Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Mukda Suwannasri
 -- 1792 2023-03-17 04:32:39 |
2 update references and layout
Rita Xu
Meta information modification 1792 2023-03-17 04:39:10 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Suwannasri, M.; Promphakping, B. Sustainability of Smallholders in the Local Food System. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/42289 (accessed on 06 July 2024).
Suwannasri M, Promphakping B. Sustainability of Smallholders in the Local Food System. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/42289. Accessed July 06, 2024.
Suwannasri, Mukda, Buapun Promphakping. "Sustainability of Smallholders in the Local Food System" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/42289 (accessed July 06, 2024).
Suwannasri, M., & Promphakping, B. (2023, March 17). Sustainability of Smallholders in the Local Food System. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/42289
Suwannasri, Mukda and Buapun Promphakping. "Sustainability of Smallholders in the Local Food System." Encyclopedia. Web. 17 March, 2023.
Sustainability of Smallholders in the Local Food System
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su14105997

Food is vital to human life. Many advancements in food production, especially the application of modern technologies in food production, have been generated through the green revolution, and global trade has evolved into a global food system that has restructured the relationships among those involved in food production, distribution, and consumption.

local food system smallholders

1. Introduction

Theoretical speculation has suggested that the global industrial food system and its inherent capital-intensive production will extinguish small-scale food production. Meanwhile, there have been growing concerns regarding the negative consequences as a result of the global food system, including the erosion of ecosystems, the degradation of critical environmental resources, employment rates, consumer safety due to chemical applications, the effect on local economies, etc. [1][2][3][4][5][6].
In recent years, local food systems have been developed in response to the negative side of the global industrial food system. At present, although still a novel concept, certain aspects have reached a consensus [7]. Getz [8], who introduced the “foodshed” concept, suggested that the specific location, including both environmental as well as the social and cultural concerns in a community, would define the structure of food suppliers [9]. Feenstra [10] argued that there was a potential for the local food system to enhance the viability of farmers and local economies by developing food production rooted in particular places as well as promoting ecologically sound practices and engagements between producers and consumers. In short, increasing interaction between consumers and food producers within a defined local scope and shortening the supply chains of food [3][11][12] could overcome the negative consequences of the global industrial food system. In developing countries, the local food system includes family farms, which are classified as smallholders [13]. It is estimated that local family farms produce 80 percent of the food consumed in developing countries [14][15].
Given the influence and power of the global food system and its threat to small-scale food production, the research sought to explore how small chicken layer farms, as smallholder productions, could sustain their farms and whether they could be sustainable long-term. Although there have been theoretical constructs for a sustainable livelihood framework (SLF) [13][14][15][16][17][18][19], the focus has been on capital assets, those controlled by the smallholder, rather than the services they provide. The study extended the SLF to demonstrate the potential long-term viability of smallholders, and the viability was extended beyond both the SLF and efficiency based on an economy of scale. In particular, the study showed that the interactions between local food systems and industrial systems are complex, and some elements between the two systems could be complementary.
Thailand is a good example to illustrate the viability and sustainability of the extensive roles of large agribusinesses in the food system. On the one hand, smallholders and family farms are common in Thailand. The prevalence of smallholders has been confirmed by the high rate of employment in agriculture, currently more than 30 percent of the total labor force, of which 6.4 million are smallholder/family farms. In the northeast of Thailand, laborers employed in the agricultural sector accounted for approximately 58 percent [20] of the total labor force. On the other hand, the global industrial food system has a strong presence. Some agribusinesses are top multinational corporations, for instance, Charoen Pokphand Group (C.P. Group) and Mitr Phol Group. The coexistence of smallholder food producers and large agribusinesses, as well as a strong agricultural base [21], have promoted consecutive decades of economic growth [22][23][24]. In 2019, the total value of exported agricultural food products from Thailand was THB 1.1 trillion (approximately USD 34.46 billion), accounting for 14.45 percent of the country’s total exports [25].
