Literature DB >> 26574025

Survey of egg farmers regarding the ban on conventional cages in the EU and their opinion of alternative layer housing systems in Flanders, Belgium.

L M Stadig1, B A Ampe2, S Van Gansbeke3, T Van den Bogaert3, E D'Haenens2, J L T Heerkens2, F A M Tuyttens4.   

Abstract

On 1 January 2012, conventional cages for laying hens were banned in the European Union (EU); all egg farmers must now use alternative hen housing systems. In total, 218 Flemish egg farmers were surveyed in 2013 to 2014 regarding which housing systems they currently use, their degree of satisfaction with the system, and how they experienced the transition from conventional cages to an alternative system. The response rate was 58.3% (127 respondents). Of these, 43 (33.9%) were no longer active as an egg farmer, mainly due to the ban on conventional cages. The respondents who were active as egg farmers both before and after the transition (84, 66.1%) mainly judged the ban as negative for their own finances and for the competitive position of the Belgian egg industry, but were neutral or positive regarding the general consequences for their own business. Most respondents' hens were housed in either aviary systems (47.7%) or in alternative cage systems (38.2%). When choosing a new system, the fit into the farm and consumer demand were the most important factors. Consumer demand was the main reason for choosing a system with free-range access. In general, egg farmers were satisfied with the system they chose, although this differs between systems. When asked to compare the alternative systems to conventional cages, alternatives were judged to be better for hen welfare and consumer demand, but similar or worse for all other aspects, especially labor. Egg farmers previously using conventional cages judged alternative systems more negatively than those who had no prior experience with conventional cages. Farmers who had experience with free-range systems judged these more positively than those without this experience, e.g., for egg consumer demand, profitability, and hen welfare. These results can possibly be extrapolated to other EU countries in which conventional cages were the most common housing system until 2012, and lessons can be drawn from the farmers' experiences when implementing other animal welfare legislation that may require similar far-reaching adaptations for primary production.
© 2015 Poultry Science Association Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  aviary; conventional cage; egg producer; floor housing; survey

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26574025     DOI: 10.3382/ps/pev334

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Poult Sci        ISSN: 0032-5791            Impact factor:   3.352


  5 in total

1.  Risk perceptions of public health and food safety hazards in poultry husbandry by citizens, poultry farmers and poultry veterinarians.

Authors:  M van Asselt; P M Poortvliet; E D Ekkel; B Kemp; E N Stassen
Journal:  Poult Sci       Date:  2018-02-01       Impact factor: 3.352

2.  Demographics and practices of semi-intensive free-range farming systems in Australia with an outdoor stocking density of ≤1500 hens/hectare.

Authors:  Mini Singh; Isabelle Ruhnke; Carolyn de Koning; Kelly Drake; Alan G Skerman; Geoff N Hinch; Philip C Glatz
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-10-24       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Laying hen mortality in different indoor housing systems: a meta-analysis of data from commercial farms in 16 countries.

Authors:  Cynthia Schuck-Paim; Elsa Negro-Calduch; Wladimir J Alonso
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-02-04       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  Opinion of Belgian Egg Farmers on Hen Welfare and Its Relationship with Housing Type.

Authors:  Lisanne M Stadig; Bart A Ampe; Suzy Van Gansbeke; Tom Van den Bogaert; Evelien D'Haenens; Jasper L T Heerkens; Frank A M Tuyttens
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2015-12-22       Impact factor: 2.752

5.  A Description of Laying Hen Husbandry and Management Practices in Canada.

Authors:  Nienke van Staaveren; Caitlin Decina; Christine F Baes; Tina M Widowski; Olaf Berke; Alexandra Harlander-Matauschek
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2018-07-11       Impact factor: 2.752

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.