FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / J Anim Sci / Financial strain of COVID-19 and its impact on willingness-t...
Journal of animal science2023; 101; skad091; doi: 10.1093/jas/skad091

Financial strain of COVID-19 and its impact on willingness-to-pay for equine care.

Abstract: The novel COVID-19 virus caused a global pandemic disrupting lives, industries, and economies. The result was an impact on prices due to challenges with production and supply chain distribution. This study investigates the financial strain COVID-19 had on equine owners and leasers, what the market for equine care would bear if costs for care increased, and what factors contribute to their willingness to pay (WTP) for increasing cost of equine care. An online survey was distributed for 4 weeks to adult U.S. residents. Respondents reported their involvement in the equine industry, financial response to COVID-19, and responses to a double-bound dichotomous choice question on their WTP for care given a randomized increase (1%-20%) in their current cost (n = 506). Data were analyzed using interval regression models where a = 0.05 (Stata15). Respondents were separated into three groups: owner keeping their horse at their residence, owner boarding their equids, and leaser. Boarders reported mean monthly payments of 23.33 ± 90.37 USD (n = 15) for free board, 236.47 ± 151.92 USD, (n = 75) for partial board, and 514.75 ± 291.71 USD (n = 181) for full board. Results show all owners, leaser, and boarders have different WTP values which range from 18.5% to 26.2% increase in current care costs which extends beyond the presented range due to many respondents responding "yes" to both WTP questions (71% of owners, 6% of boarders, 65% of leasers). Equine owners, with on farm equids from the southern US were WTP 11% less than from other regions (P = 0.015). The current boarding fees from owners that board their equids lowered their WTP by 0.01% (P = 0.029) for each additional dollar paid, whereas current care costs were not a significant factor for other owners (P = 0.370) or leasers (P = 0.395). Those that had a full lease for their equids, housed on farm or at a facility, were WTP 15% higher (P = 0.036) than those that had a partial or no lease. In comparison, boarding status (full, partial, or no boarding) did not significantly (P = 0.51) impact boarder's WTP. Age of respondent and annual household income heterogeneously affected WTP across all groups. These results indicate the market for equine care can bear the increases in cost associated with financial distress related to COVID-19, and may aid equine owners, caregivers, and associated individuals in making informed decisions regarding essential care. Results from this study should be taken in context of the global pandemic and the restrictions in place, or lack thereof, at the time the survey was administered. COVID-19 had a substantial impact on markets and livelihoods. Jobs were affected and the cost of goods increased as products were in short supply, driving up prices for essential and nonessential equine care for owners, caretakers, and other associated individuals. A survey was used to better understand the financial impacts COVID-19 had on equine owners and leasers to determine what the market for equine care would bear if costs for care were to increase. Data collected through an online survey of U.S. residents involved in the equine industry (n = 762) were statistically analyzed. We found that equine owners and leasers were willing to pay at least 14% more for equine care as a result of the increases in cost associated with financial distress related to COVID-19. This accounts for differences across age, sex, number of horses owned or leased, and equine characteristics. This may indicate budget reallocation to maintain continuous equine care.
© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2023-03-27 PubMed ID: 36966356PubMed Central: PMC10112674DOI: 10.1093/jas/skad091Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

This study explores the financial impact of COVID-19 on individuals involved in the equine industry. It investigates how much horse owners and leasers are willing to pay for the increased costs of horse care in light of the economic strain caused by the pandemic.

Research Methodology

  • The researchers conducted an online survey over four weeks, targeting adult U.S. residents involved in the equine industry.
  • The survey gathered data on the respondents’ involvement in the industry, their financial response to COVID-19, and their willingness to pay (WTP) for horse care given a potential increase in costs from 1%-20%.
  • The data was then analyzed using interval regression models with a significance level of a = 0.05.

