Busch, Gesa

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","104251"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Livestock Science"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","241"],["dc.contributor.author","Busch, G."],["dc.contributor.author","Kassas, B."],["dc.contributor.author","Palma, M.A."],["dc.contributor.author","Risius, A."],["dc.date.accessioned","2021-04-14T08:32:00Z"],["dc.date.available","2021-04-14T08:32:00Z"],["dc.date.issued","2020"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1016/j.livsci.2020.104251"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/83773"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","DOI Import GROB-399"],["dc.relation.issn","1871-1413"],["dc.relation.workinggroup","RTG 2654: Sustainable Food Systems (Related Publications)"],["dc.title","Perceptions of antibiotic use in livestock farming in Germany, Italy and the United States"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.subtype","original_ja"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","16"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","Suppl."],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","German Journal of Agricultural Economics"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","30"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","64"],["dc.contributor.author","Kühl, Sarah"],["dc.contributor.author","Busch, Gesa"],["dc.contributor.author","Brümmer, Bernhard"],["dc.contributor.author","Fahlbusch, Markus"],["dc.contributor.author","Spiller, Achim"],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-01-16T11:36:29Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-01-16T11:36:29Z"],["dc.date.issued","2015"],["dc.identifier.isi","000352556100003"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/11662"],["dc.language.iso","de"],["dc.notes.status","final"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","Deutscher Fachverlag Gmbh"],["dc.relation.issn","0515-6866"],["dc.relation.issn","0002-1121"],["dc.title","Der Markt für Milch und Milcherzeugnisse im Jahr 2014"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","23"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","5"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","German Journal of Agricultural Economics"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","46"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","70"],["dc.contributor.author","Mehlhose, Clara"],["dc.contributor.author","Knöpfel, Tim"],["dc.contributor.author","Brümmer, Bernhard"],["dc.contributor.author","Spiller, Achim"],["dc.contributor.author","Busch, Gesa"],["dc.date.accessioned","2021-12-01T09:22:37Z"],["dc.date.available","2021-12-01T09:22:37Z"],["dc.date.issued","2021"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.30430/70.2021.5.23-46"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/94447"],["dc.notes.intern","DOI-Import GROB-478"],["dc.relation.eissn","2191-4028"],["dc.title","Der Markt für Milch und Milcherzeugnisse 2020"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","104218"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Livestock Science"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","240"],["dc.contributor.author","Schütz, Aurelia"],["dc.contributor.author","Busch, Gesa"],["dc.contributor.author","Sonntag, Winnie Isabel"],["dc.date.accessioned","2021-04-14T08:32:00Z"],["dc.date.available","2021-04-14T08:32:00Z"],["dc.date.issued","2020"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1016/j.livsci.2020.104218"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/83774"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","DOI Import GROB-399"],["dc.relation.issn","1871-1413"],["dc.title","Environmental enrichment in pig husbandry – Citizens’ ratings of pictures showing housing elements using an online-survey"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Agriculture and Human Values"],["dc.contributor.author","Busch, Gesa"],["dc.contributor.author","Ryan, Erin"],["dc.contributor.author","von Keyserlingk, Marina A. G."],["dc.contributor.author","Weary, Daniel M."],["dc.date.accessioned","2021-08-12T07:46:13Z"],["dc.date.available","2021-08-12T07:46:13Z"],["dc.date.issued","2021"],["dc.description.abstract","Abstract Public opinion can affect the adoption of genome editing technologies. In food production, genome editing can be applied to a wide range of applications, in different species and with different purposes. This study analyzed how the public responds to five different applications of genome editing, varying the species involved and the proposed purpose of the modification. Three of the applications described the introduction of disease resistance within different species (human, plant, animal), and two targeted product quality and quantity in cattle. Online surveys in Canada, the US, Austria, Germany and Italy were carried out with a total sample size of 3698 participants. Using a between-subject design, participants were confronted with one of the five applications and asked to decide whether they considered it right or wrong. Perceived risks, benefits, and the perception of the technology as tampering with nature were surveyed and were complemented with socio-demographics and a measure of the participants’ moral foundations. In all countries, participants evaluated the application of disease resistance in humans as most right to do, followed by disease resistance in plants, and then in animals, and considered changes in product quality and quantity in cattle as least right to do. However, US and Italian participants were generally more positive toward all scenarios, and German and Austrian participants more negative. Cluster analyses identified four groups of participants: ‘ strong supporters’ who saw only benefits and little risks, ‘ slight supporters’ who perceived risks and valued benefits, ‘ neutrals’ who showed no pronounced opinion, and ‘ opponents’ who perceived higher risks and lower benefits. This research contributes to understanding public response to applications of genome editing, revealing differences that can help guide decisions related to adoption of these technologies."],["dc.description.abstract","Abstract Public opinion can affect the adoption of genome editing technologies. In food production, genome editing can be applied to a wide range of applications, in different species and with different purposes. This study analyzed how the public responds to five different applications of genome editing, varying the species involved and the proposed purpose of the modification. Three of the applications described the introduction of disease resistance within different species (human, plant, animal), and two targeted product quality and quantity in cattle. Online surveys in Canada, the US, Austria, Germany and Italy were carried out with a total sample size of 3698 participants. Using a between-subject design, participants were confronted with one of the five applications and asked to decide whether they considered it right or wrong. Perceived risks, benefits, and the perception of the technology as tampering with nature were surveyed and were complemented with socio-demographics and a measure of the participants’ moral foundations. In all countries, participants evaluated the application of disease resistance in humans as most right to do, followed by disease resistance in plants, and then in animals, and considered changes in product quality and quantity in cattle as least right to do. However, US and Italian participants were generally more positive toward all scenarios, and German and Austrian participants more negative. Cluster analyses identified four groups of participants: ‘ strong supporters’ who saw only benefits and little risks, ‘ slight supporters’ who perceived risks and valued benefits, ‘ neutrals’ who showed no pronounced opinion, and ‘ opponents’ who perceived higher risks and lower benefits. This research contributes to understanding public response to applications of genome editing, revealing differences that can help guide decisions related to adoption of these technologies."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1007/s10460-021-10235-9"],["dc.identifier.pii","10235"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/88645"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","DOI Import GROB-448"],["dc.relation.eissn","1572-8366"],["dc.relation.issn","0889-048X"],["dc.title","Citizen views on genome editing: effects of species and purpose"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","1578"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","4"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","British Food Journal"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","1595"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","123"],["dc.contributor.author","Kühl, Sarah"],["dc.contributor.author","Busch, Gesa"],["dc.contributor.author","Gauly, Matthias"],["dc.date.accessioned","2021-04-14T08:24:19Z"],["dc.date.available","2021-04-14T08:24:19Z"],["dc.date.issued","2020"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1108/BFJ-07-2020-0571"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/81245"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","DOI Import GROB-399"],["dc.relation.issn","0007-070X"],["dc.title","How should beef be produced? Consumer expectations and views on local beef production in South Tyrol (Italy)"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","1"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","1"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Animal frontiers"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","3"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","8"],["dc.contributor.author","Busch, Gesa"],["dc.contributor.author","Spiller, Achim"],["dc.date.accessioned","2020-12-10T18:16:06Z"],["dc.date.available","2020-12-10T18:16:06Z"],["dc.date.issued","2018"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1093/af/vfx005"],["dc.identifier.eissn","2160-6064"],["dc.identifier.issn","2160-6056"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/75052"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","DOI Import GROB-354"],["dc.title","Consumer acceptance of livestock farming around the globe"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","1580"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","7"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Leukemia"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","1582"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","30"],["dc.contributor.author","Schuler, E"],["dc.contributor.author","Giagounidis, A"],["dc.contributor.author","Haase, D"],["dc.contributor.author","Shirneshan, K"],["dc.contributor.author","Büsche, G"],["dc.contributor.author","Platzbecker, U"],["dc.contributor.author","Nolte, F"],["dc.contributor.author","Götze, K"],["dc.contributor.author","Schlenk, R