Development and co-design of new husbandry concepts for laying hens

for sustainable egg production

Bram Bos & Peter Groot KoerkampIFSA, July 9th, 2008

Houden van hennen

Financed by: Dutch Ministry of LNV

Keeping of laying hens

And love me!

Co-design in a sequence of projects

Phase 1 (2003-2004): research & development• Wageningen UR has lead, in interaction with stakeholders

Phase 2 (2004-2006): incubation of ideas & concepts• Several attempts of farmers and entrepreneurs• Mixed responsibilities between WUR and others

Phase 3 (2006-now): realisation of pilots in niches• Individual farmer boldly builds a new system• System builders & egg trader develop another system, and

establish collaboration with four farmers• Wageningen UR is supportive

Phase 1: Research & development

in Houden van Hennen

(2003-2004)

Production of eggs in Europe: is there a problem?

Natural production system

Welfare and health can’t be served both

how to preventAvian Influenza!

More sustainable, and robust!

Battery cages forbidden in 2012!

The image of free range systems?

Beak trimming forbidden in 2006

Economics of current alternatives?

Environmentalissues

The goals of the project

Create a starting point for improvement & change to an innovative & sustainable egg production sectorBy: design of new concepts for socially desirable production

systems

Development of a design method Internal WUR-goal: train young employees in working in

interactive research projects

What are challenges & perspectives for the future?

production rewarded by society

Welfare and health in balance

Environmental friendly production

Sustainable production

Happy hens with good production

No more public debate and threats

Satisfied poultry farmers

Better price for a better product

Houden van Hennen: the team

Seven, mostly young professional researchers From different disciplines: ethology, agro-engineering,

genetics, business-studies, communication, architecture, philosophy and biology

From different Wageningen UR institutes Application procedure Working apart from their organizations for one day a

week during eight months

Project & activity scheme (as of April 2004)

Stakeholder analysis

Citizen panels

Knowledge network

Naturalness

Robustness

Communication

Strategic problem definition

Brief of R

equirements

Diver-gence

Con-

verg

enc

Methodical design

New

concepts & designs

Working process I

Establishing a common frame of thinking and language within the team

Establishing a network of expertise Defining a ‘common’ problem definition (SPD)

• Interviews with variety of stakeholders• Nonetheless: no real commitment of stakeholders

Defining a Brief of Requirements• Assessed by stakeholders during workshop

Assessing the needs of three main actors• Interviews, ethological data• Citizen panels

Citizen panels

Three separate sessions with 8 participants from three different Mentality-groups

One day sessions on ideal laying hen husbandry Cognitive, sensory and emotionally triggered Visual spin off by professionals making artists

impressions and cartoons End of the day: guided fantasy on ideal laying hen

husbandry

Citizen panels: results

Functional and visual clues Ideas General conclusion: differentiation among citizens on

what ‘ideal’ means

High-tech

& nature

Citizen & consumer views: post-materialist

Traditional bourgeois

Romantic viewsPlaatjes:

Kasteel vooraanzicht met 2 vlaggen

Met fiets over kronkelpaadje naar boerderij

Boerderij met kipjes ervoor

Cosmopolitan

Dynamic life &

privacy

Plaatjes:

Ferrarikip

Motorkip

Rolschaatskip

Glijbaankip

Afgezonderde kip

Working process II

Three creativity workshops with stakeholders on pesky problems Identification of central elements in concepts to be designed

• Functional compatibilities• Synthesis of needs

Special design team (subset of team + additional member)• Works out two basic concepts based on BoR and central elements

Assessment of concepts with several experts in network Assessment of concepts by members of citizen panels

• Based on artists impressions and accompanying information• Led to fundamental last minute redesign of one of the two concepts

Working process III

Production of communication products for June 17th (presentation of concepts)

• High pressure, no full-fledged communicative strategy Presentation June 17th 2004 (Venlo)

• Video, presentations, position-taking by several main actors (sector, Animal Defense Movement, Department of Agriculture)

General activities along the road: Intensive communication en route:

• Monthly articles in Pluimveehouderij• Website (www.houdenvanhennen.nl) and email-newsletter

Integration using ‘Methodical Design’ guidelines

(Intermediate) products until 2004 (end phase I)

Network of associated actors (experts, stakeholders) Strategic Problem Definition Articles on several subjects of the project in Pluimveehouderij Brief of Requirements Concepts Rondeel & Plantage (‘Roundel’ & ‘Plantation’) Brochure, posters and video about the project Houden van Hennen as ‘approach’, described in:

• Groot Koerkamp, Peter W.G., and A.P. Bos. 2008. NJAS - 55:113 -.• Bos, A.P. 2008. Social Epistemology 22 (1):29-50.

Concept 1: ‘The Roundel’

Concept 2: ‘The Plantation’

See the movie, if time permits!