A chicken layer farm was selected as eggs are a common food product across modern (global) and traditional (local) food production. The wide consumption of eggs has created a significant and consistent demand for egg production. However, the high demand also motivated large agribusinesses to invest in egg production. The local food system may not be sustainable when competing against industrial food systems.

2. Sustainability of Smallholders in the Local Food System

Avian eggs have been recognized as versatile and affordable sources of nutrients. One egg contains roughly 70 calories, 6 g of protein, several other vitamins and minerals, and no sugar. Eggs are not only a typical part of daily meals worldwide but are also used in processed food production as binders, emulsifiers, leavening agents, thickeners, and other secondary ingredients. In North America, the consumption per capita reached its height in 1945 at 402 eggs per person annually. In recent years, growing concerns regarding cholesterol intake have resulted in a drop in per capita consumption, which reached its lowest point in 1995 at 232 per person [26]. In the past decade, however, the world’s egg production has grown steadily from 61.7 million tons in 2008 to 76.7 million tons in 2018 [27]. Egg consumption can vary by region, ranging, for example, from 368 eggs per person annually in Mexico to 146 per person annually in Portugal. Dividing the gross global production of eggs by the global population yields an average of 161 eggs per person annually.
Animal husbandry contributes a significant share of emissions that have a negative impact on the global climate [28], but poultry industries release considerably fewer polluting emissions as compared to other producers. Gunnarsson et al. [29] systematically mapped the research published on farm-level sustainability in egg and chicken meat production and found that few studies had analyzed all three sustainability dimensions of poultry production. Most studies examined only one or two dimensions. Even fewer actually described the interrelated factors or discussed the possible trade-offs or synergies between different aspects of sustainability. Wegerif [30] studied food provision systems, specifically concerning egg production, in the growing urban city of Dar es Salaam in Tanzania. The study suggested that the diverse patterns in prices and accessibility of egg supplies dramatically outperformed that of large corporations that supplied retail outlets (e.g., grocery stores, supermarkets). Although this study did not detail the egg supply chain (e.g., who supplied the supplier), it did highlight that the diverse pattern of supply (e.g., small grocers, street vendors, etc.) minimized the transportation costs to consumers. Wegerif [30] also noted that the concept of a supply chain did not adequately present the diversities involved in food provisioning as the framework requires linear, rigid linking between participating actors.
There has been growing public concern over factory-farmed eggs, such as those produced by concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) where layers are raised in cages, having a negative impact on animal welfare. The cages contain from six to ten hens each and are stacked on top of each other in rows along the length of a barn with no additional space for the hens to stretch their wings. This public concern has driven food businesses, such as McDonald’s, to commit to purchasing only cage-free eggs. This has led to egg producers adopting the cageless barn concept. However, some studies have indicated that there was no difference between cage-free barns and battery cages in terms of their respective environmental impacts [31]. The emissions caused by egg production have been associated with feed and manure management practices. A study by Pelletier et al. [32] found that feed production contributed the largest share of emissions, followed by the nitrogen losses from poultry manure management. Cage-free egg production, while enhancing animal welfare, adds land-use costs that could burden consumers.
There is a paucity of research examining chicken layer farms as a local food system. Researchers have examined chicken layer farm management practices and their impacts on the climate, and they have suggested measures to limit their effects, such as measures to incentivize reducing CO2 emissions [33], as these emissions are associated with economic growth [34]. However, these studies have typically focused on large-scale commercial enterprises and overlooked small-scale family farms, likely due to their smaller contributions to economic growth. Small-scale farming in developing countries plays a key role in local food systems, often similar to that of agroecological food systems, which are more environmentally friendly than other types of production. The characteristics of agroecological food include the following: (1) minimizing the use of external resources; (2) recycling internal resources; (3) developing resilience to stress; (4) multipurposed; (5) integrated and incorporated into a more complex system; (6) contextualized; (7) more equitable; (8) nourishing [35]. However, Stein and Santini [36] suggested that the local food system could not be equated with sustainable food systems. Furthermore, since studies specifically focused on small chicken layer farms and their involvement in sustainable local food systems are rare, none were discovered as a result of the literature review parameters.
Chicken layer farms in Thailand can be classified into three groups: (1) large-scale farms (2.8 percent), (2) contract farms (55.33 percent), and (3) independent small farms (41.87 percent) (less than 50,000 hens/farm) [37]. Records of farms from government statistics in 2020 indicated that there were 135,588 chicken layer farms in Thailand, with more than 57 million hens [33]. However, these statistics included all sizes of farms, ranging from one hen to millions. Thailand’s Department of Husbandry reported a total of 2524 chicken layer farms in operation that had at least 1000 layers as of 2021, and among these, 51 farms were located in Nakhon Phanom Province. In 2019, Thailand produced 14.996 million eggs while domestic consumption was 14.728 million eggs (an average of 221 eggs/person/year) or 98.21 percent; the rest were exported [38].
Between 2014 and 2017, nearly 50 percent of domestic egg production was generated by eight agribusiness farms [39]. After the 2004 outbreak of avian influenza and several subsequent husbandry endemics, a closed-system chicken layer farm was proposed and adopted by many enterprises. Currently, the government promotes the closed-system design to prevent avian disease. Standards of practice for chicken layer farms were issued by the government to prevent diseases that can be transmitted to humans. The practice guidelines (for farms with 1000 or more hens) include the management of the following [40]: (1) farm components (e.g., farm location, farm design, etc.), (2) feed, (3) water, (4) labor, (5) animal health, (6) avian welfare, (7) product, (8) environmental, and (9) database maintenance and records.
Egg prices fluctuate considerably over time, as egg production is subject to a number of factors, including changes in temperature, poultry disease, raw materials in feed, and relevant world markets. Chicken layer farming requires substantial technological and capital investments, from animal breeding and feeds to animal medical care and maintenance. In 2018, the plummeting egg prices resulted in independent producers filing a complaint with Thailand’s Department of Livestock Development, demanding that the State intervenes regarding market prices [41]. As Thailand is a member of the WTO (World Trade Organization), the state subsidiaries have been restricted; therefore, their egg production will continue to compete with international producers who can minimize their production costs. However, ongoing health concerns have resulted in import restrictions by a number of governments.
Research into sustainable agricultural production has increased in recent decades [42][43]. Thailand’s National Research Council database on chicken egg research contains 62 published studies; however, none of them included “environment” or “sustainable” as the topics [44] and keywords. Most were concerned with improving efficiency in egg production to enhance competitiveness. Only a few studies focused on alternative feeds, particularly natural ingredients.

References

  1. Friedmann, H.; McMichael, P. Agriculture and the State System. Sociol. Rural. 1989, 29, 93–117.
  2. Deller, S.C.; Lamie, D.; Stickel, M. Local Foods Systems and Community Economic Development. Community Dev. 2017, 48, 612–638.
  3. Martinez, S.; Vogel, S.J.; Martinez, S.; Hand, M.; Da Pra, M.; Pollack, S.; Ralston, K.; Smith, T.; Vogel, S.; Clark, S.; et al. Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues; United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Economic Research Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2010; pp. 1–87.
  4. Mount, P. Growing Local Food: Scale and Local Food Systems Governance. Agric. Hum. Values 2012, 29, 107–121.
  5. Sage, C. The Interconnected Challenges for Food Security from a Food Regimes Perspective: Energy, Climate and Malconsumption. J. Rural Stud. 2013, 29, 71–80.
  6. Wang, C.K. East Asian Food Regimes: Agrarian Warriors, Edamame Beans and Spatial Topologies of Food Regimes in East Asia. Peasant Stud. 2018, 45, 739–756.
  7. Enthoven, L.; Van Den Broeck, G. Local Food Systems: Reviewing Two Decades of Research. Agric. Syst. 2021, 193, 103226.
