Spain and Italy will miss EU cage ban deadline

Spain could be struggling to meet the EU’s 2012 deadline for a ban on the use of conventional cages. That was the message coming out of the International Egg Commission conference in Vancouver, where delegates heard that problems over funding had led to many producers holding off making the transition to enriched production systems.

NFU poultry board chairman Charles Bourns said the difficulties were mentioned in the conference’s country report on Spain. The issue had also been highlighted in conversations he had had with representatives of the Spanish egg industry. "The problem is that the Spanish Government promised producers that it would give them a grant to help meet the expense of new regulations. The producers say the money has not been coming through. Some producers are putting in new cages because retailers don’t want to sell illegal eggs, but the suggestion seems to be that Spain will not be able to meet the deadline," said Charles.

He said that Italy was also likely to miss the deadline, although for very different reasons. Charles said the Italians had said the EU regulations had not been translated correctly into Italian. The translation was having to be done again and the result would be that Italy would not meet the deadline for the ban on conventional cages, which falls on January 1 2012.

At the IEC’s Vancouver conference in September, Mark Williams, chief executive of the British Egg Industry Council, brought delegates up to date with how other countries in the EU were doing in making the transition to conventional systems.

He said that of the 278 million hens in cage systems in Europe in 2008, only 20 million (seven per cent) were in enriched colonies. Mark believes the industry faces a huge challenge to move all hens from conventional to enriched systems before the deadline in 2012, although he said some countries were ahead of others in making the change. In Germany all laying hens had to be out of conventional cages by the end of 2009.

Gert Stuke told IEC delegates of the German experience in making the transition to enriched colonies. He said that six research farms had been set up to study the animal, ethical and human aspects of using enriched colony systems. The research farms studied all aspects of animal health and hygiene, as well as the ethical implications such as animal protection and human food safety and risk assessment issues. He said results showed that the German kleingruppenhaltung colony system was highly effective for achieving the highest levels of animal health, animal welfare and food safety.

He said that laying performance was comparable with conventional cages, mortality was lower than in alternative laying systems, there was no need for beak shortening, the system allowed good observation of the hens, the stability of the hens’ legs and bones was comparable with other laying systems and the kleingruppenhaltung system enabled the highest levels of hygiene to be met.

The Netherlands has decided to adopt Germany’s kleingruppenhaltung system. As major suppliers to the German market, Dutch egg producers are responding to German market trends and demands.

In Austria conventional cages were prohibited at the end of 2008. Enriched colonies will be banned by 2020.

Sweden made the decision to ban conventional cages in 1989. Egg farmers were originally given 10 years to phase out the conventional cages. The legislation was amended in 1997 to allow enriched cages, and conventional cages ceased to be used in Sweden by the end of 2002.

Belgium will comply with the EU directive to ban conventional cages by the beginning of 2012. There is also a proposal to ban enriched colonies in Belgium by the end of 2024, although Mark Williams believes that this complete cage ban is unlikely to come into force until 2040.

As the EU ban on conventional cages draws closer, most European countries are moving towards enriched colony systems, at least in the short to mid term. Numerous research projects have been carried out throughout Europe, studying the commercial implications of adopting these systems.

Thea Fiks-van Niekerk is currently leading a research project studying the housing and welfare of laying hens and he outlined some research results to IEC delegates. The Laywel Project, compared the behaviour of birds in conventional cages with that of birds in enriched colonies. The aim of the study was to determine whether the birds used features like the perch, nest box and litter area found in enriched colonies. The study also compared the production processes of the two systems, including egg quality, feed intake and the health and hygiene of the birds.

Thea Fiks-van Niekerk’s research results showed that the hens did use the facilities provided in enriched colonies. Some 95 to 99 per cent of eggs were laid in the nest boxes. Between 40 and 50 per cent of the hens used the perches during the day time, and at night time almost all them, between 80 and 90 per cent, used the perch.

He found that the quality of eggs laid in enriched colonies was comparable with those laid in conventional cages. A total of 93.29 per cent of eggs laid in conventional cages were first grade, compared with 92.27 per cent in enriched colonies.

A comparison of feed intake showed that the hens in the colonies consumed slightly less than hens in conventional cages. It had been expected that increased movement and energy use would result in higher feed intake amongst the enriched hens. One theory offered by Thea Fiks-van Niekerk for the unexpected result was that the birds in the enriched colony could sit quietly on the perch, therefore moving less than birds in a conventional system.

Peter van Horne addressed the economic impact of changing to an enriched system. He told the IEC that enriched colonies required slightly higher labour input, while the density of hens would decrease, resulting in an additional cost per hen. In addition to this, there was the capital investment required to install the systems.

These economic factors resulted in an increase in production costs of between 8 and 10 per cent for enriched colonies. Despite the extra investment required, eggs produced in enriched colony systems did not attract premium prices. "At this moment there is no mark-up bonus in the market in Europe," he said. Free-range eggs and organic eggs had the benefit of generating higher market prices, but consumers still regarded eggs laid in enriched colonies as cage eggs. They were not prepared to pay a premium.

Experts attending the conference expressed confidence that enriched colonies would comply with animal welfare guidelines, including those in California, whilst maintaining an efficient production system. BEIC deputy chairman Andrew Joret said the scientific evidence was that enriched colonies provided good production results, and although it was still difficult to actively promote them to consumers they were a lot easier to defend than conventional cages.

However, he said that in the eyes of the consumer, "a cage is still a cage". Within the United Kingdom two of the country’s leading four supermarkets had declared that they would sell eggs from enriched cages, one would not and the remaining one was currently undecided.