IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/agribz/v37y2021i2p306-323.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Societal attitudes towards in ovo gender determination as an alternative to chick culling

Author

Listed:
  • Corrina Reithmayer
  • Michael Danne
  • Oliver Mußhoff

Abstract

In ovo gender determination of incubated eggs can be a large‐scale substitute to the culling of male chicks in layer hen production. However, the technology raises new ethical concerns which relate to the sensitivity of the embryo, as well as how the screened out eggs will be used afterward and the accuracy of gender determination. To comprehensively investigate consumer attitudes towards this new technology, a questionnaire including a choice experiment was distributed to a representative sample of 482 German consumers between December 2018 and March 2019. The data was analyzed by an explorative factor analysis and a latent class analysis. Results indicate that the sample can be divided into four segments, which differ in preferences for production attributes, attitudes, and price sensitivity. Attitudinal differences are found regarding respondents' approval of the technical advances in agricultural production, confidence in legal regulations, and the endorsement of enhanced livestock production conditions. Both a meaningful usage of by‐products and a high rate of accuracy are crucial factors for the acceptance of in ovo gender determination for a majority of respondents. However, the response behavior of one segment, representing 11% of the sample, indicates the disapproval of both chick culling and in ovo screening.[EconLit Citations: Q160, Q510].

Suggested Citation

  • Corrina Reithmayer & Michael Danne & Oliver Mußhoff, 2021. "Societal attitudes towards in ovo gender determination as an alternative to chick culling," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(2), pages 306-323, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:agribz:v:37:y:2021:i:2:p:306-323
    DOI: 10.1002/agr.21650
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.21650
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/agr.21650?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. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2008. "Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 661-677, August.
    2. Mickael Bech & Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen, 2005. "Effects coding in discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(10), pages 1079-1083, October.
    3. Hausman, Jerry & McFadden, Daniel, 1984. "Specification Tests for the Multinomial Logit Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(5), pages 1219-1240, September.
    4. List John A. & Sinha Paramita & Taylor Michael H., 2006. "Using Choice Experiments to Value Non-Market Goods and Services: Evidence from Field Experiments," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 6(2), pages 1-39, January.
    5. 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.
    6. Heiko Miles & Steven J. Schwager & John E. Lenz, 1995. "Perceptual dimensions that influence consumers' choices of milk type for beverage use," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(3), pages 263-272.
    7. Van Wezemael, Lynn & Caputo, Vincenzina & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Chryssochoidis, George & Verbeke, Wim, 2014. "European consumer preferences for beef with nutrition and health claims: A multi-country investigation using discrete choice experiments," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 167-176.
    8. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2003. "A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 681-698, September.
    9. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, September.
    10. Daniel McFadden, 1986. "The Choice Theory Approach to Market Research," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(4), pages 275-297.
    11. Giuseppe Nocella & Lionel Hubbard & Riccardo Scarpa, 2010. "Farm Animal Welfare, Consumer Willingness to Pay, and Trust: Results of a Cross-National Survey," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 32(2), pages 275-297.
    12. David Aadland & Arthur J. Caplan, 2003. "Willingness to Pay for Curbside Recycling with Detection and Mitigation of Hypothetical Bias," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(2), pages 492-502.
    13. Nick Hanley & Susana Mourato & Robert E. Wright, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuatioin?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    14. Wayne Velicer, 1976. "Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 41(3), pages 321-327, September.
    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. Reithmayer, Corrinna & Danne, Michael & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2019. "Societal attitudes in ovo gender determination as an alternative to chick culling," DARE Discussion Papers 1906, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    2. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    3. Kanchanaroek, Yingluk & Termansen, Mette & Quinn, Claire, 2013. "Property rights regimes in complex fishery management systems: A choice experiment application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 363-373.
    4. Yu-Hui Chen & Kai-Han Qiu & Kang Ernest Liu & Chun-Yuan Chiang, 2020. "Are Consumers Willing to Pay a Premium for Pure Rice Noodles? A Study of Discrete Choice Experiments in Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-18, July.
    5. Houessionon, P. & Fonta, W. M. & Bossa, A. Y. & Sanfo, S. & Thiombiano, N. & Zahonogo, P. & Yameogo, T. B. & Balana, Bedru, "undated". "Economic valuation of ecosystem services from small-scale agricultural management interventions in Burkina Faso: a discrete choice experiment approach," Papers published in Journals (Open Access) H048370, International Water Management Institute.
    6. Danne, Michael & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2018. "Producers' valuation of animal welfare practices: Does herd size matter?," DARE Discussion Papers 1801, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    7. Daniel A. Brent & Lata Gangadharan & Anke D. Leroux & Paul A. Raschky, 2022. "Reducing bias in preference elicitation for environmental public goods," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(2), pages 280-308, April.
    8. Reithmayer, Corrinna & Danne, Michael & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2019. "Look at that! - The effect pictures have on consumer preferences for in ovo gender determination as an alternative to culling male chicks," DARE Discussion Papers 1907, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    9. Kloos, Julia & Tsegai, Daniel W., 2009. "Preferences for domestic water services in the Middle Olifants sub-basin of South Africa," Discussion Papers 49970, University of Bonn, Center for Development Research (ZEF).
    10. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    11. Hilger, James & Hanemann, W. Michael, 2008. "The Impact of Water Quality on Southern California Beach Recreation: A Finite Mixture Model Approach," CUDARE Working Papers 47037, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    12. Daniel A. Brent & Lata Gangadharan & Anke Leroux & Paul A. Raschky, 2014. "Putting One's Money Where One's Mouth is: Increasing Saliency in the Field," Monash Economics Working Papers 43-14, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    13. Hilger, James & Hanemann, Michael, 2006. "Heterogeneous Preferences for Water Quality: A Finite Mixture Model of Beach Recreation in Southern California," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt0565c0b2, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    14. repec:ehu:biltok:5571 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Henrik Andersson & Olivier Beaumais & Romain Crastes & François-Charles Wolff, 2014. "Is Choice Experiment Becoming more Popular than Contingent Valuation? A Systematic Review in Agriculture, Environment and Health," Working Papers 2014.12, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
    16. Brent, Daniel A. & Gangadharan, Lata & Leroux, Anke & Raschky, Paul, 2016. "Putting Your Money Where Your Month Is," 2016 Conference (60th), February 2-5, 2016, Canberra, Australia 235377, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    17. Gorton, Matthew & Yeh, Ching-Hua & Chatzopoulou, Elena & White, John & Tocco, Barbara & Hubbard, Carmen & Hallam, Fiona, 2023. "Consumers' willingness to pay for an animal welfare food label," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    18. Prosper Houessionon & William M. Fonta & Aymar Y. Bossa & Safiétou Sanfo & Noel Thiombiano & Pam Zahonogo & Thomas B. Yameogo & Bedru Balana, 2017. "Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services from Small-Scale Agricultural Management Interventions in Burkina Faso: A Discrete Choice Experiment Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-16, September.
    19. Krah, Kwabena & Michelson, Hope & Perge, Emilie & Jindal, Rohit, 2019. "Constraints to adopting soil fertility management practices in Malawi: A choice experiment approach," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 1-1.
    20. Qingyin Cai & Yulian Ding & Calum Tuvey & Yuehua Zhang, 2021. "The influence of past experience on farmers’ preferences for hog insurance products: a natural experiment and choice experiment in China," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 46(3), pages 399-421, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:agribz:v:37:y:2021:i:2:p:306-323. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6297 .

    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.