Joint Oligopsony‐Oligopoly Power in Food Processing Industries: Application to the us Broiler Industry

Author(s):  
Stephen F. Hamilton ◽  
David L. Sunding

1986 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 163-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
Willard F. Mueller ◽  
John D. Culbertson
Keyword(s):  




EDIS ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 2009 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Renée M. Goodrich Schneider ◽  
Keith R. Schneider ◽  
C. D. Webb ◽  
Mike Hubbard ◽  
Douglas L. Archer

Revised! FSHN-05-21, a 4-page fact sheet by R. Goodrich Schneider, K.R. Schneider, C.D. Webb, M. Hubbard, and D.L. Archer, discusses the use of biological agents in a deliberate, harmful attack, or terrorism using the weapons of biological warfare against the U.S. agricultural and food processing system. Includes references. Published by the UF Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, April 2009. FSHN0521/FS126: Agroterrorism in the US: An Overview (ufl.edu)



2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. 1533
Author(s):  
Courtney A. Fancher ◽  
Li Zhang ◽  
Aaron S. Kiess ◽  
Pratima A. Adhikari ◽  
Thu T.N. Dinh ◽  
...  

United States is the largest producer and the second largest exporter of broiler meat in the world. In the US, broiler production is largely converting to antibiotic-free programs which has caused an increase in morbidity and mortality within broiler farms. Escherichia coli and Clostridium perfringens are two important pathogenic bacteria readily found in the broiler environment and result in annual billion-dollar losses from colibacillosis, gangrenous dermatitis, and necrotic enteritis. The broiler industry is in search of non-antibiotic alternatives including novel vaccines, prebiotics, probiotics, and housing management strategies to mitigate production losses due to these diseases. This review provides an overview of the broiler industry and antibiotic free production, current challenges, and emerging research on antibiotic alternatives to reduce pathogenic microbial presence and improve bird health.



2017 ◽  
Vol 86 (3) ◽  
pp. 390-416 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adelina Gschwandtner ◽  
Stefan Hirsch




2004 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 181-184
Author(s):  
Amy Garrigues

On September 15, 2003, the US. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that agreements between pharmaceutical and generic companies not to compete are not per se unlawful if these agreements do not expand the existing exclusionary right of a patent. The Valley DrugCo.v.Geneva Pharmaceuticals decision emphasizes that the nature of a patent gives the patent holder exclusive rights, and if an agreement merely confirms that exclusivity, then it is not per se unlawful. With this holding, the appeals court reversed the decision of the trial court, which held that agreements under which competitors are paid to stay out of the market are per se violations of the antitrust laws. An examination of the Valley Drugtrial and appeals court decisions sheds light on the two sides of an emerging legal debate concerning the validity of pay-not-to-compete agreements, and more broadly, on the appropriate balance between the seemingly competing interests of patent and antitrust laws.



Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document