Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2xdlg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-19T22:50:44.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economic comparison of unenriched and alternative cage systems used in laying hen husbandry - recent experience under Turkish commercial conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 January 2017

Y. ARAL ,
M.S. ARIKAN ,
E.E. ONBASILAR ,
N. UNAL ,
A. GOKDAI  and
E. ERDEM
Y. ARAL*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Health Economics and Management, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey
M.S. ARIKAN
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Health Economics and Management, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey
E.E. ONBASILAR
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey
N. UNAL
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey
A. GOKDAI
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Health Economics and Management, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey
E. ERDEM
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Kırıkkale University, Kırıkkale, Turkey
*
Corresponding author: yaral@veterinary.ankara.edu.tr
Get access

Abstract

This review provides a comparative analysis on the unenriched and alternative cage systems used in commercial egg production as required by the directive (99/74/EC) of the EU Council on animal welfare in terms of technical performance indicators, distribution of cost items, egg sales revenue, and profitability. Unenriched (conventional) cages are commonly used in Turkey. However these cages don't provide for the laying hens natural needs. The comparison was taken from data regarding Lohmann Brown Classic and Lohmann LSL Classic laying hybrids kept in two caging systems. The rearing period was composed of 399 days starting when 16-week-old commercial pullets were put into unenriched and alternative cage systems and ending at the end of their 73rd weeks of age when laying hens were removed from production. The average shares of the some important cost items in the total cost in the production period were calculated to be as follows for unenriched and alternative cage systems, respectively: pullet 22.17% and 21.17%; feed 61.31% and 58.29%; labour 2.67% and 2.55%; veterinary and health 0.74% and 0.98%; egg packaging 3.23% and 3.48%; maintenance and repair expenses 1.50% and 2.29%; and depreciation costs 5.48% and 8.35%. The average cost of producing one egg was found to be 0.094 US$ and 0.097 US$, respectively. It was determined that investment costs in alternative cage systems was 14.93% higher and the production cost per hen was 2.03% higher than that in unenriched cage systems. In Turkey, on January 1, 2023, all systems will be converted to alternative cages. Investment amounts and production costs for the alternative cage systems are very important in this transformation process. Therefore the present review is to examine the available information on the production data of laying hens reared in the unenriched and alternative cages and to make economic feasibility conclusions under Turkey conditions.

Keywords

laying hencommercial eggcage systemscosteconomic analysis
Type
Reviews
Information
World's Poultry Science Journal , Volume 73 , Issue 1 , March 2017 , pp. 69 - 76
Copyright
Copyright © World's Poultry Science Association 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ABRAHAMSSON, P. and TAUSON, R. (1995a) Aviary systems and conventional cages for laying hens: Effects on production, egg quality, health and bird location in three hybrids. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica A-Animal Sciences 45: 191-203.Google Scholar
ABRAHAMSSON, P., TAUSON, R. and APPLEBY, M.C. (1995b) Performance of four hybrids of laying hens in modified and conventional cages. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica A-Animal Sciences 45: 286-296.Google Scholar
ACIL, F. (1980) Calculation of the agricultural product costs and development in agricultural product costs in Turkey. Ankara University Agricultural Faculty Publications No: 665.Google Scholar
AGRA and CEAS (2004) Study on the socio-economic implications of the various systems to keep laying hens. Final Report for the European Commission.Google Scholar
BELL, D. (2006) A Review of Recent Publications On Animal Welfare Issues For Table Egg Laying Hens. University of California, Riverside, USA.Google Scholar
BLOKHUIS, H.J., FIKS-VAN NIEKERK, T., BESSEI, W., ELSON, A., GUÉMENÉ, D., KJAER, J.B. and VAN DE WEERD, H.A. (2007) The LayWel project: welfare implications of changes in production systems for laying hens. World's Poultry Science Journal 63: 101-114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DIRECTIVE EU (1999) Council Directive 99/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens. Official Journal of the European Communities, pp. 53-57.Google Scholar
GOCSIK, E., LANSINK, A.O., VOERMANS, G. and SAATKAMP, H.W. (2015) Economic feasibility of animal welfare improvements in Dutch intensive livestock production: A comparison between broiler, laying hen, and fattening pig sectors. Livestock Science 182: 38-53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GUESDON, V. and FAURE, J.M. (2004) Laying performance and egg quality in hens kept in standard or furnished cages. Animal Research 53: 45-57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LAY, D.C., FULTON, R.M., HESTER, P.Y., KARCHER, D.M., KJAER, J.B., MENCH, J.A., MULLEN, B.A., NEWBERRY, R.C., NICOL, C.J., SULLIVAN, N.P.O. and PORTER, R.E. (2011) Hen welfare in different housing systems. Poultry Science 90: 278-294.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MATTHEWS, W.A. and SUMNER, D.A. (2015) Effects of housing system on the costs of commercial egg production. Poultry Science 94: 552-557.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MUFTUOGLU, M.T. (1989) Business Economics (Book in Turkish). Turhan Kitabevi, 3. Baskı, Ankara.Google Scholar
ONBASILAR, E.E., UNAL, N., ERDEM, E., KOCAKAYA, A. and YARANOGLU, B. (2015) Production performance, use of nest box, and external appearance of two strains of laying hens kept in conventional and enriched cages. Poultry Science 94: 559-564.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
SARIOZKAN, S. and SAKARYA, E. (2006) The profitability and productivity analysis of layer hen enterprises in Afyon province, Turkey. Journal of Lalahan Livestock Research Institute 46: 29-44.Google Scholar
SINGH, R., CHENG, K.M. and SILVERSIDES, F.G. (2009) Production performance and egg quality of four strains of laying hens kept in conventional cages and floor pens . Poultry Science 88: 256-264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
SUMNER, D.A., ROSEN-MOLINA, J.T., MATTHEWS, W.A., MENCH, J.A. and RICHTER, K.R. (2008) Economic effects of proposed restrictions on egg-laying hen housing in California. University of California Agricultural Issues Center, USA.Google Scholar
TAUSON, R. (2005) Management and housing systems for layers-effects on welfare and production. World's Poultry Science Journal 61: 477-490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VAN HORNE, P.L.M., TACKEN, G., ELLEN, H., FIKS-VAN NIEKERK, T., IMMINK, V. and BONDT, N. (2007) Prohibition of enriched cages for laying hens in the Netherlands; an examination of the consequences. Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI). Report, 2 (10).Google Scholar
VAN HORNE, P.L.M. and BONDT, N. (2003) Impact of EU Council Directive 99/74/EC 'welfare of laying hens' on the competitiveness of the EU egg industry. Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI) Report, No. 2 (03.04).Google Scholar
VAN HORNE, P.L.M. (2003) The impact of laying hen welfare on the competitiveness of the EU egg industry. World's Poultry Science Journal 19: 18-21.Google Scholar