International Egg Market Annual Review

Transcription

1 International Egg Market Annual Review 09 A N N U A L R E V I E W F O R T H E I N T E R N A T I O N A L E G G I N D U S T R Y C O U N T R Y B Y C O U N T R Y D E T A I L E D S T A T I S T I C A L A N A L Y S I S

2 SUMMARY 1 Impacts of the banning of conventional cages on the egg industry of the European Union Professor Hans-Wilhelm Windhorst Hans-Wilhelm Windhorst is Professor for comparative spatial analysis and planning at the Institute of Spatial Analysis and Planning in Areas of Intensive Agriculture (ISPA), University of Vechta, Germany. He is also Statistical Analyst of the International Egg Commission (IEC). Introduction: History of the EU decision to ban cages There is no doubt that the European Union (EU) has one of the strictest legal regulations for keeping laying hens besides those countries which have already prohibited any form of cages, i.e. Switzerland and Norway. The discussion about this form of keeping laying hens for egg production is almost as old as the installation of cages in the 1960s. This is not the place to review the long history of the very controversial debates in national parliaments and the EU. It is, however, worth mentioning that the political success of the Green Party in Germany is closely related to their fight against cages in egg production and nuclear power plants. This combination alone shows the intensity with which animal welfare groups fought against this form of keeping laying hens (see also Windhorst 2004). After long debates, the European Community passed directive 1999/74/EC laying down standards for the protection of laying hens. The Commission also decided that before the final implementation of the directive, additional scientific analyses should be undertaken regarding the impacts of various systems on animal welfare of laying hens and on the economy of egg production. The results of the so-called LayWel project are available under: The results of the research projects were available in In early 2008 the EU Commission decided that the regulations in the directive would not be altered and would become effective on January 1st As was already decided in 1999, member states would be allowed to pass stricter regulations. Legal regulations in the EU Directive 1999/74/EC distinguishes between provisions applicable to alternative systems and those applicable to so called enriched cages. The directive says that all member states shall ensure that after January 1st 2012 all enriched cages comply at least with the following requirements (Journal of the European Communities, , L 203/55): laying hens must have: at least 116 inches 2 (750 cm 2 ) of cage area per hen, 93 inches 2 (600 cm 2 ) of which shall be usable ; the height of the cage other than that above the usable area shall be at least 7.9 inches (20 cm) at every point, including the perch area, and no cage shall have a total area that is less than 310 inches 2 (2000 cm 2 ); a nest; litter such that pecking and scratching are possible; appropriate perches allowing at least 5.9 inches (15 cm) per hen; a feed trough which may be used without restriction must be provided. Its length must be at least 4.7 inches (12 cm) multiplied by the number of hens in the cage; each cage must have a drinking system appropriate to the size of the group; where nipple drinkers are provided, at least two nipple drinkers or two cups must be within the reach of each hen; to facilitate inspection, installation and depopulation of hens there must be a minimum aisle width of 35.4 inches (90 cm) between tiers of cages, and a space of at least 13.8 inches (35 cm) must be allowed between the floor of the building and the bottom tier of cages; cages must be fitted with suitable claw-shortening devices. Impacts on EU egg production and egg trade In this section, impacts of the directive on EU egg production and egg trade will be analysed for selected countries. Even though the final date for the implementation of the directive is still more than two and a quarter years ahead, first impacts can already be observed. Table 1 shows that egg production in the EU decreased by almost 200,000 t or 2.5 % between 2002 and The highest decrease can be observed in the United Kingdom, Germany and Spain. As in Germany the banning of cages became effective three years earlier (i. e. in 2009) than in the other EU member countries, a considerable number of egg farmers gave up egg production or transformed their cage systems to floor management or free range systems (see also table 11). Between 1999, when the EU Commission passed the directive and 2008, the number of laying hens in Germany decreased from 50.1 mill. birds to 41.3 mill. birds or by 17.6 %. In 4 INTERNATIONAL EGG COMMISSION ANNUAL REVIEW 2009

