- Email: [email protected]
Survey of egg producers on the introduction of alternative housing systems for laying hens in Flanders, Belgium
PRODUCTION, MODELING, AND EDUCATION Survey of egg producers on the introduction of alternative housing systems for laying hens in Flanders, Belgium F. A. M. Tuyttens,*1 B. Sonck,* M. Staes,* S. Van Gansbeke,† T. Van den Bogaert,† and B. Ampe‡ *Animal Husbandry and Welfare, Animal Sciences Unit, Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Scheldeweg 68, 9090 Melle, Belgium; †Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Sustainable Agricultural Development Division, Burg. van Gansberghelaan 115A, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium; and ‡Department of Physiology and Biometrics, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium 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.
Key words: aviary, egg producer, furnished cage, laying hen, survey 2011 Poultry Science 90:941–950 doi:10.3382/ps.2010-01122
INTRODUCTION
well as the general public (Mollenhorst et al., 2005; LayWel, 2006a). In the European Union (EU), these concerns resulted in a legal ban on battery cages by 2012 for farms with a minimum of 350 hens (European Communities, 1999a). Alternative housing systems that will be allowed in the EU from 2012 have been divided by the EU LayWel project (LayWel, 2006b) into cage systems and noncage systems (Table 1 lists the classification of housing systems used below). Cage systems are operated from the outside (i.e., without the human caretakers entering the housing area), whereas noncage systems are operated from the inside (i.e., caretakers enter the housing area). Alternative cage systems include furnished cages in which hens are housed in larger groups (range: 5–100 birds) and at a lower stocking density (750 vs. 550 cm2/bird) than battery cages. In addition, they
In the 1950s, the laying hen industry consisted of small, free-range flocks. Today, it has become one of the most intensive forms of animal production and is characterized by battery cages, which provide a limited amount (450–550 cm2/bird) of barren space to small groups of birds. Despite improved bird health, which in part drove this change (Savory, 2004) along with increased efficiency and reduced cost of production, the housing of laying hens in battery cages has become a major animal welfare concern for many scientists as ©2011 Poultry Science Association Inc. Received September 13, 2010. Accepted January 8, 2011. 1 Corresponding author: [email protected]
941
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on May 16, 2015
ABSTRACT 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
942
Tuyttens et al.
country with a full ban already in place on all cage types. Cage systems other than colony cages were also banned in Germany from 2010 onwards. The farmers that had not yet converted were required to submit a conversion plan. In the Netherlands, colony cages will also be the only type of cage system allowed from 2022 onward. Sweden is also ahead of the rest of the EU; battery cages were banned there starting in 1998. In Sweden in 2009, 39% of hens were housed in furnished cages, 52% in a noncage system without an outdoor area, and 9% in a noncage organic system (CIRCA, 2010). In the rest of Europe, the percentage of hens housed in furnished cages is believed to be much lower. Countries with high percentages of noncage systems are Austria, Denmark, Great Britain, Ireland, and the Netherlands (LayWel, 2006b). In most countries in the south and east of Europe, however, the percentage of hens housed in battery cages is still high (van Horne et al., 2007). It seems that these countries, along with Belgium, will have considerable difficulty meeting the EU deadline of 2012. Many egg producers will be forced to either convert to an alternative housing system or cease egg production in the very near future. This concern led to this study. A considerable body of research exists in which the pros and cons of the various housing systems have been compared (Green et al., 2000; Michel and Huonnic, 2003; Rodenburg et al., 2005; Tauson, 2005; Elson and Croxall, 2006; Rodenburg et al., 2008, Shimmura et al., 2010), which is undoubtedly useful to the many egg producers inside and outside Europe who are planning to convert to an alternative system. However, the degree to which some of these research findings may be generalized and the direct relevance for a particular egg producer may be questioned because the success of a housing system on a particular farm may very well depend on the match between the animals, the management, and the husbandry environment (Fraser, 2008). The opinion and hands-on experience of farmers who have been using alternative housing systems for their laying hens is therefore very relevant information for other egg producers, government policy about hen housing, and poultry scientists alike. In many cases, producers are opposed to legislative approaches to farm animal welfare (Fraser, 2006). This opposition may affect the speed of adoption and ultimately hinder the realization of the legislation’s intended benefits. In this study, Flemish egg producers were surveyed about the EU ban on battery cages (Flanders is the
Table 1. Classification of laying hen housing systems (based on LayWel, 2006b) in the European Union1 Housing system System type Cage Noncage 1In
Egg type
Indoor vs. outdoor
Housing type
Cage Barn Free-range, organic
Indoor (no uncovered outdoor area) Indoor (no uncovered outdoor area) Outdoor (uncovered outdoor area)
Battery cage, furnished cage, colony cage Floor housing (single level), aviary (multilevel) Floor housing (single level), aviary (multilevel)
this paper, the term “alternative housing system” is used for all housing systems other than the battery cage.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on May 16, 2015
have access to a nest, a perch, and a scratching area or mat. A more spacious variant of furnished cages are colony cages (called “Kleinvoliere” in some countries). This is a large cage system (minimum 25,000 cm2) at least 50 cm high in which relatively large groups of hens (40–115 hens) are housed at a reduced stocking density (800–900 cm2/hen) and in which at least 2 perches are provided at different heights. In Germany (from 2010 onwards) and the Netherlands (from 2022 onwards) this will be the only type of cage system allowed. Noncage systems may be classified according to the availability of perforated platforms and the availability of an outside area. Floor systems are single-level systems in which the ground floor area consists of perforated floors and litter. Aviaries are multilevel systems in which birds can access at least 2 levels: the ground floor plus 1 or more levels of perforated platforms (manure is prevented from falling on birds below). Both types of noncage system can be combined with an extra covered outside area (called “Wintergarten” in some countries), or an uncovered outside area (free-range), or both. In noncage systems birds are usually kept in large flocks of approximately 5,000 to 30,000 birds (Rodenburg et al., 2008). These different types of housing systems are linked to the way table eggs are marketed in the EU (Table 1). Eggs from battery, furnished, and colony cages are all marketed as cage eggs. Eggs from noncage systems without an uncovered outdoor area are marketed as barn eggs. Eggs from noncage systems with uncovered outdoor area can be marketed as free-range eggs or organic eggs (additional requirements exist for organic eggs with regard to, for example, maximal stocking density, maximum flock size, and beak trimming; European Communities, 1999b). Following the decision of several major supermarket chains to no longer sell cage eggs, the consumption of barn and free-range eggs in Belgium increased from approximately 36% in 2005 to 82% in 2008 (Viaene and Verheecke, 2009). The share of organic egg consumption has remained rather constant at approximately 4%. This shift in consumption pattern has not been matched by the egg production side, with 84% of hens still being housed in cage systems in 2008. Despite a lack of published data on the subject, it is believed that the vast majority of these cage systems are of the conventional battery type. Several other European countries are shifting more quickly to alternative production systems. Switzerland (a non-EU country) is the only
ALTERNATIVE HEN HOUSING SYSTEMS IN FLANDERS
MATERIALS AND METHODS Survey Procedure All Flemish egg producers with at least 350 laying hens (based on the national database compiled and kept up to date by the Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain (Brussels, Belgium) were sent a questionnaire and an accompanying letter by mail during February and March, 2010. The cover letter explained the purpose and relevance of the survey and stated that all data would be treated anonymously. The producers were urged to fill out the questionnaire and keep it near the phone once completed. About 1 wk later, they were contacted by telephone to collect the answers. If we failed to reach them, we called repeatedly at different times of day for 1 mo. This telephonic follow-up had resulted in a high response rate in previous surveys among Flemish sow keepers (Tuyttens et al., 2008, 2011). Moreover, the single poll-taker (M. Staes) could also check whether the questions had been well understood and whether the answers made sense. Although the poll-taker was instructed to be extremely careful not to influence the interviewee, such an effect cannot be ruled out completely.
Questionnaire The questionnaire consisted of 4 distinct parts. Part 1, intended for all egg producers, elicited general data about the farm (total number of hens per housing unit at the start of the most recent round, age of the housing systems) and the farmer (date of birth). Part 1 also asked the farmer to indicate the likelihood of having a successor for egg production activities on a scale from 1 (certainly not) to 5 (certainly yes) and whether they expected the premium price (compared with cage eggs) for organic, free-range, and barn eggs to decrease (score −1), stay the same (score 0), or increase (score 1) in the
future. They were also asked to score their attitude toward furnished cages, floor housing systems, and aviaries relative to conventional cages concerning 8 specific aspects as well as in general based on a 5-point scale from −2 (much worse) to +2 (much better). Part 2 was intended for egg producers who already used an alternative housing system for some or all of their hens. They were asked whether they had ever used battery cages and to provide details per housing unit such as the type of housing system (Table 1), how long the system had been operational, the number of hens per cage or unit, and whether it was a newly built, renovated, or an enlarged stable. For noncage systems, additional questions were asked such as the number of levels or tiers, the type of litter, and the availability of a covered outside area. Per type of alternative housing system used, these respondents were also asked to score their user satisfaction concerning 8 specific aspects and in general from 1 (not at all satisfied) to 5 (very satisfied). They were asked to allocate 100 points according to the relative importance of 10 reasons for having chosen that particular type of system. Part 3, for respondents planning to build or convert to an alternative housing system before 2012, also contained the latter question about choice of system. In part 4, farmers housing all their hens in conventional battery cages and having no detailed plans to convert to an alternative system by 2012 were asked to allocate 100 points according to the relative importance of various reasons for having no intentions yet to change to a group housing system.
