Participation behavior of pork seller in traceability system: empirical analysis of 636 sellers in Beijing, Shanghai and Jinan, China

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.2021.03.20

Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis ›› 2021, Vol. 33 ›› Issue (3): 541-552.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.2021.03.20

• Agricultural Economy and Development • Previous Articles Next Articles

Participation behavior of pork seller in traceability system: empirical analysis of 636 sellers in Beijing, Shanghai and Jinan, China

JIN Liwen¹, LIU Zengjin²^,^*(), LIU Aijun¹

1. College of Economics and Management, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China
2. Institute of Agricultural Science and Technology Information, Shanghai Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Shanghai 201403, China

Received:2020-08-28 Online:2021-04-02 Published:2021-03-25
Contact: LIU Zengjin

Abstract

Abstract:

Based on the survey data of 636 pork sellers in three cities of Beijing, Shanghai and Jinan, a bivariate Probit model was used to analyze the influencing factors of pork sellers' participation behavior in traceability system. It was found that the participation level of pork sellers in wholesale market and wet market was different. Only 28.62% of the pork sellers took part in the traceability system, and the pork sold by them had the “traceability”. So, the participation level needs to be substantially improved. At present, most pork sellers are young and middle-aged people, their education is generally low, and they have a relatively low level of awareness of the importance of pork traceability. The purchasing relationship, the years of sales, the sales profit, the sales format, the degree of attention, the punishment intensity, the monitoring intensity and the age significantly (P<0.1) affected the pork sellers' participation behavior. Therefore, it is proposed to strengthen the publicity of pork traceability system, to give appropriate rewards to pork sellers who standardize the participation behavior in traceability system, and to strengthen supervision of pork sellers by the government departments and market managers.

Key words: pork traceability system, participation behavior, sellers, bivariate Probit model

CLC Number:

S-9
F323.3

JIN Liwen, LIU Zengjin, LIU Aijun. Participation behavior of pork seller in traceability system: empirical analysis of 636 sellers in Beijing, Shanghai and Jinan, China[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2021, 33(3): 541-552.