3 the United Kingdom, the dramatic decrease in egg production is the result of the decision of leading retailers to no longer list cage eggs. A large number of egg farmers decided to give up egg production completely. In Sweden, enriched cages were installed very early. The transformation process is almost complete and neither the production volume nor the self-sufficiency rate changed very much between 2002 and In contrast to the leading egg producing countries in Central and Northern Europe, Spain continuously enlarged egg production until 2004 before a considerable decrease of the production volume occurred. In spite of the directive, a large number of farms were equipped with conventional cages, some of them can, however, be transformed into enriched cages. From the data in table 2, one can easily see that the self-sufficiency rate decreased by 7 % in Germany as well as in the United Kingdom, on the other hand, between 2002 and 2007 Spain has become one of the major egg exporting countries in the EU. The foreseeable banning of conventional cages in Germany (2009) and Austria (2010), as well as the decision of the leading retailers in these countries, to no longer list cage eggs, resulted in the already described decrease of egg production. On the other hand, demand for barn and free range eggs increased. As egg farmers in these countries were not able to meet the demand, egg imports increased considerably as can be seen from the data in table 3. The sharp TABLE 1 Development of egg production between 2002 and 2007 in selected EU member countries, data in 1,000 t (Source: ZMP) TABLE 2 Development of the self-sufficiency rate for table egg in selected countries of the EU between 2002 and 2007; data in % (Source: ZMP) TABLE 3 Development of table egg imports into selected EU member countries between 2002 and 2007, data in t (Source: ZMP) COUNTRY CHANGE (%) Austria Germany Netherlands Un. Kingdom Spain Sweden /-0 EU 7,423 7,469 7, COUNTRY Austria Germany Netherlands Un. Kingdom Spain Sweden EU COUNTRY CHANGE (%) Austria 13,762 17,334 16, Germany 256, , , Netherlands 60,052 80, , Un. Kingdom 43,947 36,602 51, Spain 1, ,781 +2,964.3 Sweden 3,997 4,902 7, EU 16,230 13,642 10, INTERNATIONAL EGG COMMISSION ANNUAL REVIEW

4 SUMMARY 1 Impacts of the banning of conventional cages on the egg industry of the European Union - Consumer prices for eggs decreased in all countries except Germany increase of Dutch imports is as much a result of the Avian Influenza outbreaks as the high capacity of the egg processing industry which imports considerable amounts of eggs for further processing from adjacent countries. The increase of egg imports into Spain is closely related to the export volume of shell eggs for consumption. Between 2002 and 2007 exports increased from about 60,000 t to almost 166,000 t. In order to meet the demand of the egg processing industry, the import of eggs for further processing became necessary. Impacts on production costs The change from conventional cages to enriched cages or floor management respectively free range systems will inevitably lead to higher production costs. Economists of Wageningen University in the Netherlands analysed the relationship between production costs for shell eggs and the available space for laying hens in various systems. With production cost in conventional cages in the EU set as 100, costs in enriched cages, as demanded in the EU from 2012 on, will increase by about 8 %. The German Kleingruppe (small group production system; similar to an enriched cage) will lead to 10 % higher production costs and the barn system in the Netherlands even to 21 % higher costs. Table 4 shows the development of production costs for selected EU member countries in absolute figures. In all countries, production costs increased. The highest relative increase showed Spain, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, the lowest Austria and Germany. This development reflects the decreasing share of cage production. In the United Kingdom and the Netherlands barn and free range systems with higher production costs became more important. In Spain, the increase is closely related to rising feed costs. The lower relative growth rate in Germany is a result of the fact that in 2007 about 66 % of the layers were still kept in conventional cages. Nevertheless, production costs were the highest in the countries listed in table 4. They reflect high labour and feed costs as well as regulations to protect the environment. In Austria, the transformation process had started earlier so that as early as 2002 production costs were quite high. Consumer prices for eggs decreased in all countries except Germany (table 5). This is a result of the decreasing per-capita consumption (table 6) and an oversupply in the market. This situation has changed considerably, however, in the second half of 2008 and early Egg prices increased, especially in Germany where an egg shortage is on the horizon because of the necessary transformation process from cages to barn and free range systems, which will reduce the number of hens by about 30 % and cause an additional deficit of 2 billion shell eggs for consumption by the end of In 2008, the deficit was already as high as 5.7 billion eggs. Germany was the leading egg importing country with a share of about 25 % of global egg trade. From table 5 one can also see that in Switzerland, where cages have been prohibited for years, and the United Kingdom, where barn and free range eggs dominate, consumer prices are much higher than in Germany or in the Netherlands and even in Sweden. Germany the test case As was already mentioned, the member countries of the EU were allowed to pass stricter legal regulations. This was the case in Germany and Austria. The German Bundesrat (Chamber of the States) first decided not to allow enriched cages, but then altered its decision by allowing so called Kleingruppenhaltungen (small group production system; similar to an enriched cage). This means that up to 60 laying hens can be kept in a facility that is similar to the enriched cage but demands at least 138 inches 2 (890 cm 2 ) total space for hens of less than 2 kg weight and 152 inches 2 (990 cm 2 ) for heavier hens. Even though it is agreed upon by leading scientists working in the field of poultry production and ethology that this form meets most of the demands of laying hens, and in addition guarantees a high quality of eggs as well as the best protection against the introduction of highly infectious diseases, animal welfare groups and some political parties continue their fight with the argument a cage is a cage. 6 INTERNATIONAL EGG COMMISSION ANNUAL REVIEW 2009