Analyses The results were analyzed using SAS 9.2 for Windows (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). Mainly descriptive statistics were used. Binary variables were analyzed using a logistic regression model (Proc Logistic). Continuous variables were analyzed using a linear model (Proc Mixed). When appropriate, farmer was introduced as a random effect to correct for clustering of different housing units on farm level. Statistical significance was evaluated at P = 0.05. For the simultaneous comparisons between the different types of group housing, all possible pair-wise comparisons were tested at a total significance level of 0.05 using the Tukey-Kramer adjustment for multiple comparisons (or the Bonferroni correction in case of logistic regression).
RESULTS Response Rate and Respondents The response rate was high (140 completed surveys, or 60.3%; Table 2). The majority of the nonresponses were attributed to the inability to contact the egg producer or the fact that egg production activities had ceased or reduced to <350 hens. Only 11.6% actually
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on May 16, 2015
Dutch-speaking part of Belgium and comprises about 86% of the national laying hen population). The objectives of this survey were to quantify the following: 1) the occurrence of the various hen housing systems in Flanders in 2010, 2) the percentage of holdings where a change to an alternative system is planned before the 2012 deadline, 3) the reasons why farmers opted for a certain type of alternative housing system, 4) the reasons why some farmers do not plan to convert, 5) the farmers’ opinion about these housing systems and about the price evolution of the different classes of eggs, and 6) user satisfaction with alternative housing systems. Although the survey is restricted to Flanders, the situation may be comparable with other EU countries for which the ban on battery cages poses a considerable challenge. Many findings are also relevant for egg producers around the world planning to convert to an alternative system.
943
944
Tuyttens et al.
Table 2. Response rate to the total number of questionnaires Item
No. (%)
Questionnaires sent Could not be contacted Refused to participate No longer had ≥350 hens Incorrect addresses Noncommercial farms Valid respondents
232 39 27 19 4 3 140
(16.8) (11.6) (8.2) (1.7) (1.3) (60.3)
Prevalence of Conventional Cages Versus Alternative Systems Of the 140 respondents, 76 (54.3%) had no alternative housing system, 8 (5.7%) used both battery cages and an alternative housing system, and 56 (40%) used only an alternative housing system. Only a quarter of the respondents with battery cages already had detailed plans to build an alternative housing system on the farm. These percentages changed slightly when expressed at the level of the housing unit and considerably when expressed at the level of the hen (Table 3). Based on the sample, it was estimated that only 32.5% of the hens were housed in an alternative system in Flanders as of 2010. This indicates that farms with alternative housing systems were, on average, smaller than farms with battery cages. Closer inspection reveals that only the farms with floor housing (by far the most common
Respondents’ Opinions About Alternative Systems The egg producers’ opinions regarding the alternative housing systems (aviary, floor housing, and furnished cages) compared with battery cages was negative in general. It was also negative regarding specific aspects such as labor, hen health, hen performance, and farm profitability (Figure 1). With the exception of the farm profitability, the opinion about the noncage systems (aviary and floor housing) was consistently more negative than about furnished cages. The 3 alternative systems were considered superior to battery cages only concerning animal welfare. Farmers who already used an alternative system had a more positive opinion about the alternative systems compared with the battery cages both in general (F1,237 = 41.55, P < 0.001) and with regard to the 6 specific aspects (all P < 0.014). No significant effect of likelihood of a successor, farmer age, or farm size (number of hens) was apparent.
Respondents’ Opinions of Price Evolution of the Different Classes of Eggs In general, the respondents expected the price premium for barn (mean = −0.339, P < 0.001) and free-range (mean = −0.173, P = 0.013) eggs to decrease in the future. The price premium for organic eggs, however, was not expected to decrease significantly (mean = −0.047, P = 0.488). However, these expectations about price evolution depended on whether the farmer already used an alternative housing system. Those that already used alternative housing thought that the price premium for organic eggs would increase in the future (mean = 0.267, P = 0.005), whereas the price premium for barn and free-range eggs was not expected to change significantly (both P > 0.145). Farmers that had used only conventional cages believed that the price premium for barn, free-range, and organic eggs would decrease in the future (all P < 0.001).
Reasons for Not Planning to Convert to Alternative Housing Systems Fifty-seven respondents used only battery cages and had no plans yet to convert to an alternative housing
Table 3. The number (% in parentheses) of conventional battery cages versus alternative housing systems expressed at the level of the farmer, housing unit, and hen Item Alternative systems + battery cages Alternative systems only Battery cages only, no conversion before 2012 Battery cages only, conversion before 2012 Total
Farmer 8 56 57 19 140
(5.7%) (40.0%) (40.7%) (13.6%) (100%)
Housing unit 115 110 35 260
N/A (44.2%) (42.3%) (13.5%) (100%)
Hen N/A 1,464,680 (32.5%) 2,268,775 (50.4%) 768,990 (17.1%) 4,502,445 (100%)
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on May 16, 2015
refused to participate in the survey. This high participation rate indicates that the respondents were representative of Flemish egg producers. The reported likelihood of a successor for the farm was −0.4 ± 0.1, which is slightly below the neutral point of the scale (score 0). Only 19.3% of the respondents considered it likely (score 1) or certain (score 2) that they had a successor for the farm. The respondents were on average 48 ± 0.8 yr of age (range: 23–78 yr). A negative association existed between the age of the farmer and the reported likelihood of a successor (t = 7.05, P < 0.009). The mean size of the most recent flock of hens on the farm was 32,160 ± 2,563 hens (range: 450–181,000). Almost half the farmers (49.3%) housed more than 25,000 hens. A positive association existed between flock size and the reported likelihood of a successor (t = 2.88, P = 0.005). About a quarter (28%) of the respondents had never housed their hens in conventional battery cages.
type of alternative housing system in Flanders) tended to have fewer hens (Table 4).
945
16 45.1 (1.8)ab 1.9 (0.5)c 3.3 (0.4) 30,760 (3,622)c 5,487 (311)b 56 in a row without a common superscript differ significantly (P < 0.05). data are the means (+SE) or the percentages. 2Minus (−) denotes without outside area, plus (+) denotes with outside area. 3ND = no data. 1The
a–cValues
2 42.5 (6.5)ab 2.0 (1.0)bc 3.0 (0.0) 32,500 (9,500)ac 53 (7)a 100 1 38.0ab 9.0abc 3.0 24,000abc 39a 0 144 47.9 (0.7)a 19.7 (0.7)a 2.6 (0.1) 20,868 (1,034)a ND3 ND No. Age of farmer (yr) Age of system (yr) Successor in place No. of hens/unit Group size Newly built (%)
Colony Furnished Battery Item
44 49.3 (1.3)a 10.4 (1.6)b 2.4 (0.2) 9,538 (1,012)b 4,667 (317)ab 30
41 47.1 (1.3)ab 11.0 (1.3)b 2.6 (0.2) 6,520 (643)b 4,379 (426)ab 24
Aviary+ Aviary− Floor+ Floor−
Noncage system2 Cage system
Less than half (44.2%) of the barns in Flanders in 2010 used a different housing system than the conventional battery cage. Alternative cage systems such as the furnished cage and colony cage were very rare (Table 6). The vast majority of the alternative systems were noncage systems. Both noncage housing systems were most commonly used without an outdoor run (and particularly so when expressed at the level of the hen instead of housing unit). Floor housing was a more common housing system than the aviary when expressed at the level of the housing unit but not when expressed at the level of the hen. This indicates that aviary units on average housed more hens than floor housing units (although this difference is not statistically significant; Table 4). Battery cages were on average 20 yr old, floor housing systems 11 yr old, and aviary systems about 2 yr old (Table 4). Farmers who used aviary systems with an outside area were younger than those who used battery cages (t252 = 3.17, P = 0.028) and floor systems without an outside area (t252 = 3.46, P < 0.001; Table 4). Units with battery cages were smaller (in terms of hen places) than units with aviary systems without an outside area (t252 = −3.45, P = 0.012) but bigger than units with floor housing with (t252 = 6.15, P < 0.001) or without (t252 = 7.567, P < 0.001) an outside area (Table 4). The majority of the aviary systems (54%) had 3 levels or tiers, 35% had 2 tiers, and 12% had 4 tiers. Less than half (43%) of the noncage systems had a covered outdoor area, and 12% produced organic
Table 4. Comparison between the different housing systems for laying hens1
Types of Alternative Systems Operational and Planned to Be Built
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on May 16, 2015
system before the 2012 deadline. The relative importance of the various reasons why they were not planning to convert is shown in Table 5. The most important reason was the belief that using their current battery cages for as long as possible would be most profitable in their specific situation. The second most important reason was stopping farming activities by 2012, and the third was the belief that the battery cage is generally the most profitable housing system. Takeover of the farm by someone else and insufficient information about the housing systems that would be allowed in the future were the least important reasons. Closure of the farm before 2012 (F1,48 = 10.45, P = 0.002) and the takeover of the farm by someone else before 2012 (F1,48 = 4.41, P = 0.041) increased in importance with the age of the farmer. The reasons “not yet ready to consider alternative housing systems” (F1,48 = 9.43, P = 0.004), “insufficient information about the housing systems that will be allowed in the future” (F1,48 = 5.48, P = 0.023), and “it is most profitable in my situation to use the current battery cages for as long as possible” (F1,49 = 5.93, P = 0.019) decreased in importance with the age of the farmer. The latter reason increased in importance with the size of the farm (i.e., number of hens; F1,49 = 4.35, P = 0.042).
10 38.9 (2.2)b 1.8 (0.6)c 3.3 (0.2) 19,650 (3,655)ac 5,540 (1,321)ab 10
ALTERNATIVE HEN HOUSING SYSTEMS IN FLANDERS
946
Tuyttens et al.
