IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ijofsd/345348.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Responsible Innovation in Layer Poultry Farming: Are Organic Consumers Sufficiently Informed about the Current Situation of Killing Day-old Male Chicks to Contribute to the Innovation Process?

Author

Listed:
  • Schröter, Iris
  • Mergenthaler, Marcus

Abstract

Currently, there is no societal consensus on the handling of male chicks in layer poultry farming. When searching for responsible innovation in the face of ethical concerns due to the killing of these day-old male chicks, consumers as main stakeholders should be involved in the innovation process. However, participation in the innovation process requires sufficient knowledge of the current situation and its alternatives, since only this knowledge allows informed judgments. In order to gain insights into consumers’ knowledge and attitudes regarding the alternatives of rearing the male chicks, we conducted 146 tablet-aided standardised personal interviews with customers of a German organic butcher’s shop, as consumers of organic food may be a target group for cockerel products. The results reveal the respondents’ profound disapproval about the current situation of killing day-old male chicks, but also show a considerable lack of knowledge. We conclude that comprehensive educational work is necessary to enable consumers to form a sound opinion and to participate in the innovation process.

Suggested Citation

  • Schröter, Iris & Mergenthaler, Marcus, 2019. "Responsible Innovation in Layer Poultry Farming: Are Organic Consumers Sufficiently Informed about the Current Situation of Killing Day-old Male Chicks to Contribute to the Innovation Process?," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 10(05), December.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ijofsd:345348
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.345348
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/345348/files/RESPONSIBLE%20INNOVATION%20IN%20LAYER%20POULTRY%20FARMING.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.345348?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. Jayson L. Lusk & F. Bailey Norwood, 2011. "Animal Welfare Economics," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 33(4), pages 463-483.
    2. Bennett, Richard M. & Blaney, Ralph J. P., 2003. "Estimating the benefits of farm animal welfare legislation using the contingent valuation method," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 29(1), pages 85-98, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Patterson, Jacinta & Mugera, Amin & Burton, Michael, 2015. "Consumer Preferences for Welfare Friendly Production Methods: The Case of Chicken Production in Western Australia," 2015 Conference (59th), February 10-13, 2015, Rotorua, New Zealand 202567, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    2. repec:vuw:vuwscr:19118 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    4. Kontoleon Andreas & Yabe Mitsuyasu, 2006. "Market Segmentation Analysis of Preferences for GM Derived Animal Foods in the UK," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 4(1), pages 1-38, December.
    5. Jayson Lusk, 2011. "The market for animal welfare," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 28(4), pages 561-575, December.
    6. Boyle, Glenn, 2008. "The Dog That Doesn't Bark: Animal Interests in Economics," Working Paper Series 4017, Victoria University of Wellington, The New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation.
    7. Levan Elbakidze & Rodolfo M. Nayga Jr. & Hao Li & Chris McIntosh, 2014. "Value elicitation for multiple quantities of a quasi-public good using open ended choice experiments and uniform price auctions," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 45(2), pages 253-265, March.
    8. Conner Mullally & Jayson L Lusk, 2018. "The Impact of Farm Animal Housing Restrictions on Egg Prices, Consumer Welfare, and Production in California," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(3), pages 649-669.
    9. Läpple, Doris & Osawe, Osayanmon Wellington, 2022. "Animal Welfare, Altruism and Policy Support," 96th Annual Conference, April 4-6, 2022, K U Leuven, Belgium 321212, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
    10. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2013. "Dynamic hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments: Evidence from measuring the impact of corporate social responsibility on consumers demand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 53-61.
    11. Disdier, Anne-Célia & Marette, Stéphan & Millet, Guy, 2013. "Are consumers concerned about palm oil? Evidence from a lab experiment," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 180-189.
    12. Hestermann, Nina & Le Yaouanq, Yves & Treich, Nicolas, 2020. "An economic model of the meat paradox," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    13. Cordts, Anette & Nitzko, Sina & Spiller, Achim, 2014. "Consumer Response to Negative Information on Meat Consumption in Germany," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 17(A), pages 1-24, March.
    14. McKendree, Melissa G.S. & Olynk Widmar, Nicole & Ortega, David L. & Foster, Kenneth A., 2013. "Consumer Preferences for Verified Pork-Rearing Practices in the Production of Ham Products," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(3), pages 1-21.
    15. 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.
    16. Birhanu Addisu Adamie & Helena Hansson, 2022. "Rationalising inefficiency in dairy production: evidence from an over-time approach," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(2), pages 433-471.
    17. Naald, Brian Vander & Cameron, Trudy Ann, 2011. "Willingness to pay for other species' well-being," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(7), pages 1325-1335, May.
    18. Colin A. Carter & K. Aleks Schaefer & Daniel Scheitrum, 2021. "Piecemeal Farm Regulation and the U.S. Commerce Clause," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(3), pages 1141-1163, May.
    19. Goddard, Ellen W. & Boxall, Peter C. & Emunu, John Paul & Boyd, Curtis & Asselin, Andre & Neall, Amanda, 2007. "Consumer Attitudes, Willingness to Pay and Revealed Preferences for Different Egg Production Attributes: Analysis of Canadian Egg Consumers," Project Report Series 52087, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    20. Lauren Chenarides & Carola Grebitus & Jayson L Lusk & Iryna Printezis, 2022. "A calibrated choice experiment method," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(5), pages 971-1004.
    21. Arne Henningsen & Tomasz Gerard Czekaj & Björn Forkman & Mogens Lund & Aske Schou Nielsen, 2018. "The Relationship between Animal Welfare and Economic Performance at Farm Level: A Quantitative Study of Danish Pig Producers," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(1), pages 142-162, February.

    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:ijofsd:345348. 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/centmde.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.