IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i3p1329-d488059.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

OVALI, Sustainability for Poultry ® : A Method Co-Designed by Stakeholders to Assess the Sustainability of Chicken Supply Chains in Their Territories

Author

Listed:
  • Bertrand Méda

    (INRAE, Université de Tours, BOA, 37380 Nouzilly, France)

  • Léonie Dusart

    (Institut Technique de l’Aviculture, 37380 Nouzilly, France)

  • Juliette Protino

    (INRAE, Université de Tours, BOA, 37380 Nouzilly, France
    Current address: Syndicat National des Labels Avicoles de France, 75009 Paris, France.)

  • Philippe Lescoat

    (AgroParisTech, INRAE, Université Paris-Saclay, SADAPT, 75005 Paris, France)

  • Cécile Berri

    (INRAE, Université de Tours, BOA, 37380 Nouzilly, France)

  • Pascale Magdelaine

    (Institut Technique de l’Aviculture, 75009 Paris, France)

  • Isabelle Bouvarel

    (Institut Technique de l’Aviculture, 37380 Nouzilly, France)

Abstract

Sustainability is a challenging issue for livestock production, with many expectations from citizens and consumers. Thus, in order to improve existing production systems or design new ones, there is a need for sustainability assessment tools. We propose here a method based on a participatory approach to assess the sustainability of chicken supply chains. A participating group composed of various French stakeholders (poultry industry operators, research and development scientists, non-governmental organizations, etc.) was consulted to gather the various existing visions of sustainability. Each decision was validated by this group, and this resulted in the creation of a consensual assessment grid, based on economic, social, and environmental pillars, summarized in 9 goals, 28 criteria, and 45 indicators. Each item was weighted by the participating group according to their relative importance. The grid was then tested on two different French supply chains, producing either free-range or conventional standard chickens. The strengths, weaknesses, and improvement margins of each supply chain were identified. For conventional standard production, an improvement scenario was proposed, based on changes in chicken feed and the renovation of chicken houses. This new supply chain improved many criteria in the three pillars; such as economic competitiveness, European protein autonomy, social acceptance, and lower greenhouse gas emission. In conclusion, this method provides a robust and powerful tool to help stakeholders to start their own autonomous improvement process, and thus progress towards a more sustainable chicken production.

