Establishing ethical organic poultry production: a question of successful cooperation management?

"That people in a specialised society tear things apart to an extent that they are completely taken out of their context...., there’s, in my opinion, the chance to fight against it. We live in a world of specialists. We know always more about less". (director of an organic marketing association responsible for a dual-purpose breed initiatve)

Abstract

In reaction to growing critics regarding ecological and ethical aspects of intensive animal husbandry, different initiatives of ethical poultry production try to establish alternative food supply chains on the market. To be able to stabilise these niche innovations parallel to the mainstream regime, new forms of cooperation along the value added chain and with the consumers play an important role. Based on a case study of integrated egg and meat production from a dual-purpose breed by small multifunctional farms in Northeast of Germany, the paper exemplifies the challenges for the different partners of the food supply chain and cooperation management. Empirical data were obtained via nine qualitative interviews with actors along the value chain and via participatory observation of workshops and meetings. The research was embedded in a transdisciplinary project, where different measures to meet the existing challenges were taken and evaluated. Analysing the existing cooperation reveals possibilities for improving cooperation management by e.g. clarifying the goals of the cooperation, including the points of sale as part of the food supply chain and communication of the ethical and sustainability qualities of the product to the consumers. However, the analysis also shows the limits of cooperation in an environment dominated by the paradigm of specialisation, economies of scale and cost reduction, which is also characteristic for parts of the organic sector. The paper discusses if the challenges of establishing this radical niche innovation can be met without a fundamental change of framework conditions as e.g. regulation on animal husbandry.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    The hens are kept in houses with nest boxes and perches; the floor is covered with litter material. There is a maximum of 9 hens per m2 usable area (Leenstra et al. 2014, p. 1).

  2. 2.

    Free-range systems: inside identical to barn systems, but access to a pasture of 4 m2 per hen is provided (Leenstra et al. 2014, p. 1).

  3. 3.

    Organic systems are a specific form of free-range systems, according to the requirements of organic production (EC 2008). Inside no more than 6 non beak-trimmed hens per m2 usable area are kept. Poultry has to be provided the possibility of moving outside for at least one-third of its lifetime in an area with vegetation and shelter. Besides, the animals receive feed according to organic standards (Leenstra et al. 2014, p. 1; Demeter 2016).

  4. 4.

    Biodynamic farming started already in the 1920s and organic farming in the 1940s. However, only in the 1980s a broader public became interested in organic farming (Darnhofer et al. 2010).

  5. 5.

    Numbers of the year 2017.

  6. 6.

    Measures were designed and carried out by the whole research team and the case study partners, not only by the subproject, which focused on cooperation. They were based on additional analyses from the perspectives of knowledge management, acceptance and marketing (König et al. 2017, 2016).

  7. 7.

    Marketing of broilers increased from 2044 in 2015, 2945 in 2016 to 4600 in 2017. Marketing of stewing hens increased from 2044 in 2015, 3450 in 2016 to 4700 in 2017.

  8. 8.

    In summer 2018 first focus groups were carried out which explored consumer habits and willingness to participate in marketing systems of this type.

References

  1. Becker, N. 2013. Bio-Eier haben Marktanteil von 9% (28 March 2013). http://www.bio-markt.info/kurzmeldungen/Bio-Eier_haben_Marktanteil_von_9_.html. Last accessed 29 June 2018

  2. BMEL Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft (Federal Ministry of Food an Agriculture). 2016. https://www.bmel.de/EN/Animals/AnimalWelfare/_Texte/HusbandryOfLayingHens.html. Last accessed 28 June 2018.

  3. BMEL, Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft (Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture). 2018. Per capita consumption of poultry meat in Germany from 1991 to 2016 (in kilograms). Statista 2018. https://www.statista.com/statistics/525229/poultry-per-capita-consumption-germany/. Last accessed 28 June 2018.