Table 5. Mean relative importance scores (SE in parentheses) of 10 different reasons for not yet having plans to change to an alternative housing system for laying hens1 Rank
Item
Value
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
It is most profitable in my situation to use the current battery cages for as long as possible End of career; farming activities will be stopped by 2012 The battery cage is a more profitable housing system Insufficient financial resources to convert Uncertainty about the future of the farm Not yet ready to consider alternative housing systems Uncertainty about future legislation Insufficient information about the different housing systems that will be allowed in the future Farm will be taken over by someone else before 2012 Other
24.2 18.8 14.0 9.5 8.8 8.6 7.0 2.5 0.9 6.6
(3.2)a (5.0)ab (2.8)abc (2.7)bc (2.6)bc (1.7)bc (1.2)bc (0.8)c (0.7)c (2.9)bc
a–cValues 1The
without a common superscript differ significantly (P < 0.05). respondents divided 100 points among the 10 reasons, with more points indicating greater relative importance.
Reasons for Having Chosen a Particular Type of Alternative Housing System Among both respondents who already used an alternative system and among respondents who were planning to build an alternative system in the near future, the most important criterion for having chosen a particular type of alternative housing concerned future and market-oriented production (Figure 2). The amount of labor (t58 = 3.00, P = 0.004) and the profitability (better performance results; t58 = 2.46, P = 0.017) were indicated as being more importance among those that
Figure 1. Opinion of Flemish egg producers about 3 alternative indoor housing systems (aviary, floor housing, furnished cages) compared with conventional battery cages both in general and with regard to 6 specific aspects. The score ranges from −2 (much worse) to +2 (much better than conventional battery cages). Asterisk denotes a significant difference (P < 0.05) from the neutral point of the scale (score = 0). Housing systems with a different letter are significantly different (P < 0.05).
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on May 16, 2015
eggs. In 18% of the floor housing systems and 24% of the aviaries, no litter was provided (which is nonetheless obligatory). With colony cages and furnished cages planned for, respectively, 10.5 and 28.9% of the housing units that will be newly built or renovated before 2012 (Table 6), the prevalence of alternative cage systems compared with noncage systems is expected to increase in Flanders. Among the noncage systems, many more aviary systems than floor housing systems are planned to be built. The latter housing system is thus likely to become less common in the near future.
947
ALTERNATIVE HEN HOUSING SYSTEMS IN FLANDERS Table 6. Prevalence (%) of different types of housing systems operational in 2010 and planned to be built by 2012 in Flanders expressed at the level of the housing unit and the hen Operational Item Conventional battery cage Alternative cage system Furnished cage Colony cage Noncage system Floor housing without outdoor run Floor housing with outdoor run Aviary without outdoor run Aviary with outdoor run
User Satisfaction with Alternative Housing Systems Apart perhaps from the amount of labor and hen health, egg producers housing (some of) their hens in alternative systems reported to be rather satisfied with their system (Table 7). Only 1 egg producer used furnished cages, and only 2 used colony cages. The general satisfaction of the single user of furnished cages was neutral (score 3) and of both of the users of colony cages was rather positive (score 4). Given these small sample sizes, the statistical analyses on user satisfaction were restricted to users of noncage systems (Table
Hen
Planned housing unit (n = 38)
55.8
67.2
0
0.4 0.8
0.5 1.5
10.5 28.9
17.3 15.8 6.2 3.9
9.4 6.0 11.0 4.4
5.3 0.0 39.5 15.8
7). General satisfaction was lower for users of floor systems with an outdoor area than for users of floor or aviary systems without an outdoor area. Aviary systems with an outdoor area were given a higher score for the type of labor than other noncage systems. They were also given a higher score for the amount of labor and hen welfare compared with aviary systems without an outdoor area (and also compared with floor systems with an outdoor area regarding hen welfare). Systems with an outdoor area, however, scored worse regarding hen health. The larger the flock, the greater the user satisfaction, both in general and for hen welfare, production performance (number of first-class eggs per hen), and farm profitability. Satisfaction scores for hen health and for the production of first-class eggs per hen of farmers who had ever housed hens in conventional cages were significantly lower compared with farmers who had exclusively used alternative housing systems.
Figure 2. The relative importance of various reasons for having chosen a specific alternative housing system as reported by egg producers using such a system already (operational) or planning to build one by 2012. The estimated mean scores (+SE) are given on a 0 to 100 scale (respondents divided 100 points among the reasons, with more points indicating greater relative importance). Asterisk denotes that the importance for that reason differed significantly (P < 0.05) between operational and planned.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on May 16, 2015
were planning to build an alternative system compared with those that had such a system in use already. In the same light, investment costs tended to be allocated less importance (t140 = −1.97, P = 0.051).
Housing unit (n = 261)
948
Tuyttens et al.
DISCUSSION
Table 7. Satisfaction scores in general and with regard to 6 specific criteria as reported by users of the various alternative noncage housing systems1 System2 Item
Floor− (n = 44)
Labor (type) Labor (amount) Animal welfare Animal health First-class eggs/hen Profitability General
3.5 3.2 4.0 3.6 3.7 3.7 4.1
a,bMeans
(0.2)a (0.2)ab (0.1)ab (0.2)b (0.1) (0.1) (0.1)b
Floor+ (n = 40) 3.9 3.2 4.1 3.2 3.8 3.9 3.7
(0.2)a (0.2)ab (0.1)a (0.1)a (0.1) (0.1) (0.1)a
F-value Aviary− (n = 14) 3.6 2.8 3.8 3.8 3.9 3.9 4.1
(0.3)a (0.2)a (0.1)a (0.2)b (0.2) (0.2) (0.1)b
Aviary+ (n = 10) 4.3 3.5 4.3 3.1 3.7 4.0 3.9
(0.2)b (0.2)b (0.1)b (0.2)a (0.1) (0.2) (0.1)ab
System
Flock size
Battery cage
8.31*** 4.76** 7.41*** 17.52*** 2.45† 1.24 8.72***
1.19 0.25 11.08** 1.52 8.42** 15.95*** 42.25***
1.15 0.16 2.60 5.68* 7.48** 0.04 0.00
within a row without a common superscript differ significantly (Tukey-Kramer, P < 0.05). values are the model based estimated means (SE) on a scale from 1 (not at all satisfied) to 5 (very satisfied), followed by the F-statistics of the effects of housing system, flock size, and whether the respondent had ever used conventional battery cages. 2Minus (−) denotes without outside area, plus (+) denotes with outside area. †P < 0.1; *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001. 1The
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on May 16, 2015
At the beginning of 2010, the battery cage was still the most popular housing system in Flanders (56% of the housing units, 67% of the laying hens). The Flemish, and by generalization the Belgian, egg industry (Flanders contains 86% of Belgian egg producers) has a long way to go to comply fully with the 2012 EU ban on battery cages. Clearly, the transition is taking place much more slowly in Belgium than in several other EU countries such as Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, Great Britain, Ireland, and Denmark (LayWel, 2006b; see also http://circa.europa.eu/Members/ irc/agri/pig/library?l=/poultry_public_domain/public_statistics&vm = detailed&sb = Title). Although comparable recent data are rarely available, we suspect that the situation in other EU countries, and particularly those from eastern and southern Europe, might be similar to that of Belgium (van Horne et al., 2007). Even more worrying is that only a quarter of the Flemish egg producers with battery cages had detailed plans to convert to an alternative housing system by 2012. Stopping farming activities was the second most cited reason for having no plans to convert. It is not surprising that this reason increased in importance with the age of the farmer. The most important reason, among younger respondents in particular, was that using the current battery cages for as long as possible was considered to be the most profitable in their situation. Delaying the conversion to new housing systems for as long as possible and stopping the farming activities in response to new legislation have also been documented for the EU ban on the housing of gestating sows in individual stalls (Hoste and van der Peet-Schwering, 2008; Tuyttens et al., 2011). The apparent reluctance among users of battery cages to (quickly) convert to an alternative housing system might be related in part to their negative expectations about the evolution of price premiums for barn and free-range eggs relative to cage eggs in the future. Farmers already using alternative systems, to
the contrary, did not expect a significant decrease in these price premiums. The reluctance may also be explained in part by their negative opinion about alternative housing systems (indoor systems only) compared with battery cages. This negative opinion was more pronounced for noncage systems than for furnished cages and concerned the system in general as well as specific aspects including labor (type and amount), performance, farm profitability, and hen health (except for furnished cages). A review of production data confirmed that production is less efficient in noncage systems than cage systems (e.g., higher feed conversion rates), whereas the performance of birds and egg quality are not necessarily worse in furnished cages compared with battery cages (LayWel, 2006c). In the case of noncage eggs, reductions in performance can (partly) be compensated by price premiums for a higher class of eggs. This presumably explains why the producers’ negative opinion about noncage systems (but not furnished cages) was less pronounced for farm profitability than for performance. The respondents considered alternative indoor systems as superior to battery cages with regard to hen welfare only, and the degree of this positive opinion did not differ between the various alternative indoor systems. Respondents who already housed hens in an alternative system, however, had a more positive opinion about the alternative systems compared with battery cages and reported being quite satisfied with the alternative system they used. Although some scientists are not convinced that battery cages are worse than alternative systems in terms of their effect on laying hen welfare (Duncan, 2001; Savory, 2004), the egg producers’ opinion agrees quite well with the opinion among other animal welfare scientists that all alternative housing systems are (potentially) superior to battery cages, but that advantages and disadvantages exist to each type of alternative system. In general, hens in noncage systems have more opportunities for expressing natural behavior but risk more health problems (disease and injury) than hens in cage systems (Michel and Huonnic,
ALTERNATIVE HEN HOUSING SYSTEMS IN FLANDERS
importance of performance results and amount of labor is increasing. Belgium is an example of an EU country that is slow to adopt alternative hen housing systems. Compliance with the ban on battery cages by 2012 will be a huge challenge and the hen industry is expected to undergo drastic changes in the coming few years. Many older farmers will stop producing eggs and others are delaying converting as long as possible. The hands-on experience of farmers who have already converted to an alternative system should be valuable to farmers who have yet to convert and can help scientists and the industry to continue improving alternative housing systems. More studies on the attitude and opinion of producers toward changing regulations are warranted, not only because producers are the primary stakeholders that will have to apply the changes in practice and bear the consequences thereof, but also because their attitude may well influence the pattern and success of the transition. Alternative systems require different and better stockmanship skills (Appleby and Hughes, 1991; Häne et al., 2000), and attitude may have an influence on stockmanship and farm management. In turn, animal care skills can be a major determinant of farm animal welfare (Hemsworth et al., 2002). It is thus conceivable that producer attitude affects the actual realization of the desired improvements in hen welfare from banning battery cages. Studies such as this may help to further clarify the best policy for improving farm animal welfare in practice. Is it better to stipulate norms about the physical environment, or are outcome-based criteria about hen welfare better (O’Hara and O’Connor, 2007; Sørensen and Fraser, 2010)? Is it best to encourage these changes voluntarily via the market, or to impose them legally? We hope that future studies will contribute to the satisfactory resolution of these questions.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors gratefully acknowledge the Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain (Brussels, Belgium) for providing the contact addresses of egg producers based on the Sanitel record.