Key Findings

  • Respondents were categorized into three groups: owners keeping horses at their residence, owners boarding their horses, and those leasing horses.
  • All groups were found to have different WTP values for increased care costs, ranging from 18.5% to 26.2%. This range extends beyond the direct increase in costs, as many respondents were willing to pay even more.
  • Owners, particularly those from the southern U.S. with horses at their own farms, were 11% less willing to pay than other regions.
  • The present boarding fees influenced the WTP of owners who boarded their horses, with every additional dollar of cost decreasing their WTP by 0.01%.
  • Those fully leasing their horses were more willing to pay, 15% higher than those with a partial or no lease.
  • The willingness to pay was also affected by the age of the respondent and their annual household income.

Implications

  • The findings suggest that the financial challenges of COVID-19 have not significantly deterred owners and leasers from investing in equine care. They seem prepared to bear increased costs to ensure the continued care of their horses.
  • This information can support decision making by horse owners, caregivers, and associated individuals, particularly in times of financial distress due to pandemic-like situations.
  • However, these results should be contextualized within the unique economic circumstances of the global pandemic at the time the survey was conducted.

Cite This Article

APA
Thompson JM, Kibler ML, Ivey JLZ. (2023). Financial strain of COVID-19 and its impact on willingness-to-pay for equine care. J Anim Sci, 101, skad091. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skad091

Publication

Journal of animal science
ISSN: 1525-3163
NlmUniqueID: 8003002
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 101
PII: skad091

Researcher Affiliations

Thompson, Jada M
  • Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA.
Kibler, Michelle L
  • Department of Agriculture, Illinois State University, Normal, IL, USA.
Ivey, Jennie L Z
  • Department of Animal Science, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA.

MeSH Terms

  • Horses
  • Animals
  • COVID-19 / veterinary
  • Surveys and Questionnaires
  • Decision Making
  • Horse Diseases