Figures/Tables 5

References 34

[1]	朱增勇, 李梦希, 孟君丽 . 非洲猪瘟对中国生猪市场和产业发展影响的研究[J]. 价格理论与实践, 2019 ( 7):20-23.
	ZHU Z Y, LI M X, MENG J L . Analysis on China's pig market and industry development under new situation[J]. Price: Theory & Practice, 2019 ( 7):20-23.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[2]	汪爱娥, 游梦琪 . 消费者对安全猪肉的认知及支付意愿研究: 基于湖北省武汉市的实地调研[J]. 农产品质量与安全, 2016 ( 3):60-66.
	WANG A E, YOU M Q . Research on consumers' perception of safe pork and their willingness to pay: based on field investigation in Wuhan, Hubei Province[J]. Quality and Safety of Agro-Products, 2016 ( 3):60-66.(in Chinese)
[3]	AKERLOF G . The market for “Lemons”: quality uncertainty and the market mechanism[J] . Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1970,84(3):488-500.
[4]	CASWELL J A, MOJDUSZKA E M . Using informational labeling to influence the market for quality in food products[J]. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1996,78(5):1248-1253.
[5]	BROWN D M, ANTLE J M . Choice and efficiency in food safety policy[J]. Southern Economic Journal, 1997,63(3):819.
[6]	HOBBS J E . Information asymmetry and the role of traceability systems[J]. Agribusiness, 2004,20(4):397-415. DOI URL
[7]	MEUWISSEN M P M, VELTHUIS A G J, HOGEVEEN H , et al. Traceability and certification in meat supply chains[J]. Journal of Agribusiness, 2003,21(2):167-181.
[8]	孔洪亮, 李建辉 . 全球统一标识系统在食品安全跟踪与追溯体系中的应用[J]. 食品科学, 2004,25(6):188-194.
	KONG H L, LI J H . Application review of the global identification system (EAN·UCC system) in the traceability of the food safety supply chain[J]. Food Science, 2004,25(6):188-194.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[9]	谢菊芳 . 猪肉安全生产全程可追溯系统的研究[D]. 北京: 中国农业大学, 2005.
	XIE J F . Research of traceability system in the pork safety production chain[D]. Beijing: China Agricultural University, 2005. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[10]	OLSEN P, BORIT M . How to define traceability[J]. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 2013,29(2):142-150. DOI URL
[11]	WYNN M T, OUYANG C, TER HOFSTEDE A H M, et al. Data and process requirements for product recall coordination[J]. Computers in Industry, 2011,62(7):776-786. DOI URL
[12]	HOBBS J E, BAILEY D, DICKINSON D L , et al. Traceability in the Canadian red meat sector: do consumers care?[J]. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2005,53(1):47-65.
[13]	DHOUIB S, DHOUIB S, CHABCHOUB H. Artificial bee colony metaheuristic to optimize traceability in food industry [C]//2013 International Conference on Advanced Logistics and Transport, May 29-31, 2013, Sousse, Tunisia. IEEE, 2013: 417-420.
[14]	KHOIFIN K, NIMSAI S . Investigating traceability costs and benefits in food supply chain: case study in serang City, Indonesia[J]. International Journal of Supply Chain Management, 2018,7(5):153-161.
[15]	LEHTINEN U . Traceability in agrifood chains[M] //Intelligent agrifood chains and networks. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011: 151-166.
[16]	MATTEVI M, JONES J A . Food supply chain: are UK SMEs aware of concept, drivers, benefits and barriers, and frameworks of traceability?[J]. British Food Journal, 2016,118(5):1107-1128.
[17]	SALTINI R, AKKERMAN R . Testing improvements in the chocolate traceability system: impact on product recalls and production efficiency[J]. Food Control, 2012,23(1):221-226.
[18]	刘增金, 乔娟, 张莉侠 . 溯源能力信任对养猪场户质量安全行为的影响: 基于北京市6个区县183位养猪场户的调研[J]. 中国农业资源与区划, 2016,37(11):105-112.
	LIU Z J, QIAO J, ZHANG L X . The influence of traceability ability trust on safety behavior of pig farms and households: based on the survey of 183 pig farms and households in 6 counties in Beijing City[J]. Chinese Journal of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, 2016,37(11):105-112.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[19]	刘增金, 乔娟, 王晓华 . 品牌可追溯性信任对消费者食品消费行为的影响: 以猪肉产品为例[J]. 技术经济, 2016,35(5):104-111.
	LIU Z J, QIAO J, WANG X H . Influence of brand's traceability trust on consumers' food consumption behavior: taking pork products as example[J]. Technology Economics, 2016,35(5):104-111.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[20]	刘鹏, 刘文, 李强 , 等. 基于RFID技术的肉牛养殖追溯系统建立[J]. 食品研究与开发, 2015,36(24):190-193.
	LIU P, LIU W, LI Q , et al. Cattle breeding research traceability system based on RFID technology[J]. Food Research and Development, 2015,36(24):190-193.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[21]	CHEN T B, DING K F, HAO S K , et al. Batch-based traceability for pork: a mobile solution with 2D barcode technology[J]. Food Control, 2020,107:106770.
[22]	应瑞瑶, 侯博, 陈秀娟 , 等. 消费者对可追溯食品信息属性的支付意愿分析: 猪肉的案例[J]. 中国农村经济, 2016(11):44-56.
	YING R Y, HOU B, CHEN X J , et al. Analysis of consumers' willingness to pay for traceable food information attributes: the case of pork[J]. Chinese Rural Economy, 2016(11):44-56.(in Chinese)
[23]	刘增金, 俞美莲, 乔娟 . 信息源信任对消费者食品购买行为的影响研究: 以可追溯猪肉为例[J]. 农业现代化研究, 2017,38(5):755-763.
	LIU Z J, YU M L, QIAO J . Effects of information source trust on consumers' food purchasing behaviors: a case study of pork traceability[J]. Research of Agricultural Modernization, 2017,38(5):755-763.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[24]	吴林海, 龚晓茹, 陈秀娟 , 等. 具有事前质量保证与事后追溯功能的可追溯信息属性的消费偏好研究[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2018,28(8):148-160.
	WU L H, GONG X R, CHEN X J , et al. Attribute with pre-incident quality assurance and post-incident traceability[J]. China Population,Resources and Environment, 2018,28(8):148-160.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[25]	ARGEMÍ-ARMENGOL I, VILLALBA D, RIPOLL G , et al. Credence cues of pork are more important than consumers' culinary skills to boost their purchasing intention[J]. Meat Science, 2019,154:11-21. DOI URL PMID
[26]	刘增金, 乔娟, 王晓华 . 生猪养殖场户参与猪肉可追溯体系的行为与意愿分析: 基于北京市6个区养殖场户的问卷数据[J]. 农林经济管理学报, 2018,17(1):72-81.
	LIU Z J, QIAO J, WANG X H . Pig farmers' behavior and intention of participating in pork traceability system: an analysis based on questionnaire data of farmers from 6 districts of Beijing[J]. Journal of Agro-Forestry Economics and Management, 2018,17(1):72-81.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[27]	刘增金, 乔娟, 张莉侠 . 猪肉可追溯体系质量安全效应研究: 基于生猪屠宰加工企业的视角[J]. 中国农业大学学报, 2016,21(10):127-134.
	LIU Z J, QIAO J, ZHANG L X . Study on safety effect of pork traceability system: based on the perspective of pig slaughter enterprise[J]. Journal of China Agricultural University, 2016,21(10):127-134.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[28]	夏兆敏 . 优质猪肉供应链中屠宰加工与销售环节的质量行为协调机制研究[D]. 泰安: 山东农业大学, 2014.
	XIA Z M . Study on the coordination mechanism of quality behavior between slaughterhouse and supermarket in high quality pork supply chain[D]. Tai'an: Shandong Agricultural University, 2014. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[29]	卢凌霄, 张晓恒, 曹晓晴 . 内外资超市食品安全控制行为差异研究: 基于采购与销售环节[J]. 中国食物与营养, 2014,20(8):46-51.
	LU L X, ZHANG X H, CAO X Q . Differences of domestic and foreign supermarket's control behavior on food safety: based on procurement and sales link[J]. Food and Nutrition in China, 2014,20(8):46-51.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[30]	曲芙蓉, 孙世民, 彭玉珊 . 供应链环境下超市良好质量行为实施意愿的影响因素分析: 基于山东省456家超市的调查数据[J]. 农业技术经济, 2011 ( 11):64-70.
	QU F R, SUN S M, PENG Y S . Analysis of the influencing factors of the willingness to implement good quality behaviors in supermarkets under the supply chain environment: based on the survey data of 456 supermarkets in Shandong Province[J]. Journal of Agrotechnical Economics, 2011 ( 11):64-70.(in Chinese)
[31]	陈雨生, 房瑞景, 尹世久 , 等. 超市参与食品安全追溯体系的意愿及其影响因素: 基于有序Logistic模型的实证分析[J]. 中国农村经济, 2014 ( 12):41-49.
	CHEN Y S, FANG R J, YIN S J , et al. The willingness of supermarkets to participate in the food safety traceability system and its influencing factors: an empirical analysis based on the ordered Logistic model[J]. Chinese Rural Economy, 2014 ( 12):41-49.(in Chinese)
[32]	刘增金 . 溯源追责信任、纵向协作关系与猪肉销售商质量安全行为控制: 兼议猪肉可追溯体系质量安全效应的现实效果[J]. 中国食品安全治理评论, 2019 ( 1):90-117.
	LIU Z J . Traceability to responsibility for trust, vertical collaboration and control of the pork sellers' behavior about quality and safety: the practical effect of the quality and safety effect of the pork traceability system[J]. China Food Safety Management Review, 2019 ( 1):90-117.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[33]	刘李峰, 武拉平, 张照新 . 价格、质量对超市农产品经营影响的实证研究: 来自消费者角度的证据[J]. 中国农村观察, 2007 ( 1):24-35.
	LIU L F, WU L P, ZHANG Z X . Empirical study on impacts of price and quality on supermarkets' agricultural product business: evidence from consumers[J]. China Rural Survey, 2007 ( 1):24-35.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[34]	乔娟 . 基于食品质量安全的批发商认知和行为分析: 以北京市大型农产品批发市场为例[J]. 中国流通经济, 2011,25(1):76-80.
	QIAO J . Analysis of wholesaler's cognition and behavior based on food safety[J]. China Business and Market, 2011,25(1):76-80.(in Chinese with English abstract)

