IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i7p4080-d782892.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ideating A Sustainable Swine Feed Prototype: A Qualitative Approach in Farmers’ Pain Point Identification and Product Development

Author

Listed:
  • Sasichakorn Wongsaichia

    (International College, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand
    Center for Sustainable Innovation and Society, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand)

  • Phaninee Naruetharadhol

    (International College, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand
    Center for Sustainable Innovation and Society, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand)

  • Peerapong Wongthahan

    (International College, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand
    Center for Sustainable Innovation and Society, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand)

  • Chavis Ketkaew

    (International College, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand
    Center for Sustainable Innovation and Society, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand)

Abstract

There is a growing interest and trend in new product development (NPD) from food waste. However, most qualitative approaches rarely use the lean entrepreneur concept in the context of new product development (NPD), which allows for understanding customer insight rather than the traditional qualitative approach. Therefore, this study aims to (1) explore the swine farmer behaviors, desired outcomes, and pain points in using swine feedstuffs, (2) select three representative segments and identify high-value customers of swine feeds, and (3) develop a sustainable swine feed prototype from the fermented fish industrial residues. The target users, 24 pig farmers from 11 provinces across the Northeastern Region of Thailand, were recruited to participate in this research. Qualitative in-depth semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis were conducted to analyze their behaviors, desired outcomes, and pain points towards pig feed usages. The framework was combined with in-depth qualitative interviews and the customer, problem, and solution zoom tools. The results revealed that household farmers were the target customer segment of swine feed made from fermented fish industrial wastes. In addition, the findings showed that the household farmers typically fed their pigs with instant feeds and alternative feeds. Moreover, their desired outcomes were the pellet feed with nutrients. Furthermore, the pain points of the household farmers were the expensive cost of feeds and mold in feeds. Therefore, this segment needs to minimize the cost of feeds by using other sustainable alternatives.