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

This article includes 45 references
  1. Ahn S, Norwood FB. Measuring food insecurity during the COVID-19 pandemic of spring 2020. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 43:162–168.
    doi: 10.ghzhwsgoogle scholar: lookup
  2. Cameron TA, Quiggin J. Estimation using contingent valuation data from a “dichotomous choice with follow-up” questionnaire. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 27:218–234.
    doi: 10.1006/jeem.1994.1035google scholar: lookup
  3. Campbell VL, Thompson JM, Apriesnig JL, Pendell DL, Tonsor GT. Poultry producer’s willingness to invest in on-farm carcass disposal. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 30:100209.
    doi: 10.gmpvdngoogle scholar: lookup
  4. Derks J, Giessen L, Winkel G. COVID-19-induced visitor boom reveals the importance of forests as critical infrastructure.. For Policy Econ 2020 Sep;118:102253.
    doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102253pmc: PMC7355319pubmed: 32834768google scholar: lookup
  5. DuBois C, Nakonechny L, Derisoud E, Merkies K. Examining Canadian Equine Industry Participants' Perceptions of Horses and Their Welfare.. Animals (Basel) 2018 Nov 7;8(11).
    doi: 10.3390/ani8110201pmc: PMC6262281pubmed: 30405030google scholar: lookup
  6. Ellison B, McFadden B, Rickard BJ, Wilson NLW. Examining food purchase behavior and food values during the COVID-19 pandemic. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 43:58–72.
    doi: 10.gj47kbgoogle scholar: lookup
  7. Frost H. More people adopting pets during pandemic but screening also increases. ABC News .
  8. Greene EA, Hein W, Wickens CL, Smarsh DN. Extension Horses, Inc. experts act fast to create online resources to assist the horse industry during COVID-19.. Transl Anim Sci 2020 Jul;4(3):txaa085.
    doi: 10.1093/tas/txaa085pmc: PMC7337838pubmed: 32728659google scholar: lookup
  9. Hanemann M, Loomis J, Kanninen B. Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 73:1255–1263.
    doi: 10.2307/1242453google scholar: lookup
  10. Hemsworth L, Jongman E, Coleman G. Recreational horse welfare: the relationships between recreational horse owner attributes and recreational horse welfare. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 165:1–16.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2014.11.019google scholar: lookup
  11. Heuschele D, Catalano D, Martinson K, Wiersma J. Consumer knowledge and horse preference for different colored oats. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 71:6–12.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2018.09.003google scholar: lookup
  12. Hockenhull J, Furtado T. Escaping the gilded cage: could COVID-19 lead to improved equine welfare? A review of the literature. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. .
    doi: 10.1016/j.appanim.2021.105303google scholar: lookup
  13. Hockenhull J, Bell C, White J, Rogers S. Response of UK Horse, Pony and Donkey Owners to the Early Stages of the COVID-19 Pandemic.. Animals (Basel) 2021 Apr 23;11(5).
    doi: 10.3390/ani11051215pmc: PMC8145022pubmed: 33922408google scholar: lookup
  14. Howarth A, Jeanson AL, Abrams AEI, Beaudoin C, Mistry I, Berberi A, Young N, Nguyen VM, Landsman SJ, Kadykalo AN, Danylchuk AJ, Cooke SJ. COVID-19 restrictions and recreational fisheries in Ontario, Canada: Preliminary insights from an online angler survey.. Fish Res 2021 Aug;240:105961.
    doi: 10.1016/j.fishres.2021.105961pmc: PMC9754797pubmed: 36540896google scholar: lookup
  15. Huseman C, Walker N, McCorkle DA, Hanselka D, Cater M, Zoller J. Early Evidence of the Economic Effects of COVID-19 on the Horse Show Industry in 2020.. J Equine Vet Sci 2021 Nov;106:103734.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2021.103734pubmed: 34670703google scholar: lookup
  16. Jaqueth AL, Iwaniuk ME, Burk AO. Characterization of the Prevalence and Management of Over-Conditioned Ponies and Horses in Maryland.. J Equine Vet Sci 2018 Sep;68:26-32.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2018.02.007pubmed: 31256884google scholar: lookup
  17. Kibler ML, Pendell DL. An investigation into equine daily use values and the impacts of equine competitions. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 69:53–58.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2018.06.007google scholar: lookup
  18. Landry CE, Bergstrom J, Salazar J, Turner D. How has the COVID-19 pandemic affected outdoor recreation in the U.S.? A revealed preference approach. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 443–457.
    doi: 10.ghn8htgoogle scholar: lookup
  19. Maples JG, Thompson JM, Anderson JD, Anderson DP. Estimating COVID-19 impacts on the broiler industry. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 43:315–328.
    doi: 10.ghdrd6google scholar: lookup
  20. Mastellar S, Rosenthal E, Carroll H, Bott-Knutson R. Assessment of equine feeding practices and knowledge of equine nutrition in the midwest. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 62:109–115.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2017.12.007google scholar: lookup