变量名称 Variable	含义与赋值 Connotation and assignment	均值 Mean	标准差 Standard deviation
品牌猪肉采购行为 Single brand pork purchasing behavior	是否销售单一品牌的猪肉:是=1;否=0 Whether to sell a single brand of pork: Yes=1; No=0	0.49	0.50
可追溯体系规范经营行为 Standardized business behavior in traceability system	是否建立猪肉购销台账、积极索要采购凭证、主动给予消费者购物小票:是=1;否=0 Whether to establish a pork purchase and sales account, actively ask for purchase vouchers, and actively give consumers shopping receipts: Yes=1; No=0	0.46	0.50
采购关系 Purchasing relationship	是否有固定的采购关系:是=1;否=0 Whether there is a fixed relationship in procurement: Yes=1; No=0	0.71	0.45
销货关系 Sales relationship	是否有固定的销货关系:是=1;否=0 Whether there is a fixed sales relationship: Yes=1; No=0	0.72	0.45
销售年限 Years of sales	实际销售年限数值 Actual years of sales	10.21	6.27
销售数量1 Sales quantity 1	日销售量500 kg以下=1;其他=0 Daily sales below 500 kg=1; others=0	0.57	0.50
销售数量2 Sales quantity 2	日销售量在500~999 kg=1;其他=0 Daily sales in 500-999 kg=1; others=0	0.34	0.47
销售利润1 Sales profit 1	销售价与采购价价差在1.0元·kg^-1以下=1;其他=0 The sales price is 0-<1.0 yuan·kg^-1 higher than the purchase price=1; others=0	0.39	0.49
销售利润2 Sales profit 2	销售价与采购价价差在1.0~1.9元·kg^-1=1;其他=0 The sales price is 1.0-1.9 yuan·kg^-1 higher than the purchase price=1; others=0	0.35	0.48
销售业态 Sales format	批发市场=1;农贸市场=0 Wholesale market=1; Agricultural market=0	0.81	0.40
关注程度 Degree of attention	平时是否关注与猪肉质量安全相关的法律法规或政策:非常关注、比较关注=1; 一般关注、不太关注、很不关注=0 Whether concerned about laws, regulations or policies related to the safety of pork quality: Very concerned, concerned=1; general, not concerned, not concerned at all=0	0.39	0.49

