Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T02:24:33.159Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Concerns about sustainability in the poultry industry: a comparative Delphi study in Germany and Thailand

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2017

S. SOISONTES
S. SOISONTES*
Affiliation:
Science and Information Centre for Sustainable Poultry Production (WING), University of Vechta, Neuer Markt 16, 49377 Vechta, Germany
*
Corresponding author: sakson.soisontes@gmail.com
Get access

Abstract

Thailand and Germany's poultry industries face different agro-ecological and socio-economic circumstances, as well as a variety of public policies on sustainability in poultry production. Based on literature, 26 sustainability issues were identified and categorised into the five dimensions of sustainability, including environmental, economic, social, political and animal welfare aspects. Through a two-round Delphi methodology with an expert panel, additional concerning issues were proposed and all the sustainability issues were weighted by level of concern, from level 1 (not at all concerned) to level 5 (very concerned). Results showed that social, animal welfare and economic issues dominate the current discussion of sustainable poultry production. The use of antibiotics in poultry production, killing of male layer chicks and the role of food retailers were rated ‘very concerning’ by the German experts, whereas the Thai experts considered the outbreak of avian influenza and other highly infectious diseases, disease control in neighbouring countries, use of antibiotics in poultry production, contamination of meat and eggs with zoonotic microorganisms, and standards for poultry products required by importing countries as the most concerning issues.