Key innovative elements

Space requirements of laying hen based on ethological needs

• more space than traditional systems, but less than organic

Functional differentiation in layout of system Design centers around main activity of hen: scratching Outdoor integrated element of system Solution for outdoor -- avian influenza problematic Designs fit different submarkets Designs show how laying hen husbandry may be ‘sexy’

Key breaks with existing patterns

Depart from needs instead of standard solutions Synthesize needs of three different ‘actors’

• Laying hen, farmer, consumer/citizen Create space for differentiation

• Different types of farmers, consumers and hens Marketing is part of the design challenge

• Breaking the taboo of anthropomorphism Refutation of the believe of communicating vessels

• “any improvement in animal welfare, or environment will necessarily reduce profitability”

First response (2004)

NGO’s: enthusiast Sector: overall reserved or outright rejecting

• Main obstacle: “much too expensive”• However: individual ‘innovators’ express support, but not in

public Agricultural press: nice, but expensive.

• “Wageningen UR presents future laying hen house” Ministry of Agriculture (LNV): differentiated response General: concepts get the attention, not the message

behind them

Phase 2: Incubation

Conquering obstacles

(2004-2006)

Phase 2: Incubation

Small amounts of money for ‘implementation’ or ‘networkformation’

Transitional budget Key challenge: winning hearts and minds of poultry

sector and LNV (Ministry of Agriculture)

Phase 2: Incubation

Road show to study clubs (2004/2005)• Stressing the general message, not the concepts

Face-to-face talks with interested parties (2004-2005) Presentation at LNV, okt 2004 Youth-tv Klokhuis on Houden van Hennen, feb 2005

• With one of farmers involved Creation of a network between four very different

farmers/entrepreneurs (2005-2006) Egg packer trademarks one of the concepts’ names Nomination for national sustainability prize (Ei van Columbus) Innovation prize 2004/2005 ASG-WUR Positive publication in farmers magazine Pluimveehouderij

Phase 2: Incubation

Difficult quest for financing• Project is too far ahead (in terms of integration) to fit current criteria for

subsidy• One subproposal is found ‘too cheap’ to be financed• Farmers’ risk difficult to get subsidized

Local regulation hurdles• Spatial regulation does not fit an extensive system without an outdoor

area.• One of the partners wins trial on environmental license, thanks to his

partnership in Houden van Hennen. Network of farmers not able to transcend from farm to market

• Lack of knowledge, lack of risk taking capacity, different insights on what the concept is about

Phase 3: Realization of pilots in niches

(2006 - now)

Phase 3: Realization of pilots in niches

One farmer develops his own variant of Plantation and builds it (Lankerenhof): opens june 2007

• Eggs sold as organic eggs, partly as special regional product• Subsidies for research on animal welfare and emissions by WUR• But very little room for risk mitigation of farmer• Farmer wins Ekoland Innovation Prize (organic farming)• www.lankerenhof.nl

An egg packer and a system builder further develop the Roundel, with WUR assistance and partial supportive government funding (2006-now)

• Eggs will be sold as special product in supermarkets• Egg packer will contribute marketing experience and power• System builder takes the lead in realization (2008)

Lankerenhof (www.lankerenhof.nl), inspired by Plantation

The Roundel

Vencomatic, Kwetters,

Dierenbescherming

Co-design in a sequence of projects

Phase 1 (2003-2004): research & development• Wageningen UR has lead, in interaction with stakeholders

Phase 2 (2004-2006): incubation of ideas & concepts• Several attempts of farmers and entrepreneurs• Mixed responsibilities between WUR and others

Phase 3 (2006-now): realisation of pilots in niches• Individual farmer boldly builds a new system• System builders & egg trader develop another system, and

establish collaboration with four farmers• Wageningen UR is supportive

Conclusions on co-design in Houden van Hennen (I)

Views of farmers, citizens and animal protection organizations integrated by structured design approach into concepts

• Despite this, signature of research team is very heavy• Ideas are seen as researchers ideas. Concepts initially rejected by

farmers as too far-fetched and costly Central ideas behind concepts take time to ‘land’ Institutional, financial and regulative barriers are major obstacles

and take time as well Concepts/designs are the start of co-design in practice, not the

end result. More radical designs are difficult to realize/develop by primary

producers themselves

Conclusions on co-design in Houden van Hennen (II)

Co-design may serve different functions in different stages:• Informative, deliberative and creative• Synthesis of different needs and values (structured design approach)• Mutual learning• Establishing co-ownership (important for realization)• Adaptation to local and individual characteristics• Establishment of alliances

Fundamental tension between the ambition of radical redesign and the ambition for co-ownership in an early stage

• Time did its work in Houden van Hennen

HvH elaborated in RIO

More on RIO today in WS1 2.30 PM

Thanks for your attention

www.houdenvanhennen.nlWith information in English, German & Dutch

(but no French, sorry)