REFERENCES Appleby, M. C., and B. O. Hughes. 1991. Welfare of laying hens in cages and alternative systems: Environmental, physical and behavioural aspects. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 47:109–128. Bilcίk, B., and L. Keeling. 2000. Relationship between feather pecking and ground pecking in laying hens and the effect of group size. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 68:55–66. CIRCA. 2010. http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/agri/pig/ library?l=/poultry_public_domain/public_statistics&vm=detai led&sb=Title. Duncan, I. J. H. 2001. The pros and cons of cages. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 57:381–390. Elson, H. A., and R. Croxall. 2006. European study on the comparative welfare of laying hens in cage and non-cage systems. Arch. Geflugelkd. 70:194–198.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on May 16, 2015
2003; Rodenburg et al., 2005, LayWel, 2006a; Shimmura et al., 2010). The overall effect on hen welfare thus depends on the importance that one attributes to health versus other aspects of animal welfare. This discrepancy between health and other aspects of hen welfare also exists when comparing indoor systems with outdoor systems. An outdoor area provides more opportunities for expressing natural behavior but increases the risk of parasites, infection, predation, and exposure to unfavorable weather conditions (Laing, 1988; Häne et al., 2000). This is again reflected in the user satisfaction scores given by the egg producers: compared with indoor systems, user satisfaction for outdoor systems was relatively high for hen welfare but significantly lower for hen health. Other results about producer opinion and user satisfaction are less supported by scientific evidence. For example, to our knowledge, no studies exist that show whether hen welfare and performance in noncage systems increases with group size. To the contrary, although larger flock sizes are associated with more shared space, evidence exists that increasing group size increases the risk of mortality, feather pecking problems, and bumble foot (Nicol et al., 1999; Bilcίk and Keeling, 2000; LayWel, 2006a; Shimmura et al., 2010). Also to our knowledge, no scientific evidence exists that hen health and performance in alternative systems are reduced if the producer had ever housed hens in battery cages. Such unsupported findings point to the weakness of producer surveys. Some responses are likely to be influenced indirectly by complex psychological aspects (e.g., those having alternative housing for large flocks or those having experience with alternative systems only may be more committed to the system than other users) rather than having a direct causal effect. Furnished cages and colony cages were extremely rare in Flanders as of 2010. This is probably related to the prolonged uncertainty about whether national legislation would allow these housing systems in the future (the decision not to ban furnished cages until at least 2025 was taken only in the second half of 2009). Hence, the vast majority of alternative systems were noncage systems. Floor housing was equally or more common than the aviary housing, depending on whether it was expressed at the level of the hen or the housing unit, respectively. Indoor systems were more common than outdoor systems, especially when expressed at the level of the hen. Floor housing is the more traditional type of noncage housing system, whereas the aviary systems were built more recently, often by farmers with a larger flock. From the reported types of housing systems that respondents plan to build before 2012, it can be predicted that alternative cage systems (and colony cages in particular) and aviaries will become more common and floor systems less common in the near future. By far the most important reason for choosing a particular type of housing system was related to future- and market-oriented production, although it seems that the
949
950
Tuyttens et al. Mollenhorst, H., T. B. Rodenburg, E. A. M. Bokkers, P. Koene, and I. J. M. de Boer. 2005. On-farm assessment of laying hen welfare: A comparison of one environment-based and two animal-based methods. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 90:277–291. Nicol, C. J., N. G. Gregory, T. G. Knowles, I. D. Parkman, and L. J. Wilkins. 1999. Differential effects of increased stocking density, mediated by increased flock size, on feather pecking and aggression in laying hens. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 65:137–152. O’Hara, P. O., and C. O’Connor. 2007. Challenge of developing regulations for production animals that produce the welfare outcomes we want. J. Vet. Behav. 2:205–212. Rodenburg, T. B., F. A. M. Tuyttens, K. De Reu, L. Herman, J. Zoons, and B. Sonck. 2005. Welfare, health and hygiene of laying hens housed in furnished cages and in alternative housing systems. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 8:211–226. Rodenburg, T. B., F. A. M. Tuyttens, K. De Reu, L. Herman, J. Zoons, and B. Sonck. 2008. Welfare assessment of laying hens in furnished cages and non-cage systems: An on-farm comparison. Anim. Welf. 17:363–373. Savory, C. J. 2004. Laying hen welfare standards: A classic case of “power to the people”. Anim. Welf. 13:S153–S158. Shimmura, T., S. Hirahara, T. Azuma, T. Suzuki, Y. Eguchi, K. Uetake, and T. Tanaka. 2010. Multi-factorial investigation of various housing systems for laying hens. Br. Poult. Sci. 51:31–42. Sørensen, J. T., and D. Fraser. 2010. On-farm welfare assessment for regulatory purposes: Issues and possible solutions. Livest. Sci. 131:1–7. Tauson, R. 2005. Management and housing systems for layers—Effects on welfare and production. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 61:477– 490. Tuyttens, F. A. M., E. Struelens, S. Van Gansbeke, and B. Ampe. 2008. Factors influencing farmers’ responses to welfare legislation: A case study of gestating sow housing in Flanders (Belgium). Livest. Sci. 116:289–299. Tuyttens, F. A. M., S. Van Gansbeke, and B. Ampe. 2011. Survey among Belgian pig producers about the introduction of group housing systems for gestating sows. J. Anim. Sci. 89:845–855. van Horne, P., G. M. L. Tacken, H. H. Ellen, T. G. C. M. Fiks-van Niekerk, V. M. Immink, and N. Bondt. 2007. Verbod op verrijkte kooien voor leghennen in Nederland. LEI Wageningen UR, Den Haag, the Netherlands. Viaene, J., and W. Verheecke. 2009. Overzicht van de Belgische pluimvee- en konijnenhouderij in 2008. Verbond voor Pluimvee, Eieren en Konijnen, Ghent, Belgium.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on May 16, 2015
European Communities. 1999a. Council Directive 1999/74/EC on 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens. Off. J. L203:53–57. European Communities. 1999b. Council Regulation (EC) No. 1804/1999 of 19 July 1999 supplementing Regulation (EEC) No. 2092/91on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs to include livestock production. Off. J. L222:1–28. Fraser, D. 2006. Animal welfare assurance programmes in food production: A framework for assessing the option. Anim. Welf. 15:93–104. Fraser, D. 2008. Understanding Animal Welfare. The science in Its Cultural Context. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UK. Green, L. E., K. Lewis, A. Kimpton, and C. J. Nicol. 2000. Crosssectional study of the prevalence of feather pecking in laying hens in alternative systems and its associations with management and disease. Vet. Rec. 147:233–238. Häne, M., B. Huber-Eicher, and E. Frohlich. 2000. Survey of laying hen husbandry in Switzerland. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 56:21–31. Hemsworth, P. H., G. J. Coleman, J. L. Barnett, S. Borg, and S. Dowling. 2002. The effects of cognitive behavioral intervention on the attitude and behavior of stockpersons and the behavior and productivity of commercial dairy cows. J. Anim. Sci. 80:68–78. Hoste, R., and C. van der Peet-Schwering. 2008. Ontwikkeling in groepshuisvesting voor dragende zeugen tot 2013. Projectnummer 314417. LEI Waginengen UR, Den Haag, the Netherlands. Laing, P. M. 1988. Diseases of free range birds. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 44:72–75. LayWel. 2006a. Deliverable 7.1. Overall strengths and weakness of each defined housing system for laying hens, and detailing the overall welfare impact of each housing system. In Report of the LayWel project. Accessed Aug. 2010. www.laywel.eu/web/pdf/ deliverable%2071%20welfare%20assessment.pdf. LayWel. 2006b. Deliverable 2.3. Description of housing systems for laying hens. In Report of the LayWel project. Accessed Aug. 2010. www.laywel.eu/web/pdf/deliverable%2023.pdf. LayWel. 2006c. Deliverable 6.2. Report on production and egg quality. In Report of the LayWel project. Accessed Aug. 2010. www. laywel.eu/web/pdf/deliverable%2062.pdf. LEI. 2010. Prohibition of enriched cages for laying hens in the Netherlands: An examination of the consequences. LEI report 2.07.10. LEI, Den Haag, the Netherlands. Accessed Aug. 2010. http:// www.minlnv.nl/portal/. Michel, V., and D. Huonnic. 2003. A comparison of welfare, health and production performance of laying hens reared in cages or aviaries. Br. Poult. Sci. 44:775–776.