5 TABLE 4 Development of production costs for table eggs in selected EU member countries between 2002 and 2007, data in EURO/100 pieces (Source: ZMP) COUNTRY CHANGE (%) Austria Germany Netherlands Un. Kingdom Spain Sweden no data no data no data EU no data no data no data TABLE 7 Development of farms with laying hens and number of layers in Germany and Lower Saxony between 1999 and 2007 (Source: ZMP) GERMANY LOWER SAXONY YEAR FARMS LAYERS FARMS LAYERS (MILL.) (MILL.) , , , , , , Decrease (%) TABLE 5 COUNTRY Development of consumer prices for table eggs in selected European countries between 2002 and 2007, data in EURO/100 pieces (Source: ZMP) Germany* Netherlands** Un. Kingdom*** no data Sweden Switzerland EU no data no data no data * eggs from conventional cages ** price mix of cage eggs and eggs from aviaries *** eggs from floor and free range systems + eggs from enriched cages ++ eggs from floor and free range systems (decrease because of imports of cage eggs) Germany Lower Saxony 50.1m layers 13.7m layers 45.5m layers 41.7m layers 13.7m layers 13.4m layers TABLE 6 COUNTRY CHANGE (%) Development of egg consumption in selected EU member countries between 2002 and 2007, data in kg/person and year Austria Germany Netherlands /-0 Un. Kingdom Spain Sweden EU (13.7) (Source: ZMP) INTERNATIONAL EGG COMMISSION ANNUAL REVIEW

6 SUMMARY 1 Impacts of the banning of conventional cages on the egg industry of the European Union A second problem is the marketing of eggs produced in these small group production systems. In the EU, marketed eggs have to be stamped with either: 0 = organic egg production 1 = free range 2 = floor management 3 = cage Even though the small group production system is not a conventional cage, the EU demands that eggs produced in such systems have to be stamped with 3. Almost all leading retailers in Germany decided that they will not list eggs stamped with 3, whether they come from conventional cages or small group production systems. A discussion is still under way to see if it will be possible to print such eggs with either a 3+ or a 4. The latter is demanded by the German government and the egg industry, but the EU Commission has not yet decided if this will be permitted. Under these conditions it was very difficult for German egg producers to decide which way to go. As the EU had not reached a final decision before 2007 on how an enriched cage should be equipped, and what space should be available per laying hen, it was almost impossible to invest in any of the systems which were offered by equipment companies. On the other hand, the German administration had decided that conventional cages would be prohibited from January 1st, 2009, but had not decided if the enriched cage according to EU standards or the German Kleingruppenhaltung would be the system of the future. This also blocked further investments. When finally the EU and the German government had reached a decision, the leading retailers announced that they would not list eggs produced in the German system Kleingruppenhaltung. This immediately led to a drastic reduction of planned investments in this system of keeping laying hens, and to a turn to floor management systems. The impact this had on the development of the egg industry in Germany and in Lower Saxony, the leading state in egg production, will be shown in the following analysis. The number of farms with laying hens decreased dramatically after the EU directive became known to the farmers in The decrease in Lower Saxony, where almost 33 % of the German layer flocks are located, was the highest in Germany. On the other hand, the number of layers in this state decreased slower as the large egg companies (such as Deutsche Fruehstuecksei with about 4.5 mill. layers) have only just started the transformation process, as they had hoped that the Kleingruppenhaltung would be the system of the future and be accepted by the large food retailers. It can, however, be expected that by the end of 2009 the number of layers in Lower Saxony will decrease by at least 30 %, as most of the farms will be transferred to barn systems. If no new hen houses are built and the existing houses are transformed into floor management systems, the number of birds which can be kept in these houses will be 30 % to 35 % lower than the present number. How the size of egg farms and the number of hens kept in these size classes changed between 1999 and 2007, can be seen from the data in tables 8 to 10. From the data in tables 8 to 10 it can easily be seen that the number of farms and of layers decreased very fast in the lower size classes. A positive development can be observed in the two size classes from 10,000 to 99,999 birds. This is due to the fact that in particular in these size classes new farms with floor management and free range systems were built. The decrease in the highest size class is a result of the fact that when a cage farm is being transferred into a barn system (see also table 11), the number of laying hens decreases by about 30 %, as only a considerably lower number of birds can be kept per m 2. 8 INTERNATIONAL EGG COMMISSION ANNUAL REVIEW 2009

