Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-01T20:02:13.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Innovation for sustainable egg production: realigning production with societal demands in The Netherlands

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2013

S.F. SPOELSTRA ,
P.W.G. GROOT KOERKAMP ,
A.P. BOS ,
B. ELZEN  and
F.R. LEENSTRA
S.F. SPOELSTRA*
Affiliation:
Wageningen UR Livestock Research, PO Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
P.W.G. GROOT KOERKAMP
Affiliation:
Wageningen UR Livestock Research, PO Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands Farm Technology Group, Wageningen University and Research Centre, PO Box 317, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
A.P. BOS
Affiliation:
Wageningen UR Livestock Research, PO Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
B. ELZEN
Affiliation:
Wageningen UR Livestock Research, PO Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
F.R. LEENSTRA
Affiliation:
Wageningen UR Livestock Research, PO Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
*
Corresponding author: sierk.spoelstra@wur.nl
Get access

Abstract

This paper describes an innovation trajectory for sustainability in egg production in The Netherlands in the period 2002-2012. In the approach as well as in the analyses, insights from scientific disciplines that have studied transformations towards sustainability were adopted. Central stage is the project ‘Keeping and loving hens’ and its outcome, by a variety of follow up activities, in terms of technical changes as well as rearrangements of key players in the Dutch egg sector.

The ‘Keeping and loving hens’ project was meant to contribute to a change in the Dutch egg sector towards sustainability by explicating and integrating the basic needs of the hen, farmer and citizen in an interactive design process with stakeholder involvement. At the end of the project, various other projects and activities by different key players has taken place, several of which have been evaluated and published. Together they provide a detailed description of a pathway of change. The multiple design goals included income for the farmer, acceptance by the public and improved animal welfare. Analyses has shown that designing well-founded images for laying hen husbandry systems created a learning network for sustainable egg production and elicited entrepreneurial innovations which gained the support of both animal welfare and retail organisations. Furthermore, it prompted government to develop additional policy instruments to support innovation for sustainable development. By early 2012, four laying hen farms in The Netherlands had adopted the principles developed in the project including functional areas for hens, coverable runs, no beak trimming and visitor's facilities to improve local embedment. Their production represented about 0.4% of total egg production in The Netherlands. The most important outcome, however, was a realignment of key players including farmers, retail, animal welfare organizations and government. Together they contribute to a pattern of emerging supply chains characterised by improved animal husbandry at the farm level in combination with an emerging market that is prepared to pay a premium for these products.

Keywords

alternative systemslaying hensenvironmentwelfare
Type
Review Article
Information
World's Poultry Science Journal , Volume 69 , Issue 2 , June 2013 , pp. 279 - 298
Copyright
Copyright © World's Poultry Science Association 2013

