IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/gjagec/309984.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumer Acceptance of Dual-Purpose Chickens A Mixed Methods Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Brümmer, Nanke
  • Petersen, Wiebke
  • Christoph-Schulz, Inken

Abstract

The killing of day-old male chicks of laying breeds is common practice and is widely discussed within society. There are few alternatives available to replace this practice. One possibility is the use of dual-purpose chicken breeds. The use of these chicken breeds would have implications not only for the entire supply food chain but also for consumers. Their meat and eggs have a different appearance, and the resulting products would be more expensive. Furthermore, little is known about consumers’ opinions of dual-purpose chickens at present. For this reason, it is essential to explore consumer acceptance of dual-purpose chickens. Mixed methods with a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods proved to be an appropriate approach to learn more about this matter. The results of six focus groups with an exploratory character served as the basis for an online survey with 1,502 respondents in Germany. The data was analysed with the aid of a factor analysis that identified seven factors explaining consumers’ attitudes towards dual-purpose chickens. A cluster analysis segmented the respondents into three cluster groups: opponents (37.5%), supporters (23.4%), and indifferents (39.1%). The indifferents represent the largest group of respondents and are therefore an important target group when it comes to potential marketing strategies of products from dual-purpose chickens. The results illustrate the importance of analysing consumer acceptance with regard to emerging issues and before a new product is introduced to the market.

Suggested Citation

  • Brümmer, Nanke & Petersen, Wiebke & Christoph-Schulz, Inken, 2018. "Consumer Acceptance of Dual-Purpose Chickens A Mixed Methods Approach," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 67(4), December.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:gjagec:309984
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.309984
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/309984/files/2_Br%C3%BCmmer.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.309984?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Heng, Yan & Hanawa Peterson, Hikaru & Li, Xianghong, 2013. "Consumer Attitudes toward Farm-Animal Welfare: The Case of Laying Hens," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(3), pages 1-17.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Derstappen, Rebecca & Christoph-Schulz, Inken & Banse, Martin, 2022. "An empirical analysis of the export potential of pork produced under higher animal welfare standards," Thünen Working Paper 319352, Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut (vTI), Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries.
    2. Derstappen, Rebecca & Christoph-Schulz, Inken Birte & Banse, Martin, 2021. "An empirical analysis of the export potential of pork produced under higher animal welfare standards," Thünen Working Papers 184, Johann Heinrich von Thünen Institute, Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Djamel Rahmani & Zein Kallas & Maria Pappa & José Maria Gil, 2019. "Are Consumers’ Egg Preferences Influenced by Animal-Welfare Conditions and Environmental Impacts?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-23, November.
    2. Szilvia Molnár & László Szőllősi, 2020. "Sustainability and Quality Aspects of Different Table Egg Production Systems: A Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-22, September.
    3. Ochs, Dan & Wolf, Christopher A. & Widmar, Nicole Olynk & Bir, Courtney & Lai, John, 2019. "Hen housing system information effects on U.S. egg demand," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 1-1.
    4. Brenna Ellison & Kathleen Brooks & Taro Mieno, 2017. "Which livestock production claims matter most to consumers?," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(4), pages 819-831, December.
    5. Heng, Yan & Peterson, Hikaru, 2014. "Estimating Demand for Differentiated Eggs Using Scanner Data," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170457, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Inken, Christoph-Schulz & Rovers, Anja, 2018. "Die Gesellschaftliche Relevanz Unterschiedlicher Haltungsparameter In Der Deutschen Nutztierhaltung," 58th Annual Conference, Kiel, Germany, September 12-14, 2018 275862, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    7. Tomislav Vukina & Danijel Nestic, 2020. "Paying for animal welfare? A hedonic analysis of egg prices," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(4), pages 613-630, October.
    8. Lai, Yufeng & Yue, Chengyan, 2020. "Consumer Willingness to pay for Organic and Animal Welfare Product Attributes: Do Experimental Results Align with Market Data?," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304328, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Spiller, Achim & von Meyer-Höfer, Marie & Sonntag, Winnie, 2016. "Gibt es eine Zukunft für die moderne konventionelle Tierhaltung in Nordwesteuropa?," Department of Agricultural and Rural Development (DARE) Discussion Papers 260780, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    10. Maria Papageorgiou & Michael Goliomytis & Ouranios Tzamaloukas & Despoina Miltiadou & Panagiotis Simitzis, 2023. "Positive Welfare Indicators and Their Association with Sustainable Management Systems in Poultry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-27, July.
    11. Brümmer, Nanke & Wolfram, Jenny & Mergenthaler, Marcus & Christoph-Schulz, Inken, 2018. "Das Bild Der Geflügelhaltung In Den Deutschen Printmedien," 58th Annual Conference, Kiel, Germany, September 12-14, 2018 275868, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    12. Wei, Xiaohan & Chen, Xuqi & Gao, Zhifeng & Jensen, Kimberly L. & Yu, Tun-Hsiang & DeLong, Karen L., 2020. "The Reference Price Effect on Willingness-to-Pay Estimates: Evidence from Eco-labeled Food Products," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304573, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    13. Bir, Courtney & Wolf, Christopher A. & Widmar, Nicole Olynk, 2020. "Dog and Cat Owner Demand for Veterinary Service Payment Plans," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 46(2), August.
    14. Heng, Yan & Peterson, Hikaru Hanawa & Li, Xianghong, 2016. "Consumer Responses to Multiple and Superfluous Labels in the Case of Eggs," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 47(2), pages 1-21, July.
    15. Winnie Isabel Sonntag & Achim Spiller, 2018. "Measuring Public Concerns? Developing a Moral Concerns Scale Regarding Non-Product Related Process and Production Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-16, April.
    16. Malone, Trey & Lusk, Jayson L., 2016. "Putting the Chicken Before the Egg Price: An Ex Post Analysis of California's Battery Cage Ban," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 41(3), pages 1-15, September.
    17. Chen, Xuqi & Gao, Zhifeng & Swisher, Marilyn & House, Lisa & Zhao, Xin, 2018. "Eco-labeling in the Fresh Produce Market: Not All Environmentally Friendly Labels Are Equally Valued," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 201-210.
    18. Sonntag, Winnie Isabel & Spiller, Achim, 2017. "Messung moralischer Besorgnis gegenüber Prozessstandards am Fallbeispiel der Käfighaltung von Legehennen - Skalenentwicklung und -validierung," 57th Annual Conference, Weihenstephan, Germany, September 13-15, 2017 261992, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    19. Oh, Sohae & Vukina, Tomislav, 2020. "Quantifying the Welfare Effects of Laying-hen Cage Ban," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304408, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Kaminski, Danielle M. & Caputo, Vincenzina & McKendree, Melissa G.S., . "The US Public’s Attitudes on Animal and Worker Welfare in the Dairy and Poultry Industries," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 49(1).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:gjagec:309984. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iahubde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.