  4. Boddenberg, M., M. H. Frauenlob, L. Gunkel, S. Schmitz, F. Vaessen, and B. Blättel-Mink. 2017. Solidarische Landwirtschaft als innovative Praxis—Potenziale für einen sozial-ökologischen Wandel. In Soziale Innovationen nachhaltigen Konsums, eds. M. Jaeger-Erben, J. Rückert-John, and M. Schäfer, 125–148. Wiesbaden: Springer VS-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bruijnis, M. R. N., V. Blok, E. N. Stassen, and H. G. J. Gremmen. 2015. Moral “Lock-In” in Responsible Innovation: The Ethical and Social Aspects of Killing Day-Old Chicks and Its Alternatives. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28 (5): 939–960.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Brümmer, N., I. Christoph-Schulz, and A. K. Rovers. 2017. Consumers’ Perspective on Dual-Purpose Chickens. In Proceedings of the 11th International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks 2017, eds. J. Deiters, U. Rickert and G. Schiefer, 164–169. Bonn, Germany: University of Bonn, February 13–17, 2017. https://doi.org/10.18461/pfsd.2017.1717. Accessed 12 June 2018.

  7. Brunner, T. A., K. van der Horst, and M. Siegrist. 2010. Convenience Food Products. Drivers for Consumption. Appetite 55 (3): 498–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Brunori, G., D. Barjolle, A. Dockes, S. Helmle, J. Ingram, L. Klerkx, H. Moschitz, G. Nemes, and T. Tisenkopfs. 2013. CAP Reform and Innovation: The Role of Learning and Innovation Networks. Eurochoices 12 (2): 27–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Brunori, G., F. Galli, D. Barjolle, R. van Broekhuizen, L. Colombo, M. Giampietro, J. Kirwan, T. Lang, E. Mathijs, D. Maye, K. de Roest, C. Rougoor, J. Schwarz, E. Schmitt, J. Smith, Z. Stojanovic, T. Tisenkopfs, and J. M. Touzard. 2016. Are Local Food Chains More Sustainable than Global Food Chains? Considerations for Assessment. Sustainability 8 (5): 449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Buller, H., and E. Roe. 2018. Food and Animal Welfare. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. Christensen, L. G. 1998. Future Market and Consumer-Orientated Breeding Goals. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A—Animal Science 28: 45–53.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Damme, K. 2015. Economics of Dual-Purpose Breeds—A Comparison of Meat and Egg Production Using Dual Purpose Breeds Versus Conventional Broiler and Layer Strains. LOHMANN Information 50 (2): 4–9.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Darnhofer, I., T. Lindenthal, T., R. Bartel-Kratochvil, and W. Zollitsch. 2010. Conventionalisation of Organic Farming Practices: from Structural Criteria Towards an Assessment Based on Organic Principles. A Review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 30: 67–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Demeter e.V. 2016. GeflügelhaltungHandbuch für die Landwirtschaft. https://www.demeter.de/sites/default/files/richtlinien/demeter-richtlinien_erzeugung_gefluegelhandbuch.pdf. Accessed 28 June 2018.

  15. FAO. 2013. Country report supporting the preparation of The Second Report on the State of the World’s Animal Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Including Sector-Specific Data Contributing to The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture. http://www.fao.org/3/i4787e/i4787e72.pdf. Accessed 28 June 2018.

  16. Gómez, M. I., and K. D. Ricketts. 2013. Food Value Chain Transformations in Developing Countries: Selected Hypotheses on Nutritional Implications. Food Policy 42: 139–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hall, A., and V. Mogyorody. 2001. Organic Farmers in Ontario: An Examination of the Conventionalization Argument. Sociologia Ruralis 41 (4): 399–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hendrickson, M. K., and H. S. James. 2005. The Ethics of Constrained Choice: How the Industrialization of Agriculture Impacts Farming and Farmer Behavior. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18 (3): 269–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Heng, Y., H. H. Peterson, and X. Li. 2013. Consumer Attitudes towards Farm-Animal Welfare: The Case of Laying Hens. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 38 (3): 418–434.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Horlings, L. G., and T. K. Marsden. 2014. Exploring the ‘New Rural Paradigm’ in Europe: Eco-economic Strategies as a Counterforce to the Global Competitiveness Agenda. European Urban and Regional Studies 21 (1): 4–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. https://www.oekolandbau.de/haendler/marktinformationen/marktberichte/nachfrage-nach-bioeiern-erreicht-spitzenwert. Last accessed 29 June 2018.

  22. Hughner, R. S., P. McDonagh, A. Prothero, C. J. Shultz II, and J. Stanton. 2007. Who are Organic Food Consumers? A Compilation and Review of Why People Purchase Organic Food. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 6 (2–3): 94–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ingram, J. D., J. Maye, N. Kirwan, Curry, and K. Kubinakova. 2015. Interactions Between Niche and Regime: An Analysis of Learning and Innovation Networks for Sustainable Agriculture across Europe. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 21 (1): 55–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Jochemsen, H. 2013. An Ethical Foundation for Careful Animal Husbandry. NJAS—Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 66: 55–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kemp, R., J. Schot, and R. Hoogma. 1998. Regime Shifts to Sustainability Through Processes of Niche Formation: The Approach of Strategic Niche Management. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 10 (2): 175–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kijlstra, A., and I. A. J. M. Eijck. 2006. Animal Health in Organic Livestock Production Systems: A Review. NJAS—Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 54 (1): 77–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kirwan, J., D. Maye, and G. Brunori. 2017. Acknowledging Complexity in Food Supply Chains When Assessing Their Performance and Sustainability. Journal of Rural Studies 52: 21–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Knickel, K., G. Brunori, S. Rand, and J. Proost. 2009. Towards a Better Conceptual Framework for Innovation Processes in Agriculture and Rural Development: From Linear Models to Systemic Approaches. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 15 (2): 131–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Knickel, K., H. Renting, and J. D. van der, and Ploeg. 2004. Multifunctionality in European Agriculture. In Sustaining Agriculture and the Rural Economy: Governance, Policy and Multifunctionality, ed. F. Brouwer, 81–103. Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Knierim, U., L. Schrader, and A. Steiger. 2006. Alternative Legehennenhaltung in der Praxis: Erfahrungen, Probleme, Lösungsansätze. FAL Agricultural Research, Landbauforschung Völkenrode, Special Issue, 302.

  31. König, B., A. Kuntosch, and L. Wortmann. 2017. Der Zweinutzungshuhnansatz aus der Perspektive der Innovationsforschung. In Ökologischen Landbau weiterdenken—Verantwortung übernehmen—Vertrauen stärken, eds. S. Wolfrum et al., 420–423. Beiträge der 14. Freising-Weihenstephan: Wissenschaftstagung Ökologischer Landbau, 7–10 March 2017. http://orgprints.org/31664/1/Der%20Zweinutzungshuhnansatz%20aus%20der%20Perspektive%20der.pdf. Accessed 21 June 2018.

  32. König, B., B. Nölting, M. Schäfer, and L. Wortmann. 2016. Managing transdisciplinarity—Using the Situation Analysis Approach for a Joint Problem Framing. Presentation at 12th European IFSA Symposium—Social and technological transformation of farming systems: Diverging and converging pathways, 12–15 July 2016, Harper Adams University, UK.

  33. Leenstra, F., P. Horne, and M. van Krimpen. 2010. Dual Purpose Chickens, Exploration of Technical, Environmental and Economical Feasibility. In Worlds’s Poultry Science Association Proceedings 2010. XIIIth European Poultry Conference. Tours, France, 23–27 August 2010. http://www.wpsa.com/index.php/publications/wpsa-proceedings/2010/xiii-european-poultry-conference/2482-dual-purpose-chickens-exploration-of-technical-environmental-and-economical-feasibility/file. Accessed 17 June 2018.

  34. Leenstra, F., V. Maurer, F. Galea, M. Bestman, Z. Amsler-Kepalaite, J. Visscher, I. Vermeij, and M. van Krimpen. 2014. Laying Hen Performance in Different Production Systems; Why Do They Differ and How to Close the Gap? European Poultry Science 78. https://doi.org/10.1399/eps.2014.53.

  35. Luttikholt, L. W. 2007. Principles of Organic Agriculture as Formulated by the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements. NJAS—Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 54: 347–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Moschitz, H., D. Roep, G. Brunori, and T. Tisenkopfs. 2015. Learning and Innovation Networks for Sustainable Agriculture: Processes of Co-evolution, Joint Reflection and Facilitation. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 21 (1): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2014.991111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Nölting, B., M. Gutendorf, and M. Schäfer. 2017. Kooperationen für eine nachhaltige Hühnerhaltung. In Ökologischen Landbau weiterdenkenVerantwortung übernehmenVertrauen stärken, eds. S. Wolfrum, H. Heuwinkel, H.J. Reents et al., 410–413. Beiträge der 14. Freising-Weihenstephan: Wissenschaftstagung Ökologischer Landbau, 7–10 March 2017. http://orgprints.org/31889/. Accessed 17 June 2018.

