What can the United States learn from Spain's Pork Sector? Implications from a Comparative Economic Analysis, September 2005

This study provides a comparative economic analysis of the primary production of pork and its marketing channel in Spain and the United States. The focus on Spain is due to the profound growth and transformation of its pork sector over the last 20 years, compared with other major players in the world market for pig meat. The analysis reveals a number of similar characteristics but also important differences between the two countries. The significant expansion of Spain’s pork production sector stemmed from a number of factors that apply, to a relatively large extent, to some U.S. states (in particular, North Carolina) but do not apply to the U.S. pork production sector as a whole. This implies that it is unlikely that the U.S. pork production sector as a whole will mimic an expansion driven by the same type of factors in the future. Likewise, it seems highly unlikely that the U.S. consumption of pig meat will expand in the future based on the same driving forces behind the sharp increase in Spain’s domestic demand for pig meat over the last 20 years. The analysis also indicates that Spanish pig producers are currently being subjected to more stringent environmental and animal welfare regulations than their U.S. counterparts and that these regulations are becoming increasingly more restrictive. It would not be surprising to see similar trends emerging in the United States, leading to a substantially more restrictive regulatory environment for U.S. hog producers.

Business Organization and Coordination in Marketing Specialty Hogs: A Comparative Analysis of Two Firms from Iowa, November 2005

We study business organization and coordination of specialty-market hog production using a comparative analysis of two Iowa pork niche-marketing firms. We describe and analyze each firms management of five key organizational challenges: planning and logistics, quality assurance, process verication and management of �credence attributes,� business structure, and profit sharing. Although each firm is engaged in essentially the same activity, there are substantial differences across the two firms in the way production and marketing are coordinated. These differences are partly explained by the relative size and age of each firm, thus highlighting the importance of organizational evolution in agricultural markets, but are also partly the result of a formal organizational separation between marketing and production activities in one of the firm.

Statewide Process and Comparative Outcomes Study of 2003 Iowa Adult and Juvenile Drug Courts, August 2009

A statewide evaluation of the six adult and three juvenile drug courts in operation during calendar year 2003 was conducted. Completion rates, recidivism, substance abuse treatment, and supervision and placement (juveniles only) costs were examined by model (Judge and Community Panel) and by Judicial District. In addition, adult drug court participants were compared with a group of offenders who were screened and declined or were rejected by drug court in 2003 (referred) and a sample of offenders starting probation in 2003 (probationer). The adult participant and comparison groups were tracked from their entry into drug court, or the study, through December 31, 2007. This yielded an average post-program follow-up time of almost 3 years (2.9) for drug court participants. For the juvenile portion, drug court participants were compared with a group matched on several demographic and offense variables (Matched Comparison group) and juveniles referred to drug court who did not enter the program (Referred Comparison group). The juvenile participant and comparison groups were tracked from their entry into drug court, or the study, through approximately 16 quarters after program discharge with an end date of December 31, 2007.

PathBeat. Number 1 (May 2000) University of Iowa Department of Pathology.

University of Iowa Department of Pathology newsletter.

PathBeat. Number 2 (October 2000) University of Iowa Department of Pathology.

University of Iowa Department of Pathology newsletter.

PathBeat. Number 3 (December 2001) University of Iowa Department of Pathology.

University of Iowa Department of Pathology newsletter.

PathBeat. Number 4 (December 2002) University of Iowa Department of Pathology.

University of Iowa Department of Pathology newsletter.

PathBeat. Number 5 (July 2003) University of Iowa Department of Pathology.

University of Iowa Department of Pathology newsletter.

PathBeat. Number 6 (July 2004) University of Iowa Department of Pathology.

University of Iowa Department of Pathology newsletter.

PathBeat. Number 7 (May 2005) University of Iowa Department of Pathology.

University of Iowa Department of Pathology newsletter.

PathBeat. Number 8 (Summer 2008) University of Iowa Department of Pathology.

University of Iowa Department of Pathology newsletter.

PathBeat. Number 9 (Winter 2008) University of Iowa Department of Pathology.

University of Iowa Department of Pathology newsletter.

PathBeat. Number 10 (Summer 2009) University of Iowa Department of Pathology.

University of Iowa Department of Pathology newsletter.

PathBeat. Number 11 (Spring 2010) University of Iowa Department of Pathology.

University of Iowa Department of Pathology newsletter.

PathBeat. Number 12 (Spring 2011) University of Iowa Department of Pathology.

University of Iowa Department of Pathology newsletter.