Search results

The purpose of this paper is to provide a thorough analysis of meat demand in China and predict future trends in meat consumption.

Expenditure as well as Marshallian and Hicksian demand elasticities of various meats in China are evaluated using the linear almost ideal demand system.

Results from this paper show that pork, the primary meat in Chinese diets, has become a necessity and that poultry, beef, mutton, and fish are considered luxuries within the meat budget allocation of Chinese households. Furthermore, the results predict that for any increase in future meat expenditure, the largest share of that increase will be allocated to pork consumption.

This paper fills a gap currently present in the empirical literature regarding time series meat demand analysis in China. This paper makes use of newly available time series data on Chinese meat consumption and prices to estimate expenditure as well as own‐price and cross‐price elasticities. Implications for both domestic meat producers and grain exporters are discussed.

We propose a quasi–maximum likelihood estimator for the location parameters of a linear regression model with bounded and symmetrically distributed errors. The error outcomes are restated as the convex combination of the bounds, and we use the method of maximum entropy to derive the quasi–log likelihood function. Under the stated model assumptions, we show that the proposed estimator is unbiased, consistent, and asymptotically normal. We then conduct a series of Monte Carlo exercises designed to illustrate the sampling properties of the quasi–maximum likelihood estimator relative to the least squares estimator. Although the least squares estimator has smaller quadratic risk under normal and skewed error processes, the proposed QML estimator dominates least squares for the bounded and symmetric error distribution considered in this paper.

Current issues of Publishers' Weekly are reporting serious shortages of paper, binders board, cloth, and other essential book manufacturing materials. Let us assure you these shortages are very real and quite severe.

Sir Watson Cheyne, M.P., recently introduced a deputation to Mr. Balfour to urge upon the Government a proposal for the granting of awards or pensions to persons making medical or other scientific discoveries of general benefit to humanity. The method suggested is the annual voting of £20,000, to be distributed in pensions, some of £1,000 a year, others of £500. In commenting upon the matter the Daily Telegraph observes that the public is more concerned with the adoption of the principle than of any cut‐and‐dried scheme, but it may be pointed out how essentially moderate this proposal is, considering the priceless value of the services which it is desired to reward, and how our credit as a nation stands in this respect. It has been pointed out by foreign writers at least as often as by our own that Great Britain stands above all other countries in respect of the number of original and world‐important ideas and discoveries contributed to science, and that reputation is well maintained to this hour. But what material form does the nation's gratitude, and its pride in the possession of such citizens, take? The answer is that they are not rewarded to the extent of one penny of public money, and we believe that ours is the one leading country in the world of which this can be said. Let us note the case of Sir Ronald Ross, for example, whose work in connection with the cause and prevention of malaria is a landmark in the progress of medical science, and has already been the means of saving tens of thousands of lives. If we considered only the direct benefit done to his own countrymen, and left out of account the honour that he has reflected upon the British name, Sir Ronald's work might still be regarded as equally worthy of recognition with that of a distinguished soldier let us say. But it has brought him nothing, so far as his own country is concerned, in recompense for the years of devoted and often dangerous labour which his discovery represents. Sir Ronald Ross has himself remarked that a doctor who gave to the world the long‐sought cure for cancer would get nothing for his pains from his own people; yet of those people alone, we have seen it stated on high medical authority, 35,000 die of cancer every year upon the average. For any material reward, such a British discoverer would have to look outside his own country. He might receive a small prize from the French Academy; he might receive—as Sir Ronald Ross, we are proud to remember, has received—a large prize from the Nobel trustees, in Sweden. That is not a very gratifying reflection; and even if it were consistent with our self‐respect that such services should be rewarded at other than British expense, the fact would remain that not one in fifty of our pioneers of science could receive such recognition. The matter is thrown into an especially strong light just now, when large sums of public money are being awarded—and most justly and properly awarded—to officers and others who have assisted Britain's military effort by inventions found serviceable by the Army and Navy. A great innovation in healing science will preserve to the world incalculably more lives than the most deadly device of war could destroy; but only the latter service is thought worthy of recompense. Yet consider the circumstances in which by far the greater part of British research, leading to ultimate discovery, is carried on. Much of the most valuable work in medicine, for example, has been done by men who, at the expense of health and strength, were carrying on medical practice at the same time, and not always making ends meet without difficulty. Even the researcher who draws a salary from public or private funds has no more than a pittance in most cases. Some of the greatest names in the history of British science are associated with melancholy stories of poverty and struggle, continued over many years. For such triumphs are not achieved without the devotion of a great part of a man's life. Koch's discovery of the tubercule bacillus was the fruit of eleven years of patient seeking. The wonderful drug salvarsan was only given to the world after years of monotonous labour. Any scale of reward which Parliament could reasonably be expected to sanction would have been earned a dozen times over by sheer hard work and perseverance alone in every case which was held to deserve such recognition. Mr. Balfour, we can be quite sure, would be personally well‐disposed towards the appeal that has been made. As Lord President of the Council, he has the national organisation of research which Great Britain at last possesses—such as it is—under his Ministerial care. The Medical Research Committee expends an annual sum of £60,000 of public money, which represents, we should say, infinitely the cheapest national investment on record. The sum which it is now proposed to lay out stands upon a similar footing. A great stimulus would unquestionably be given to research of every kind, if a reasonable prospect of such recognition were opened to the scientific worker; and a man possessing the definite talent for such service would, once adequately pensioned, be able to carry on without distraction the task of extending still further the boundaries of knowledge. That science should continue to be starved because men can be found to undertake unrewarded labour for their fellow‐creatures is not only a reproach to us as a nation, but bad from the point of view of tangible results; and we trust that the case submitted by Sir Watson Cheyne and his colleagues will be admitted and acted upon without delay.