  38. Nölting, B., and M. Schäfer. 2016. Cooperation Management as a Distinct Function in Innovation Processes for Alternative Food Production and Consumption—Potentials and Limitations. Paper for the 12th European IFSA Symposium “Social and technological transformation of farming systems: Diverging and converging pathways”, Harper Adams University, 12–16 July 2016. http://ifsa.boku.ac.at/cms/fileadmin/IFSA2016/IFSA2016_WS18_Noelting.pdf. Accessed 21 June 2018.

  39. Oekolandbau.de. 2017. Nachfrage nach Bioeiern erreicht Spitzenwert, 17.8.2017.

  40. Olsson, A., C. Gamborg, and P. Sandøe. 2006. Taking Ethics into Account in Farm Animal Breeding: What can the Breeding Companies Achieve? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19 (1): 37–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Pieniążek, J. 2014. Crowdfunding and New Trends in Consumer Behaviour. MINIB—Marketing of Scientific and Research Organizations. https://doi.org/10.14611/minib.12.02.2014.10.

  42. Ponte, S. 2009. Governing Through Quality: Conventions and Supply Relations in the Value Chain for South African Wine. Sociologia Ruralis 49 (3): 236–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Rautenschlein, S. 2016. Einsatz des Zweinutzungshuhns in Mast und Eierproduktion: Ansätze für ein integriertes Haltungskonzept. Rundschau für Fleischhygiene und Lebensmittelüberwachung (RFL) 68 (8): 276–278.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Schot, J., and F. W. Geels. 2008. Strategic Niche Management and Sustainable Innovation Journeys: Theory, Findings, Research Agenda, and Policy. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 20 (5): 537–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Skřivan, M., S. H. Pickinpaugh, V. Pavlů, E. Skřivanová, and M. Englmaierová. 2015. A Mobile System for Rearing Meat Chickens on Pasture. Czech Journal of Animal Science 60 (2): 52–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Smith, A. 2006. Green Niches in Sustainable Development: The Case of Organic Food in the United Kingdom. Environmental and Planning C: Government and Policy 24: 439–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Statistisches Bundesamt. 2017. Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Fischerei. In Geflügel 2014 Fachserie 3 Reihe 4.2.3. Wiesbaden. https://www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/Thematisch/LandForstwirtschaft/ViehbestandTierischeErzeugung/Gefluegel2030423147004.pdf?__blob=publicationFile. Accessed 28 June 2018.

  48. Sutherland, M. A., J. Webster, and I. Sutherland. 2013. Animal Health and Welfare Issues Facing Organic Production Systems. Animals 3 (4): 1021–1035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Tixier-Boichard, M., F. Leenstra, D. K. Flock, P. M. Hocking, and S. Weigend. 2012. A Century of Poultry Genetics. World’s Poultry Science Journal 68 (2): 307–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. van Bueren, E. M., E. T. Lammerts, van Bueren, and A. J. van der, and Zijpp. 2014. Understanding Wicked Problems and Organized Irresponsibility: Challenges for Governing the Sustainable Intensification of Chicken Meat Production. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 8: 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. van Mierlo, B., A. Janssen, F. Leenstra, and E. van Weeghel. 2012. Encouraging System Learning in Two Poultry Subsectors. Agricultural Systems 115: 29–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Vanhonacker, F., and W. A. J. Verbeke. 2009. Buying Higher Welfare Poultry Products? Profiling Flemish Consumers Who Do and Do Not. Poultry Science 88 (12): 2702–2711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Warde, A. 1999. Convenience Food: Space and Timing. British Food Journal 107 (7): 518–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Winter, M. 2003. Geographies of Food: Agro-food Geographies—Making Reconnections. Progress in Human Geography 27: 505–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Research was carried out within the project ginkoo, which is financed from 2015 to 2019 by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). More information: http://www.ginkoo-projekt.de. The article is based on experiences made within the whole transdisciplinary research project and exchange especially with Benjamin Nölting, Ute Günster and the coordinator of the group, Bettina König.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martina Schäfer.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schäfer, M. Establishing ethical organic poultry production: a question of successful cooperation management?. Agric Hum Values 36, 315–327 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-019-09915-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Ethical poultry production
  • Cooperation management
  • Alternative food supply chains
  • Dual-purpose breeds
  • Specialisation
  • Intensification
  • Niche innovations