Suggested Citation

  • Sasichakorn Wongsaichia & Phaninee Naruetharadhol & Peerapong Wongthahan & Chavis Ketkaew, 2022. "Ideating A Sustainable Swine Feed Prototype: A Qualitative Approach in Farmers’ Pain Point Identification and Product Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-21, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:7:p:4080-:d:782892
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/7/4080/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/7/4080/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Porter, Gina & Phillips-Howard[malt], Kevin, 1997. "Comparing contracts: An evaluation of contract farming schemes in Africa," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 227-238, February.
    2. Bhatia, Ankita & Chandani, Arti & Chhateja, Jagriti, 2020. "Robo advisory and its potential in addressing the behavioral biases of investors — A qualitative study in Indian context," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 25(C).
    3. Marta Castrica & Doriana E. A. Tedesco & Sara Panseri & Giovanni Ferrazzi & Vera Ventura & Dario G. Frisio & Claudia M. Balzaretti, 2018. "Pet Food as the Most Concrete Strategy for Using Food Waste as Feedstuff within the European Context: A Feasibility Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-10, June.
    4. Jouzi, Zeynab & Azadi, Hossein & Taheri, Fatemeh & Zarafshani, Kiumars & Gebrehiwot, Kindeya & Van Passel, Steven & Lebailly, Philippe, 2017. "Organic Farming and Small-Scale Farmers: Main Opportunities and Challenges," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 144-154.
    5. zu Ermgassen, Erasmus K.H.J. & Phalan, Ben & Green, Rhys E. & Balmford, Andrew, 2016. "Reducing the land use of EU pork production: where there’s swill, there’s a way," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 35-48.
    6. Miyata, Sachiko & Minot, Nicholas & Hu, Dinghuan, 2009. "Impact of Contract Farming on Income: Linking Small Farmers, Packers, and Supermarkets in China," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 37(11), pages 1781-1790, November.
    7. Lucia Azanedo & Guillermo Garcia-Garcia & Jamie Stone & Shahin Rahimifard, 2020. "An Overview of Current Challenges in New Food Product Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-4, April.
    8. Gerald C. Shurson, 2020. "“What a Waste”—Can We Improve Sustainability of Food Animal Production Systems by Recycling Food Waste Streams into Animal Feed in an Era of Health, Climate, and Economic Crises?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-34, August.
    9. Ambrosius, Floor H.W. & Kramer, Mark R. & Spiegel, Alisa & Bokkers, Eddie A.M. & Bock, Bettina B. & Hofstede, Gert Jan, 2022. "Diffusion of organic farming among Dutch pig farmers: An agent-based model," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    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. Danilo Bertoni & Daniele Cavicchioli & Franco Donzelli & Giovanni Ferrazzi & Dario G. Frisio & Roberto Pretolani & Elena Claire Ricci & Vera Ventura, 2018. "Recent Contributions of Agricultural Economics Research in the Field of Sustainable Development," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-20, December.
    2. Marc F. Bellemare & Lindsey Novak, 2017. "Contract Farming and Food Security," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 99(2), pages 357-378.
    3. Senakpon F. A. Dedehouanou & Johan Swinnen & Miet Maertens, 2013. "Does Contracting Make Farmers Happy? Evidence from Senegal," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 59, pages 138-160, October.
    4. Torero, Maximo & Viceisza, Angelino C.G., 2016. "Potential collusion and trust: Evidence from a field experiment in Vietnam," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 11(1), pages 1-11.
    5. Jiguang Chen & Ying‐Ju Chen, 2021. "The Impact of Contract Farming on Agricultural Product Supply in Developing Economies," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(8), pages 2395-2419, August.
    6. Marc F. Bellemare, 2018. "Contract farming: opportunity cost and trade†offs," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(3), pages 279-288, May.
    7. Wendimu, Mengistu Assefa & Henningsen, Arne & Gibbon, Peter, 2016. "Sugarcane Outgrowers in Ethiopia: “Forced” to Remain Poor?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 84-97.
    8. Bellemare, Marc F., 2012. "As You Sow, So Shall You Reap: The Welfare Impacts of Contract Farming," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(7), pages 1418-1434.
    9. Henningsen, Arne & Mpeta, Daniel F. & Adem, Anwar S. & Kuzilwa, Joseph A. & Czekaj, Tomasz G., 2015. "The Effects of Contract Farming on Efficiency and Productivity of Small-Scare Sunflower Farmers in Tanzania," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212478, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Abebe, Gumataw K. & Bijman, Jos & Kemp, Ron & Omta, Onno & Tsegaye, Admasu, 2013. "Contract farming configuration: Smallholders’ preferences for contract design attributes," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 14-24.
    11. Ashok K. Mishra & Anjani Kumar & Pramod K. Joshi & Alwin Dsouza, 2022. "Monopsonists, Disruptive Innovation and Food Security: The Case of High‐Value Commodity," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(1), pages 460-476, March.
    12. Konstadinos Abeliotis & Christina Chroni & Katia Lasaridi & Evangelos Terzis & Fenia Galliou & Thrassyvoulos Manios, 2022. "Environmental Impact Assessment of a Solar Drying Unit for the Transformation of Food Waste into Animal Feed," Resources, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-11, December.
    13. Bellemare, Marc F. & Bloem, Jeffrey R., 2018. "Does contract farming improve welfare? A review," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 259-271.
    14. Henningsen, Arne & Mpeta, Daniel F. & Adem, Anwar S. & Kuzilwa, Joseph A. & Czekaj, Tomasz G., 2015. "A Meta-Frontier Approach for Causal Inference in Productivity Analysis: The Effect of Contract Farming on Sunflower Productivity in Tanzania," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 206200, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Rajendran, Srinivasulu & Afari-Sefa, Victor & Karanja, Daniel Kimani & Musebe, Richard & Romney, Dannie & Makaranga, Magesa A. & Samali, Silvest & Kessy, Radegunda Francis, 2016. "Farmer-Led Seed Enterprise Initiatives to Access Certified Seed for Traditional African Vegetables and its Effect on Incomes in Tanzania," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 19(1), pages 1-24, February.
    16. Freguin-Gresh, Sandrine & Anseeuw, Ward & D'Haese, Marijke F.C., 2012. "Demythifying Contract Farming: Evidence from Rural South Africa," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126567, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Gómez, Miguel I. & Ricketts, Katie D., 2013. "Food value chain transformations in developing countries: Selected hypotheses on nutritional implications," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 139-150.
    18. Jones, R.E. & Speight, R.E. & Blinco, J.L. & O'Hara, I.M., 2022. "Biorefining within food loss and waste frameworks: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    19. Cécile Couharde & Rémi Generoso, 2024. "Assessing the Impact of National Air Quality Standards on Agricultural Land Values: Insights from Corn and Soybean Regions," EconomiX Working Papers 2024-9, University of Paris Nanterre, EconomiX.
    20. Seiler, Volker & Fanenbruck, Katharina Maria, 2021. "Acceptance of digital investment solutions: The case of robo advisory in Germany," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).

    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:14:y:2022:i:7:p:4080-:d:782892. 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.