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

BLOKHUIS, H. and METZ, J.H.M. (1992) Integration of animal welfare into housing systems for laying hens. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 40: 327-337.Google Scholar
BOS, A.P. (2007) Network: Houden van Hennen. Klem tussen tijd, geld, onzekerheid en vergunningen, in: TEENSTRA, T. (Ed) Leergeschiedenissen van netwerken in de Veehouderij, pp. 47-52, (Wageningen University and Research Centre, Lelystad).Google Scholar
BOS, A.P. and GRIN, J. (2008) ‘Doing’ Reflexive modernization in pig husbandry: The hard work in changing the course of a river. Science Technology & Human Values 33: 480-507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BOS, A.P and GROOT KOERKAMP, P.W.G. (2009) Synthesizing needs in system innovation through methodical design. A methodical outline on the role of needs in Reflexive Interactive Design (RIO), in: POPPE, K.J., TERMEER, C. & SLINGERLAND, M. (Eds) Transitions towards sustainable agriculture, food chains and peri-urban areas, pp. 219-238 (Wageningen, Wageningen Academic Publishers).Google Scholar
BOS, A.P., SPOELSTRA, S.F., GROOT KOERKAMP, P.W.G., DE GREEF, K.H. and VAN EIJK, O.N.M. (2011) Reflexive design for sustainable animal husbandry: mediating between niche and regime, in: SPAARGAREN, G., LOEBER, A. & OOSTERVEER, P. (Eds) A transition perspective on sustainable food and agriculture, pp. 229-256 (London, Routledge).Google Scholar
DE HAAN, J. and ROTMANS, J. (2011) Patterns in transition: Understanding complex chains of change. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 78: 90-102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DEKKER, S.E.M., AARNINK, A.J.A., DE BOER, I.J.M. and GROOT KOERKAMP, P.W.G. (2010a) Environmental load of three aviary houses for organic layers. Report 36. p. 33, (Wageningen UR Livestock Research, Lelystad).Google Scholar
DEKKER, S.E.M., AARNINK, A.J.A., DE BOER, I.J.M. and GROOT KOERKAMP, P.W.G. (2011) Emissions of ammonia, nitrous oxide, and methane from aviaries with organic laying hen husbandry. Biosystems Engineering 110: 123-133.Google Scholar
DEKKER, S.E.M., DE BOER, I.J.M, VERMEY, I., AARNINK, A.J.A. and GROOT KOERKAMP, P.W.G. (2010b) Ecological and economic evaluation of Dutch egg production systems. Livestock Science 139: 109-121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DEKKER, S.E.M. and GROOT KOERKAMP, P.W.G. (2009) Verkennend onderzoek naar de ecologische duurzaamheid van de opfokstal van de Lankerenhof. Report 303. p. 19. (Lelystad, Wageningen UR Livestock Research).Google Scholar
DE MOL, R.M., SCHOUTEN, W.G.P., EVERS, E., DROST, H., HOUWERS, H.W.J. and SMITS, A.C. (2006) A computer model for welfare assessment of poultry production systems for laying hens. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 54: 157-158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DIRECTIVE, (1991) Council directive of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources. Directive 91/676/EEC. European Communities, Brussels.Google Scholar
DIRECTIVE, (1996) Council Directive of 27 September 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and management. Directive 1996/62/EC, European Communities, Brussels.Google Scholar
DIRECTIVE, (1999a) Council Directive of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens. Directive 1999/74/EC, European Communities, Brussels.Google Scholar
DIRECTIVE, (1999b) Council directive of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air. Directive 1999/30/EC, European Communities, Brussels.Google Scholar
ELZEN, B. and SPOELSTRA, S.F. (2012) Developing sustainable livestock production systems. Outline of a learning and experimentation strategy (LES), in: MARTA-COSTA, A.A. & SILVA, E. (Eds) Methods and Procedures for Building Sustainable Farming Systems: Application in the European Context, pp. 91-106 (Dordrecht, Springer Science & Business Media).Google Scholar
GEELS, F. (2004) From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems. Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Research Policy 33: 897-920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GEERLING-EIFF, F. and GROOT KOERKAMP, P.W.G. (2005) . Receptie van ‘Houden van hennen’. Report ASG/05/100059 (Lelystad, Animal Sciences Group) p. 36.Google Scholar
GODIN, B. (2006) The linear model of innovation. The historical construction of an analytical framework. Science, Technology, & Human Values 31: 639-667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GRIN, J., ROTMANS, J. and SCHOT, J. (2010) Transitions to sustainable development. New directions in the study of long term transformative change, p. 397, (London, Routledge).Google Scholar
GROOT KOERKAMP, P.W.G. and BOS, A.P. (2008) Designing complex and sustainable agricultural production systems: An integrated and reflexive approach for the case of table egg production in the Netherlands, NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 55: 113-138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GROOT KOERKAMP, P.W.G., VAN HIERDEN, Y.M. and MEERBURG, B.G. (Eds) (2006) . Effects of outdoor runs in poultry systems on animal welfare and health, product quality and environment. NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 54: 129-234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HENKENS, P.L.C.M. and VAN KEULEN, H. (2001) Mineral policy in the Netherlands and nitrate policy within the European Community. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 49: 117-134Google Scholar