7 TABLE 8 Layer farms and laying hens in Germany in 1999 by size class (Source: Statistisches Bundesamt) FARMS LAYING HENS SIZE CLASS NUMBER % IN 1,000s % , , ,000-4,999 1, , ,000-9, , ,000-49, , ,000-99, , ,000 and > , Total 113, , The number of layers, as stated in the Census figures, are always too low, as the farmers do not report correctly. In years, when there was no risk of an AI or ND outbreak, the undercount may have been as high as 20 % and even more (as in 1999). When disease problems occurred, as in 2007 and 2008, the undercount was much lower. The data as calculated by ZMP (table 7) are more realistic, as they are based on real egg production, divided by egg per hen. For 1999, ZMP calculated 50.1 mill. layers in Germany, for 2007, 41.4 mill. layers. The real decrease was as high as 8.7 mill. birds or 18 %. Nevertheless, the Census figures show the trend very well. TABLE 10 Change in the number of farms with laying hens and the number of layers in Germany between 1999 and 2007 by size class (Source: Own calculations) TABLE 11 FARMS LAYING HENS SIZE CLASS NUMBER % IN 1,000s % , ,000-4, ,000-9, ,000-49, , ,000-99, ,000 and > , Total -40, , FORM OF KEEPING HENS CHANGE (%) class Others % of farms % of laying hens Development of number of egg farms in Germany between 2003 and 2007, divided by forms of keeping laying hens; only farms with 3,000 and more layers (Source: ZMP) Cage Farms 1, Layers (1,000) 40,830 26, Colony cages Farms Layers (1,000) Floor housing Farms Layers (1,000) 3,585 6, Free range Farms TABLE 9 Layer farms and laying hens in Germany in 2007 by size class (Source: Statistisches Bundesamt) FARMS LAYING HENS SIZE CLASS NUMBER % IN 1,000s % , , ,000-4,999 1, , ,000-9, , ,000-49, , ,000-99, , ,000 and > , Layers (1,000) 1,909 4, Bio/organic systems* Farms no data Layers (1,000) no data 1,776 - * for 1999 bio-eggs are included in free range (no exact data available) Total 72, , INTERNATIONAL EGG COMMISSION ANNUAL REVIEW