变量名称 Variable	含义与赋值 Connotation and assignment	均值 Mean	标准差 Standard deviation
品牌猪肉采购行为 Single brand pork purchasing behavior	是否销售单一品牌的猪肉:是=1;否=0 Whether to sell a single brand of pork: Yes=1; No=0	0.49	0.50
可追溯体系规范经营行为 Standardized business behavior in traceability system	是否建立猪肉购销台账、积极索要采购凭证、主动给予消费者购物小票:是=1;否=0 Whether to establish a pork purchase and sales account, actively ask for purchase vouchers, and actively give consumers shopping receipts: Yes=1; No=0	0.46	0.50
采购关系 Purchasing relationship	是否有固定的采购关系:是=1;否=0 Whether there is a fixed relationship in procurement: Yes=1; No=0	0.71	0.45
销货关系 Sales relationship	是否有固定的销货关系:是=1;否=0 Whether there is a fixed sales relationship: Yes=1; No=0	0.72	0.45
销售年限 Years of sales	实际销售年限数值 Actual years of sales	10.21	6.27
销售数量1 Sales quantity 1	日销售量500 kg以下=1;其他=0 Daily sales below 500 kg=1; others=0	0.57	0.50
销售数量2 Sales quantity 2	日销售量在500~999 kg=1;其他=0 Daily sales in 500-999 kg=1; others=0	0.34	0.47
销售利润1 Sales profit 1	销售价与采购价价差在1.0元·kg^-1以下=1;其他=0 The sales price is 0-<1.0 yuan·kg^-1 higher than the purchase price=1; others=0	0.39	0.49
销售利润2 Sales profit 2	销售价与采购价价差在1.0~1.9元·kg^-1=1;其他=0 The sales price is 1.0-1.9 yuan·kg^-1 higher than the purchase price=1; others=0	0.35	0.48
销售业态 Sales format	批发市场=1;农贸市场=0 Wholesale market=1; Agricultural market=0	0.81	0.40
关注程度 Degree of attention	平时是否关注与猪肉质量安全相关的法律法规或政策:非常关注、比较关注=1; 一般关注、不太关注、很不关注=0 Whether concerned about laws, regulations or policies related to the safety of pork quality: Very concerned, concerned=1; general, not concerned, not concerned at all=0	0.39	0.49