Key words: aviary, egg producer, furnished cage, laying hen, survey 2011 Poultry Science 90:941–950 doi:10.3382/ps.2010-01122
INTRODUCTION
well as the general public (Mollenhorst et al., 2005; LayWel, 2006a). In the European Union (EU), these concerns resulted in a legal ban on battery cages by 2012 for farms with a minimum of 350 hens (European Communities, 1999a). Alternative housing systems that will be allowed in the EU from 2012 have been divided by the EU LayWel project (LayWel, 2006b) into cage systems and noncage systems (Table 1 lists the classification of housing systems used below). Cage systems are operated from the outside (i.e., without the human caretakers entering the housing area), whereas noncage systems are operated from the inside (i.e., caretakers enter the housing area). Alternative cage systems include furnished cages in which hens are housed in larger groups (range: 5–100 birds) and at a lower stocking density (750 vs. 550 cm2/bird) than battery cages. In addition, they
In the 1950s, the laying hen industry consisted of small, free-range flocks. Today, it has become one of the most intensive forms of animal production and is characterized by battery cages, which provide a limited amount (450–550 cm2/bird) of barren space to small groups of birds. Despite improved bird health, which in part drove this change (Savory, 2004) along with increased efficiency and reduced cost of production, the housing of laying hens in battery cages has become a major animal welfare concern for many scientists as ©2011 Poultry Science Association Inc. Received September 13, 2010. Accepted January 8, 2011. 1 Corresponding author: [email protected]
941
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on May 16, 2015
ABSTRACT 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
942
Tuyttens et al.
country with a full ban already in place on all cage types. Cage systems other than colony cages were also banned in Germany from 2010 onwards. The farmers that had not yet converted were required to submit a conversion plan. In the Netherlands, colony cages will also be the only type of cage system allowed from 2022 onward. Sweden is also ahead of the rest of the EU; battery cages were banned there starting in 1998. In Sweden in 2009, 39% of hens were housed in furnished cages, 52% in a noncage system without an outdoor area, and 9% in a noncage organic system (CIRCA, 2010). In the rest of Europe, the percentage of hens housed in furnished cages is believed to be much lower. Countries with high percentages of noncage systems are Austria, Denmark, Great Britain, Ireland, and the Netherlands (LayWel, 2006b). In most countries in the south and east of Europe, however, the percentage of hens housed in battery cages is still high (van Horne et al., 2007). It seems that these countries, along with Belgium, will have considerable difficulty meeting the EU deadline of 2012. Many egg producers will be forced to either convert to an alternative housing system or cease egg production in the very near future. This concern led to this study. A considerable body of research exists in which the pros and cons of the various housing systems have been compared (Green et al., 2000; Michel and Huonnic, 2003; Rodenburg et al., 2005; Tauson, 2005; Elson and Croxall, 2006; Rodenburg et al., 2008, Shimmura et al., 2010), which is undoubtedly useful to the many egg producers inside and outside Europe who are planning to convert to an alternative system. However, the degree to which some of these research findings may be generalized and the direct relevance for a particular egg producer may be questioned because the success of a housing system on a particular farm may very well depend on the match between the animals, the management, and the husbandry environment (Fraser, 2008). The opinion and hands-on experience of farmers who have been using alternative housing systems for their laying hens is therefore very relevant information for other egg producers, government policy about hen housing, and poultry scientists alike. In many cases, producers are opposed to legislative approaches to farm animal welfare (Fraser, 2006). This opposition may affect the speed of adoption and ultimately hinder the realization of the legislation’s intended benefits. In this study, Flemish egg producers were surveyed about the EU ban on battery cages (Flanders is the
Table 1. Classification of laying hen housing systems (based on LayWel, 2006b) in the European Union1 Housing system System type Cage Noncage 1In
Egg type
Indoor vs. outdoor
Housing type
Cage Barn Free-range, organic
Indoor (no uncovered outdoor area) Indoor (no uncovered outdoor area) Outdoor (uncovered outdoor area)
Battery cage, furnished cage, colony cage Floor housing (single level), aviary (multilevel) Floor housing (single level), aviary (multilevel)
this paper, the term “alternative housing system” is used for all housing systems other than the battery cage.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on May 16, 2015
have access to a nest, a perch, and a scratching area or mat. A more spacious variant of furnished cages are colony cages (called “Kleinvoliere” in some countries). This is a large cage system (minimum 25,000 cm2) at least 50 cm high in which relatively large groups of hens (40–115 hens) are housed at a reduced stocking density (800–900 cm2/hen) and in which at least 2 perches are provided at different heights. In Germany (from 2010 onwards) and the Netherlands (from 2022 onwards) this will be the only type of cage system allowed. Noncage systems may be classified according to the availability of perforated platforms and the availability of an outside area. Floor systems are single-level systems in which the ground floor area consists of perforated floors and litter. Aviaries are multilevel systems in which birds can access at least 2 levels: the ground floor plus 1 or more levels of perforated platforms (manure is prevented from falling on birds below). Both types of noncage system can be combined with an extra covered outside area (called “Wintergarten” in some countries), or an uncovered outside area (free-range), or both. In noncage systems birds are usually kept in large flocks of approximately 5,000 to 30,000 birds (Rodenburg et al., 2008). These different types of housing systems are linked to the way table eggs are marketed in the EU (Table 1). Eggs from battery, furnished, and colony cages are all marketed as cage eggs. Eggs from noncage systems without an uncovered outdoor area are marketed as barn eggs. Eggs from noncage systems with uncovered outdoor area can be marketed as free-range eggs or organic eggs (additional requirements exist for organic eggs with regard to, for example, maximal stocking density, maximum flock size, and beak trimming; European Communities, 1999b). Following the decision of several major supermarket chains to no longer sell cage eggs, the consumption of barn and free-range eggs in Belgium increased from approximately 36% in 2005 to 82% in 2008 (Viaene and Verheecke, 2009). The share of organic egg consumption has remained rather constant at approximately 4%. This shift in consumption pattern has not been matched by the egg production side, with 84% of hens still being housed in cage systems in 2008. Despite a lack of published data on the subject, it is believed that the vast majority of these cage systems are of the conventional battery type. Several other European countries are shifting more quickly to alternative production systems. Switzerland (a non-EU country) is the only
ALTERNATIVE HEN HOUSING SYSTEMS IN FLANDERS
MATERIALS AND METHODS Survey Procedure All Flemish egg producers with at least 350 laying hens (based on the national database compiled and kept up to date by the Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain (Brussels, Belgium) were sent a questionnaire and an accompanying letter by mail during February and March, 2010. The cover letter explained the purpose and relevance of the survey and stated that all data would be treated anonymously. The producers were urged to fill out the questionnaire and keep it near the phone once completed. About 1 wk later, they were contacted by telephone to collect the answers. If we failed to reach them, we called repeatedly at different times of day for 1 mo. This telephonic follow-up had resulted in a high response rate in previous surveys among Flemish sow keepers (Tuyttens et al., 2008, 2011). Moreover, the single poll-taker (M. Staes) could also check whether the questions had been well understood and whether the answers made sense. Although the poll-taker was instructed to be extremely careful not to influence the interviewee, such an effect cannot be ruled out completely.
Questionnaire The questionnaire consisted of 4 distinct parts. Part 1, intended for all egg producers, elicited general data about the farm (total number of hens per housing unit at the start of the most recent round, age of the housing systems) and the farmer (date of birth). Part 1 also asked the farmer to indicate the likelihood of having a successor for egg production activities on a scale from 1 (certainly not) to 5 (certainly yes) and whether they expected the premium price (compared with cage eggs) for organic, free-range, and barn eggs to decrease (score −1), stay the same (score 0), or increase (score 1) in the
future. They were also asked to score their attitude toward furnished cages, floor housing systems, and aviaries relative to conventional cages concerning 8 specific aspects as well as in general based on a 5-point scale from −2 (much worse) to +2 (much better). Part 2 was intended for egg producers who already used an alternative housing system for some or all of their hens. They were asked whether they had ever used battery cages and to provide details per housing unit such as the type of housing system (Table 1), how long the system had been operational, the number of hens per cage or unit, and whether it was a newly built, renovated, or an enlarged stable. For noncage systems, additional questions were asked such as the number of levels or tiers, the type of litter, and the availability of a covered outside area. Per type of alternative housing system used, these respondents were also asked to score their user satisfaction concerning 8 specific aspects and in general from 1 (not at all satisfied) to 5 (very satisfied). They were asked to allocate 100 points according to the relative importance of 10 reasons for having chosen that particular type of system. Part 3, for respondents planning to build or convert to an alternative housing system before 2012, also contained the latter question about choice of system. In part 4, farmers housing all their hens in conventional battery cages and having no detailed plans to convert to an alternative system by 2012 were asked to allocate 100 points according to the relative importance of various reasons for having no intentions yet to change to a group housing system.
Analyses The results were analyzed using SAS 9.2 for Windows (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). Mainly descriptive statistics were used. Binary variables were analyzed using a logistic regression model (Proc Logistic). Continuous variables were analyzed using a linear model (Proc Mixed). When appropriate, farmer was introduced as a random effect to correct for clustering of different housing units on farm level. Statistical significance was evaluated at P = 0.05. For the simultaneous comparisons between the different types of group housing, all possible pair-wise comparisons were tested at a total significance level of 0.05 using the Tukey-Kramer adjustment for multiple comparisons (or the Bonferroni correction in case of logistic regression).
RESULTS Response Rate and Respondents The response rate was high (140 completed surveys, or 60.3%; Table 2). The majority of the nonresponses were attributed to the inability to contact the egg producer or the fact that egg production activities had ceased or reduced to <350 hens. Only 11.6% actually
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on May 16, 2015
Dutch-speaking part of Belgium and comprises about 86% of the national laying hen population). The objectives of this survey were to quantify the following: 1) the occurrence of the various hen housing systems in Flanders in 2010, 2) the percentage of holdings where a change to an alternative system is planned before the 2012 deadline, 3) the reasons why farmers opted for a certain type of alternative housing system, 4) the reasons why some farmers do not plan to convert, 5) the farmers’ opinion about these housing systems and about the price evolution of the different classes of eggs, and 6) user satisfaction with alternative housing systems. Although the survey is restricted to Flanders, the situation may be comparable with other EU countries for which the ban on battery cages poses a considerable challenge. Many findings are also relevant for egg producers around the world planning to convert to an alternative system.
943
944
Tuyttens et al.
Table 2. Response rate to the total number of questionnaires Item
No. (%)
Questionnaires sent Could not be contacted Refused to participate No longer had ≥350 hens Incorrect addresses Noncommercial farms Valid respondents
232 39 27 19 4 3 140
(16.8) (11.6) (8.2) (1.7) (1.3) (60.3)
Prevalence of Conventional Cages Versus Alternative Systems Of the 140 respondents, 76 (54.3%) had no alternative housing system, 8 (5.7%) used both battery cages and an alternative housing system, and 56 (40%) used only an alternative housing system. Only a quarter of the respondents with battery cages already had detailed plans to build an alternative housing system on the farm. These percentages changed slightly when expressed at the level of the housing unit and considerably when expressed at the level of the hen (Table 3). Based on the sample, it was estimated that only 32.5% of the hens were housed in an alternative system in Flanders as of 2010. This indicates that farms with alternative housing systems were, on average, smaller than farms with battery cages. Closer inspection reveals that only the farms with floor housing (by far the most common
Respondents’ Opinions About Alternative Systems The egg producers’ opinions regarding the alternative housing systems (aviary, floor housing, and furnished cages) compared with battery cages was negative in general. It was also negative regarding specific aspects such as labor, hen health, hen performance, and farm profitability (Figure 1). With the exception of the farm profitability, the opinion about the noncage systems (aviary and floor housing) was consistently more negative than about furnished cages. The 3 alternative systems were considered superior to battery cages only concerning animal welfare. Farmers who already used an alternative system had a more positive opinion about the alternative systems compared with the battery cages both in general (F1,237 = 41.55, P < 0.001) and with regard to the 6 specific aspects (all P < 0.014). No significant effect of likelihood of a successor, farmer age, or farm size (number of hens) was apparent.
Respondents’ Opinions of Price Evolution of the Different Classes of Eggs In general, the respondents expected the price premium for barn (mean = −0.339, P < 0.001) and free-range (mean = −0.173, P = 0.013) eggs to decrease in the future. The price premium for organic eggs, however, was not expected to decrease significantly (mean = −0.047, P = 0.488). However, these expectations about price evolution depended on whether the farmer already used an alternative housing system. Those that already used alternative housing thought that the price premium for organic eggs would increase in the future (mean = 0.267, P = 0.005), whereas the price premium for barn and free-range eggs was not expected to change significantly (both P > 0.145). Farmers that had used only conventional cages believed that the price premium for barn, free-range, and organic eggs would decrease in the future (all P < 0.001).
Reasons for Not Planning to Convert to Alternative Housing Systems Fifty-seven respondents used only battery cages and had no plans yet to convert to an alternative housing
Table 3. The number (% in parentheses) of conventional battery cages versus alternative housing systems expressed at the level of the farmer, housing unit, and hen Item Alternative systems + battery cages Alternative systems only Battery cages only, no conversion before 2012 Battery cages only, conversion before 2012 Total
Farmer 8 56 57 19 140
(5.7%) (40.0%) (40.7%) (13.6%) (100%)
Housing unit 115 110 35 260
N/A (44.2%) (42.3%) (13.5%) (100%)
Hen N/A 1,464,680 (32.5%) 2,268,775 (50.4%) 768,990 (17.1%) 4,502,445 (100%)
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on May 16, 2015
refused to participate in the survey. This high participation rate indicates that the respondents were representative of Flemish egg producers. The reported likelihood of a successor for the farm was −0.4 ± 0.1, which is slightly below the neutral point of the scale (score 0). Only 19.3% of the respondents considered it likely (score 1) or certain (score 2) that they had a successor for the farm. The respondents were on average 48 ± 0.8 yr of age (range: 23–78 yr). A negative association existed between the age of the farmer and the reported likelihood of a successor (t = 7.05, P < 0.009). The mean size of the most recent flock of hens on the farm was 32,160 ± 2,563 hens (range: 450–181,000). Almost half the farmers (49.3%) housed more than 25,000 hens. A positive association existed between flock size and the reported likelihood of a successor (t = 2.88, P = 0.005). About a quarter (28%) of the respondents had never housed their hens in conventional battery cages.
type of alternative housing system in Flanders) tended to have fewer hens (Table 4).
945
16 45.1 (1.8)ab 1.9 (0.5)c 3.3 (0.4) 30,760 (3,622)c 5,487 (311)b 56 in a row without a common superscript differ significantly (P < 0.05). data are the means (+SE) or the percentages. 2Minus (−) denotes without outside area, plus (+) denotes with outside area. 3ND = no data. 1The
a–cValues
2 42.5 (6.5)ab 2.0 (1.0)bc 3.0 (0.0) 32,500 (9,500)ac 53 (7)a 100 1 38.0ab 9.0abc 3.0 24,000abc 39a 0 144 47.9 (0.7)a 19.7 (0.7)a 2.6 (0.1) 20,868 (1,034)a ND3 ND No. Age of farmer (yr) Age of system (yr) Successor in place No. of hens/unit Group size Newly built (%)
Colony Furnished Battery Item
44 49.3 (1.3)a 10.4 (1.6)b 2.4 (0.2) 9,538 (1,012)b 4,667 (317)ab 30
41 47.1 (1.3)ab 11.0 (1.3)b 2.6 (0.2) 6,520 (643)b 4,379 (426)ab 24
Aviary+ Aviary− Floor+ Floor−
Noncage system2 Cage system
Less than half (44.2%) of the barns in Flanders in 2010 used a different housing system than the conventional battery cage. Alternative cage systems such as the furnished cage and colony cage were very rare (Table 6). The vast majority of the alternative systems were noncage systems. Both noncage housing systems were most commonly used without an outdoor run (and particularly so when expressed at the level of the hen instead of housing unit). Floor housing was a more common housing system than the aviary when expressed at the level of the housing unit but not when expressed at the level of the hen. This indicates that aviary units on average housed more hens than floor housing units (although this difference is not statistically significant; Table 4). Battery cages were on average 20 yr old, floor housing systems 11 yr old, and aviary systems about 2 yr old (Table 4). Farmers who used aviary systems with an outside area were younger than those who used battery cages (t252 = 3.17, P = 0.028) and floor systems without an outside area (t252 = 3.46, P < 0.001; Table 4). Units with battery cages were smaller (in terms of hen places) than units with aviary systems without an outside area (t252 = −3.45, P = 0.012) but bigger than units with floor housing with (t252 = 6.15, P < 0.001) or without (t252 = 7.567, P < 0.001) an outside area (Table 4). The majority of the aviary systems (54%) had 3 levels or tiers, 35% had 2 tiers, and 12% had 4 tiers. Less than half (43%) of the noncage systems had a covered outdoor area, and 12% produced organic
Table 4. Comparison between the different housing systems for laying hens1
Types of Alternative Systems Operational and Planned to Be Built
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on May 16, 2015
system before the 2012 deadline. The relative importance of the various reasons why they were not planning to convert is shown in Table 5. The most important reason was the belief that using their current battery cages for as long as possible would be most profitable in their specific situation. The second most important reason was stopping farming activities by 2012, and the third was the belief that the battery cage is generally the most profitable housing system. Takeover of the farm by someone else and insufficient information about the housing systems that would be allowed in the future were the least important reasons. Closure of the farm before 2012 (F1,48 = 10.45, P = 0.002) and the takeover of the farm by someone else before 2012 (F1,48 = 4.41, P = 0.041) increased in importance with the age of the farmer. The reasons “not yet ready to consider alternative housing systems” (F1,48 = 9.43, P = 0.004), “insufficient information about the housing systems that will be allowed in the future” (F1,48 = 5.48, P = 0.023), and “it is most profitable in my situation to use the current battery cages for as long as possible” (F1,49 = 5.93, P = 0.019) decreased in importance with the age of the farmer. The latter reason increased in importance with the size of the farm (i.e., number of hens; F1,49 = 4.35, P = 0.042).
10 38.9 (2.2)b 1.8 (0.6)c 3.3 (0.2) 19,650 (3,655)ac 5,540 (1,321)ab 10
ALTERNATIVE HEN HOUSING SYSTEMS IN FLANDERS
946
Tuyttens et al.
Table 5. Mean relative importance scores (SE in parentheses) of 10 different reasons for not yet having plans to change to an alternative housing system for laying hens1 Rank
Item
Value
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
It is most profitable in my situation to use the current battery cages for as long as possible End of career; farming activities will be stopped by 2012 The battery cage is a more profitable housing system Insufficient financial resources to convert Uncertainty about the future of the farm Not yet ready to consider alternative housing systems Uncertainty about future legislation Insufficient information about the different housing systems that will be allowed in the future Farm will be taken over by someone else before 2012 Other
24.2 18.8 14.0 9.5 8.8 8.6 7.0 2.5 0.9 6.6
(3.2)a (5.0)ab (2.8)abc (2.7)bc (2.6)bc (1.7)bc (1.2)bc (0.8)c (0.7)c (2.9)bc
a–cValues 1The
without a common superscript differ significantly (P < 0.05). respondents divided 100 points among the 10 reasons, with more points indicating greater relative importance.
Reasons for Having Chosen a Particular Type of Alternative Housing System Among both respondents who already used an alternative system and among respondents who were planning to build an alternative system in the near future, the most important criterion for having chosen a particular type of alternative housing concerned future and market-oriented production (Figure 2). The amount of labor (t58 = 3.00, P = 0.004) and the profitability (better performance results; t58 = 2.46, P = 0.017) were indicated as being more importance among those that
Figure 1. Opinion of Flemish egg producers about 3 alternative indoor housing systems (aviary, floor housing, furnished cages) compared with conventional battery cages both in general and with regard to 6 specific aspects. The score ranges from −2 (much worse) to +2 (much better than conventional battery cages). Asterisk denotes a significant difference (P < 0.05) from the neutral point of the scale (score = 0). Housing systems with a different letter are significantly different (P < 0.05).
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on May 16, 2015
eggs. In 18% of the floor housing systems and 24% of the aviaries, no litter was provided (which is nonetheless obligatory). With colony cages and furnished cages planned for, respectively, 10.5 and 28.9% of the housing units that will be newly built or renovated before 2012 (Table 6), the prevalence of alternative cage systems compared with noncage systems is expected to increase in Flanders. Among the noncage systems, many more aviary systems than floor housing systems are planned to be built. The latter housing system is thus likely to become less common in the near future.
947
ALTERNATIVE HEN HOUSING SYSTEMS IN FLANDERS Table 6. Prevalence (%) of different types of housing systems operational in 2010 and planned to be built by 2012 in Flanders expressed at the level of the housing unit and the hen Operational Item Conventional battery cage Alternative cage system Furnished cage Colony cage Noncage system Floor housing without outdoor run Floor housing with outdoor run Aviary without outdoor run Aviary with outdoor run
User Satisfaction with Alternative Housing Systems Apart perhaps from the amount of labor and hen health, egg producers housing (some of) their hens in alternative systems reported to be rather satisfied with their system (Table 7). Only 1 egg producer used furnished cages, and only 2 used colony cages. The general satisfaction of the single user of furnished cages was neutral (score 3) and of both of the users of colony cages was rather positive (score 4). Given these small sample sizes, the statistical analyses on user satisfaction were restricted to users of noncage systems (Table
Hen
Planned housing unit (n = 38)
55.8
67.2
0
0.4 0.8
0.5 1.5
10.5 28.9
17.3 15.8 6.2 3.9
9.4 6.0 11.0 4.4
5.3 0.0 39.5 15.8
7). General satisfaction was lower for users of floor systems with an outdoor area than for users of floor or aviary systems without an outdoor area. Aviary systems with an outdoor area were given a higher score for the type of labor than other noncage systems. They were also given a higher score for the amount of labor and hen welfare compared with aviary systems without an outdoor area (and also compared with floor systems with an outdoor area regarding hen welfare). Systems with an outdoor area, however, scored worse regarding hen health. The larger the flock, the greater the user satisfaction, both in general and for hen welfare, production performance (number of first-class eggs per hen), and farm profitability. Satisfaction scores for hen health and for the production of first-class eggs per hen of farmers who had ever housed hens in conventional cages were significantly lower compared with farmers who had exclusively used alternative housing systems.
Figure 2. The relative importance of various reasons for having chosen a specific alternative housing system as reported by egg producers using such a system already (operational) or planning to build one by 2012. The estimated mean scores (+SE) are given on a 0 to 100 scale (respondents divided 100 points among the reasons, with more points indicating greater relative importance). Asterisk denotes that the importance for that reason differed significantly (P < 0.05) between operational and planned.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on May 16, 2015
were planning to build an alternative system compared with those that had such a system in use already. In the same light, investment costs tended to be allocated less importance (t140 = −1.97, P = 0.051).
Housing unit (n = 261)
948
Tuyttens et al.
DISCUSSION
Table 7. Satisfaction scores in general and with regard to 6 specific criteria as reported by users of the various alternative noncage housing systems1 System2 Item
Floor− (n = 44)
Labor (type) Labor (amount) Animal welfare Animal health First-class eggs/hen Profitability General
3.5 3.2 4.0 3.6 3.7 3.7 4.1
a,bMeans
(0.2)a (0.2)ab (0.1)ab (0.2)b (0.1) (0.1) (0.1)b
Floor+ (n = 40) 3.9 3.2 4.1 3.2 3.8 3.9 3.7
(0.2)a (0.2)ab (0.1)a (0.1)a (0.1) (0.1) (0.1)a
F-value Aviary− (n = 14) 3.6 2.8 3.8 3.8 3.9 3.9 4.1
(0.3)a (0.2)a (0.1)a (0.2)b (0.2) (0.2) (0.1)b
Aviary+ (n = 10) 4.3 3.5 4.3 3.1 3.7 4.0 3.9
(0.2)b (0.2)b (0.1)b (0.2)a (0.1) (0.2) (0.1)ab
System
Flock size
Battery cage
8.31*** 4.76** 7.41*** 17.52*** 2.45† 1.24 8.72***
1.19 0.25 11.08** 1.52 8.42** 15.95*** 42.25***
1.15 0.16 2.60 5.68* 7.48** 0.04 0.00
within a row without a common superscript differ significantly (Tukey-Kramer, P < 0.05). values are the model based estimated means (SE) on a scale from 1 (not at all satisfied) to 5 (very satisfied), followed by the F-statistics of the effects of housing system, flock size, and whether the respondent had ever used conventional battery cages. 2Minus (−) denotes without outside area, plus (+) denotes with outside area. †P < 0.1; *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001. 1The
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on May 16, 2015
At the beginning of 2010, the battery cage was still the most popular housing system in Flanders (56% of the housing units, 67% of the laying hens). The Flemish, and by generalization the Belgian, egg industry (Flanders contains 86% of Belgian egg producers) has a long way to go to comply fully with the 2012 EU ban on battery cages. Clearly, the transition is taking place much more slowly in Belgium than in several other EU countries such as Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, Great Britain, Ireland, and Denmark (LayWel, 2006b; see also http://circa.europa.eu/Members/ irc/agri/pig/library?l=/poultry_public_domain/public_statistics&vm = detailed&sb = Title). Although comparable recent data are rarely available, we suspect that the situation in other EU countries, and particularly those from eastern and southern Europe, might be similar to that of Belgium (van Horne et al., 2007). Even more worrying is that only a quarter of the Flemish egg producers with battery cages had detailed plans to convert to an alternative housing system by 2012. Stopping farming activities was the second most cited reason for having no plans to convert. It is not surprising that this reason increased in importance with the age of the farmer. The most important reason, among younger respondents in particular, was that using the current battery cages for as long as possible was considered to be the most profitable in their situation. Delaying the conversion to new housing systems for as long as possible and stopping the farming activities in response to new legislation have also been documented for the EU ban on the housing of gestating sows in individual stalls (Hoste and van der Peet-Schwering, 2008; Tuyttens et al., 2011). The apparent reluctance among users of battery cages to (quickly) convert to an alternative housing system might be related in part to their negative expectations about the evolution of price premiums for barn and free-range eggs relative to cage eggs in the future. Farmers already using alternative systems, to
the contrary, did not expect a significant decrease in these price premiums. The reluctance may also be explained in part by their negative opinion about alternative housing systems (indoor systems only) compared with battery cages. This negative opinion was more pronounced for noncage systems than for furnished cages and concerned the system in general as well as specific aspects including labor (type and amount), performance, farm profitability, and hen health (except for furnished cages). A review of production data confirmed that production is less efficient in noncage systems than cage systems (e.g., higher feed conversion rates), whereas the performance of birds and egg quality are not necessarily worse in furnished cages compared with battery cages (LayWel, 2006c). In the case of noncage eggs, reductions in performance can (partly) be compensated by price premiums for a higher class of eggs. This presumably explains why the producers’ negative opinion about noncage systems (but not furnished cages) was less pronounced for farm profitability than for performance. The respondents considered alternative indoor systems as superior to battery cages with regard to hen welfare only, and the degree of this positive opinion did not differ between the various alternative indoor systems. Respondents who already housed hens in an alternative system, however, had a more positive opinion about the alternative systems compared with battery cages and reported being quite satisfied with the alternative system they used. Although some scientists are not convinced that battery cages are worse than alternative systems in terms of their effect on laying hen welfare (Duncan, 2001; Savory, 2004), the egg producers’ opinion agrees quite well with the opinion among other animal welfare scientists that all alternative housing systems are (potentially) superior to battery cages, but that advantages and disadvantages exist to each type of alternative system. In general, hens in noncage systems have more opportunities for expressing natural behavior but risk more health problems (disease and injury) than hens in cage systems (Michel and Huonnic,
ALTERNATIVE HEN HOUSING SYSTEMS IN FLANDERS
importance of performance results and amount of labor is increasing. Belgium is an example of an EU country that is slow to adopt alternative hen housing systems. Compliance with the ban on battery cages by 2012 will be a huge challenge and the hen industry is expected to undergo drastic changes in the coming few years. Many older farmers will stop producing eggs and others are delaying converting as long as possible. The hands-on experience of farmers who have already converted to an alternative system should be valuable to farmers who have yet to convert and can help scientists and the industry to continue improving alternative housing systems. More studies on the attitude and opinion of producers toward changing regulations are warranted, not only because producers are the primary stakeholders that will have to apply the changes in practice and bear the consequences thereof, but also because their attitude may well influence the pattern and success of the transition. Alternative systems require different and better stockmanship skills (Appleby and Hughes, 1991; Häne et al., 2000), and attitude may have an influence on stockmanship and farm management. In turn, animal care skills can be a major determinant of farm animal welfare (Hemsworth et al., 2002). It is thus conceivable that producer attitude affects the actual realization of the desired improvements in hen welfare from banning battery cages. Studies such as this may help to further clarify the best policy for improving farm animal welfare in practice. Is it better to stipulate norms about the physical environment, or are outcome-based criteria about hen welfare better (O’Hara and O’Connor, 2007; Sørensen and Fraser, 2010)? Is it best to encourage these changes voluntarily via the market, or to impose them legally? We hope that future studies will contribute to the satisfactory resolution of these questions.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors gratefully acknowledge the Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain (Brussels, Belgium) for providing the contact addresses of egg producers based on the Sanitel record.
REFERENCES Appleby, M. C., and B. O. Hughes. 1991. Welfare of laying hens in cages and alternative systems: Environmental, physical and behavioural aspects. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 47:109–128. Bilcίk, B., and L. Keeling. 2000. Relationship between feather pecking and ground pecking in laying hens and the effect of group size. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 68:55–66. CIRCA. 2010. http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/agri/pig/ library?l=/poultry_public_domain/public_statistics&vm=detai led&sb=Title. Duncan, I. J. H. 2001. The pros and cons of cages. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 57:381–390. Elson, H. A., and R. Croxall. 2006. European study on the comparative welfare of laying hens in cage and non-cage systems. Arch. Geflugelkd. 70:194–198.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on May 16, 2015
2003; Rodenburg et al., 2005, LayWel, 2006a; Shimmura et al., 2010). The overall effect on hen welfare thus depends on the importance that one attributes to health versus other aspects of animal welfare. This discrepancy between health and other aspects of hen welfare also exists when comparing indoor systems with outdoor systems. An outdoor area provides more opportunities for expressing natural behavior but increases the risk of parasites, infection, predation, and exposure to unfavorable weather conditions (Laing, 1988; Häne et al., 2000). This is again reflected in the user satisfaction scores given by the egg producers: compared with indoor systems, user satisfaction for outdoor systems was relatively high for hen welfare but significantly lower for hen health. Other results about producer opinion and user satisfaction are less supported by scientific evidence. For example, to our knowledge, no studies exist that show whether hen welfare and performance in noncage systems increases with group size. To the contrary, although larger flock sizes are associated with more shared space, evidence exists that increasing group size increases the risk of mortality, feather pecking problems, and bumble foot (Nicol et al., 1999; Bilcίk and Keeling, 2000; LayWel, 2006a; Shimmura et al., 2010). Also to our knowledge, no scientific evidence exists that hen health and performance in alternative systems are reduced if the producer had ever housed hens in battery cages. Such unsupported findings point to the weakness of producer surveys. Some responses are likely to be influenced indirectly by complex psychological aspects (e.g., those having alternative housing for large flocks or those having experience with alternative systems only may be more committed to the system than other users) rather than having a direct causal effect. Furnished cages and colony cages were extremely rare in Flanders as of 2010. This is probably related to the prolonged uncertainty about whether national legislation would allow these housing systems in the future (the decision not to ban furnished cages until at least 2025 was taken only in the second half of 2009). Hence, the vast majority of alternative systems were noncage systems. Floor housing was equally or more common than the aviary housing, depending on whether it was expressed at the level of the hen or the housing unit, respectively. Indoor systems were more common than outdoor systems, especially when expressed at the level of the hen. Floor housing is the more traditional type of noncage housing system, whereas the aviary systems were built more recently, often by farmers with a larger flock. From the reported types of housing systems that respondents plan to build before 2012, it can be predicted that alternative cage systems (and colony cages in particular) and aviaries will become more common and floor systems less common in the near future. By far the most important reason for choosing a particular type of housing system was related to future- and market-oriented production, although it seems that the
949
950
Tuyttens et al. Mollenhorst, H., T. B. Rodenburg, E. A. M. Bokkers, P. Koene, and I. J. M. de Boer. 2005. On-farm assessment of laying hen welfare: A comparison of one environment-based and two animal-based methods. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 90:277–291. Nicol, C. J., N. G. Gregory, T. G. Knowles, I. D. Parkman, and L. J. Wilkins. 1999. Differential effects of increased stocking density, mediated by increased flock size, on feather pecking and aggression in laying hens. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 65:137–152. O’Hara, P. O., and C. O’Connor. 2007. Challenge of developing regulations for production animals that produce the welfare outcomes we want. J. Vet. Behav. 2:205–212. Rodenburg, T. B., F. A. M. Tuyttens, K. De Reu, L. Herman, J. Zoons, and B. Sonck. 2005. Welfare, health and hygiene of laying hens housed in furnished cages and in alternative housing systems. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 8:211–226. Rodenburg, T. B., F. A. M. Tuyttens, K. De Reu, L. Herman, J. Zoons, and B. Sonck. 2008. Welfare assessment of laying hens in furnished cages and non-cage systems: An on-farm comparison. Anim. Welf. 17:363–373. Savory, C. J. 2004. Laying hen welfare standards: A classic case of “power to the people”. Anim. Welf. 13:S153–S158. Shimmura, T., S. Hirahara, T. Azuma, T. Suzuki, Y. Eguchi, K. Uetake, and T. Tanaka. 2010. Multi-factorial investigation of various housing systems for laying hens. Br. Poult. Sci. 51:31–42. Sørensen, J. T., and D. Fraser. 2010. On-farm welfare assessment for regulatory purposes: Issues and possible solutions. Livest. Sci. 131:1–7. Tauson, R. 2005. Management and housing systems for layers—Effects on welfare and production. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 61:477– 490. Tuyttens, F. A. M., E. Struelens, S. Van Gansbeke, and B. Ampe. 2008. Factors influencing farmers’ responses to welfare legislation: A case study of gestating sow housing in Flanders (Belgium). Livest. Sci. 116:289–299. Tuyttens, F. A. M., S. Van Gansbeke, and B. Ampe. 2011. Survey among Belgian pig producers about the introduction of group housing systems for gestating sows. J. Anim. Sci. 89:845–855. van Horne, P., G. M. L. Tacken, H. H. Ellen, T. G. C. M. Fiks-van Niekerk, V. M. Immink, and N. Bondt. 2007. Verbod op verrijkte kooien voor leghennen in Nederland. LEI Wageningen UR, Den Haag, the Netherlands. Viaene, J., and W. Verheecke. 2009. Overzicht van de Belgische pluimvee- en konijnenhouderij in 2008. Verbond voor Pluimvee, Eieren en Konijnen, Ghent, Belgium.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on May 16, 2015
European Communities. 1999a. Council Directive 1999/74/EC on 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens. Off. J. L203:53–57. European Communities. 1999b. Council Regulation (EC) No. 1804/1999 of 19 July 1999 supplementing Regulation (EEC) No. 2092/91on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs to include livestock production. Off. J. L222:1–28. Fraser, D. 2006. Animal welfare assurance programmes in food production: A framework for assessing the option. Anim. Welf. 15:93–104. Fraser, D. 2008. Understanding Animal Welfare. The science in Its Cultural Context. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UK. Green, L. E., K. Lewis, A. Kimpton, and C. J. Nicol. 2000. Crosssectional study of the prevalence of feather pecking in laying hens in alternative systems and its associations with management and disease. Vet. Rec. 147:233–238. Häne, M., B. Huber-Eicher, and E. Frohlich. 2000. Survey of laying hen husbandry in Switzerland. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 56:21–31. Hemsworth, P. H., G. J. Coleman, J. L. Barnett, S. Borg, and S. Dowling. 2002. The effects of cognitive behavioral intervention on the attitude and behavior of stockpersons and the behavior and productivity of commercial dairy cows. J. Anim. Sci. 80:68–78. Hoste, R., and C. van der Peet-Schwering. 2008. Ontwikkeling in groepshuisvesting voor dragende zeugen tot 2013. Projectnummer 314417. LEI Waginengen UR, Den Haag, the Netherlands. Laing, P. M. 1988. Diseases of free range birds. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 44:72–75. LayWel. 2006a. Deliverable 7.1. Overall strengths and weakness of each defined housing system for laying hens, and detailing the overall welfare impact of each housing system. In Report of the LayWel project. Accessed Aug. 2010. www.laywel.eu/web/pdf/ deliverable%2071%20welfare%20assessment.pdf. LayWel. 2006b. Deliverable 2.3. Description of housing systems for laying hens. In Report of the LayWel project. Accessed Aug. 2010. www.laywel.eu/web/pdf/deliverable%2023.pdf. LayWel. 2006c. Deliverable 6.2. Report on production and egg quality. In Report of the LayWel project. Accessed Aug. 2010. www. laywel.eu/web/pdf/deliverable%2062.pdf. LEI. 2010. Prohibition of enriched cages for laying hens in the Netherlands: An examination of the consequences. LEI report 2.07.10. LEI, Den Haag, the Netherlands. Accessed Aug. 2010. http:// www.minlnv.nl/portal/. Michel, V., and D. Huonnic. 2003. A comparison of welfare, health and production performance of laying hens reared in cages or aviaries. Br. Poult. Sci. 44:775–776.