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. Jayson Lusk & Tomas Nilsson & Ken Foster, 2007. "Public Preferences and Private Choices: Effect of Altruism and Free Riding on Demand for Environmentally Certified Pork," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 36(4), pages 499-521, April.
    3. 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.
    4. 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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Marescotti, Maria Elena & Caputo, Vincenzina & Demartini, Eugenio & Gaviglio, Anna, 2020. "Consumer preferences for wild game cured meat label: do attitudes towards animal welfare matter?," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 23(4), June.
    5. Morten Mørkbak & Jonas Nordström, 2009. "The Impact of Information on Consumer Preferences for Different Animal Food Production Methods," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 313-331, December.
    6. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Wolf, Christopher & Olynk, Nicole, 2009. "Consumer voting and demand behavior regarding swine gestation crates," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 492-498, December.
    7. Lusk Jayson L, 2010. "The Effect of Proposition 2 on the Demand for Eggs in California," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 1-20, April.
    8. 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.
    9. repec:vuw:vuwscr:19118 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Doherty, Edel & Campbell, Danny, 2011. "Demand for improved food safety and quality: a cross-regional comparison," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108791, Agricultural Economics Society.
    13. 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.
    14. Giovanna Piracci & Emilia Lamonaca & Fabio Gaetano Santeramo & Fabio Boncinelli & Leonardo Casini, 2024. "On the willingness to pay for food sustainability labelling: A meta‐analysis," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 55(2), pages 329-345, March.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. Tamaki Kitagawa & Kenichi Kashiwagi & Hiroko Isoda, 2020. "Effect of Religious and Cultural Information of Olive Oil on Consumer Behavior: Evidence from Japan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-17, January.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.
    21. Yokessa, Maïmouna & Marette, Stéphan, 2019. "A Review of Eco-labels and their Economic Impact," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 13(1-2), pages 119-163, April.

    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.