Keywords

sustainability concernspoultry industryDelphi studyexpert opinions
Type
Reviews
Information
World's Poultry Science Journal , Volume 73 , Issue 4 , December 2017 , pp. 886 - 903
Copyright
Copyright © World's Poultry Science Association 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ANGUS, A.J., HODGE, I.D., MCNALLY, S. and SUTTON, M.A. (2003) The setting of standards for agricultural nitrogen emissions: a case study of the Delphi technique. Journal of Environmental Management 69: 323-337.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
BARNES, J.L. (1987) An international study of curricular organisers for the study of technology. Ph. D. Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.Google Scholar
BFR (2015) BfR-Verbrauchermonitor (Berlin, BfR).Google Scholar
BLACKBURN, W.R. (2007) The sustainability handbook. The complete management guide to achieve social, economic, and environmental responsibility (Washington, D.C., Environmental Law Institute).Google Scholar
BOKKERS, E.A.M. and DE BOER, I.J.M. (2009) Economic, ecological and social performance of conventional and organic broiler production in the Netherlands. British Poultry Science 50: 546-557.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
BONAUDO, T., COUTINHO, C., POCCARD-CHAPUIS, R., LESCOAT, P., LOSSOUARN, J. and TOURRAND, J.F. (2010) Poultry industry and the sustainable development of territories: what links? what conditions? (Montpellier, ISDA).Google Scholar
BRELOH, L., ALVES, L., FREIRE, A. and KOESTER, J. (2015) German retailers fueling the rapid growth of non-GMO soy consumption [online] http://www.globalgrainevents.com/articles/3486591/brazilian-soy-industry-german-retailers-fueling-the-rapid-growth-of-non-gmo-soy-consumption.html.Google Scholar
BRACKE, M.B.M. (Ed) (2009) Animal welfare in a global perspective (Lelystad, Wageningen UR Livestock Research).Google Scholar
CASTELLINI, C., BOGGIA, A., CORTINA, C., DAL BOSCO, A., PAOLOTTI, L., NOVELLI, E. and MUGNAI, C. (2012) A multicriteria approach for measuring the sustainability of different poultry production systems. Journal of Cleaner Production 37: 192-201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CHRISTIE, C.A. and BARELA, E. (2005) The Delphi technique as a method for increasing inclusion in the evaluation process. The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation 20: 105-122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DALKEY, N.C., BROWN, B. and COCHRAN, S. (1970) Use of self-ratings to improve group estimates: Experimental evaluation of Delphi procedures. Technological Forecasting 1: 283-291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DALKEY, N.C. and HELMER, O. (1963) An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Management Science 9: 458-467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EFSA and ECDC (2014) The European Union summary report on trends and sources of zoonoses, zoonotic agents and food-borne outbreaks in 2012. EFSA Journal 12: 1-312.Google Scholar
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT (2010) The poultry and egg sectors: evaluation of the current market situation and future prospects (Brussels, European Parliament).Google Scholar
GIANNAROU, L. and ZERVAS, E. (2014) Using Delphi technique to build consensus in practice. International Journal of Business Science and Applied Management 9: 65-82.Google Scholar
GROBBELAAR, S.S. (2007) R&D in the national system of innovation : a system dynamics model. Ph. D. Thesis, University of Pretoria.Google Scholar
HEIJNE, D. and WINDHORST, H.-W. (2017) Farm openings and their impacts on the attitudes of the visitors towards intensive egg and poultry meat production. World's Poultry Science Journal 73: 105-120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KLOHN, W. and WINDHORST, H.-W. (1998) Das agrarische Intensivgebiet Südoldenburg: Entwicklung, Strukturen, Probleme, Perspektiven (Vechta, Vechtaer Druckerei und Verlag).Google Scholar
KLOHN, W. and WINDHORST, H.-W. (2003) Die Landwirtschaft in Deutschland (Vechta, Vechtaer Druckerei und Verlag).Google Scholar
KOELEMAN, E. (2014) Less antibiotic use in German livestock. All About Feed 22 (8): 31.Google Scholar
MOLLENHORST, H. (2005) How to house a hen: assessing sustainable development of egg production systems. Ph. D. Thesis, Wageningen University.Google Scholar
MOLLENHORST, H. and DE BOER, I.J.M. (2004) Identifying sustainability issues using participatory SWOT analysis. Outlook on Agriculture 33: 267-276.Google Scholar
MUNSTER, V.J., BAAS, C., LEXMOND, P., WALDENSTRÖM, J., WALLENSTEN, A., FRANSSON, T., RIMMELZWAAN, G.F., BEYER, W.E.P., SCHUTTEN, M., OLSEN, B., OSTERHAUS, A.D.M.E. and FOUCHIER, R.A.M. (2007) Spatial, temporal, and species variation in prevalence of influenza A viruses in wild migratory birds. PLOS Pathogens 3: e61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
OFFICE OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS (2014) Agricultural trends of Thailand 2014 (Bangkok, Office of Agricultural Economics, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives).Google Scholar
OKOLI, C. and PAWLOWSKI, D.S. (2004) The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications. Information & Management 42: 15-29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PANUWET, P., SIRIWONG, W., PRAPAMONTOL, T., RYAN, P.B., FIEDLER, N., ROBSON, M.G. and BARR, D.B. (2012) Agricultural pesticide management in Thailand: situation and population health risk. Environmental Science & Policy 17: 72-81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
REHDER, L.E. (2012) The German food retail market (Washington, D.C., USDA).Google Scholar
ROWE, G., WRIGHT, G. and BOLGER, F. (1991) Delphi: a reevaluation of research and theory. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 39: 235-251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAXOWSKY, D.M. and DUNCAN, M.R. (1998) Understanding agriculture's transition into the 21st century: challenges, opportunities, consequences and alternatives (Fargo, Department of Agricultural Economics, North Dakota State University).Google Scholar
SCHMIDT, R.C. (1997) Managing Delphi surveys using nonparametric statistical techniques. Decision Sciences 28: 763-774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SCHMIDT, R., LYYTINEN, K., KEIL, M. and CULE, P. (2001) Identifying software project risks: an international Delphi study. Journal of Management Information Systems 17: 5-36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SOISONTES, S. (2015a) Sustainability in poultry production: a comparative study between Germany and Thailand. Ph. D. Thesis, University of Vechta.Google Scholar
SOISONTES, S. (2015b) Thailand: Hier gibt es einen Markt für männliche Legeküken. Deutsche Geflügelwirtschaft und Schweineproduktion 67 (13): 4.Google Scholar
SONGPAISAN, S. (2013) Thailand's poultry industry (Bangkok, IPSOS).Google Scholar
SPIES, A. (2003) The sustainability of the pig and poultry industries in Santa Catarina, Brazil: a framework for change. Ph. D. Thesis, University of Queensland.Google Scholar
THE POULTRY SITE (2015) Poultry profitability falls in Thailand [online] <http://www.thepoultrysite.com/poultrynews/35735/poultry-profitability-falls-in-thailand/.Google Scholar
URSINUS, N., SCHEPERS, F., BOKKERS, E., BRACKE, M. and SPOOLDER, H. (2009) General overview of animal welfare in a global perspective, in: BRACKE, M.B.M. (Ed) Animal welfare in a global perspective, pp. 4-53 (Lelystad, Wageningen UR Livestock Research).Google Scholar
VAGIAS, W.M. (2006) Likert-type scale response anchors (Clemson, Clemson International Institute for Tourism & Research Development).Google Scholar
VAN ASSELT, E.D., VAN BUSSEL, L.G.J., VAN HORNE, P., VAN DER VOET, H., VAN DER HEIJDEN, G.W.A.M. and VAN DER FELS-KLERX, H.J. (2015) Assessing the sustainability of egg production systems in the Netherlands. Poultry Science 94: 1742-1750.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
VEAUTHIER, A. (2013) Cage ban in Europe – impacts on trade, egg supply and food security [pdf] Iowa State University. http://www.public.iastate.edu/~maro/Forum%202013/Veauthier%20RS.pdf.Google Scholar
WINDHORST, H.-W. (2015a) The European egg industry in transition (London, IEC).Google Scholar
WINDHORST, H.-W. (2015b) Housing systems in laying hen husbandry. Development, present situation and perspectives (London, IEC).Google Scholar
WRENCH, J.S. (Ed) (2013) Workplace communication for the 21st century: tools and strategies that impact the bottom line (Santa Barbara, Praeger).Google Scholar