HOUDEN VAN HENNEN, (2004) Laying hen husbandry. Towards a happy hen life, proud farmers and a satisfied society. Brochure, p.30, (Wageningen UR, Wageningen and Lelystad).Google Scholar
KEMP, R., SCHOT, J. and HOOGMA, R. (1998) Regime shift to sustainability through the process of niche formation: The approach of strategic niche management. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 10: 175-198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KETELAARS, E.H. (1992) Historie van de Nederlandse pluimveehouderij, p. 269 (BDU, Barneveld).Google Scholar
KLERKX, L., AARTS, N. and LEEUWIS, C. (2010) Adaptive management in agricultural systems: The interactions between innovation networks and their environment. Agricultural systems 103: 390-400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MCEACHERN, M.G., SCHRODER, M.J.A., WILLOCK, J., WHITELOCK, J.M. and MASON, J. (2007) Exploring ethical brand extensions and consumer buying behavior: the RSPCA and the ‘Freedom Food’ brand. Journal of Product and Brand Management 16: 168-177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
POT, W.D. and TERMEER, C.J.A.M. (2010) Op eieren lopen? De grillige dynamiek van de maatschappelijke aandacht voor innovatieve veehouderijsystemen in kaart gebracht, p. 90, (Wageningen University, Wageningen).Google Scholar
REGULATION, (1991) Council regulation of 24 June 1991 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs. Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91.Google Scholar
REUVEKAMP, B. and VAN NIEKERK, T. (2009a) Fier overeind na ronde 1. Pluimveehouderij 39: 36-38.Google Scholar
REUVEKAMP, B. and VAN NIEKERK, T. (2009b) Opfok zonder pikschade. Pluimveehouderij 39: 26-28.Google Scholar
SCHOLTEN, J. and VAN DER VLIER, S. (2010) Evaluation of sustainability. Performance of TransForum projects -Rondeel-, Report p.21, (Gouda, Blonk milieuadvies).Google Scholar
TACKEN, G.M.L., VAN LEEUWEN, M.G.A., KOOLE, B., VAN HORNE, P.L.M., DE VLIEGER, J.J. and DE BONT, C.J.A.M. (2003) Ketenconsequenties van de uitbraak van vogelpest. Report 6.03.06, pp. 53 (The Hague, LEI).Google Scholar
VAN DEN HAM, A. and DE HOOP, D.W. (2007) Varkens- en pluimveerechten voor 2015 afschaffen of niet? Report 3.07.06, pp. 80. (The Hague, LEI).Google Scholar
VAN DER MEULEN, B. and CUIJPERS, Y. (2007) Evaluatie maatschappelijke geaccepteerde veehouderij. Report 75, pp.71. (Lelystad, Animal Sciences Group).Google Scholar
VAN HORNE, P.L.M. and ACHTERBOSCH, T.J. (2008) Animal welfare in poultry production systems: impact of EU standards on world trade. World's Poultry Science Journal 64: 40-52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VAN LIESHOUT, M., DEWULF, A., AARTS, N. and TERMEER, C. (2011) Do scale frames matter? Scale frame mismatches in the decision making process of a ‘mega farm’ in a small Dutch village. Ecology and Society 16: 38-48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VAN MIERLO, B.C., REGEER, B., VAN AMSTEL, M., ARKESTEIJN, M.C.M., BEEKMAN, V., BUNDERS, J.F.G., DE COCK BUNING, T., ELZEN, B., HOES, A.C. and LEEUWIS, C. (2010) Reflexive Monitoring in Action. A guide for monitoring system innovation projects. pp. 106 (Wageningen and Amsterdam, Communication and Innovation Studies; Athena Institute).Google Scholar
VAN NIEKERK, T. (2010) Beter leven in het Rondeel? V-Focus. October 2010. p. 10-12.Google Scholar
VAN NIEKERK, T.G.C.M. and REUVEKAMP, B.F.J. (2011a) Het Rondeel, resultaten, gedrag en welzijn eerste legronde. The Rondeel, results behaviour and welfare of the first layer flock. Report 473 pp. 32 (Lelystad, Wageningen UR Livestock Research).Google Scholar
VAN NIEKERK, T.G.C.M. and REUVEKAMP, B.F.J. (2011b) Rondeel, a new housing design for laying hens. Lohmann Information 46 (2): 25-31.Google Scholar
VAN NIEKERK, T., REUVEKAMP, B. and GUNNIK, H. (2011) Verdiend drie sterren. Pluimveehouderij 41(5): 26-27.Google Scholar
VAN NIEKERK, T.G.C.M., GUNNIK, H. and VAN REENEN, K. (2012) Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for laying hens. Report 589 pp. 64 (Lelystad, Wageningen UR Livestock Research).Google Scholar
VELDKAMP, A., VAN ALTVORTST, A.C., EWEG, R., JACOBSEN, E., VAN KLEEF, A., VAN LATESTEIJN, H., MAGER, S., MOMMAAS, H., SMEETS, P.J.A.M., SPAANS, L. and VAN TRIJP, J.C.M. (2009) Triggering transitions towards sustainable development of the Dutch agricultural sector: TransForum's approach . Agronomy for Sustainable Development 29: 87-96.Google Scholar
VELDKAMP, T., GROOT KOERKAMP, P.W.G. and BORREN, C. (2007) Houden van hennen op de Lankerenhof. V-Focus. February 2007. p. 50-51.Google Scholar
VERMEY, I. (2011) Personal communication. Innovatieve stal met concurrerende kostprijs voor biologisch eieren. (Unpublished, personal communication).Google Scholar
WESTGREN, R.E. (1999) Delivering food safety, food quality, and sustainable production practices: the Label Rouge system in France. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 81:1107-1111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WIELINGA, E. and VROLIJK, M. (2009) Language and tools for networkers. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 15: 205-217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar