sustainability

Article
Sustainability of Smallholders in the Local Food System:
A Study of Chicken Layer Farms in Nakhon Phanom Province,
Northeast Thailand
Mukda Suwannasri 1,2, * and Buapun Promphakping 3

1 Department of Social Sciences, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Khon Kaen University,
Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand
2 Innovation for Social and Environmental Management, Mahidol University, Amnat Charoen Campus,
Amnat Charoen 37000, Thailand
3 Research Group on Wellbeing and Sustainable Development, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences,
Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand; buapun@kku.ac.th
* Correspondence: mukda.woo@mahidol.ac.th

Abstract: This study examined the viability and sustainable practices of farm management in small-
holder chicken layer farms in Nakhon Phanom Province, Thailand, and their role in the local food
system. The data for analysis were obtained through qualitative research methods, including focus
group discussions and in-depth interviews with target groups. This research found that the chicken
layer farms of Ban Klang have survived for over four decades. The viability and sustainable practices
of the farms included traditional rice farming; production practices, including barn modification and
construction using local materials; feed management; manure management; the distribution of farm
products; and the support of local consumers. This study suggested that the smallholders of chicken
layer farms in Ban Klang should develop their production according to their organic farming focus
Citation: Suwannasri, M.; while co-investing with local governments and businesses. We also recommended the promotion of
Promphakping, B. Sustainability of healthy, local food by linking production to local institutional consumption, such as school lunches,
Smallholders in the Local Food local hospitals, etc.
System: A Study of Chicken Layer
Farms in Nakhon Phanom Province, Keywords: local food system; smallholders; chicken layer farms; sustainability; Thailand
Northeast Thailand. Sustainability
2022, 14, 5997. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su14105997

Academic Editors: Rhonda G Phillips, 1. Introduction

Patsy Kraeger and Talya D. Thomas Food is vital to human life. Many advancements in food production, especially the
Received: 1 April 2022
application of modern technologies in food production, have been generated through the
Accepted: 13 May 2022
green revolution [1], and global trade has evolved into a global food system [2] that has
Published: 15 May 2022
restructured the relationships among those involved in food production, distribution, and
consumption. Theoretical speculation has suggested that the global industrial food system
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
and its inherent capital-intensive production will extinguish small-scale food production.
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
Meanwhile, there have been growing concerns regarding the negative consequences as
published maps and institutional affil-
a result of the global food system, including the erosion of ecosystems, the degradation
iations.
of critical environmental resources, employment rates, consumer safety due to chemical
applications, the effect on local economies, etc. [2–7].
In recent years, local food systems have been developed in response to the negative
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
side of the global industrial food system. At present, although still a novel concept, certain
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. aspects have reached a consensus [8]. Getz [9], who introduced the “foodshed” concept,
This article is an open access article suggested that the specific location, including both environmental as well as the social and
distributed under the terms and cultural concerns in a community, would define the structure of food suppliers [10]. Feen-
conditions of the Creative Commons stra [11] argued that there was a potential for the local food system to enhance the viability
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// of farmers and local economies by developing food production rooted in particular places
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ as well as promoting ecologically sound practices and engagements between producers and
4.0/). consumers. In short, increasing interaction between consumers and food producers within

Sustainability 2022, 14, 5997. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14105997 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, 5997 2 of 13

a defined local scope and shortening the supply chains of food [4,12,13] 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 [14]. It is
estimated that local family farms produce 80 percent of the food consumed in developing
countries [15,16].
Given the influence and power of the global food system and its threat to small-
scale food production, our 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) [14–20], the focus has been on capital assets, those controlled by the small-
holder, rather than the services they provide. Our 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, our 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 [21]
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 [22], have
promoted consecutive decades of economic growth [23–25]. 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 [26].
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. The objective of this study
was to examine these issues within their local contexts to determine what challenges small
shareholders must overcome to have substantial, long-term viability.
The next section presents a literature review, followed by a description of methods
employed to obtain the required data. The subsequent section presents the findings. The
final section summarizes the research findings.