  21. McCarthy S, Horan B, Dillon P, O'Connor P, Rath M, Shalloo L. Economic comparison of divergent strains of Holstein-Friesian cows in various pasture-based production systems.. J Dairy Sci 2007 Mar;90(3):1493-505.
    doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(07)71635-1pubmed: 17297123google scholar: lookup
  22. Melvin K, Schneider L, Ivey J, Krawczel P. Public perceptions of equine processing and welfare. J. Anim. Sci. 98:12–13.
    doi: 10.1093/jas/skz397.027google scholar: lookup
  23. Merkies K, Copelin C, Crouchman E, St-Onge A. The Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Riding Lesson Barns and Summer Camps in Ontario.. Animals (Basel) 2020 Dec 17;10(12).
    doi: 10.3390/ani10122412pmc: PMC7766263pubmed: 33348566google scholar: lookup
  24. Oakes C. Animal shelters across the U.S. are emptying amid coronavirus pandemic. NBC News .
  25. Porr C, Childs C, Swanson C. Equine boarding operations in northern Virginia 2008 survey results. Virginia Tech Cooperative Extension 2808–1014.
  26. Puente M. Adoptions, fosters empty shelter cages during COVID-19 crisis, but there will always be homeless pets. USA TODAY .
  27. Qualtrics. Survey platform - piped text overview | Qualtrics. Qualtrics Support .
  28. Randler C, Tryjanowski P, Jokimäki J, Kaisanlahti-Jokimäki ML, Staller N. SARS-CoV2 (COVID-19) Pandemic Lockdown Influences Nature-Based Recreational Activity: The Case of Birders.. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020 Oct 7;17(19).
    doi: 10.3390/ijerph17197310pmc: PMC7579058pubmed: 33036351google scholar: lookup
  29. Rice WL, Mateer TJ, Reigner N, Newman P, Lawhon B, Taff BD. Changes in recreational behaviors of outdoor enthusiasts during the COVID-19 pandemic: analysis across urban and rural communities. J. Urban Ecol 6.
    doi: 10.gjz5spgoogle scholar: lookup
  30. Ruan J, Cai Q, Jin S. Impact of COVID-19 and Nationwide Lockdowns on Vegetable Prices: Evidence from Wholesale Markets in China.. Am J Agric Econ 2021 Oct;103(5):1574-1594.
    pmc: PMC8014438pubmed: 33821009doi: 10.1111/ajae.12211google scholar: lookup
  31. Schmitz A, Moss C, Schmitz T. The economic effects of COVID-19 on the producers of ethanol, corn, gasoline, and oil. J. Agric. Food Ind. Organ. .
    doi: 10.1515/jafio-2020-0025google scholar: lookup
  32. StataCorp. Stata: Statistical Software: Release 17. .
  33. Stowe CJ. Results from the 2018 AHP equine industry survey. American Horse Publications (AHP) .
  34. Stowe CJ. 2021 AHP Equine industry survey sponsored by Zoetis. American Horse Publications (AHP) .
  35. Thompson JM, Tonsor GT, Pendell DL, Preston W. United States feedlot operator willingness to pay for disposal capacity to address foreign animal disease risk.. Transbound Emerg Dis 2018 Dec;65(6):1951-1958.
    doi: 10.1111/tbed.12976pubmed: 30094971google scholar: lookup
  36. Tonsor GT, Schroeder TC, Lusk JL. Consumer valuation of alternative meat origin labels. J. Agric. Econ. 64:676–692.
    doi: 10.1111/1477-9552.12010google scholar: lookup
  37. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Current unemployment rates for states and historical highs/lows. .
  38. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. Census Regions and Divisions of the United States. U.S. Department of Commerce .
  39. University of Maryland. Considerations for equine lease agreements. Fact sheet FS-1062 .
  40. Van Tassell L, Torrell L, Rimbey N, Bartlett E. Comparison of forage value on private and public grazing leases. J. Range Manag. 50:300–306.
  41. Wallace S, Melvin K, Schneider L, Ivey J. Public perception of equine and livestock management varies by classification of horses, industry experience, and animal welfare definitions. J. Anim. Sci. 97:247–248.
    doi: 10.1093/jas/skz258.503google scholar: lookup
  42. Warmington-Lundström J, Laurenti R. Reviewing circular economy rebound effects: the case of online peer-to-peer boat sharing. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.: X 5:100028.
    doi: 10.1016/j.rcrx.2019.100028google scholar: lookup
  43. Weersink A, von Massow M, Bannon N, Ifft J, Maples J, McEwan K, McKendree MGS, Nicholson C, Novakovic A, Rangarajan A, Richards T, Rickard B, Rude J, Schipanski M, Schnitkey G, Schulz L, Schuurman D, Schwartzkopf-Genswein K, Stephenson M, Thompson J, Wood K. COVID-19 and the agri-food system in the United States and Canada.. Agric Syst 2021 Mar;188:103039.
    doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2020.103039pmc: PMC7755574pubmed: 33362333google scholar: lookup
  44. Williams JM, Randle H, Marlin D. COVID-19: Impact on United Kingdom Horse Owners.. Animals (Basel) 2020 Oct 13;10(10).
    doi: 10.3390/ani10101862pmc: PMC7600939pubmed: 33066021google scholar: lookup
  45. Zhang Y, Xian J, Huang M. Online leasing strategy for depreciable equipment considering opportunity cost. Inf. Process. Lett. 162:105981.
    doi: 10.1016/j.ipl.2020.105981google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,344 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.