  8. Getz, A. Urban Foodsheds. Permac. Act. 1991, 24, 26–27.
  9. Schreiber, K.; Hickey, M.G.; Metson, S.G.; Robinson, E.B.; MacDonald, K.G. Quantifying the Foodshed: A Systematic Review of Urban Food Flow and Local Food Self-Sufficiency Research. Environ. Res. Lett. 2021, 16, 023003.
  10. Feenstra, G.W. Local Food Systems and Sustainable Communities. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 1997, 12, 28–36.
  11. Kneafsey, M.; Venn, L.; Schmutz, U.; Balázs, B.; Trenchard, L.; Wood, E.T.; Bos, E.; Sutton, G.; Blackett, M. Short Food Supply Chains and Local Food Systems in the EU. A State of Play of Their Socio-Economic Characteristics; European Commission, Joint Research Centre: Sevilla, Spain, 2013; ISBN 9789279292880.
  12. Chase, L.; Grubinger, V. Food, Farms and Community: Exploring Food Systems; University of New Hampshire Press: Durham, NH, USA, 2014; ISBN 9781611684216.
  13. Groenewald, S.F.; van den Berg, M.M. Smallholder Livelihood Adaptation in the Context of Neoliberal Policy Reforms: A Case of Maize Farmers in Southern Veracruz, Mexico. J. Dev. Stud. 2012, 48, 429–444.
  14. International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). Smallholders, Food Security, and the Environment; IFAD: Rome, Italy, 2013.
  15. Ricciardi, V.; Ramankutty, N.; Mehrabi, Z.; Jarvis, L.; Chookolingo, B. How Much of the World’s Food Do Smallholders Produce? Glob. Food Sec. 2018, 17, 64–72.
  16. Ansah, E.O.; Kaplowitz, M.D.; Lupi, F.; Kerr, J.; Offei, E.; Kaplowitz, M.D.; Lupi, F.; Kerr, J. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems Smallholder Participation and Procedural Compliance with Sustainable Cocoa Certification Programs. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 2020, 44, 54–87.
  17. Rigg, J.; Salamanca, A.; Thompson, E.C.; Asia, E. The Puzzle of East and Southeast Asia’s Persistent Smallholder. J. Rural Stud. 2016, 43, 118–133.
  18. Bebbington, A. Capitals and Capabilities: A Framework for Analyzing Peasant Viability, Rural Livelihoods and Poverty. World Dev. 1999, 27, 2021–2044.
  19. Katre, A.; Bertossi, T.; Clarke-Sather, A.; Parsatoon, M. Agroecological Transition: A Territorial Examination of the Simultaneity of Limited Farmer Livelihoods and Food Insecurity. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3160.
  20. Working Conditions of the Population by Business Type in the Northeast. Available online: https://www.bot.or.th/App/BTWS_STAT/statistics/ReportPage.aspx?reportID=730&language=th (accessed on 14 March 2022).
  21. Falvey, L. Thai Agriculture: Golden Cradle of Millennia; Kasetsart University Press: Nonthaburi, Thailand, 2000; ISBN 9745538167.
  22. Thompson, E.; Rigg, J.; Gillen, J. Asian Smallholders in Comparative Perspective; Amsterdam University Press B.V.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; ISBN 9789462988170.
  23. Bernstein, H. Food Regimes and Food Regime Analysis: A Selective Survey. In Proceedings of the International Academic Conference, BRICS Initiatives for Critical Agrarian Studies (BICAS), Chiang Mai, Thailand, 5–6 June 2015.
  24. Rambo, A.T. The Agrarian Transformation in Northeastern Thailand: A Review of Recent Research. Southeast. Asian Stud. 2017, 6, 211–246.
  25. Office of the National Economic and Social Development Council. Poverty and Inequity Report 2019; Office of the Prime Minister: Bangkok, Thailand, 2020.
  26. Eggs Profile. Available online: https://www.agmrc.org/commodities-products/livestock/poultry/eggs-profile (accessed on 15 March 2022).
  27. Global Egg Production Continues to Grow. Available online: https://www.internationalegg.com/resource/global-egg-production-continues-to-grow/#:~:text=There%20is%20a%20large%20varia-tion,eggs%20per%20person%20per%20year (accessed on 18 March 2022).
  28. Garnett, T. Cooking Up a Storm: Food, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Our Changing Climate; Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey: Surrey, UK, 2008.
  29. Gunnarsson, S.; Segerkvist, K.A.; Göransson, L.; Hansson, H.; Sonesson, U. Systematic Mapping of Research on Farm-Level Sustainability in Egg and Chicken Meat Production. Environ. Rev. 2020, 12, 3033.
  30. Wegerif, M.C.A. Exploring Sustainable Urban Food Provisioning: The Case of Eggs in Dar Es Salaam. Sustainability 2014, 6, 3747–3779.
  31. The FoodPrint of Eggs: A Foodprint Report. Available online: https://foodprint.org/reports/the-foodprint-of-eggs/ (accessed on 14 March 2022).
  32. Pelletier, N.; Ibarburu, M.; Xin, H. A Carbon Footprint Analysis of Egg Production and Processing Supply Chains in the Midwestern United States. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 54, 108–114.
  33. Ioan, B.; Kumaran, R.M.; Larissa, B.; Anca, N.; Lucian, G.; Gheorghe, F.; Horia, T.; Ioan, B.; Mircea-iosif, R. A Panel Data Analysis on Sustainable Economic Growth in India, Brazil, and Romania. J. Risk Financ. Manag. 2020, 13, 170.
  34. Batrancea, I.; Batrancea, L.; Rathnaswamy, M.M.; Tulai, H. Greening the Financial System in USA, Canada and Brazil: A Panel Data Analysis. Mathematics 2020, 8, 2217.
  35. Vaarst, M.; Escudero, A.G.; Chappell, M.J.; Brinkley, C.; Nijbroek, R.; Arraes, N.A.M.; Andreasen, L.; Gattinger, A.; De Almeida, G.F.; Bossio, D.; et al. Exploring the Concept of Agroecological Food Systems in a City-Region Context. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 2018, 42, 686–711.
  36. Stein, J.A.; Santini, F. The Sustainability of “Local” Food: A Review for Policy-Makers. Rev. Agric. Food Environ. Stud. 2021, 103, 77–89.
  37. Suwanvajokkasikit Animal Research and Development. The Study and Analysis Project of Egg Production and Marketing Structure Egg Production Cost Structure: Executive Summary; Livestock Development: Nonthaburi, Thailand, 2012.
  38. Husbandry Data in 2020. Available online: http://docimage.dld.go.th/FILEROOM/CABDLD_BOOKSHELF2/DRAWER26/GENERAL/DATA0000/00000082.PDF (accessed on 13 March 2022).
  39. Kitiwong, K.; Saeliw, K. Production and Marketing of Egg in Thailand. Khon Kaen Agric. J. 2019, 47, 889–894.
  40. Good Agricultural Practices for Layer Farm. Available online: https://www.acfs.go.th/standard/download/GAP_Layer_Farm(G)_2562.pdf (accessed on 13 March 2022).
  41. Egg Price Stabilization in Thailand. Available online: http://extension.dld.go.th/th1/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&id=7&Itemid=108 (accessed on 20 April 2022).
  42. Sampantamit, T.; Ho, L.; Lachat, C.; Sutummawong, N. Aquaculture Production and Its Environmental Sustainability in Thailand: Challenges and Potential Solutions. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2010.
  43. Kasem, S.; Thapa, G.B. Sustainable Development Policies and Achievements in the Context of the Agriculture Sector in Thailand. Sustain. Dev. 2012, 20, 98–114.
  44. Digital Research Information Center. Available online: https://dric.nrct.go.th/Search/index#top (accessed on 20 March 2022).
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Development Studies
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Mukda Suwannasri
,
Buapun Promphakping
View Times: 307
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 17 Mar 2023
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Video Production Service
    Feedback