The prevalence of virtual learning environments (VLEs) in higher education is well documented and has been promoted in the UK by government funded projects, but there has been little empirical research on the level of involvement of subject librarians with VLEs. A survey was designed to investigate how VLEs are affecting the work of subject librarians and to examine factors influencing their use in providing electronic information resources and developing information skills. The aim of this paper is to document the results

A questionnaire was distributed electronically to a purposive sample of 132 subject librarians at seven UK universities. The instrument contained mainly closed specified response questions with a few open questions and a response rate of 43 per cent (n=57) was achieved.

Use of VLEs by subject librarians varies both between and within institutions. Factors affecting this include the subject area, co‐operation of academic staff and attitudes of librarians towards technology‐based teaching. JISC‐funded projects have enabled better use of VLEs through the creation of re‐usable learning objects and development of pedagogical understanding and skills. Recognition by academic staff of the teaching role of subject librarians has a critical impact on their involvement with VLEs.

The timeframe limited the scale of the study and size of the sample. The mainly quantitative approach limited the detail and depth of responses, but sufficient data were collected to establish broad trends, illuminate important factors and identify key issues.

The paper provides empirical evidence of how VLEs are affecting the day‐to‐day activities of subject librarians and suggests areas where further research would be valuable.

Quality traits desired by consumers may not be adequately captured by beef industry standards associated with grid or value‐based pricing alone. Aims to demonstrate this shortcoming by examining strategies of selected companies in North America at the four supply chain levels of cow‐calf genetics, feedlot feeding, processing, and retailing that have been proactive in producing desirable beef attributes efficiently to better meet consumer beef demand.

The vertical alliance between Ralphs retailing, Sunland Beef processing, and a handful of feedlots using narrowly defined beef genetics are examined to illustrate how consumer market research and coordination throughout the supply chain may address many shortcomings associated with current value‐based pricing of beef criteria.

Better information sharing and coordination between seedstock and retail industries could help assure that consumer preferences of beef palatability and consistency are met while meeting high production efficiency standards.

Cow‐calf, feedlot, and packing industries need to better track and manage information flows of genetic‐management paths from consumer to seedstock producer in order for the beef industry to be more competitive.

Experiences of our case companies suggest that the beef industry will need to look beyond the North American grid or value‐based pricing of beef in order to maintain or improve market share with competing pork and poultry sectors.

MR. F. W. F. ARNAUD, the Public Analyst for the Borough of Portsmouth, delivered a lecture on this subject at the Town Hall on April 27. The lecturer commenced his address by stating that many of the objections to the use of certain preservatives which he might have occasion to put forward were not necessarily his own individual objections, but were the objections of many scientific men who had dealt with all sides of this difficult subject. There was a tendency on the part of some people to regard preservatives as disinfectants, but disinfectants and antiseptics were two different things. A disinfectant not only retarded the growth of microbes, but actually killed them, while an antiseptic preservative merely retarded their growth or formation. Two common antiseptics were sugar and salt. It had been contended that a small dose of a chemical preservative was preferable to a dose of microbes. The effect of a preservative was not to kill the life already present, but to prevent the free multiplication of the organisms present, and the swallowing of a dose of preservative did not necessarily prevent the swallowing of a dose of microbes. There were many old forms of preserving food, such as the use of sugar for fruit and condensed milk; of vinegar for vegetables; and the process of smoking for bacon and fish, smoke being very destructive to microbes; but the oldest form of preservation was the process of salting meat and fish. Another form of preservation was the method of preventing the access of air to perishable articles, as in the cases of eggs and lard. Then there was drying, as in the case of fruit, and chilling, or freezing, as in the cases of meat, milk, poultry, and fish. The temperatures employed for freezing food varied considerably, and depended chiefly upon the length of time during which storage was necessary. If it were only desired to keep meat for a week or two, a low temperature was not necessary, but one of 40 deg. F. was sufficient. Any cooling process was equivalent to the use of a great deal of chemical preservative. A cooling to 50 deg. P. was equivalent to the addition of boric acid to the extent of .05 per cent. At a normal summer temperature of 70 deg. P., two microbes would produce 62,100 in the course of twenty‐four hours; hence the necessity for cooling articles of food. The drawback to most of these methods of preservation was that sugar, salt, and cold were not applicable in every case. Exclusion of air and subsequent sterilisation had their drawbacks also. When sterilisation was complete and the air was exhausted, no putrefaction could take place, and the food should remain indefinitely unchanged. In the matter of tinned meat, the drawback lay chiefly in the failure to ensure complete sterilisation, and in the dissolving of tin, and occasionally lead, from the metal enclosing the food. In the case of tinned meat putrefaction to any considerable extent could be easily recognised by the blown condition of the tin and an absence of the inrush of air when the tin was pierced. Such food was a source of great danger, and if eaten the meat was liable to give rise to ptomaine poisoning—which was occasioned by eating the poisonous products produced by various bacteria. The danger of metallic poisoning could be largely overcome by the use of glass or earthenware vessels. Preservatives in use at the present time were: Benzoates, fluorides, formalin, salicylic acid, sulphites, saccharin, and beta naphthol, generally used singly, though there were some very complicated preservatives on the market. With reference to the use of salt and sugar as preservatives, little or nothing could be said against their use, for sugar was in itself a food and had a well‐known food value. Salt, too, was an essential constituent of our food, for without the elements of which it was composed we could not exist. Naturally, the assimilation of a large quantity of salt was not desirable, but it could not be urged, as, for instance, in the case of boric acid, that it was a substance foreign to the constituents of the human organism, for it was indispensable. Boric acid, however, played no part in any of the essential life processes.