变量名称 Variable	含义与赋值 Connotation and assignment	均值 Mean	标准差 Standard deviation
责任意识 Sense of responsibility	若出售的猪肉因养殖、流通、屠宰环节原因出现质量安全问题,您自认为是否应承担责任:应承担=1;不应承担=0 If the quality and safety of pork was threatened during breeding, circulation, or slaughtering, whether you would bear responsibility: Would bear=1; Would not bear=0	0.53	0.50
监控力度 Monitoring intensity	市场管理方和政府部门对猪肉质量安全的监控力度:非常强、比较强=1;一般、比较弱、非常弱=0 The monitoring intensity of pork quality and safety by market management and government departments: Very strong, strong=1; General, weak, very weak=0	0.88	0.32
惩治力度 Punishment intensity	市场管理方和政府部门对猪肉质量安全问题责任人的惩治力度:非常强、比较强=1; 一般、比较弱、非常弱=0 The penalties of market management and government departments on the person responsible for pork quality and safety issues: Very strong, strong=1; General, weak, very weak=0	0.80	0.40
性别 Gender	男=1;女=0 Male=1; Female=0	0.47	0.50
年龄 Age	实际数值 Actual value	39.55	8.91
学历1 Education 1	初中及以下=1;其他=0 Junior high school and below=1; Others=0	0.72	0.45
学历2 Education 2	高中/中专=1;其他=0 High school/technical secondary school=1; Others=0	0.23	0.42

变量名称 Variable	含义与赋值 Connotation and assignment	均值 Mean	标准差 Standard deviation
责任意识 Sense of responsibility	若出售的猪肉因养殖、流通、屠宰环节原因出现质量安全问题,您自认为是否应承担责任:应承担=1;不应承担=0 If the quality and safety of pork was threatened during breeding, circulation, or slaughtering, whether you would bear responsibility: Would bear=1; Would not bear=0	0.53	0.50
监控力度 Monitoring intensity	市场管理方和政府部门对猪肉质量安全的监控力度:非常强、比较强=1;一般、比较弱、非常弱=0 The monitoring intensity of pork quality and safety by market management and government departments: Very strong, strong=1; General, weak, very weak=0	0.88	0.32
惩治力度 Punishment intensity	市场管理方和政府部门对猪肉质量安全问题责任人的惩治力度:非常强、比较强=1; 一般、比较弱、非常弱=0 The penalties of market management and government departments on the person responsible for pork quality and safety issues: Very strong, strong=1; General, weak, very weak=0	0.80	0.40
性别 Gender	男=1;女=0 Male=1; Female=0	0.47	0.50
年龄 Age	实际数值 Actual value	39.55	8.91
学历1 Education 1	初中及以下=1;其他=0 Junior high school and below=1; Others=0	0.72	0.45
学历2 Education 2	高中/中专=1;其他=0 High school/technical secondary school=1; Others=0	0.23	0.42

项目 Item	选项 Option	样本数 Number of samples	比例 Proportion/%
性别	男Male	299	47.01
Gender	女Female	337	52.99
年龄Age	18~39	286	44.97
	40~59	345	54.25
	≥60	5	0.79
学历Education	小学及以下Primary school and below	118	18.55
	初中Junior high school	343	53.93
	高中/中专High school/technical secondary school	143	22.48
	大专Junior college	28	4.40
	本科及以上Bachelor and above	4	0.63
经营年限Operating years	0~4	112	17.61
	5~9	185	29.09
	10~19	248	38.99
	≥20	91	14.31
销售数量Sales quantity	≤499 kg·d^-1	360	56.60
	500~999 kg·d^-1	217	34.12
	≥1 000 kg·d^-1	59	9.28
销售利润Sales profit	<1.0 yuan·kg^-1	251	39.47
	1.0~1.9 yuan·kg^-1	224	35.22
	≥2.0 yuan·kg^-1	161	25.31

Participation behavior of pork seller in traceability system: empirical analysis of 636 sellers in Beijing, Shanghai and Jinan, China

