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 Of these, 43 (33.9%) were no longer active as an egg farmer, mainly due to the ban on conventional cages.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.
Thyssen and J. Somers for collecting the survey data, and S. Millet and M. Levenson for commenting on an earlier draft. We are also grateful to the Central Animal Health Association for providing us the contact addresses of the sow farmers based on the Sanitel record.
In the context of the European Union ban on battery cages by 2012, a survey was conducted among Flemish egg producers (60% response rate, 140 completed questionnaires) about the introduction and opinion of alternative housing systems. Belgium appears to be among the countries in the European Union that are slower to adopt alternative housing. Belgium's egg industry is thus likely to undergo drastic changes to comply with the 2012 deadline. As of 2010, the battery cage was the dominant housing system (56% housing units, 67% hens), followed by floor housing (33% housing units, 15% hens) and aviary (10% housing units, 15% hens), whereas colony cages and furnished cages were extremely rare. Future- and market-oriented production was the most important reason for choosing a certain type of alternative system, although the importance of hen performance and amount of labor seemed to increase. A quarter of the producers with battery cages had detailed plans to convert to an alternative system (most planned to install aviaries, followed by colony cages, furnished cages, and floor housing) by 2012. Many older farmers indicated that they would stop farming, whereas others found it more profitable to delay the conversion as long as possible. Apart from hen welfare, producers expressed a negative opinion (relative to battery cages) about noncage systems and, to a lesser extent, furnished cages. However, users of alternative systems reported being quite satisfied, except for the amount of labor and hen health. The housing system had several effects on user satisfaction: positive effect of flock size, negative effect of experience with battery cages, and negative effect of outdoor area on hen health. Although not all opinions were supported by evidence, such surveys provide feedback about the success of alternative systems in practice. This information is valuable to further improve these systems and to producers who have yet to convert. Moreover, producer attitude may determine the extent to which legally imposed changes in husbandry environment result in the desired improvement of hen welfare in practice.
Simple SummaryUntil 2012, laying hens in the EU were often housed in conventional cages that offered limited space and few opportunities to perform highly motivated behaviors. Conventional cages are now banned in the EU in order to improve animal welfare. In this study, egg farmers were surveyed (winter 2013–2014) to assess whether they perceived any changes in animal welfare since changing housing systems, what role hen welfare played in choosing a new housing system, and which aspects of hen welfare they find most important. The data show that the answers differ depending on which housing system the farmers currently use and whether they had used conventional cages in the past.AbstractAs of 2012, the EU has banned the use of conventional cages (CC) for laying hens, causing a shift in housing systems. This study’s aim was to gain insight into farmers’ opinions on hen health and welfare in their current housing systems. A survey was sent to 218 Belgian egg farmers, of which 127 (58.3%) responded, with 84 still active as egg farmer. Hen welfare tended to be less important in choosing the housing system for farmers with cage than with non-cage systems. Respondents currently using cage systems were more satisfied with hen health than respondents with non-cage systems. Reported mortality increased with farm size and was higher in furnished cages than in floor housing. Feather pecking, cannibalism, smothering and mortality were perceived to be higher in current housing systems than in CC, but only by respondents who shifted to non-cage systems from previously having had CC. Health- and production-related parameters were scored to be more important for hen welfare as compared to behavior-related parameters. Those without CC in the past rated factors relating to natural behavior to be more important for welfare than those with CC. This difference in opinion based on farmer backgrounds should be taken into account in future research.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.