2. Literature
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 [27]. 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 [28].
Egg consumption can vary by region, ranging, for example, from 368 eggs per person annu-
ally 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 [29], but poultry industries release considerably fewer pol-
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5997 3 of 13

luting emissions as compared to other producers. Gunnarsson et al. [30] systematically

mapped the research published on farm-level sustainability in egg and chicken meat pro-
duction 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 [31] 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 [31] 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 [32]. The emissions caused by
egg production have been associated with feed and manure management practices. A
study by Pelletier et al. [33] 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 [34], as these emissions are associated with economic
growth [35]. However, these studies have typically focused on large-scale commercial
enterprises and overlooked small-scale family farms, likely due to their smaller contribu-
tions 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 agroecolog-
ical 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) nour-
ishing [36]. However, Stein and Santini [37] 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 our 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) [38]. 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 [34]. 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
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5997 4 of 13

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 [39].
Between 2014 and 2017, nearly 50 percent of domestic egg production was generated
by eight agribusiness farms [40]. 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 [41]:
(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 capi-
tal 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 inter-
venes regarding market prices [42]. 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 [43,44].
Thailand’s National Research Council database on chicken egg research contains 62 pub-
lished studies; however, none of them included “environment” or “sustainable” as the
topics [45] and keywords. Most were concerned with improving efficiency in egg pro-
duction to enhance competitiveness. Only a few studies focused on alternative feeds,
particularly natural ingredients. Therefore, our study and analysis of egg production and
its sustainable contributions in Thailand can provide new insights.

3. Methods
To examine long-term viability and farm management when confronting stres-
sors (both from socioeconomic conditions and climate), our study adopted a qualita-
tive approach to explore the inside-out view of the target group. Rather than adapt-
ing existing structured questionnaires, we used semi-structured interviewing guides
(Supplementary Materials) that allowed interviewers to probe beyond the initial questions.
The data generated were qualitative based on the specific context.
Our data collection commenced with a community study to become acquainted with
local people. This was followed by a focus group meeting, to which eight individuals
were invited. The participants were selected based on their relevant knowledge and
their willingness to participate in the meeting. At the focus group meeting, our inquiries
focused on the history of the local community, the local socioeconomic conditions, and
issues specific to chicken layer farms. The first focus group discussion allowed us to
refine our scope and guided our construction of a semi-structured interviewing guide
(Supplementary Materials); we were also able to identify six chicken layer farms in the
local community for in-depth interviews.
During the fieldwork, we conducted data analysis to confirm our working assumptions
(e.g., farm sizes, the scope of production activities, etc.) using content analysis. The data
obtained and provisionally analyzed were verified, further analyzed, and expanded in
the second focus group meeting, comprising the same eight participants. In addition, we
re-interviewed the 6 chicken layer farms 1–2 times to deepen or clarify some points of
data. Data related to production cycles and farm practices were further triangulated among
9 chicken layer farms. In addition, interviews with local authorities were also conducted,
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5997 5 of 13

including interviewing the staff at the district husbandry office and the mayor of the Ban
Klang sub-district municipality.
The data were analyzed using content analysis [46]. This research was reviewed
and approved by the Khon Kaen University Ethics Committee in Human Research based
on the Declaration of Helsinki and the ICH Good Clinical Practice Guidelines (reference
no. HE623130, institutional review board number: IRB00008614).