8 SUMMARY 1 Impacts of the banning of conventional cages on the egg industry of the European Union The drastic reduction of the number of egg farms and of laying hen flocks resulted in a continuous increase of egg imports (see table 3, page 5). As was already mentioned, the foreseeable decrease of the number of laying hens by the end of 2009 will result in an additional deficit of at least 2 billion eggs. As in 2007 the egg surplus in the EU was only as high as 900 million eggs, more than 1 billion eggs will have to be imported from non-eu countries. This assumes that the total EU surplus of 900 million eggs will be available for Germany. Where could the additional demand come from? Possible exporting countries could be Belarus, Ukraine, Turkey, India, and Argentina. Because of the long transportation distances, eggs from India or Argentina cannot be sold as fresh eggs for consumption. So it is still an open question as to how this problem can be solved. Another problem which has not been discussed very much so far is the animal welfare aspects. In possible exporting countries conventional cages are still permitted and the number of hens per cage is much higher than in the EU or Germany at the present time, so nothing will be gained for the welfare of laying hens. The opposite will be the case. Eggs from production systems that do not meet EU standards will flood into the market to fill the gap, eggs that may not have the quality and the safety of eggs produced in the EU. Estimated costs for new housing systems in Germany and the EU In a comprehensive study our institute estimated the costs for the implementation of new housing systems in Germany and the EU. About 26.4 mill. laying hens were kept in conventional cages in Germany in 2007 (table 11). It was estimated that 8 mill. places will be transformed to Kleingruppenhaltungen, and 18 mill. places to floor management and free range systems. The necessary investments for new houses and the remodelling of existing houses for Kleingruppenhaltungen were calculated at 180 mill. ; the investments for new houses and the remodelling of existing facilities for floor management and free range systems were calculated at 432 mill.. So in total, the volume of necessary investments will be as high as 612 mill.. In the present financial and economic situation, it seems to be very unrealistic to assume that these investments can be realized by the end of It is still an open question as to how the administrations at the county, state and federal levels will react to this challenge. Will they demand that conventional cages have to remain empty because of the existing law or will they permit a further use of the cages in order to meet the existing egg demand? The necessary investment costs for the implementation of new housing systems in the EU until 2012 were calculated at 6.1 billion. This includes the investments in Germany. One does not need to be a prophet to state that the necessary capital for these investments will not be available under the current critical financial and economic situation. How the EU will react when the member countries do not fulfill directive 1999/74/EC is also still an open question. 10 INTERNATIONAL EGG COMMISSION ANNUAL REVIEW 2009

9 - A dramatic decrease in the number of egg farms and of laying hens was the result, a further decrease by 6 to 7 mill. layers is expected by the end of This will result in a growing egg deficit. The main results of the analysis can be summarized as follows: Egg production in the EU decreased by 2.5 % between 2002 and In countries, which either prohibited conventional cages or in which the implementation of directive 1999/74/EC became effective earlier than 2012, e.g. in Germany, egg production decreased much faster. This is also true for countries in which food retailers decided to no longer list cage eggs, such as the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Production costs for eggs in systems other than cages are considerably higher than in conventional cages. Floor management systems cause an increase of production costs by 21 %, the enriched cage according to EU standards by 8 % and the German Kleingruppenhaltungen by 10 %. The situation of the egg industry in Germany is very critical, as in this country conventional cages were prohibited three years earlier than in the rest of the EU. The food retailers, under pressure from animal welfare groups, decided not to list eggs produced in the so-called Kleingruppenhaltungen. The result was a dramatic decrease in the number of egg farms and of laying hens. A further decrease by 6 to 7 mill. layers is expected by the end of This will result in a growing egg deficit. In addition to the import of about 5.7 billion eggs in 2008 another 2 billion will have to be imported to meet the domestic demand. The egg shortage will definitely lead to increasing costs for consumers. To fulfill directive 1999/74/EC, investments as high as 6.1 billion will be necessary in the EU by In Germany alone 612 mill. will be necessary to meet the existing legal regulation by the end of It is not realistic to assume that this capital will be available under present financial and economic conditions. It is still an open question as to how the German administration and the EU Commission will react. Some concluding remarks have to be added. It is obvious that legislators at the EU, as well as at country level in Germany, did not fully consider what impacts the banning of conventional cages would have on the future development of egg production and the resulting egg deficit. From 2012 on, laying hens in these countries. In addition, the quality and safety of the imported eggs may be lower than those produced in the EU. Another problem has become obvious. The long time span between the passing of directive 1999/74/EC and the final decision on how an enriched cage would have to be equipped, postponed necessary investments as the industry was understandably not willing to invest in systems that might not be permitted in the future. On the other hand, large egg producers in Germany perhaps for too long expected that the Kleingruppenhaltung would be the system of the future and that this system would be accepted by the large food retailers. When they decided not to list such eggs, the egg companies ran out of time, as it became obvious that they would not be able to transform their farms to floor management systems until the end of Financial losses on the side of the companies, higher consumer prices and increasing imports of shell eggs and egg products will be the consequence. Reference Windhorst, H.-W.: Will Germany ban cages in 2007? In: Zootecnica 26 (2004), no. 4, p Windhorst, H.-W.: Changing patterns of EU egg production and trade. In: International Egg Commission (ed.): Annual Review London 2008, p Windhorst, H.-W.: Impacts of the California referendum on banning cages and perspectives for the U. S. egg industry. In: Zootecnica 31 (2009), no. 2, P Windhorst, H.-W.: Recent Patterns of Egg Production and Trade. A Status Report on a Regional Basis. (= IEC Special Economic Report March 2009). London p. perhaps even earlier because of the critical situation in Germany, the EU will be an egg deficit region. Egg imports from countries with much lower animal welfare standards will be necessary. Nothing will be gained for the welfare of INTERNATIONAL EGG COMMISSION ANNUAL REVIEW

