of mitigation strategies. Animals, 11(4), 951.https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/11/4/951
·
Cullen, B. R., Harrison, M., Mayberry, D., Cobon, D. H.,
Davison, T. M., & Eckard, R. J. (2021). Climate change impacts and adaption
strategies for pasture-based industries: Australian perspective.https://figshare.utas.edu.au/articles/journal_contribution/Climate_change_impacts_and_adaption_strategies_for_pasture-based_industries_Australian_perspective/23001104/1/files/40751291.pdf
·
Fariña, S., Moreno, O. V., Candioti, F., Villanueva, C.,
Ledezma, W. S., Moscoso, C. J., ... & Stirling, S. (2024). Milk production
systems in Latin America and the Caribbean: Biophysical, socio-economic, and
environmental performance. Agricultural Systems, 218, 103987.https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm?abstractid=4661520
·
Hendriks, S. J., Edwards, J. P., Shirley, A. K., Clark, C.
E., Schütz, K. E., Verhoek, K. J., & Jago, J. G. (2025). Heat stress
amelioration for pasture-based dairy cattle: challenges and opportunities.
Animal Frontiers, 15(2), 32-42.https://academic.oup.com/af/article-pdf/15/2/32/62988272/vfae043.pdf
·
Lean, I. J., & Moate, P. J. (2021). Cattle, climate and
complexity: food security, quality and sustainability of the Australian cattle
industries. Australian veterinary journal, 99(7), 293-308.https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ian-Lean/publication/351490811_Cattle_climate_and_complexity_food_security_quality_and_sustainability_of_the_Australian_cattle_industries/links/658c92606f6e450f19a8ba67/Cattle-climate-and-complexity-food-security-quality-and-sustainability-of-the-Australian-cattle-industries.pdf
·
Reichelt, N., & Nettle, R. (2023). Practice insights for
the responsible adoption of smart farming technologies using a participatory
technology assessment approach: The case of virtual herding technology in
Australia. Agricultural Systems, 206, 103592.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X22002281
·
Shi, Z., Li, J., & Hu, X. (2023). From large to
powerful: International comparison, challenges and strategic choices for
China’s livestock industry. Agriculture, 13(7), 1298.https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/13/7/1298/pdf
Comments
Post a Comment