Suggested Citation

  • Bertrand Méda & Léonie Dusart & Juliette Protino & Philippe Lescoat & Cécile Berri & Pascale Magdelaine & Isabelle Bouvarel, 2021. "OVALI, Sustainability for Poultry ® : A Method Co-Designed by Stakeholders to Assess the Sustainability of Chicken Supply Chains in Their Territories," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-19, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:3:p:1329-:d:488059
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/3/1329/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/3/1329/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Blackstock, K.L. & Kelly, G.J. & Horsey, B.L., 2007. "Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 726-742, February.
    2. Gocsik, Éva & Brooshooft, Suzanne D. & de Jong, Ingrid C. & Saatkamp, Helmut W., 2016. "Cost-efficiency of animal welfare in broiler production systems: A pilot study using the Welfare Quality® assessment protocol," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 55-69.
    3. Christina Paraskevopoulou & Alexandros Theodoridis & Marion Johnson & Athanasios Ragkos & Lisa Arguile & Laurence Smith & Dimitrios Vlachos & Georgios Arsenos, 2020. "Sustainability Assessment of Goat and Sheep Farms: A Comparison between European Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-23, April.
    4. van Calker, K.J. & Berentsen, P.B.M. & Romero, C. & Giesen, G.W.J. & Huirne, R.B.M., 2006. "Development and application of a multi-attribute sustainability function for Dutch dairy farming systems," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(4), pages 640-658, June.
    5. Guillaume Martin & Sandrine Allain & Jacques-Eric Bergez & Delphine Burger-Leenhardt & Julie Constantin & Michel Duru & Laurent Hazard & Camille Lacombe & Danièle Magda & Marie-Angélina Magne & Julie , 2018. "How to Address the Sustainability Transition of Farming Systems? A Conceptual Framework to Organize Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-20, June.
    6. Pretty, Jules N., 1995. "Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 23(8), pages 1247-1263, August.
    7. Gómez-Limón, José A. & Sanchez-Fernandez, Gabriela, 2010. "Empirical evaluation of agricultural sustainability using composite indicators," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1062-1075, March.
    8. Kanter, David R. & Musumba, Mark & Wood, Sylvia L.R. & Palm, Cheryl & Antle, John & Balvanera, Patricia & Dale, Virginia H. & Havlik, Petr & Kline, Keith L. & Scholes, R.J. & Thornton, Philip & Titton, 2018. "Evaluating agricultural trade-offs in the age of sustainable development," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 73-88.
    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. Ranjan Roy & Ngai Weng Chan, 2012. "An assessment of agricultural sustainability indicators in Bangladesh: review and synthesis," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 32(1), pages 99-110, March.
    2. Hubeau, Marianne & Marchand, Fleur & Coteur, Ine & Mondelaers, Koen & Debruyne, Lies & Van Huylenbroeck, Guido, 2017. "A new agri-food systems sustainability approach to identify shared transformation pathways towards sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 52-63.
    3. Paolo Cupo & Rinalda Alberta Di Cerbo, 2016. "The determinants of ranking in sustainable efficiency of Italian farms," RIVISTA DI STUDI SULLA SOSTENIBILITA', FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2016(2), pages 141-159.
    4. Smith, Laurence G. & Westaway, Sally & Mullender, Samantha & Ghaley, Bhim Bahadur & Xu, Ying & Lehmann, Lisa Mølgaard & Pisanelli, Andrea & Russo, Giuseppe & Borek, Robert & Wawer, Rafał & Borzęcka, M, 2022. "Assessing the multidimensional elements of sustainability in European agroforestry systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    5. Maria Tsiouni & Stamatis Aggelopoulos & Alexandra Pavloudi & Dario Siggia, 2021. "Economic and Financial Sustainability Dependency on Subsidies: The Case of Goat Farms in Greece," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-15, July.
    6. Patrizia Grifoni & Tiziana Guzzo & Fernando Ferri, 2014. "Environmental Sustainability and Participatory Approaches: the Case of Italy," Journal of Sustainable Development, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 7(3), pages 1-1, April.
    7. Hongpeng Guo & Shuang Xu & Chulin Pan, 2020. "Measurement of the Spatial Complexity and Its Influencing Factors of Agricultural Green Development in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-18, November.
    8. Kenny, Daniel C. & Bakhanova, Elena & Hämäläinen, Raimo P. & Voinov, Alexey, 2022. "Participatory modelling and systems intelligence: A systems-based and transdisciplinary partnership," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    9. Abdallah Alaoui & Lúcia Barão & Carla S. S. Ferreira & Rudi Hessel, 2022. "An Overview of Sustainability Assessment Frameworks in Agriculture," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-26, April.
    10. Pei Xu & Zehu Jin & Huan Tang, 2022. "Influence Paths and Spillover Effects of Agricultural Agglomeration on Agricultural Green Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-16, May.
    11. Martin, G., 2015. "A conceptual framework to support adaptation of farming systems – Development and application with Forage Rummy," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 52-61.
    12. Byomkesh Talukder & Keith W. Hipel & Gary W. vanLoon, 2017. "Developing Composite Indicators for Agricultural Sustainability Assessment: Effect of Normalization and Aggregation Techniques," Resources, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-27, November.
    13. José A. Gómez-Limón & Manuel Arriaza & M. Dolores Guerrero-Baena, 2020. "Building a Composite Indicator to Measure Environmental Sustainability Using Alternative Weighting Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-17, May.
    14. Paola Sau & Brunella Arru & Federica Cisilino & Roberto Furesi & Pietro Pulina & Fabio A. Madau, 2023. "Economic and Environmental Sustainability Trade-Off Analysis in Sheep Farming Using the Farm Accountancy Data Network Database," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(24), pages 1-24, December.
    15. Tariq, Azeem & de Neergaard, Andreas & Jensen, Lars Stoumann & Sander, Bjoern Ole & Trinh, Mai Van & Vu, Quynh Duong & Wassmann, Reiner & de Tourdonnet, Stephane, 2018. "Co-design and assessment of mitigation practices in rice production systems: A case study in northern Vietnam," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 72-82.
    16. Kraaijvanger, Richard & Veldkamp, Tom & Almekinders, Conny, 2016. "Considering change: Evaluating four years of participatory experimentation with farmers in Tigray (Ethiopia) highlighting both functional and human–social aspects," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 38-50.
    17. Katarina Arvidsson Segerkvist & Helena Hansson & Ulf Sonesson & Stefan Gunnarsson, 2021. "A Systematic Mapping of Current Literature on Sustainability at Farm-Level in Beef and Lamb Meat Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-14, February.
    18. Kazadi, Kande & Lievens, Annouk & Mahr, Dominik, 2016. "Stakeholder co-creation during the innovation process: Identifying capabilities for knowledge creation among multiple stakeholders," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 525-540.
    19. Martín-García, Jaime & Gómez-Limón, José A. & Arriaza, Manuel, 2024. "Conversion to organic farming: Does it change the economic and environmental performance of fruit farms?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 220(C).
    20. Jindřich Špička & Tomáš Vintr & Renata Aulová & Jana Macháčková, 2020. "Trade-off between the economic and environmental sustainability in Czech dual farm structure," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 66(6), pages 243-250.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:3:p:1329-:d:488059. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.