4. Results
4.1. Rice-Based Chicken Layer Farmers as Local Food Producers
One distinctive feature of the chicken layer farms we studied was that they continued
to grow rice crops, even though the income was relatively low compared to chicken layer
farming. For example, those who owned rice farmlands either allowed their relatives to
farm the land, rented the land to their neighbors, or managed the rice farm themselves while
hiring laborers for production tasks. The rice yield was either consumed by their families
or sold for cash income. However, their egg production was entirely for cash income.
Two chicken layer farm owners revealed to us in interviews that:
“Egg and rice are main activities for my household. We used to plant chilies
and other vegetables for incomes, but the prices were varied, generally not good.
We turned to chicken layer farming several years ago. Although the price is not
always good, we earn money from it. Whether the price of egg is good or bad,
the debts are always with us. But I feel comfortable when I have the paddy in the
rice barn that can feed my children and grandchildren” (from the field notes of
the interview with KI).
“After returning home from abroad, I started to grow rice and vegetables such as
spring onions, chilies, and corn for one year. Vegetables were grown for income
while rice growing was both for household consumption and income. After that,
I was interested in chicken layer farming because egg is a daily food for every
local household, and chicken layer farmers were few in number. I decided to
cease vegetable growing and turned to chicken layer farming, but also continued
rice farming” (from the field notes of the interview with KI).
The maintenance of rice farming by chicken layer farmers was associated with a sense
of security and subjective wellbeing, as opposed to the economic results. As shown in
Table 1, cash income from rice represented only a small proportion of the total annual
income. In addition, income from other sources, such as from other types of agriculture,
excluding rice and eggs, off-farming activities, etc., was higher compared to the income
from rice crops. As compared to other smallholders (e.g., non-chicken-layer farmers), the
similarities included the average size of the family, the number of laborers employed, and
the percentage of total annual income from rice paddies. However, the total annual farm
income was much higher for chicken layer farms.
Four out of six chicken layer farmers that we interviewed had experienced migration
prior to engaging in chicken layer farming. For example, the 72-year-old farm owner
who had started his chicken layer farm 23 years prior had moved away from his village
before returning and starting his chicken layer farm. For the last six decades, it has been
common practice for rice farmers to migrate elsewhere in order to support their families.
Savings from migration-related earnings were then reinvested into other pursuits for
income-earning purposes. For instance, a participant reported that he went overseas for a
few years to work, and upon his return, he spent his savings from working overseas on the
construction of a barn and started his chicken layer farm.
Our focus group discussion revealed that income earnings from non-farming activities,
particularly from migration, were higher than from other agriculture on non-chicken-layer
farms. The exception was for agriculture that is highly commercialized, such as growing
vegetables. In Ban Klang, we found that a number of households cultivated spring onion
and various vegetables to sell at local markets. However, nearly all shareholders cultivated
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5997 6 of 13

rice. The continuity of rice growing was in part due to the relationship to the rice farmland,
and the rice yield provided a sense of security and viability. As mentioned previously, the
farmers felt that their rice stores ensured that their families would be fed. In addition, the
tradition of transferring land, including rice paddies, to siblings or descendants remains a
common practice in Thailand, and many rural food producers, particularly those in Ban
Klang, are rice-based producers.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the egg and non-chicken layer farms.

Chicken Layer Farms 1 Non-Chicken Layer Farms 2

Item
(Average; n = 15) (Average; n = 2225)
Size of households 3.47 3.86
(number of household members)
Number of laborers 2.87 2.01
(employed and family laborers)
Size of land for paddy 2.10 acre 3.23 acre
Size of land for chicken layer farms 0.82 acre n/a 3
Annual cash income from paddy USD 341.55 USD 357.24
(percentage of total annual income) (1.42%) (4.69%)
Annual cash income from eggs USD 19,300.86
(percentage of total annual incomes) n/a 3
(80.30%)
Annual income from other agriculture USD 506.37 USD 5066.73
(percentage of total annual incomes) (2.25%) (74.98%)
Income from non-farming activities USD 1131.44 USD 999.50
(percentage of total annual incomes) (4.71%) (14.79%)
Annual income from other sources USD 2723.16 USD 691.21
(percentage of total annual income) (11.33%) (10.23%)
USD 24,037.15 USD 6757.44
Annual total net income
(100%) (100%)
Source: 1 Authors; 2 sub-district municipal office report. 3 The data was derived from households without chicken
layer farming, the categories are not applicable. Rate of exchange USD 1.00 = THB 34.46.

4.2. Production
The diagram below shows an egg-based local food system and the production cycle
of Ban Klang chicken layer farms. Egg production in Ban Klang was influenced by three
subsystems: first, the government and relevant policies as well as the wider socioeconomic
conditions around them; second, the product demand, whether local, regional, or interna-
tional (Ban Klang is located on the border of Laos, where border trade has been promoted);
third, the available ecosystem services. While local water and air temperatures have a
significant impact on chicken layer farms, other external factors can affect them indirectly
as well, such as forest erosion as a result of growing maize, which is used for chicken
feed. These three external considerations provided additional context when examining the
local food systems surrounding chicken layer farms. The cycle of production is shown in
Figure 1.

