Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-568f69f84b-gcfkn Total loading time: 0.25 Render date: 2021-09-22T12:09:03.826Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Innovation in vegetable seed production and the role of consumers in the organic and conventional babyleaf chains: The case of Denmark

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2010

Lise C. Deleuran*
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental, Social and Spatial Change, Roskilde University, Denmark. Department of Genetics and Biotechnology, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Aarhus University, Denmark.
*Corresponding
*Corresponding author: lise.deleuran@agrsci.dk

Abstract

In this study, the focus is on babyleaf products and the potentials that an increased interest in these products might bring to vegetable seed growers. Case studies on babyleaf products illustrate how consumers perceive babyleaf products and which parameters they give preference to. In addition, aspects of preference for local vegetable products were investigated. The methodological approach has been in the form of two questionnaires presented to consumers in two different chain structures, an industrialized chain (linking actors from ‘farm to fork’) and an alternative chain where organic produce is delivered to the consumers' doorstep through a box-scheme concept. The participants in the surveys were selected to identify elements that potentially could be used as a spur in innovation and development of new products in the chain and not necessarily to indicate general consumer interests. The overall conclusions are a genuine interest in babyleaf products in both approached chains. In the industrialized chain, 89% of the respondents would like more products and subsequently new niches within seed production are likely to occur. In the alternative chain, 83% of the respondents were very content with the babyleaf product they had received. In addition, these consumers display a profound preference for local products. The paper proposes that seeds and the quality of the seeds play an important role in babyleaf production and should be viewed as, not just a raw material in the chain, but also as the initial step in the babyleaf chain. Dialog among the actors in the chain is essential to meet the consumer demands from both a conventional and an organic perspective. The role of organic seed in organic vegetable productions is discussed.

Type
Research Papers
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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