F"],["dc.contributor.author","Germing, U"],["dc.date.accessioned","2021-06-01T10:50:33Z"],["dc.date.available","2021-06-01T10:50:33Z"],["dc.date.issued","2015"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1038/leu.2015.340"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/86704"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","DOI-Import GROB-425"],["dc.relation.eissn","1476-5551"],["dc.relation.issn","0887-6924"],["dc.title","Results of a multicenter prospective phase II trial investigating the safety and efficacy of lenalidomide in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes with isolated del(5q) (LE-MON 5)"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","27"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","1"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Animal Frontiers"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","33"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","8"],["dc.contributor.author","Busch, Gesa"],["dc.contributor.author","Spiller, Achim"],["dc.date.accessioned","2020-12-10T18:16:06Z"],["dc.date.available","2020-12-10T18:16:06Z"],["dc.date.issued","2018"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1093/af/vfx003"],["dc.identifier.eissn","2160-6064"],["dc.identifier.issn","2160-6056"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/75051"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","DOI Import GROB-354"],["dc.title","Pictures in public communications about livestock farming"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Frontiers in Animal Science"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","2"],["dc.contributor.affiliation","Escobedo del Bosque, Cynthia I.; Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Marketing for Food and Agricultural Products, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany"],["dc.contributor.affiliation","Risius, Antje; Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Marketing for Food and Agricultural Products, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany"],["dc.contributor.affiliation","Spiller, Achim; Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Marketing for Food and Agricultural Products, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany"],["dc.contributor.affiliation","Busch, Gesa; Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Marketing for Food and Agricultural Products, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany"],["dc.contributor.author","Escobedo del Bosque, Cynthia I."],["dc.contributor.author","Risius, Antje"],["dc.contributor.author","Spiller, Achim"],["dc.contributor.author","Busch, Gesa"],["dc.date.accessioned","2022-05-13T06:33:32Z"],["dc.date.available","2022-05-13T06:33:32Z"],["dc.date.issued","2021"],["dc.date.updated","2022-09-06T01:02:23Z"],["dc.description.abstract","As poultry production and consumption have increased in the last decade, so have consumers' concerns about intensified production methods and the impacts they have on animal welfare. At the same time, poultry consumption has increased and enjoys great popularity. Also, a shift in consumers' consumption behavior can be observed as nowadays most consumers purchase chicken cuts, especially breast filets, rather than whole animals, mostly due to convenience and taste. Although consumer concerns have increased, market shares of alternative poultry products, i.e., those that are produced under higher standards compared to conventional products, remain comparably low. One of the main reasons are the large differences in prices. The higher prices for alternative chicken products such as organic result partly from increased production costs on farm level. Besides, consumer preferences for chicken cuts intensify cost differences. While alternative chicken breasts (e.g., organically produced) might be valued by some consumers, other cuts such as wings or thighs are not and are therefore sent into the conventional market. In these cases, the breasts need to remunerate all additional costs. Analyzing consumers' concerns about production methods and learning about consumers' obstacles to buy whole chickens might offer farmers greater possibilities to succeed in alternative markets. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to gain insights into consumers' chicken consumption behaviors, how consumers imagine an ideal chicken farm and whether they would be willing to purchase a whole chicken from this ideal farm. Three focus group discussions (total n = 30) with German consumers were held online in June 2020. The results show that participants associate the ideal chicken farm with four main characteristics: good husbandry system, positive economic impact for the farmer, high transparency, and proximate location of the farm in the same geographical region. However, willingness to purchase a whole chicken, even from the ideal farm, remains low due to mainly convenience reasons and daily routines."],["dc.description.sponsorship","Open-Access-Publikationsfonds 2021"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.3389/fanim.2021.682477"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/107851"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.relation.eissn","2673-6225"],["dc.relation.issn","2673-6225"],["dc.relation.orgunit","Department für Agrarökonomie und Rurale Entwicklung"],["dc.rights","CC BY 4.0"],["dc.rights.uri","http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"],["dc.title","Consumers' Opinions and Expectations of an “Ideal Chicken Farm” and Their Willingness to Purchase a Whole Chicken From This Farm"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.subtype","original_ja"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]