4.2.1. Chicken Barn Construction and Preparation

The type of barn used in Ban Klang chicken layer farms has evolved over time. Early
on, at the beginning of the 1970s, farmers constructed their barns using local textiles,
especially wood and bamboo, and the thatched roofs were constructed of Cogon grass.
Each barn could house a few hundred hens. Chicken layer farmers in Ban Klang adopted
caged hens, and the cages were constructed of bamboo wood. However, managing the
cleanliness of the barn and the cages was laborious. As previously mentioned, cage-free
environments were later adopted among chicken layer farms of Ban Klang.
At the time of our study, the materials used for chicken barn construction relied
on local materials, especially Cogon grass and bamboo. The barns were cage-free and
approximately 6 m wide and 21 m long. The floor of the barn was elevated approximately
1.50 m above the ground. The floor was constructed of bamboo wood, and the width of each
 Sustainability 2022, 14, 5997 7 of 13

wood plank was approximately three centimeters, with an approximate two-centimeter

gap between each plank to allow the manure to drop to the ground. Thatched Congo grass
roofs were used to maintain cooler temperatures, particularly during the dry season. The
barn walls were composed of square wire for maximum airflow. Nests were located on
either side of the barn with a 10-degree slope, so the eggs were deposited into the egg
R PEER REVIEW 7 of 13
collector outside the barn. The farmers said that this type of barn conserved labor. For
example, the cage-free hens are fed one or two times per day, depending on the age of the
hens, as opposed to caged hens that had to be fed three times a day. Most importantly,
cage-free barns were easier to maintain and manage manure.

Figure
Figure 1. Production cycle 1. Production
of chicken cycle
layer of chicken layer farm.
farm.
A chicken barn lasted for approximately 3–4 years or two cohorts of chicken layers.
4.2.1. Chicken Barn Construction and
The construction Preparation
costs ranged between USD 203.11 and USD 290.16, or even. Each barn
could house 1000–1200 hens. In Ban Klang, the smallest farm had two barns, while the
The type of barn used
largest in Ban
farm hadKlang
eight. chicken layer farms has evolved over time. Early
on, at the beginning of the 1970s, farmers constructed their barns using local textiles, es-
4.2.2. Nursery
pecially wood and bamboo, and the thatched roofs were constructed of Cogon grass. Each
Chicken breeding requires substantial, precise technologies that are not accessible to
barn could house a few thehundred hens.layer
typical chicken Chicken layer
farmer in farmers
Ban Klang. in Banthey
Therefore, Klang
orderadopted
3–5-day-oldcaged
chicks
hens, and the cages were
from constructed
breeding farms of bamboo
in the wood.
central plain However,
of Thailand. managing
Hisex Brown is thethe cleanli-
typical breed.
At approximately 4–5 months old, the hens can lay eggs.
ness of the barn and the cages was laborious. As previously mentioned, cage-free envi- Currently, there are 16 breeding
companies in Thailand. The chicks were then vaccinated and nurtured at chicken layer
ronments were later adopted
farms untilamong
reachingchicken
maturity, layer
and thefarms of Banfarm
participating Klang.
owners were required to have
At the time of ourthestudy,
necessarythe materials
experience andused for chicken
knowledge to care forbarn
them. construction reliedoffice,
The district agricultural on
breeders, and related businesses may also provide assistance.
local materials, especially Cogon grass and bamboo. The barns were cage-free and ap-
proximately 6 m wide4.2.3.
andFeeds
21 m long. The floor of the barn was elevated approximately
1.50 m above the ground.Two Thetypes
floor
of was
feeds constructed
were used by the of chicken
bamboo wood,
layer farms and
in ourthe width
study. The of
first
was a concentrated feed supplied by an animal feed
each wood plank was approximately three centimeters, with an approximate two-centi- business. Concentrated feeds were
mixed with feed blends supplied by a cooperative mill, and the ratios between feeds varied
meter gap between each betweenplank to allow
individual farms. the manure to drop to the ground. Thatched
Congo grass roofs were used to maintain cooler temperatures, particularly during the dry
season. The barn walls were composed of square wire for maximum airflow. Nests were
located on either side of the barn with a 10-degree slope, so the eggs were deposited into
the egg collector outside the barn. The farmers said that this type of barn conserved labor.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5997 8 of 13