1Deleuran, L.C. 2010. Seed quality in a value chain perspective. The case of babyleaf products. PhD thesis, Roskilde University.Google Scholar
2Deleuran, L.C. and Boelt, B. 2006. Spinach seed production in Denmark. International Spinach Conference, La Conner, Washington, DC p. 1315.Google Scholar
3Jarosz, L. 2008. The city in the country: Growing alternative food networks in the Metropolitan areas. Journal of Rural Studies 24:231244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4De Rosa, A. 2004. Spinacio. II Divulgatore n1/2004. Ortaggi da foglia, p. 6066.Google Scholar
5Opera, L.U. and Mazaud, F. 2001. Food traceability from field to plate. Outlook on Agriculture 30:239247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Nicola, S., Fontana, E., Torassa, C., and Hoeberechts, J. 2006. Fresh-cut produce: postharvest critical issues. Acta Horticulturae 712:223230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7NYSERDA. 2008. Energy investments and CO2 emissions for fresh produce imported into New York State compared to the same crops grown locally. Final report. Available at Web site http://www.nyserda.org/publications/locally%20grown%20imported%20produce.pdf (verified September 14, 2010).Google Scholar
8Faostat. 2010. Available at Web site http://faostat.fao.org/site/342/default.aspx (verified September 14, 2010).Google Scholar
9Nucci, M.L., Cuite, C.L., and Hallmann, W.K. 2009. When good food goes bad: Television network news and the spinach recall of 2006. Science Communication 31:238265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Buckley, M., Cowan, C., McCarthy, M., and O'Sullivan, C. 2005. The convenience consumer and food-related lifestyles in Great Britain. Journal of Food Products Marketing 11:325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11Carrigan, M., Szmigin, I., and Leek, S. 2006. Managing routine food choices in UK families: The role of convenience consumption. Appetite 47:372383.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12O'Doherty Jensen, K., Lund, T.B., Andersen, L.M., Christensen, V.T., Krarup, S., Christensen, T., Denver, S., Bossen, H., Hindbrog, H., Roland, T., and Øllegaard, G. 2008. Hvorfor køber forbrugerne økologi? In Alrøe, H.F. and Halberg, N. (eds). Udvikling, vækst og integritet i den danske økologisektor. ICROFS, Tjele, Denmark.Google Scholar
13Taylor, A.G. 1997. Seed storage, germination and quality. In Wein, H.C. (ed.). The Physiology of Vegetable Crops. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
14Morris, C. and Young, C. 2000. ‘Seed to shelf’, ‘teat to table’, ‘barley to bear’ and ‘womb to tomb’: discourses of food quality and quality assurance schemes in the UK. Journal of Rural Studies 16:103115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15Marsden, T.K. 1998. New rural territories: regulating the differentiated rural spaces. Journal of Rural Studies 14:107117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16Kottila, M. and Rönni, P. 2008. Collaboration and trust in two organic food chains. British Food Journal 110:376394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17Feller, A., Shunk, D., and Callerman, T. 2006. Value chains versus supply chains. BPT Trends, March 2006. Available at Web site http://www.ceibs.edu/knowledge/papers/images/20060317/2847.pdf. (verified September 22, 2010).Google Scholar
18Nielsen, R.N. 2008. Feeding food producers with (Regional) knowledge for innovation? Working Paper Series. Department of Business Studies No. 13. Aalborg University, Denmark. Available at Web site http://www.business.aau.dk/wp/08-13.pdf (verified October 25, 2010).Google Scholar
19Baker, D. 2003. The Danish food marketing chain: developments and policy choises. Report 154. Danish Research Institute of Food Economics. Available at Web site http://www.foi.life.ku.dk/Publikationer/FOI_serier/~/media/migration%20folder/upload/foi/docs/publikationer/rapporter/nummererede%20rapporter/150-159/154.pdf.ashx (verified October 25, 2010).Google Scholar
20Weiming, H., Pangyuan, L., Baohai, Z., and Shufang, Z. 2008. A new kind of no-polluted cultivation of vegetables. The cultivation of baby salad leaves. In Vegetable Production, Quality and Process Standardization in Chain: a Worldwide Perspective. Vege 2008 Beijing, October 14–17, 2008. Beijing, China.Google Scholar
21Lucier, G., Allshouse, J., and Biing-Hwan, L. 2004. Factors affecting spinach consumption in the United States. Electronic Outlook report from the Economic Research Service. Available from Web site http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/VGS/jan04/vgs30001/vgs30001.pdf (verified September 14, 2010).Google Scholar
22Morelock, T. and Correll, J. 2007. Spinach. In Prohens, J. and Nuez, F. (eds). Handbook of Plant Breeding. Springer, New York, p. 189218.Google Scholar
23USDA. 2005. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, Release 18.Google Scholar
24Conte, A., Conversa, G., Scrocco, C., Brescia, I., Laverse, J., Alia, A., and Del Nobile, M.A. 2008. Influence of growing periods on the quality of baby spinach leaves at harvest and during storage as minimally processed produce. Postharvest Biology and Technology 50:190196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25Lestrange, M., Koike, S., Valencia, J., and Chaney, W. 2010 (online publication). Spinach production in California. University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Publication 7212. Available at Web site http://ucanr.org/freepubs/docs/7212.pdf (verified September 14, 2010).Google Scholar
