Sense and Non-Sense of Local–Global Food Chain Comparison, Empirical Evidence from Dutch and Italian Pork Case Studies
2. Methods and Materials
- Dutch Good Farming Global Pork (GFGP) is a chain of the company VION that is owned by a regional farmer’s organization, but knows, a strongly globally oriented corporate business strategy with market outlets in Europe, Asia and America, by applying so-called “nose-to-tail” marketing strategies. About half of the Dutch pigs are slaughtered by VION (i.e., approximately six million pigs). GFGP may be considered as representing the more mainstream bulk, that is primarily price-based competing pork production and thus as a point of reference for the other two Dutch pork chains: KDV and Lupine Pork.
- Dutch “Keten Duurzame Varkenshouderij” (KDV) or Sustainable Pork Chain concerns a farmers-led re-localization attempt with the objective to improve, compared to the Dutch mainstream production, national pork chain performances, to enhance animal welfare and environmental sustainability, although still largely interwoven with especially global feed markets. KDV produces about one million pigs a year.
- Dutch Lupine Pork (LP) chain involves another farmers-led, smaller-scale and early-life cycle initiative with the intention to re-create distinctive pork qualities based on local feed sourcing (lupine from the own arable land) and a return to taste as an additional distinctive quality. The development of new animal friendly stable and the conversion of manure into energy are also part of the initiative. Simultaneously, it is strongly inspired by global knowledge and information sourcing on how to sustain pork production and consumption and embedded in other, more global market dependent arable farming activities (feed and arable products that can be used for energy production by means of fermentation). LP is an initiative of one farmer (with about 2500 pigs), but is not “place-specific” and could be used elsewhere as well.
- Italian Parma Ham (PH) chain is the icon of the historically and territorially distinctiveness of ham production in this same Parma province and the rest of Northern Italy, although nowadays with a global reputation and global market outlets. This geographical indication benefits from the EU protected designation of origin (PDO) scheme . Only three breeds of pigs can be used for Parma Ham: Large White, Landrace and Duroc. The Parma Ham pigs are fed with cereal grains and, in some local cases, whey from the production of Parmigiano-Reggiano PDO and Grana Padano PDO cheeses. The 150 processing companies have produced 9,087,000 branded hams in 2013.
- Italian Generic Cured ham (GCH) is characterized by an international sourcing of raw material (fresh hams from the Netherlands and other EU Member States) but builds at the same on a strongly historically and territorially rooted pork processing infrastructure, competences, reputation and skills in the Parma province. An estimated 15 million non-PDO hams were produced in 2009 within the same territory of the Parma Ham . Many of the PDO Parma Ham producing companies also produce non-PDO hams (GCH) [28,29,30].
- Italian Ham from Cinta Senese PDO meat (CSH) chain concerns another, smaller scale example of territorial rooted product distinctiveness (the production area is located in Tuscany), this time also based on a traditional local pig breed (Cinta Senese) and with predominantly local and regional input and output markets, although increasingly incorporated in a global niche market for quality ham and in globalizing tourism markets . Cinta Senese fresh meat is protected by a PDO regulating the breed and its farming systems, included feed. About 1000 CS sows are registered in the Herd Book.
3.1. Differentiating Local–Global Interaction Patterns
3.1.1. Hybridization Processes
3.1.2. Distantiation Processes
3.1.3. Transformation Processes
3.1.4. Appropriation Processes
3.2. Place Specific Performance Differences
3.2.1. Resource Use Efficiency
- Dutch more local pork chains show relatively good performances in terms of resource-use efficiency per production volume (more specifically kg carcass). LP scores best on all five impact categories assessed. Its better scores on land use, global warming potential, fossil energy use and land use mainly results from local feed production and to a lesser extent from the use of on-farm-produced biofuel.
- The higher global warming impact of Italian local pork chains reflects their longer breeding periods (nine and 15 months compared to six months in the Dutch cases). CSH uses more land and is closely interwoven with producing pork in marginal forest areas as part of their wider ecosystem management.
3.2.2. Added Value
3.2.3. Chain Governance
4. Discussion: Methodological Intricacies of Chain Based Performance Comparison
- “Local” and “Global” are relative and relational notions that become especially meaningful in their mutual interrelations and interdependencies.
- The interrelations between local versus global pork chains are dynamic, multi-facetted and place-specific.
- Pork chain actors are often involved in multiple chains, making it impossible to assess chain performances in isolation.
- Stakeholder opinions about pork chain performances vary according to sustainability views.
- Pork chain relations are extremely difficult to unravel at the level of concrete products.
- Relations between actors might lack sufficient continuity to speak of chain-based relations.
- Pork chain performances may be intrinsically interwoven with complementary activities (e.g., waste-flow valorization, off-farm income activities; product quality differentiation activities, etcetera).
- Pork chain performances are to different degrees influenced and mitigated by territory specific regulatory frameworks.
- Meaningful performance attributes will vary according to contextual differences which restricts the opportunity for chain based-comparison.
- Intra-chain variability might be of more significance than the differences between chains and—both in local and global chains—there often is a wide “performance gap” between the actual and optimal performance.
- Comparison between local and global chains might hide from view (potential) synergetic advantages of the existence of a diversity of chains for the food system as a whole.
Conflicts of Interest
Cinta Senese Ham
Global–Local Food Chain Assessment: a Multidimensional Performance based Approach
Generic Cured Ham
Global Farming Good Pork
Keten Duurzame Varkenshouderij
Product of Designated Origin
- Dupuis, E.M.; Goodman, D. Should we go ‘home’ to eat? : Toward a reflexive politics of localism. J. Rural Stud. 2009, 21, 359–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feagan, R. The place of food: Mapping out the ‘local’ in local food systems. Progr. Hum. Geogr. 2007, 31, 23–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neilson, J.; Pritchard, B. Fairness and ethicality in their place: The regional dynamics of fair trade and ethical sourcing agendas in the plantation districts of South India. Environ. Plan. A 2010, 42, 1833–1851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tregear, A. Progressing knowledge in alternative and local food networks: Critical reflections and a research agenda. J. Rural Stud. 2011, 27, 419–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilson, G.A.; Whitehead, I. Local rural products as a ‘relic’ spatial strategy in globalised rural spaces: Evidence from Country Clare. J. Rural Stud. 2012, 28, 199–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Watts, D.C.H.; Ilberry, B.; May, D. Making reconnections in agro-food geography: Alternative systems of food provision. Progr. Hum. Geogr. 2005, 29, 22–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spaargaren, G.; Oosterveer., P.; Loeber, A. Food Practices in Transition, Changing Food Consumption, Retail and Production in the Age of Reflexive Modernity; Routledge: London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Fuchs, D.; Kalfigianni, A.; Havinga, T. Actors in private food governance: the legitimacy of retail standards and multi-stakeholder initiatives with civil society participation. Agri. Hum. Values 2011, 28, 353–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van der Ploeg, J.D.; Long, A.; Banks, J. Living Countrysides; Rural Development Processes in Europe: The State of the Art; Elsevier: Doetinchem, Germany, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Van der Ploeg, J.D.; Renting, H. ‘Behind the redux’: A rejoinder to David Goodman’. Sociol. Rural. 2004, 44, 231–242. [Google Scholar]
- Renting, H.; Marsden, T.; Banks, J. Understanding alternative food networks: Exploring the role of short food supply chains. Environ. Plan. 2003, 35, 393–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goodman, D. Rural Europe Redux? Reflections on Alternative Agro-Food Networks and Paradigm Change. Sociol. Rural. 2004, 44, 3–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Winter, M. Embeddedness, the new food economy and defensive localism. J. Rural Stud. 2003, 19, 23–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vandecandelaere, E.; Arfini, F.; Belletti, G.; Marescotti, A. Linking People, Place and Products. A Guide for Promoting Quality Linked to Geographical Origin and Sustainable Geographical Indications; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2010; pp. 1–220. [Google Scholar]
- Tregear, A.; Arfini, F.; Belletti, G.; Marescotti, A. “Regional foods and rural development: the role of product qualification”. J. Rural Stud. 2007, 23, 12–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sforzi, F.; Mancini, M.C. The Reinterpretation of the Agri-Food System and Its Spatial Dynamics through the Industrial District. Agr. Econ. Zemědělská ekon. 2012, 58, 510–519. [Google Scholar]
- Slee, B.; Kirwan, J. Exploring hybridity in food supply chains. In International Marketing And Trade Of Quality Food Products; Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Roep, D.; Wiskerke, J.S.C. Nourishing Networks, Fourteen Lessons about Creating Sustainable Food Supply Chains; Reed Business Information: Doetinchem, Germany, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Amin, A. Regions unbound: Towards new politics of place. Geogr. Ann. 2007, 86, 33–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Escobar, A. Culture sits in places: Reflections on globalism and subaltern strategies of localization. Polit. Geogr. 2001, 20, 139–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Massey, D. Geographies of responsibility. Geogr. Ann. B Hum. Geogr. 2004, 86, 5–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pierce, J.; Martin, D.G.; Murphy, J.T. Relational place-making: The networked politics of place. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 2010, 36, 54–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brunori, G.; Galli, F.; Barjolle, D.; Van Broekhuizen, R.; Colombo, L.; Giampietro, M.; Kirwan, J.; Lang, T.; Mathijs, E.; Maye, D.; et al. Are local food chains more sustainable than global food chains? Considerations for assessment. Sustainability 2016. in process. [Google Scholar]
- Kirwan, J.; Maye, D.; Bundhoo, D.; Keech, D.; Brunori, G. GLAMUR WP2-Scoping/Framing General Comparative Report on Food Chain Performance (Deliverable 2.3); Countryside and Community Research Institute, University of Gloucestershire: Cheltenham, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Oostindie, H.; Horlings, I.; Van Broekhuizen, R.; Hees, E. GLAMUR Case-Study Report: The Comparison of Three Dutch Pork Cases (Tasks 3.5). Available online: http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/492229 (accessed on 21 March 2016).
- De Roest, K.; Pignedoli, S.; Belletti, G.; Menozzi, D.; Arfini, F. Italian Case Study: Local and Global Cured Ham Chains (Task 3.5). Available online: http://glamur.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/glamur-wp3-italy-ham-3-cases.pdf (accessed on 21 March 2016).
- Mancini, M.C. Protected Designation of Origin: An instrument of consumer protection? The case of Parma Ham. Progr. Nut. 2012, 14, 161–176. [Google Scholar]
- Giacomini, C.; Arfini, F.; Menozzi, D. Processes of Qualification and Spillovers: The Case of Prosciutto di Parma Pdo. QA Riv. dell’Associazione Ross. Doria 2010, 3, 55–80. [Google Scholar]
- Dentoni, D.; Menozzi, D.; Capelli, M.G. Group heterogeneity and cooperation on the geographical indication regulation: The case of the “Prosciutto di Parma” Consortium. Food Pol. 2012, 37, 207–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Reilly, S.; Haines, M.; Arfini, F. Food SME networks: Process and governance. The case of Parma ham. J. Chain Netw. Sci. 2003, 3, 21–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Franci, O.; Crovetti, A.; Esposito, S.; Sirtori, F. La realtà della Cinta Senese. In Il progetto europeo QUBIC attualità e prospettive della razza suina Cinta Senese; Toscana, R., Ed.; Pacini Editore: Pisa, Italy, 2011; pp. 21–48. (In Italian) [Google Scholar]
- De Roest, K.; Belletti, G.; Arfini, F.; Menozzi, D.; Oostindië, H.A.; van Broekhuizen, R.E.; Hees, E. Comparative Analysis of Pork Supply Chains in Italy and the Netherlands. Available online: http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/492230 (accessed on 21 March 2016).
- Roep, D.; Wiskerke, J.S.C. On Governance, Embedding and Marketing: Reflections on the Construction of Alternative Sustainable Food Networks. J. Agr. Environ. Ethics 2003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wiskerke, J.S.C.; van der Ploeg, J.D. Seeds of Transition. In Essays on Novelty Production, Niches and Regimes in Agriculture; Van Gorcum Ltd.: Assen, The Netherland, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Gereffi, G.; Humphrey, J.; Sturgeon, T. The governance of global value chains. Rev. Int. Polit. Econ. 2005, 12, 78–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bristow, G. Resilient regions: Re-‘place’ing regional competiveness. Camb. J. Regions Econo. Soc. 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Darnhofer, I. Strategies of Family Farms to Strengthen their Resilience. Environ. Pol. Gov. 2010, 20, 212–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Folke, C.; Carpenter, S.R.; Walker, B.; Scheffer, M.; Chapin, T.; Rockstrom, J. Resilience Thinking: Integrating Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability. Ecol. Soc. 2010, 15, 20. [Google Scholar]
- Franklin, A.; Newton, J.; McEntee, J.C. Moving beyond the alternative: Sustainable communities, rural resilience and the mainstreaming of local food. Local Environ. 2011, 16, 771–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- King, C.A. Community Resilience and Contemporary Agri-Ecological Systems: Re-connecting People and Food, and People with People. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 2008, 25, 111–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christopher, M.; Peck, H. Building the resilient supply chain. Int. J. Logis. Manag. 2004, 15, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Van der Ploeg, J.D.; Jingzhong, Y.; Schneider, S. Rural development through the construction of nested rural markets: Comparative perspectives from China, Brazil and the European Union. J. Peasants Stud. 2012, 39, 133–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rougoor, C.; Elferink, E.; Lap, T.; Balkema, A. LCA of Dutch pork, Assessment of Three Pork Production Systems in the Netherlands; Claims and Litigation Management Alliance (CLM): Plantation, FL, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Candel, J.J.; Breeman, G.E.; Stiller, S.J.; Termeer, C.J. Disentangling the consensus frame of food security: The case of the EU Common Agricultural Policy Reform debate. Food Pol. 2014, 44, 47–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garnett, T.; Godfray, H.C. Sustainable Intensification in Agriculture, Navigating a Course through Competing Food System Priorities. Available online: http://futureoffood.ox.ac.uk/sites/futureoffood.ox.ac.uk/files/SI%20report%20-%20final.pdf (accessed on 24 March 2016).
- Ingram, J.S.; Wright, H.L.; Foster, L.; Aldred, T.; Barling, D.; Benton, T.G.; Buttriss, J. Priority research questions for the UK food system. Food Secur. 2013, 5, 617–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Lang, T.; Barling, D. Food security and food sustainability: Reformulating the debate. Geogr. J. 2012, 178, 313–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DeLanda, M. A New Philosophy of Society: A New Philosophy of Society; Continuum: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Woods, M. Territorialisation and the assemblage of rural place: Examples from Canada and New Zealand. In Cultural Sustainability and Regional Development: Theories and Practices of Territorialisation; Dessein, J., Battaglini, E., Horlings, L., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Srnick, N. Assemblage Theory, Complexity and Contentious Politics. The Political Ontology of Gilles Deleuze. Ph.D.’s Thesis, University of Western Ontario, London, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
|Resource-use efficiency||Water use efficiency|
|Added Value||Added Value per kg life weight|
|Added Value per kg of cured ham|
|Negative Externalities for own rural economies|
|Positive Externalities for own rural economies|
|Chain Governance||Trust-based internal relations|
|Trust-based external relations|
|Chain-based value governance|
|Resilience||Farm-level resistance against price-volatility|
|Adaptation capacity of farmers through down- and upstream actors cooperation, integration and diversification strategies|
|Intra diversity of chain relations|
|Chain-based adaptation capacity through learning and innovation|
|Added value*||Average off-farm prices minus non-factor costs over the period 2009–2013 per kg live weight 1||€/kg||0.18||0.23 2||p.m.||0.18||0.26||1.69|
|Added Value**||Average sales price of cured ham minus non-factor costs per kg uncured ham||€/kg||-||-||-||0.28||0.42||27.9|
|Water Use efficiency***||Use of water in the total chain per kg carcass weight||m3/kg||3.24||2.66||1.92||3.24||2.71||2.45|
|Idem per € Added Value||m3/€AV||18.00||18.00||10.42||1.45|
|Fossil energy use***||Use of direct and indirect fossil energy in the total chain per kg carcass weight 3||MJ/kg||23.5||23.3||13.2||23.5||27.8||27.7|
|Idem per € Added Value||Mj/€AV||130.6||130.6||106.9||16.4|
|Land use efficiency***||Use of land in the total chain per kg carcass weight||m2/kg||6.52||5.25||4.24||6.52||6.13||11.48|
|idem per € Added Value||m2/€AV||36.33||36.22||23.58||6.79|
|Eutrophication potential***||Total contribution to eutrophication in PO4-equivalents per kg carcass weight||kg/kg||0.0311||0.026||0.0184||0.0311||0.0349||0.0360|
|Idem per € Added Value||kg/€AV||0.1728||0.1728||0.1342||0.0213|
|GHG emissions***||Total emissions of greenhouse gasses in the chain expressed in CO2-eq. per kg carcass weight||kg/kg||2.86||2.78||2.04||2.86||5.05||4.63|
|Idem per € Added Value||kg/€AV||15.89||15.89||19.42||2.74|
© 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons by Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Oostindie, H.; Van Broekhuizen, R.; De Roest, K.; Belletti, G.; Arfini, F.; Menozzi, D.; Hees, E. Sense and Non-Sense of Local–Global Food Chain Comparison, Empirical Evidence from Dutch and Italian Pork Case Studies. Sustainability 2016, 8, 319. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8040319
Oostindie H, Van Broekhuizen R, De Roest K, Belletti G, Arfini F, Menozzi D, Hees E. Sense and Non-Sense of Local–Global Food Chain Comparison, Empirical Evidence from Dutch and Italian Pork Case Studies. Sustainability. 2016; 8(4):319. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8040319Chicago/Turabian Style
Oostindie, Henk, Rudolf Van Broekhuizen, Kees De Roest, Giovanni Belletti, Filippo Arfini, Davide Menozzi, and Eric Hees. 2016. "Sense and Non-Sense of Local–Global Food Chain Comparison, Empirical Evidence from Dutch and Italian Pork Case Studies" Sustainability 8, no. 4: 319. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8040319