The second was a mixed feed. The raw materials used to produce chicken feed
included maize, soybean meal, crushed acacia, fish meal, crushed shellfish, and di-calcium.
In 1999, chicken layer farmers in Ban Klang formed a cooperative to manage and provide
raw feed materials. The cooperative mill produces semi-completed feeds to sell to its
members. At the time of our study, all the materials were supplied by the cooperative.
Considering the size of the farms, the labor demand was relatively small, with many
of the farms employing family laborers. Some farms hired additional laborers for daily
feeding for 1–2 h per day. Machines were also part of the feeding process, including a
feed-mixer. Feeding, cleaning, and egg collection were performed by household laborers.
A daily schedule for chicken layer farms in Ban Klang is as follows:
1. Feed is prepared between 0500 and 0600 h. Chicken barns are cleaned while the
chicken feed is mixed. Between 0600 and 0700 h, laborers feed the hens using feed
trays. Between 0800 and 0900 h, eggs are collected.
2. Between 0900 and 1600 h, eggs are cleaned, sorted by size, and packaged. Family
laborers repair the barn, vaccinate the animals, and perform other daily activities.
3. Between 1600 and 1700 h, the chickens are fed, and eggs are once again collected.
According to a chicken layer farmer that we interviewed:
“Chicken layer farming requires full-time working all day. I cannot stop working
because chickens need to be fed every day. Even when I need medication, I have
to go to the private clinic because going to the public hospital is time-consuming.
Raising chickens is full-time, strenuous works”, according to field notes of the
interview with KI.
The strenuous labor of cultivating rice or vegetables is primarily during the growing
and harvesting periods. In contrast, chicken layer farming requires daily labor all year,
typically performed by household laborers.

4.2.4. Preventive Measures for Disease Transmission

After the avian influenza outbreak in 2004, the Thailand government adopted mea-
sures to prevent the spread of disease among animals as well as the transmission of disease
from birds to humans. During this period, chicken layer farmers were negatively impacted
as hens had to be incinerated and buried, though the government later compensated the
farmers for their losses. Currently, Thailand’s Department of Husbandry has issued a
decree specifying that if the avian influenza was discovered on a farm, all hens would
be destroyed, and chemical disinfectant would be required in order to reduce the risk
of contagion.
Though vaccination programs do not prevent avian influenza, healthy hens are less
likely to be infected. The current vaccination schedule includes the following: (1) infectious
bronchitis, Newcastle disease, and Gumboro disease at the age of 5–7 days; (2) fowl pox at
21 days; (3) booster for infectious bronchitis, Newcastle disease, and Gumboro disease at
1 month; (4) water-diluted booster for infectious bronchitis; (5) universal vaccination for all
diseases every 1.5–2 months until the termination of the hen.
As described in the Introduction Section, the Department of Husbandry established
standard guidelines for chicken layer farms with 1000 or more hens in 2021. In addition, a
district husbandry officer provided the guidelines for farm owners to prevent the spread
of disease, including: (1) chemical disinfection to control the germination of disease;
(2) chemical disinfection of all vehicles entering the farm; (3) installation of a sterilizing tank;
(4) all feed, packaging, and containers should remain on the farm property; (5) separation
and treatment of sick chickens away from the healthy population; (6) incineration and/or
burial of chickens that died of illness; (7) establishment of sanitation protocols for laborers
working at more than one farm per day (e.g., must shower and change clothing between
farms); (8) random inspections by a local husbandry officer to ensure the farm is free
from disease.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5997 9 of 13

4.2.5. Manure Management

The chicken barns were elevated approximately 1–1.50 m above the ground. This
allowed the manure to collect underneath while promoting airflow to disperse the resultant
ammonia and methane gases. The manure was collected once annually and sold as a natural
fertilizer. Laborers loaded the manure into sacks, each of which weighed approximately
25 kg, and each barn produced approximately 40–60 sacks of dried manure (1000–1500 kg).
At the time of our study, one sack of manure cost THB 30, indicating that chicken layer
farmers earned little income from selling manure. However, the practice conserved labor,
managed manure levels, and provided a sustainable, environmentally friendly alternative
to chemical fertilizers.

4.2.6. Outputs
The eggs that are collected daily from farms are sorted by size, the premium (the
largest), the medium, and the smallest, and mixed. From our in-depth interviews of
six farms, there are altogether 28,000 standing layers, with the total egg products of
5,365,500 eggs per year. This means that one standing layer produces 191.63 eggs per year.
All six farms employed 25 laborers; half of these were part-time (piece-based) employed.
Our calculation suggests that a farm with the size of three barns—the average size of farms
in Ban Klang, would require three full-time employed laborers. On this basis, one full-time
employed laborer produces 298,083.33 eggs per year. The annual investment costs from
our records of six farms are THB 6,132,000 or, on average, THB 1,022,000 per farm. Our
estimation shows that the net income of chicken layer farms is THB 354,666.67 (approx.
USD 10,000) per year, or THB 85,120 per head per year (the average size of a household is
4.17 persons). The annual income per head of the chicken layer farm is slightly over the
GPP (Gross Provincial Product Per Capita) of Nakhon Phanom Province, which stood at
THB 74,000 in 2020.

4.3. Distribution of Farm Products

While the egg production in Ban Klang was dependent on larger agribusiness produc-
tion, it was independent in terms of distributing its farm products. We found fresh egg
products at local markets, both in Nakhon Phanom Province and the surrounding area.
Locally, in old provincial and district towns, one or two fresh food markets (some-
times referred to as “wet markets”) could serve the entire area. In sprawling suburban
and growing urban communities, however, fresh food markets have gained increasing
popularity. These markets vary in size and offerings, from less than a hundred stalls in
small markets to several hundred in large markets near urban centers. In addition to the
fresh food markets, grocers are found along the roadside or on street corners, selling fresh
food to consumers. While supermarkets and convenient stores have been established in
provincial, district, and sub-district towns, local eggs produced by Ban Klang chicken layer
farms were only supplied to fresh food markets and small grocers.
The distribution of Ban Klang chicken layer farm eggs was classified into three types:
• On-farm sales. All chicken layer farms sold their products at their farms to neighbors
and local grocers who would visit from up to 15 km away. In addition, small farms
could opt to sell their products to larger farms, who would then be responsible
for transportation, often via “pick-up” trucks. A few small mobile egg traders used
tricycles to transport eggs from the farms to the surrounding villages and local markets.
• Wholesale outlets. The eggs were supplied to food stalls in fresh food markets, grocers,
restaurants, etc. This market channel required a means of transporting the eggs and
relied primarily on each farm’s network. The benefit of this arrangement was that the
process (e.g., orders, payments, etc.) could be customized, and the local wholesale
businesses could expect regular supplies of fresh eggs.
• Fresh food markets. In our research, we discovered that Ban Klang farmers sold their
eggs at two nearby markets. Most buyers were grocers or wholesale business owners
from Laos, who bought substantial amounts of eggs for transport. There were also
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5997 10 of 13

periodic “border markets”, where traders from either side of the countries’ border
transported products to a pre-determined location. However, the COVID-19 pandemic
halted this practice when country borders were closed. However, periodic markets are
commonly found in and around rural areas.

4.4. Localness
Given the competition of large agribusiness chicken layer farms, the recognition of
eggs from Ban Klang could be critical. Normally, general consumers cannot distinguish the
origin of eggs according to their physical appearances. However, a food stall owner in a
Ban Klang fresh food market revealed to us in an interview that she had received supplies
of eggs from both agribusinesses and Ban Klang chicken layer farms. She was able to
determine the sources of the eggs: the eggshell colors of the agribusiness eggs were darker
and their yolks paler. She reported that some customers had recognized the differences
as well. The retail price of eggs from Ban Klang was also higher. Some consumers were
seeking eggs from Ban Klang.
“Eggs from Ban Klang are still in demand for certain groups of customers, espe-
cially in middle-class people such as civil servants, health lovers, and the owners
of Thai dessert and bakery shops. These customers prefer eggs from Ban Klang, so
I serve them. Eggs of Ban Klang have a better color and are better for desserts and
bakeries”, according to the field notes from the interview with a food stall owner.
The decision for most egg consumers was based on the price, however. Some retailers
mixed eggs from both sources in order to equalize egg prices.
Farm-to-table distribution could be a promising option for some chicken layer farmers.
One farm owner expressed:
“For my farm, I decided to sell the eggs to the consumers myself. Selling eggs by
myself allows me to build regular customers. These customers buy eggs from me
because the good and reliable quality, and the customers prefer freshness. With
the increase in regular, local customers recognizing that eggs are local products
of Ban Klang, I feel confident that I will be able to survive”, according to the field
notes of the interview with KI.

5. Conclusions
The long history of chicken layer farms in Ban Klang indicated the ability of farmers
to adapt to dynamic socioeconomic conditions, market variations, and external influences
(e.g., new policies and legislations). The viability of these farms has been promoted via rice
farming, farm management, the distribution of farm products, and the support of the local
community and consumers. The viability of the small chicken layer farms in Ban Klang has
also been affected by their interactions with large agribusinesses (i.e., the chicken breeds,
the concentrated feeds, vaccinations). While these smallholders have struggled to maintain
their independence, commercial and industrialized production has provided unexpected
benefits and opportunities for smallholders.
The production practices of Ban Klang chicken layer farms were unique and have
evolved as a result of environmental, social, and cultural sustainability in a number of
aspects. Small chicken layer farmers located outside of Ban Klang should consider adopting
some of their practices, such as using local materials for barn construction, cage-free barn
design with natural airflow, cooperative feed solutions to reduce costs and dangerous
emissions, etc.
Ban Klang chicken layer farmers should also consider changes to their current practices,
particularly those that are expensive or not environmentally sound. Maize grown in
northern mountainous zones has caused forest degradation and the collapse of ecosystem
services, and the fish meal and crushed shellfish used in their feed blend have to be
transported across a significant distance. The feed cooperative should develop alternative
feed blends while considering sustainable, green practices and adaptations.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5997 11 of 13

Although the chicken layer farms of Ban Klang provided few local employment
opportunities, they were well-integrated into the local fresh food network. Therefore, Ban
Klang chicken layer farms indirectly generated further employment opportunities via their
supply points, such as food stalls, grocers, mobile egg sellers, and regional wholesale. In
addition to enhancing the local economy, chicken layer farms and local food retailers can
ensure food access and security for their local community.
Finally, we recommend two practical suggestions from our study. Since chicken layer
farms have adapted and evolved despite their setbacks, such as avian influenza and the
financial crisis, their persistence indicates they may be joining an agricultural niche, such
as organic farming. During our discussions with participants, some mentioned organic
farming, but there were technical limitations preventing them from adopting more organic
practices. The size of the farms in Ban Klang could permit further developments for organic
farming. In addition, the efforts to manage the feeds via a cooperative could lead to
developing alternative, organic feeds. We recommend that government agencies and local
businesses engage with local farmers to pilot an organic approach to chicken layer farming.
Secondly, local products were popular in and around Ban Klang, which benefited both
the community and the shareholders. We recommend promoting the health benefits of
local products. One approach would be to monitor and ensure the production process and
limit any risks to consumer health while ensuring that these observations were visible to
consumers. In addition, the local producers could promote “institutional consumption”,
such as hospital cafeterias, school lunches, food for monks, etc. With the support of local
governments and policy makers, local food producers could expand their markets into
these institutions and provide healthy, local nourishment for their populations.

Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://
www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su14105997/s1, Semi-Structured Interview Guides.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, B.P. and M.S.; structure of the manuscript and analysis,
B.P. and M.S.; writing—original draft, B.P.; writing—review and editing, M.S. and B.P. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Thailand Science Research and Innovation (TSRI) and Khon
Kean University, grant number RSA6280099, and the article processing charges (APC) were funded
by Mahidol University, Thailand.
Institutional Review Board Statement: This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration
of Helsinki and approved by the Khon Kaen University Ethics Committee in Human Research based
on the Declaration of Helsinki and the ICH Good Clinical Practice Guideline, and it was approved on
19 January 2020, for studies involving humans (reference no. HE623130, institutional review board
number: IRB00008614).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The sponsor had no role in the
design of the study; in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data; in the writing of the
manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References
1. Holt-Giménez, E.; Altieri, M.A. Agroecology, Food Sovereignty, and the New Green Revolution. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 2013,
37, 90–102. [CrossRef]
2. Friedmann, H.; McMichael, P. Agriculture and the State System. Sociol. Rural. 1989, 29, 93–117. [CrossRef]
3. Deller, S.C.; Lamie, D.; Stickel, M. Local Foods Systems and Community Economic Development. Community Dev. 2017, 48,
612–638. [CrossRef]
4. 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.
5. Mount, P. Growing Local Food: Scale and Local Food Systems Governance. Agric. Hum. Values 2012, 29, 107–121. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5997 12 of 13

6. Sage, C. The Interconnected Challenges for Food Security from a Food Regimes Perspective: Energy, Climate and Malconsumption.
J. Rural Stud. 2013, 29, 71–80. [CrossRef]
7. 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. [CrossRef]
8. Enthoven, L.; Van Den Broeck, G. Local Food Systems: Reviewing Two Decades of Research. Agric. Syst. 2021, 193, 103226.
[CrossRef]
9. Getz, A. Urban Foodsheds. Permac. Act. 1991, 24, 26–27.
10. 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. [CrossRef]
11. Feenstra, G.W. Local Food Systems and Sustainable Communities. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 1997, 12, 28–36. [CrossRef]
12. 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.
13. Chase, L.; Grubinger, V. Food, Farms and Community: Exploring Food Systems; University of New Hampshire Press: Durham, NH,
USA, 2014; ISBN 9781611684216.
14. 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. [CrossRef]
15. International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). Smallholders, Food Security, and the Environment; IFAD: Rome, Italy, 2013.
16. 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. [CrossRef]
17. 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. [CrossRef]
18. 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. [CrossRef]
19. Bebbington, A. Capitals and Capabilities: A Framework for Analyzing Peasant Viability, Rural Livelihoods and Poverty. World Dev.
1999, 27, 2021–2044. [CrossRef]
20. 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. [CrossRef]
21. 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).
22. Falvey, L. Thai Agriculture: Golden Cradle of Millennia; Kasetsart University Press: Nonthaburi, Thailand, 2000; ISBN 9745538167.
23. Thompson, E.; Rigg, J.; Gillen, J. Asian Smallholders in Comparative Perspective; Amsterdam University Press B.V.:
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; ISBN 9789462988170.
24. 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.
25. Rambo, A.T. The Agrarian Transformation in Northeastern Thailand: A Review of Recent Research. Southeast. Asian Stud. 2017, 6,
211–246. [CrossRef]
26. Office of the National Economic and Social Development Council. Poverty and Inequity Report 2019; Office of the Prime Minister:
Bangkok, Thailand, 2020.
27. Eggs Profile. Available online: https://www.agmrc.org/commodities-products/livestock/poultry/eggs-profile (accessed on
15 March 2022).
28. 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).
29. Garnett, T. Cooking Up a Storm: Food, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Our Changing Climate; Centre for Environmental Strategy,
University of Surrey: Surrey, UK, 2008.
30. 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. [CrossRef]
31. Wegerif, M.C.A. Exploring Sustainable Urban Food Provisioning: The Case of Eggs in Dar Es Salaam. Sustainability 2014, 6,
3747–3779. [CrossRef]
32. The FoodPrint of Eggs: A Foodprint Report. Available online: https://foodprint.org/reports/the-foodprint-of-eggs/
(accessed on 14 March 2022).
33. 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. [CrossRef]
34. 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. [CrossRef]
35. 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. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5997 13 of 13

36. 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. [CrossRef]
37. Stein, J.A.; Santini, F. The Sustainability of “Local” Food: A Review for Policy-Makers. Rev. Agric. Food Environ. Stud. 2021, 103,
77–89. [CrossRef]
38. 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.
39. Husbandry Data in 2020. Available online: http://docimage.dld.go.th/FILEROOM/CABDLD_BOOKSHELF2/DRAWER26/
GENERAL/DATA0000/00000082.PDF (accessed on 13 March 2022).
40. Kitiwong, K.; Saeliw, K. Production and Marketing of Egg in Thailand. Khon Kaen Agric. J. 2019, 47, 889–894.
41. 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).
42. 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).
43. Sampantamit, T.; Ho, L.; Lachat, C.; Sutummawong, N. Aquaculture Production and Its Environmental Sustainability in Thailand:
Challenges and Potential Solutions. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2010. [CrossRef]
44. 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. [CrossRef]
45. Digital Research Information Center. Available online: https://dric.nrct.go.th/Search/index#top (accessed on 20 March 2022).
46. Hsieh, F.H.; Shannon, E. Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qual. Health Res. 2014, 15, 1277–1288. [CrossRef]