26Renting, H., Marsden, T.K., and Banks, J. 2003. Understanding alternative food networks: exploring the role of short food supply chains in rural development. Environment and Planning A 35:393411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27Marsden, T., Banks, J., and Bristow, G. 2000. Food supply chain approaches: exploring their role in rural development. Sociologia Ruralis 40:424438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28Lammerts van Bueren, E.T. and Verhoog, H. 2006. Organic plant breeding and seed production: ecological and ethical aspects. In Kristiansen, P., Taji, A. and Reganold, J. (eds). Organic Agriculture. A Global Perspective. CABI, Wallingford, UK, p. 123139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29Defra. 2009. UK Annual Derogation Report for 2008. Prepared by: The Soil Association on behalf of Defra, January 2009. Available at Web site http://pdir.fvm.dk/Rapporter_fra_2008.aspx?ID=11865 (verified September 14, 2010).Google Scholar
30SKAL. 2009. 2008 seed report. The Netherlands. Available at Web site http://pdir.fvm.dk/Rapporter_fra_2008.aspx?ID=11865 (verified September 14, 2010).Google Scholar
31The Danish Plant Directorate. 2009. Rapport for 2008 om danske tilladelser til anvendelse af ikke-økologisk frø, læggekartofler og andet vegetativt formeringsmateriale I den økologiske produktionsmetode. Available at Web site http://pdir.fvm.dk/Rapporter_fra_2008.aspx?ID=11865 (verified September 14, 2010).Google Scholar
32Deleuran, L.C. and Boelt, B. 2010. Organic leek seed production – securing seed quality. Acta Horticulturae in press.Google Scholar
33Peerenboom, R. 2004. Putting organic seed production in perspective. In Challenges and Opportunities for Organic Agriculture and the Seed Industry. Proceedings of the First World Conference on Organic Seed, Rome, Italy, p. 68.Google Scholar
34Rubitschek, P. 2004. Use and availability if organic vegetable seed. In Challenges and Opportunities for Organic Agriculture and the Seed Industry. Proceedings of the First World Conference on Organic Seed, Rome, Italy, p. 5961.Google Scholar
35Lupton, D. 1996. Food, the Body and the Self. Sage, London.Google Scholar
36Greenwood, M.R.C. and Gershwin, M.E. 2010. Foods for health: A roadmap for the future. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1190:ixx.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37Grunert, K.G. 2010. European consumers' acceptance of funcitional foods. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1190:166173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38Franke, A.A., Custer, L.J., Arakaki, C., and Murphy, S.P. 2004. Vitamin C and flavonoid levels of fruit and vegetables consumed in Hawaii. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 17:135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39Hossimotto, N.M.A., Genovese, M.I., and Lajolo, F.M. 2005. Antioxidant activity of dietary fruits, vegetables, and commercial frozen fruit pulps. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 53:29282935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40Martínez-Sánchez, A., Gil-Izquierdo, A., Gil, M.I., and Ferreres, F. 2008. A comparative study of flavonoid compounds, vitamin C, and antioxidant properties of baby leaf Brassicaceae species. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 56:23302340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
41Bogers, R.P. 2006. The future of horticultural science and education: A European perspective. Reportfrom the BeNeLux Society for Horticultural Science. 2006 Symposium.Google Scholar
42Salaün, Y. and Flores, K. 2001. Information quality: meeting the needs of the consumer. International Journal of Information Management 21:2137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
43Shewfelt, R.L. 2006. Defining and meeting consumer requirements. Acta Horticulturae 712:3137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44Muramoto, J. 1999. Comparisons of nitrate content in leafy vegetables from organic and conventional farms in California. Report. Available at Web site http://www.agroecology.org/documents/Joji/leafnitrate.pdf (verified September 14, 2010).Google Scholar
45Black, J. 2009. The CSA that isn't one. Available at Web site http://www.gourmet.com/foodpolitics/2009/01/danish-csas (verified September 14, 2010).Google Scholar
46Denmarks Statistics. 2009. Available at Website http://www.dst.dk/pukora/epub/Nyt/2010/NR191.pdf (verified September 14, 2010).Google Scholar
47Harper, G.C. and Makatouni, A. 2002. Consumer perception of organic food production and farm animal welfare. British Food Journal 104:287299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
48Yiridoe, E.K., Bonti-Ankomah, S., and Martin, R.C. 2005. Comparison of consumer perceptions and preference toward organic versus conventionally produced foods: A review and update of the literature. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 20:193205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
49Hughner, R.S., McDonagh, P., Prothero, A., Shultz, C.J. II, and Stanton, J. 2007. Who are organic food consumers? A compilation and review of why people purchase organic food. Journal of Consumer Behavior 6:94110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
50Makatouni, A. 2001. What motivates consumers to buy organic food in the UK. Results from a qualitative study. British Food Journal 104(3/4/5):345352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
51Wilkins, J.L. 1996. Seasonality, food origin, and food preference: a comparison between food cooperative members and nonmembers. Journal of Nutrition Education 28:329337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Innovation in vegetable seed production and the role of consumers in the organic and conventional babyleaf chains: The case of Denmark
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Innovation in vegetable seed production and the role of consumers in the organic and conventional babyleaf chains: The case of Denmark
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Innovation in vegetable seed production and the role of consumers in the organic and conventional babyleaf chains: The case of Denmark
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *