Master of Agribusiness / Department of Agricultural Economics / Dustin L. Pendell / This research focuses on the cattle producer’s overall awareness of an internal deworming product available in the U.S. cattle market. Parasitism in cattle can be very costly for the producer, and identifying a need for deworming is instrumental to the decision-making process for animal health protocols. The additional cost of deworming products can be beneficial for profitability for cattle producers when used properly. Likewise, when there is no proven need for deworming products in certain operations, the additional cost is an unnecessary expense that can be avoided. Proper awareness and education regarding deworming products and the benefits they can provide is one crucial piece to improving herd health, better rates of gain, and increased profitability. The main objective of this study is to determine the awareness of non-handling formulations of Safe-Guard. To understand and assess awareness, a survey was used. A population of participants was developed and asked to participate in the survey either online or in hard copy. A binary logit is used to analyze how cattle producers make decisions in adopting animal health products into their operations. Influencing factors of operation type, size, location, producer’s age, and information sources are used in the assessment. Factors that were the most influential to the decision-making processes for producers were discussions with veterinarians, nutritionists, and animal health sales representatives. In addition to face-to-face discussions with neighboring producers/friends, industry meetings, and reading industry journals and publications were also important. These producers were aware of a few formulations of Safe-Guard, and used them within the previous twelve months of taking the survey. However, participants were generally unaware of the product, and its different formulations. Upon review of the assessed unawareness of the product formulations, it is apparent that the company needs to identify and select a better way to make producers aware. Different approaches to targeted marketing campaigns and more in depth product training for the animal health company’s sales representatives should be implemented to increase awareness and sales.

Appelés à s’appliquer concurremment pour traiter les difficultés d’une société, il est classiquement considéré que les relations entre le droit des sociétés et le droit des entreprises en difficulté se résument à des conflits pouvant être résolus en faisant prévaloir le « droit spécial » des procédures collectives sur le « droit commun » des sociétés. Cette analyse a perdu de sa pertinence en raison de la mutation du droit des faillites en droit des entreprises en difficulté dont la finalité, le contenu, et le domaine d’application ont profondément changé, ainsi qu’en raison de la contractualisation des deux matières. Ces évolutions ont induit une appréhension nouvelle de celles-ci. Sont en effet recherchées, tant par les sociétés en difficulté que par leurs créanciers, les potentialités de l’association du droit des sociétés et du droit des entreprises en difficulté pour organiser le rebond d’une société défaillante. Leurs relations en droit positif s’avèrent ainsi plus subtiles et plus complexes. Une synergie existe entre elles lors du règlement à l’amiable des difficultés, tandis qu’une véritable soumission du droit des sociétés au droit des entreprises en difficulté peut être constatée lors du règlement judiciaire des difficultés. Malgré des origines distinctes, des finalités propres, et des fonctions radicalement opposées, une logique anime les relations des deux matières révélant un corpus légal et jurisprudentiel utilisé pour le règlement des difficultés qui témoigne de l’existence d’un droit des sociétés en difficulté. / It is commonly understood that, when considering ailing companies, the conflicts that arise between concurrently applicable corporate law and insolvency law can be solved with “special law” that prevails over “ordinary law”. This understanding has lost some relevance through the transformation of “bankruptcy law” into “distressed business law”. The trend towards the use of explicit contracts in these fields is bringing about a change in their finality, content and scope. This evolution of corporate law and insolvency law is creating new apprehension on the part of both the distressed company and the creditors, with the result that both parties are looking for means to combine these subjects when organising the recovery of an ailing firm. Their coexistence in substantive law turns out to be even more subtle and complex. In the case of an amicable settlement of a dispute, a synergy exists between corporate law and insolvency law whereas when a settlement is imposed under court supervision, the prevalence of insolvency law over corporate law is notable. Despite distinct origins, differing finality and radically opposing functions, a common logic motivates the relation between corporate law and insolvency law revealing a legal corpus and case law as a testament to the existence of an “ailing company law”.