IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ijofsd/345292.html

Consumers’ Perspective on Dual‐purpose Chickens as Alternative to the Killing of Day‐old Chicks

Author

Listed:
  • Brümmer, Nanke
  • Christoph‐Schulz, Inken
  • Rovers, Anja‐Karolina

Abstract

The usage of dual‐purpose chicken breeds – a chicken breed which provides meat and eggs at the same time is one of the discussed alternatives to prevent cockerel chicks of laying hens from being killed for economic reasons. Therefore, the aim of this study is to analyse consumers’ perspective on dual‐purpose chickens. To get an insight into consumers’ perspective, we initially conducted six focus groups with German consumers focussing on their chicken meat and egg preferences, perception of chicken farming and attitudes towards dual‐purpose chicken breeds. The results show that most of the participants were aware of the killing of day‐old chicks. However, alternatives were scarcely known. After giving the participants information about dual‐purpose chickens, they were generally in favour of this chicken breed. Some participants raised concerns regarding the economic efficiency and the higher product prices. For others, ethical values predominated. All in all, the results demonstrate that the discussants have specific expectations regarding the husbandry conditions but also regarding the product characteristics and the labelling of dual‐purpose chickens.

Suggested Citation

  • Brümmer, Nanke & Christoph‐Schulz, Inken & Rovers, Anja‐Karolina, 2018. "Consumers’ Perspective on Dual‐purpose Chickens as Alternative to the Killing of Day‐old Chicks," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 9(5), January.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ijofsd:345292
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.345292
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/345292/files/CONSUMERS%E2%80%99%20PERSPECTIVE%20ON%20DUAL%E2%80%90PURPOSE%20CHICKENS%20AS%20ALTERNATIVE%20TO%20THE%20KILLING%20OF%20DAY%E2%80%90OLD%20CHICKS.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.345292?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. Pat Auger & Timothy Devinney, 2007. "Do What Consumers Say Matter? The Misalignment of Preferences with Unconstrained Ethical Intentions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 76(4), pages 361-383, December.
    2. Terlau, Wiltrud & Hirsch, Darya, 2015. "Sustainable Consumption and the Attitude-Behaviour-Gap Phenomenon - Causes and Measurements towards a Sustainable Development," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 6(3), pages 1-16, 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. Carla Rossi & Francesca Rivetti, 2020. "Assessing Young Consumers’ Responses to Sustainable Labels: Insights from a Factorial Experiment in Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-23, December.
    2. Pengji Wang & Adrian T. H. Kuah & Qinye Lu & Caroline Wong & K. Thirumaran & Emmanuel Adegbite & Wesley Kendall, 2021. "The impact of value perceptions on purchase intention of sustainable luxury brands in China and the UK," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 28(3), pages 325-346, May.
    3. Yingying Zhang Zhang & Chun Yee Wong & Alessandro Comai, 2024. "Child Labor in Social Media: Exploring a Decade of YouTube Data," Working Papers EMS_2024_04, Research Institute, International University of Japan.
    4. Sarah Verdonk & Keri Chiveralls & Drew Dawson, 2017. "Getting Wasted at WOMADelaide: The Effect of Signage on Waste Disposal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-17, February.
    5. Katja H. Brunk & Cara Boer, 2020. "How do Consumers Reconcile Positive and Negative CSR-Related Information to Form an Ethical Brand Perception? A Mixed Method Inquiry," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 161(2), pages 443-458, January.
    6. Karoline Gamma & Robert Mai & Moritz Loock, 2020. "The Double-Edged Sword of Ethical Nudges: Does Inducing Hypocrisy Help or Hinder the Adoption of Pro-environmental Behaviors?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 161(2), pages 351-373, January.
    7. Syed Sibghatullah Shah & Zahid Asghar, 2024. "Individual attitudes towards environmentally friendly choices: a comprehensive analysis of the role of legal rules, religion, and confidence in government," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 14(4), pages 629-651, December.
    8. Auger, Pat & Devinney, Timothy M. & Louviere, Jordan J. & Burke, Paul F., 2008. "Do social product features have value to consumers?," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 183-191.
    9. Eva-Maria Waltner & Werner Rieß & Christoph Mischo, 2019. "Development and Validation of an Instrument for Measuring Student Sustainability Competencies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-20, March.
    10. Svenja Damberg & Ulla A. Saari & Morgane Fritz & Vytaute Dlugoborskyte & Katerina Božič, 2024. "Consumers' purchase behavior of Cradle to Cradle Certified® products—The role of trust and supply chain transparency," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(8), pages 8280-8299, December.
    11. Anna Lewandowska & Joanna Witczak & Pasquale Giungato & Christian Dierks & Przemyslaw Kurczewski & Katarzyna Pawlak-Lemanska, 2018. "Inclusion of Life Cycle Thinking in a Sustainability-Oriented Consumer’s Typology: A Proposed Methodology and an Assessment Tool," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-19, June.
    12. Joachim P. Hasebrook & Leonie Michalak & Anna Wessels & Sabine Koenig & Stefan Spierling & Stefan Kirmsse, 2022. "Green Behavior: Factors Influencing Behavioral Intention and Actual Environmental Behavior of Employees in the Financial Service Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-35, August.
    13. Daniel Baier & Theresa Maria Rausch & Timm F. Wagner, 2020. "The Drivers of Sustainable Apparel and Sportswear Consumption: A Segmented Kano Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-21, April.
    14. Silvia Blasi & Lorenzo & Silvia Rita Sedita, 2019. "Eco-friendliness and fashion perceptual attributes of fashion brands: an analysis of consumers’ perceptions based on Twitter data," "Marco Fanno" Working Papers 0237, Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche "Marco Fanno".
    15. Kumju Hwang & Bora Lee & Juhee Hahn, 2020. "Green Restaurant Consumers’ Pride and Social Healthy Narcissism Influencing Self-Actualization and Self-Transcendence That Drive Customer Citizenship Behavior," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-19, December.
    16. Atsushi Watabe & Simon Gilby, 2020. "To See a World in a Grain of Sand—The Transformative Potential of Small Community Actions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-19, September.
    17. Alex Hiller & Tony Woodall, 2019. "Everything Flows: A Pragmatist Perspective of Trade-Offs and Value in Ethical Consumption," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 157(4), pages 893-912, July.
    18. Andy Felix Jităreanu & Mioara Mihăilă & Alexandru-Dragoș Robu & Florin-Daniel Lipșa & Carmen Luiza Costuleanu, 2022. "Dynamic of Ecological Agriculture Certification in Romania Facing the EU Organic Action Plan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-17, September.
    19. Anne-Sophie Gay & Julia M. Warden & Hakan Lane, 2024. "Climate labels and the restaurant industry: a qualitative study," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 369-379, June.
    20. Magdalena Öberseder & Bodo Schlegelmilch & Verena Gruber, 2011. "“Why Don’t Consumers Care About CSR?”: A Qualitative Study Exploring the Role of CSR in Consumption Decisions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 104(4), pages 449-460, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;

    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:ags:ijofsd:345292. 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.