FARE

Share
Special Issue
September 2014

Celebrating FARE Achievements

Whats
Inside

This special issue of

FARE Share showcases
accomplishments within
the department in recent
months. This includes
awards bestowed
upon FARE faculty and
students by the Canadian
Agricultural Economics
Society (CAES). The
University of Guelph
also recently named two
new University Research
Professors from within the
FARE department John
Cranfield and Spencer
Henson in recognition of
their outstanding research
efforts. Some of their
recent work is featured
in this edition. Finally, we
highlight developments
at the Institute for the
Advanced Study of Food
and Agricultural Policy.
Contact:
Getu Hailu
Editor, FARE Share
ghailu@uoguelph.ca
The FARE Share Newsletter
features research and analysis
from faculty and students in the
Institute for the Advanced Study of
Food and Agricultural Policy in the
Department of Food, Agricultural
and Resource Economics (FARE).

Weersink receives honour

FARE Professor Alfons Weersink was recently
awarded the title Fellow of the Canadian Agricultural
Economics Society (CAES). This honour recognizes
his continuous and distinguished contributions to the
agricultural economics profession and the institutions
of Canadian agricultural economics.

One student commented: Professor Weersink is

one of the best, if not the best, instructor I have had
in university. He is very approachable and teaches
the course material very well. I would recommend
his class to anyone who asks.

Weersink joined the University of Guelph in 1989

after completing his Ph.D. at Cornell University.
Among other things, his research examines the
effectiveness of agri-environmental policies. He
has won several awards for his work, including
recognition for outstanding articles in the Canadian
Journal of Agricultural Economics, the Review of
Agricultural Economics and the Australian Journal of
Agricultural Economics.

Weersink has made substantial contributions

in the areas of teaching, research and service.
The quantity of students that he has mentored
and impacted over his 25-year career in terms
of courses taught, membership on student
committees, and students supervised is impressive.
Weersink has made significant contributions
to research on timely and important topics
in the fields of agri-environmental policies,
encompassing bioproducts, farm management
practices, the food versus fuel debate and more.

Over the past few years, I have written a letter of

support for individuals selected to be fellows of the
Canadian Agricultural Economics Society. In my
opinion, none of these individuals deserved the honour
of being selected as a fellow more than Alfons, said
an external reviewer in a letter of support.

While Professor Weersink has been a most prolific

researcher, he is also one of the departments best
teachers and has always maintained a full teaching
load, said Alan Ker, former Chair, FARE. His
overall evaluation by students has never been less than
four out of five on a point scale.
Of special note, is that much of Weersinks research
has been done in conjunction with graduate students.
Alfons has supervised 10 Ph.D. students and 36
M.Sc. students. Most impressively, almost all of these
students have produced a publication in a refereed
academic journal.

Excerpts from Prof. Alfons Weersink Named CAES Fellow,

At Guelph, June 6, 2014.

Weersink is also commended for his work outside

the classroom.Alfons is an outstanding mentor for
younger faculty at FARE in a number of ways,
says Getu Hailu, Associate Professor, FARE. He
helps them to establish and further their careers,
and shine. Im absolutely delighted that my
colleague Alfons has won this award.

Picture at right:
Alfons and his
wife Maureen

Canadian Agricultural Economics

Society (CAES)
Award Winners
FARE faculty and students reached the podium many times
during the CAES awards ceremony held in Vancouver on
May 31, 2014. The annual awards recognize and encourage
excellence in agricultural economics and related fields. FAREs
own Alan Ker, Alfons Weersink, Rakhal Sarker, Rachael Vriezen
and Tor Tolhurst were all recognized for their achievements.
FARE Winner: Tor Tolhurst (left)

Undergraduate
Book Prize
Award

Outstanding Masters Thesis Award

Award description:
Outstanding undergraduate
student in agricultural
economics, farm management
or a closely related field
of study. Each University
establishes its own criteria.

Tolhurst received high praise from the review panel, including the following comment: I
was already very impressed by the quality of the first essay and that work alone would grant
first place among the three works that I read. The second essay by Tolhurst is even better than
the first, making Tolhursts thesis a far distant first place in my opinion. Both essays have the
potential to be published in good economic journals. In some departments, this work would
be enough to grant the student a Ph.D. Congratulations to Tolhurst and his advisers.

FARE Winner: Rachael Vriezen

The winners receive a cash

award from CAES in addition to
a complementary membership.

Winning thesis: Tor Tolhurst, Department of FARE, University of Guelph, for the thesis
entitled, Econometric Models of Crop Yields: Two Essays supervised by Alan Ker.

Award description: Excellence in the Masters program and encourages the study of
agricultural economics, resource economics and farm management at the Masters level.

Tolhurt describes his award-winning thesis in the following way: This thesis is an
investigation of econometric crop yield models divided into two essays. In the first essay,
I propose estimating a single heteroscedasticity coefficient for all counties within a cropreporting district by pooling county-level crop yield data in a two-stage estimation process.
In the context of crop insurance where heteroscedaticity has significant economic
implications I demonstrate the pooling approach provides economically and statistically
significant improvements in rating crop insurance contracts over contemporary methods. In
the second essay, I propose a new method for measuring the rate of technological change
in crop yields. To date the agricultural economics literature has measured technological
change exclusively at the mean; in contrast, the proposed model can measure the rate of
technological change in endogenously defined yield subpopulations. I find evidence of
different rates of technological change in yield subpopulations, which leads to interesting
questions about the effect of technological change on agricultural production.

One of the top 50 universities in the world

The University of Guelph is ranked 24th in agriculture and forestry in
the world, according to the 2014 QS World University Rankings. In
2

fact, the University of Guelph is the only Canadian university to rank

among the 30 top universities in the world in agriculture and forestry.

FARE winners: Associate Professor

Rakhal Sarker (left) & Professor
Alfons Weersink (centre)

FARE Winner:
Professor Alan Ker (left)

Publication of
Enduring Quality Award

Outstanding Journal
Article Award

Award description: A publication by a CAES member that has had

a significant impact on agricultural, environmental or resource
economics in Canada and has been available for 10 years or more.
Entries are judged on the basis of the enduring quality of their effect
on agricultural, environmental and resource economics in Canada.

Award description: Achievement in agricultural

economics, resource economics and farm
management for articles appearing in the Canadian
Journal of Agricultural Economics in 2013.

Winning article: Weersink, A., S. Clark, C.G. Turvey, and R. Sarker.

1999. The Effect of Agricultural Policy on Farmland Values. Land
Economics 75: 425-39.

According to nominators Brady Deaton and John Cranfield: The

paper provided the infrastructure for ongoing research and discussions
surrounding the extent to which government payments are capitalized
into farmland values, and the contemporary debate regarding the extent to
which the targeted beneficiaries of government payments i.e., producers
capture intended benefits.

Subsequent to its publication, their paper received 101 citations (according

to Google Scholar). Moreover, these citations have continued unabated
since publication, including 35 citations since 2010.
This paper will continue to provide a compass for researchers and policy
makers trying to measure and understand the effect of government
payments on farmland values. Weersink et al. (1999) is an article of
enduring quality and is therefore deserving of the 2014 CAES Publication
of Enduring Quality Award.

Winning article: Rude, J. and A. Ker. 2013. Transfer

Efficiency of Margin-Based Programs. Canadian
Journal of Agricultural Economics 61: 509-529.

The abstract of the award-winning article clearly highlights

the value of the research: AgriStability, Canadas major
farm support and business risk management program,
has been in place since 2007. As with most agricultural
insurance programs, AgriStability creates opposing
incentives where moral hazard and misallocation effects
discourage production while the risk reduction effects
encourage production. We investigate the relative size
of these effects to determine both the degree to which
production is distorted and the percentage of government
transfer that remains with the producer. Our results
indicate mild but differential effects across crops. We find
roughly 45% of program payments remains with primary
producers. These findings are of particular interest because
of their World Trade Organization implications.

Paying a premium for

specialty eggs

By: John Cranfield, University Research Professor in the Economics of

Agri-Food Markets and Policy; Professor and Chair, FARE

Increasing consumer
awareness of animal welfare
issues is impacting how eggs
are produced and marketed.

Some jurisdictions have passed legislation prohibiting the use

of conventional cages and requiring that hens be housed in
alternative systems, while a growing number of food retailers and
manufacturers require eggs they sell/use to come from alternative
housing systems. While the vast majority of eggs sold in Canada are
still produced in conventional cages it is expected that demand for
eggs from enhanced animal welfare production systems will grow
in Canada.
The relative immaturity of this specialty egg market means
that consumer acceptance and willingness to pay for eggs from
enhanced animal welfare production systems is still poorly
understood in Canada. For this reason, we undertook research that
sought to generate new economic knowledge that helps to inform
industry stakeholders regarding consumer acceptance and valuation
of eggs from enhanced animal welfare production systems, and the
potential size of the market for such eggs.

The specific objectives of this study were:

To understand the socio-demographic and psychographic factors

associated with consumer acceptance of eggs from animal
welfare enhanced production systems, including enriched and
cage-free systems

To identify and measure the size of consumer segments with a

high degree of acceptance of eggs from different enhanced animal
welfare production systems
To measure consumers stated willingness-to-pay (WTP) for eggs
from different enhanced animal welfare production systems
Explore how stated WTP varies across segments of consumers,
as well as segments of consumers with differing actual
purchase behaviours of eggs from enhanced animal welfare
production systems

Experiments provide
economic knowledge on
specialty egg market

Two choice experiments (CE) were designed. In each CE,

respondents were presented with a set of choice tasks. In each
choice task, the respondent was presented with eggs embodying
different attributes, and they had to indicate which, if any, they
would purchase. The attributes of eggs in CE I were: price; housing
systems; organization that verifies the housing systems; Omega-3;
and shell colour. The attributes of eggs in CE II were: price;
whether hens had access to the outdoors; whether cages were used
in the housing system; and the availability of nest boxes, perches
for roosting and scratch pads for dust bathing.

Providing detailed information about

the consequences of the housing
systems on hen health and welfare
reduces consumer valuation of eggs
from free-run and free-range.
The effect of information on consumers purchase behaviour
towards eggs from enhanced animal welfare production systems
was also investigated by including two information treatments in
each CE. In treatment 1, a description of the housing systems was
provided to respondents. In treatment 2, in addition to defining
the housing system, respondents received scientifically based
information regarding the consequences of each housing system
on: hens health; hens ability to exhibit natural behaviours;
affective states; and the impact of housing systems on environment.
Structured this way, the two information treatments will reveal
whether scientifically valid information affects consumer WTP, and
if so, how. Note that WTP is not the price for the product, but rather
the premium associated with that attribute.

While the vast majority of eggs sold in

Canada are still produced in conventional
cages it is expected that demand for eggs
from enhanced animal welfare production
systems will grow in Canada.
An on-line survey (Ipsos i-Say on-line panel) was conducted
with a sample representative of the Canadian population in
terms of demographic characteristics. Respondents were
generally concerned about animal welfare, but did not consider
animal welfare among the top issues when purchasing food. Of
the three aspects of animal welfare, namely basic health and
functioning, natural behaviour, and affective states, basic health
and functioning was viewed as most important. Respondents
knowledge of animal production was limited, and they believed
that scientific evidence, rather than ethical or moral considerations,
should be used to determine how farm animals are treated.
The results from the CE were informative. In CE I treatment 1,
respondents were willing to pay a premium of $1.147 ($0.863
in treatment 2) per dozen for free-range and $0.550 ($0.276
in treatment 2) per dozen for free-run systems. The premiums
for these two housing systems were higher than the premiums
for Omega-3 fatty acid enhanced eggs, or white/brown colour
attribute. However, eggs from an enriched cage system did not
induce a positive premium. In fact, eggs from a system labeled
as enriched cage system had a discount of $0.313 per dozen in
treatment 1 and $0.331 per dozen in treatment 2. For verification
attributes, respondents were willing to pay a premium of $0.693 in
treatment 1 (or $0.599 in treatment 2) if government verifies the
housing systems, $0.156 (or $0.179 in treatment 2) for a thirdparty certifier verification and $0.218 (or $0.112 in treatment 2)
for industry certifier.

Consumers value absence

of cages

In CE II, eggs from systems where hens had access to the outdoors
yielded the highest WTP ($0.634 in treatment 1 and $0.571 in
treatment 2) followed by the presence of nest boxes, perches for
roosting and scratch pads for dust bathing ($0.451 in treatment 1
and $0.438 in treatment 2), and the cage-free attribute ($0.191 in
treatment 1 and $0.078 in treatment 2). The latter result suggests a
premium for the absence of cages in the housing systems; viewed
another way, the presence of cages in the housing system would

result in a discount. This is an important result and it aligns with

the results from treatment 1; it suggests that consumers value the
absence of cages in hen housing. Respondents were willing to pay
$0.005 in treatment 1 ($0.004 in treatment 2) for every square inch
increase in a housing system.

Comparing the WTP results from two information treatments in

each CE allows one to assess the effect of information. In CE I,
the provision of additional information in treatment 2 resulted in
lower (and the difference was statistically significant) premiums
for eggs from free-run and free-range housing systems (compared
to treatment 1). Across the two treatments, there were no other
significant differences in WTP for the other attributes in choice
treatment 1. In CE II, the WTP for the cage-free attribute decreased
in treatment 2, but not for the other attributes. As there were no
differences in sample characteristics across treatments, we may
attribute the disparity in WTPs across the treatments to differences
in the information that was provided. Consequently, it is concluded
that information on the consequences of each housing system on
hen health and welfare reduces consumer valuation of eggs from
free-run and free-range systems (and their valuation of the absence
of cages generally).

Study shows producers need to

communicate with consumers
Although consumers have limited knowledge about animal
production systems and animal welfare, they are sensitive to
information about housing systems. It is important for egg
producers to communicate well with consumers. Providing
detailed information about the consequences of the housing
systems on hen health and welfare reduces consumer valuation
of eggs from free-run and free-range. And while respondents
value the absence of cages (or discount eggs from systems
that use cages), this value is also reduced when information on
the consequences of the system on hen health and welfare is
presented to subjects. An important lesson from this is that use
of the word cage (e.g., enriched cages) should be avoided lest the
price consumers would pay will be reduced.

This work was completed in collaboration with Yiqing Lu, former M.Sc. student in FARE, and Tina Widowski, Professor in the Department of Animal and Poultry Science at
the University of Guelph. A version of this report appears in the May 2014 issue of Canadian Poultry Magazine. The financial support of the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture,
Food and Rural Affairs and the Poultry Industry Council is gratefully acknowledged.

The global rise of private

food safety standards
By: Spencer Henson, University Research Professor in Economics of Food,
Health and Development; Professor, FARE

The regulation of food safety

has long been regarded as the
responsibility of government.

Food safety standards, public and private, are fundamentally

about establishing controls and conformance in the production,
processing and distribution of food. Two questions need to be asked
to understand why private food safety standards have developed
so rapidly in recent years. First, what are the drivers of increased
Thus, countries like Canada have a wide array of acts and regulations controls along national and global agri-food value chains? Second,
that lay down requirements on how food is produced, processed
why is this need for control expressed in the form of a proliferation
and distributed with the aim of reducing the microbiological,
of private standards?
chemical and physical risks that are potentially associated with
food. Increasingly, however, the private sector nationally and
internationally is establishing its own food safety standards. For
some, the rise of these private standards presents a welcome sign that
the food industry is being proactive in managing food safety. Others, There are four key drivers for increasing control in agri-food value
chains. First, ongoing reforms of food safety regulatory systems
however, have concerns over the ability of the private sector to
are a response to real and/or perceived risks in food production,
effectively regulate itself, and about the impact of private standards
processing and distribution, which predominantly reflect heightened
on smaller firms and farms. This article looks at why private food
consumer anxiety brought about by high-profile food safety crises.
safety standards have emerged and what they mean for the role of
Second, heightened interest among consumers and businesses in
government in regulating food safety into the future.
food production processes and changes in their conceptions of food
safety are reinforced by company competitive strategies around
food safety and quality. Third, the globalization of food supply and
increased role of coordination economies in defining competiveness
Private standards have become increasingly important in global
creates new risks and new challenges for value chain coordination
agri-food value chains, progressively pervading both domestic
and control. For example, over 80 per cent of fruit, 55 per cent of
business and international trade. One of the defining characteristics vegetables and 40 percent of fish and seafood consumed in Canada
of private standards, particularly as they relate to food safety, is
each year is imported. Fourth, responsibility for food safety has
an increasing focus on the processes by which food is produced
progressively been devolved from the state towards the private
rather than the end product per se. In this respect, they mirror the
sector. Thus, the recently enacted Safe Food for Canadian Act has
increasing importance of process standards in public regulations,
specific provisions with respect to the responsibility of businesses
as increasingly seen with requirements for food processors to
regarding the safety of the food they supply.
implement Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP)
These four drivers combine to create an environment in which
under regulations governing food hygiene.
businesses are under more pressure to deliver food safety and to
Within the broad array of private standards relating to food safety, it
maintain the integrity of their brands. They need to do this in the face
is possible to distinguish between three types of standard based on
of increasingly globalized and complex food supply chains that cut
who sets them. Individual company standards are set by particular
across multiple regulatory jurisdictions.
firms, usually large food retailers and food service operators, and
adopted across their supply chains. The Loblaw Vendor Operating
Standards and McDonalds Supplier QMS are examples in Canada.
Collective national standards are set by organizations that operate
within national boundaries, including industry associations and non- Private standards are frequently characterised as going beyond
the requirements of government regulations. There are at least
governmental organizations (NGOs). Some of these standards are
three different elements to this. First, private standards may set
specifically designed to establish claims about food from particular
a higher standard for particular food product attributes, such as
countries or regions. The various on-farm food safety programs in
levels of pesticide residues or microbial pathogens. In other words,
Canada, such as CanadaGAP, Canadian Quality Milk and Verified
private standards may be seen as more stringent than regulations.
Beef Production, are examples. A third set of standards, collective
Second, private standards may increase the scope of activities that
international standards, are designed to be required or used by
are regulated, whether vertically or horizontally. Increased vertical
organizations in different countries. This frequently means that the
coverage means extending the span of control up and down the value
organization setting the standard has international membership.
GlobalGAP is perhaps the best-known example.
chain. Increased horizontal coverage relates to including new
6 For further information see: Henson, S.J. and Humphrey, J. (2009). The Impacts of Private Food Safety Standards on the Food Chain and on Public Standard-Setting Processes. FAO, Rome.

Drivers for increasing control in

agri-food value chains

Three types of private

safety standards

Going beyond government

requirements

What is the role of public regulators in a world where the

private sector is developing and implementing food safety
standards that are stricter than regulations?

elements that are not subject to government regulations. Third,

private standards are much more specific about how to achieve the
desired outcomes than is typical with regulations. In many cases,
regulations lay down the basic parameters of a food safety system,
while private standards elaborate on what this system should look
like in order to be effective.
In addition to reducing risk, private standards also provide businesses
with a basis for product differentiation, although this is less common
in the arena of food safety than with the environment or animal
welfare, for example. Standards can be adopted to support claims to
consumers that products have certain extrinsic characteristics that
reflect the way in which they have been produced. Foods produced
and labelled using organic methods are an example.

The legitimacy of private

standards

At the heart of the ongoing debate about the role and implications of
private food safety standards are questions about their legitimacy,
both in general and in comparison to government regulations.
Anyone can create a new standard, and businesses can then decide
whether or not to use it. But when standards begin to have wide
impact, as with GlobalGAP and national equivalents such as
CanadaGAP, questions begin to be raised about the extent to which
these are effective, fair and reasonable.
A key concern in ongoing debates about the legitimacy of private
food safety standards is whether they are science-based and bring
about safer food. Intuitively, private firms would be unlikely to
engage in the setting and/or adoption of standards that impose costs
on the value chains in which they operate unless these brought
about greater protection than prevailing regulations. At the same
time, it is clear that there is considerable overlap between regulatory
requirements and private standards, and that one of the key roles
of private standards is to define a coherent and auditable roadmap
towards regulatory compliance. In this sense, the strict dichotomy
between government regulations and private standards may be
somewhat false.

Private standards, furthermore, are likely to have profound impacts

on the structure of agri-food value chains. For example, to the extent
that there are economies of scale in compliance and/or larger firms
are better able to access finance and other resources, compliance
with private food safety standards is likely to induce processes of
consolidation and concentration.
Whilst regulations have long been seen as a key way in which
national governments provide protection to their populations
against the risks inherent in food, it is also recognised that they can
impede trade. Thus, the international community has established
rights and responsibilities for nation states in promulgating food
safety regulations, which aim to minimise adverse impacts on
trade whilst offering the needed protection for consumers, through
the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures under the
World Trade Organization (WTO). Many argue that private food
safety standards fall outside of the purview of the WTO.

Quick response to
emerging issues

It is argued that one of the key advantages of organizations setting

private standards is their ability to evolve and adapt requirements
quickly in response to emerging issues. In contrast, regulators are
often criticised for the slow speed at which they promulgate new
or revised regulatory requirements. It is important to recognise,
however, that regulators are bound to established procedures, the aim
of which is to ensure accountability and the ability of stakeholders
to provide input to the regulatory process. Many organizations
that establish private food safety standards only allow and/or seek
input from selected (usually industry) stakeholders, with little
direct voice for consumers and marginalised groups such as small
businesses and farms.
As outlined above, the continued evolution of private food safety
standards raises important issues for those interested in the safety
of food, and also for the welfare of those engaged along agri-food
value chains from consumers back to farmers. More profoundly,
however, it raises questions over the role of government in regulating
the safety of food. Thus, what is the role of public regulators in a
world where the private sector is developing and implementing
food safety standards that are stricter than regulations? Furthermore,
should regulators embrace private food safety standards, for example
As with regulations, compliance with private food safety standards
by taking them into account in assessing the risk a particular food
inevitably imposes costs on agri-food value chains. Thus, we
business poses, or even encouraging compliance? These are difficult
observe winners and losers in a world where private standards are questions for government and ones that the Federal government in
playing an increasing role in governing food safety. Key concerns
Canada is just beginning to ask. Thus, whilst the various documents
here relate to the ability of smaller firms and farms to comply,
associated with the Safe Food for Canadian Act demonstrate that the
and the extent to which private standards are used effectively by
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) recognises the emergence
dominant players, such as large retailers and food service operators, of private food safety standards, it is not clear that they have a clear
idea yet as to how to respond.
to push the cost of food safety management down the value chain.
7

Cost of food safety

management

Leading ag
economists
guide Institute

The Institute for Advanced

Study of Food and Agricultural
Policy is an integral part of
FARE, bringing together leading
voices and researchers in
agricultural economics.

What makes the Institute

unique is that it is built solely on
academia, harnessing the brain
trust of leading agricultural
economists. The Institute
recently formalized its structure,
announcing FARE Professor
Alan Ker as Director and FARE
Research Associate Kenneth
Poon as Associate Director. They
are supported by 10 Fellows who
lend significant expertise and
depth to the organization.

Institute to co-host Canadian

Agriculture Policy Conference

The fifth annual Canadian Agriculture Policy Conference hosted by the Canadian Agricultural
Economics Society (CAES) will be co-hosted by the Institute for Advanced Study of Food and
Agricultural Policy and the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute (CAPI). The event will be held from
January 28-30, 2015 at the Chateau Laurier in Ottawa.

The conference is considered the premier national policy outlook for the agri-food sector. The general
theme for this years event is Keeping Up with Consumers: Understanding the Policy Implications
of a Changing Landscape. Stay tuned for more details.

Canadian Agriculture Policy Conference

January 28-30, 2015
Chateau Laurier, Ottawa

This group includes:

John Cranfield,

University of Guelph

Brady Deaton, Jr.,

University of Guelph

Jeffrey Dorfman,

University of Georgia

Barry K. Goodwin,

North Carolina State University

Getu Hailu,

University of Guelph

Jill E. Hobbs,

University of Saskatchewan

Ken McEwan,

University of
Guelph-Ridgetown Campus

Michael von Massow,

University of Guelph

James Rude,

University of Alberta

Alfons Weersink,

University of Guelph

John Cranfield is new FARE Chair

Professor John Cranfield
has been appointed as
the new Chair of FARE
effective September 1,
2014. I am honoured that

the department, college and wider community

expressed its support and confidence in me
serving as Chair in the department, says
Cranfield.FARE has gone through a period
of considerable growth and renewal in the
last five years. My aim is to work to further
enhance the high quality of our educational
and research activities, and engagement with
the broader community.
Cranfield has been a faculty member with
the department since 2001 and has served as
the graduate program coordinator since July
2010. His research focuses on the economics
Excerpts from the OAC website

of consumer behaviour and demand analysis

at the individual, household and market level,
innovation in the agri-food and biotechnology
sectors and economic history. He has published
over 50 articles in peer-reviewed journals.
Cranfield is an alumnus of the University of
Guelph receiving his Bachelor of Science
in Agriculture in 1993 and his M.Sc. in
Agricultural Economics in 1995. He then
attended Purdue University for his Ph.D.,
which he completed in 1999.

I am thrilled to have Professor Cranfield

step into this important leadership role, and I
look forward to working with him in this new
capacity, says Robert Gordon, Dean, Ontario
Agricultural College (OAC). A sincere thank
you also goes to Professor Alan Ker for his
considerable contributions as Chair of the
department during the last five years.

University of Guelph
Department of Food, Agricultural and
Resource Economics (FARE)
J.D. MacLachlan Building
Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1
Telephone: 519-824-4120 x53625
Facsimile: 519-767-1510

Kenneth Poon, Associate Director

http://www.uoguelph.ca/fare
uoguelph.ca/fare