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.
    3. Richard Owen & Phil Macnaghten & Jack Stilgoe, 2012. "Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(6), pages 751-760, December.
    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. Paredes-Frigolett, Harold, 2016. "Modeling the effect of responsible research and innovation in quadruple helix innovation systems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 126-133.
    6. 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.
    7. Estibaliz Sáez de Cámara & Idoia Fernández & Nekane Castillo-Eguskitza, 2021. "A Holistic Approach to Integrate and Evaluate Sustainable Development in Higher Education. The Case Study of the University of the Basque Country," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-19, January.
    8. Luciana Maines da Silva & Claudia Cristina Bitencourt & Kadígia Faccin & Tatiana Iakovleva, 2019. "The Role of Stakeholders in the Context of Responsible Innovation: A Meta-Synthesis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-25, March.
    9. Ivan Ligardo-Herrera & Tomás Gómez-Navarro & Edurne A. Inigo & Vincent Blok, 2018. "Addressing Climate Change in Responsible Research and Innovation: Recommendations for Its Operationalization," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-20, June.
    10. Tina C. Ambos & Katherine Tatarinov, 2022. "Building Responsible Innovation in International Organizations through Intrapreneurship," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(1), pages 92-125, January.
    11. Pangbourne, Kate & Mladenović, Miloš N. & Stead, Dominic & Milakis, Dimitris, 2020. "Questioning mobility as a service: Unanticipated implications for society and governance," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 35-49.
    12. Anja Salzmann & Frode Guribye & Astrid Gynnild, 2021. "Mobile Journalists as Traceable Data Objects: Surveillance Capitalism and Responsible Innovation in Mobile Journalism," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(2), pages 130-139.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Luisa Barbosa-Gómez & Magdalena Wailzer & Laura Soyer & Anna Gerhardus & Francisco González Estay & Vincent Blok & Gema Revuelta, 2024. "Strategies to Overcome Collaborative Innovation Barriers: The Role of Training to Foster Skills to Navigate Quadruple Helix Innovations," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(3), pages 10057-10087, September.
    16. Alberto Ibanez & Ahmed AlRadaideh & Juan Antonio Jimber del Rio & Gyanendra Singh Sisodia, 2024. "Good Governance and Innovation: a Renewed Global Framework for National and Supranational Policy Advancement," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(2), pages 5794-5816, June.
    17. Nikas, A. & Gambhir, A. & Trutnevyte, E. & Koasidis, K. & Lund, H. & Thellufsen, J.Z. & Mayer, D. & Zachmann, G. & Miguel, L.J. & Ferreras-Alonso, N. & Sognnaes, I. & Peters, G.P. & Colombo, E. & Howe, 2021. "Perspective of comprehensive and comprehensible multi-model energy and climate science in Europe," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 215(PA).
    18. Llopis, Oscar & D'Este, Pablo & McKelvey, Maureen & Yegros, Alfredo, 2022. "Navigating multiple logics: Legitimacy and the quest for societal impact in science," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    19. Hoti, Ferdiana & Perko, Tanja & Thijssen, Peter & Renn, Ortwin, 2021. "Who is willing to participate? Examining public participation intention concerning decommissioning of nuclear power plants in Belgium," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    20. Reichelt, Nicole & Nettle, Ruth, 2023. "Practice insights for the responsible adoption of smart farming technologies using a participatory technology assessment approach: The case of virtual herding technology in Australia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    21. 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.

    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.