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 5

References 34

Related Articles 15

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments

解释变量 Explanatory variable		品牌猪肉采购行为 Single brand pork purchasing behavior		可追溯体系规范经营行为 Business behavior standardized by traceability system
解释变量 Explanatory variable		系数 Coefficient	标准误 Standard error	系数 Coefficient	标准误 Standard error
纵向协作关系	采购关系Purchasing relationship	-0.273 1^*	0.118 7	0.149 0	0.117 9
Vertical collaboration	销货关系Sales relationship	0.178 0	0.121 6	0.080 0	0.119 8
经营销售情况	销售年限Years of sales	0.002 7	0.010 1	-0.020 5^*	0.010 3
Operation and sales	销售数量1 Sales quantity 1	-0.249 0	0.192 4	-0.048 1	0.196 4
performance	销售数量2 Sales quantity 2	0.200 7	0.195 4	0.110 6	0.199 0
	销售利润1 Sales profit 1	0.483 0^**	0.155 9	0.414 8^**	0.155 9
	销售利润2 Sales profit 2	0.131 5	0.149 4	-0.020 8	0.151 4
	销售业态Sales format	0.194 6	0.163 2	0.607 8^***	0.166 8
猪肉安全认知	关注程度Degree of attention	-0.207 0	0.121 3	0.243 8^*	0.121 9
Pork safety awareness
外界监管情况	监控力度Monitoring intensity	0.132 3	0.181 2	0.417 4^*	0.183 1
External supervision	惩治力度Punishment intensity	-0.416 4^**	0.155 1	-0.235 4	0.150 2
个体特征	性别Gender	0.062 9	0.111 2	0.046 1	0.110 1
Individual characteristics	年龄Age	-0.016 8^*	0.007 0	0.003 2	0.007 0
	学历1 Education level 1	-0.050 8	0.251 2	-0.200 1	0.251 1
	学历2 Education level 2	0.074 8	0.260 7	-0.164 9	0.259 9
常数项Constant term		0.656 2	0.421 1	-0.962 2^*	0.425 4

[1]	ZHANG Shasha, ZHENG Xungang, ZHANG Bizhong. Transportation infrastructure, spatial spillover and rural poverty reduction:an empirical study based on panel data [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2021, 33(3): 553-564.
[2]	WEN Changcun, SUN Yuzhu. Analysis on farmers’ willingness to buy agricultural accessory risk based on regional index in China: a case study on cotton growers in Hebei Province [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2021, 33(2): 346-354.
[3]	FU Lisha, QIN Tao, PAN Huanxue, DENG Jing. Empirical analysis on scale effect of forest output of forest insurance premium subsidy policy in China: based on difference-in-differences model and event study model [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2021, 33(2): 355-368.
[4]	LI Haitao, FU Linlin, HUANG Zuhui, PENG Wenhuan. Various forms of moderate-scale management of agriculture and development prospects [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2021, 33(1): 161-169.
[5]	DONG Yanmin, YAN Fengxian. Spatial-temporal characteristics and coordination of agricultural high-quality development in China [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2021, 33(1): 170-182.
[6]	HU Chenpei, LI Huishang, GUO Xinzhu. Structural characteristics and development gap of regional agricultural economy in China from 1978 to 2017 [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2020, 32(12): 2253-2260.
[7]	LI Menglu, ZHANG Shemei. Impact of media negative coverage of honey consumption expectations [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2020, 32(12): 2282-2290.
[8]	GAO Yun, ZHAO Zhijun. Influence of imported honey on market of bee products of China [J]. , 2020, 32(11): 2088-2093.
[9]	CHENG Ya, LI Xinyue, ZHANG Chun, ZHANG Shemei. Empirical study on relationship between agricultural manager pressure and cooperative performance [J]. , 2020, 32(11): 2094-2102.
[10]	HUANG Hexiao, LI Baozhi, ZHU Qibiao, YANG Liangshan, WU Jinghua. Practice of cultivation of high-quality farmers in Zhejiang: in case of Zhejiang Agronomist College [J]. , 2020, 32(10): 1890-1898.
[11]	XIE Qing, QU Litong, YAN Shixiong. Determination of optimal term of land transfer in suburban villages based on construction land expansion prediction [J]. , 2020, 32(10): 1899-1909.
[12]	LIU Jiaojiao, ZHANG Gangren, GAO Qun. Study on price relevance of livestock products based on VEC-BEKK-GARCH and spillover index model [J]. , 2020, 32(9): 1711-1721.
[13]	GUO Yanjing, XIAO Haifeng. Support level and structural characteristics of maize subsidy policy in world's major maize producing countries and region [J]. , 2020, 32(9): 1722-1731.
[14]	ZHANG Gongwang, ZHU Mingfen. Rural residential land reform and promotion of farmers' income: based on panel data of 6 pilot counties (cities, districts) with difference-in-difference analysis [J]. , 2020, 32(8): 1475-1484.
[15]	HU Qiaolian, YANG Jun, SHAO Jingsong, ZHOU Pengquan, GUO Jiarui, HOU Manping. Comprehensive evaluation of land use benefit in early stage of pastoral complex construction: taking Lujia Village as an example [J]. , 2020, 32(8): 1485-1492.