10 SUMMARY 2 IEC comparison of international country data Peter van Horne Peter van Horne is IEC s Economic Analyst and is a senior economist at the LEI Institute of Wageningen University and Research Centre in the Netherlands. He is Europe s premier Poultry Economist and specialises in poultry research projects for government and industry with particular focus on the economics of animal welfare, environmental protection, animal health and international competition. Peter has had a long-standing involvement with the IEC and together with Professor Windhorst is developing the Economic and Statistical service that the IEC provides to members. Introduction Based on the 2008 data provided by the IEC rapporteurs (situation at July 2009) an analysis was made. In this article we focus on three topics: 1. The recent developments of layer feed price and the production costs of eggs. 2. Housings systems for layers and the relation with income in a country 3. Consumption of eggs and the relation with income in a country Layer feed price Prices for feed ingredients have been fairly stable for a long period (since the beginning of this century.) This period was ended with a dramatic rise in 2007 and 2008 in prices for wheat, corn and soybeans. Figure 1 gives an overview of the price of layer feed (US$ per 100kg) in selected IEC countries. Figure 1 shows that in all countries the feed price did increase between 2006 and 2007 and again between 2007 and In EU countries the average increase between 2007 and 2008 was 28%. Within the EU the price increase was high in the Czech Republic, average in the Netherlands and Germany, and low in Italy and Ireland. The price increase in the USA was 32%. In other countries the increase was relatively small in India (+6%) and Iran (+3%). The increase was relatively large in Mexico (+38%) and Argentina (+39%). It should be mentioned that prices were only available from a limited number of countries in One should also realize that the price differences were calculated based on dollar prices. This means that a change in dollar rate to the local currency (on an average yearly basis) can influence that result. Production cost of eggs In addition to layer feed, energy prices also showed a sharp increase in 2007 and As a result the total production costs for producing a kilogram of eggs increased. Figure 2 gives an overview of the production costs (US$ per dozen eggs) in selected IEC countries. Figure 2 shows that production cost increased in all countries. In the EU countries of Italy, UK and the Netherlands the increase between 2007 and 2008 was around +15%. In the USA the production cost per dozen increased by 25%. In Brazil and India the increase was relatively moderate at +17% and +15%. 12 INTERNATIONAL EGG COMMISSION ANNUAL REVIEW 2009

11 USA Figure 1. Layer feed (US$ per 100 kg) in 2006, 2007 and 2008 in selected IEC countries (data for every country was not available for all three years). Feed 50,00 40, ,00 20,00 10,00 0,00 Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Hungary Ireland Italy Netherlands UK Australia Canada Japan New Zealand Argentina Brazil China Layerfeed (US$/100kg) Colombia India Iran Mexico South Africa Figure 2. Production cost (in US$ per dozen) in 2006, 2007 and 2008 in selected IEC countries (data was not available for every country for all three years). Production 1,6 1,4 1,2 1 0,8 0, Production cost (US$/ dozen) 0,4 0,2 0 Hungary Ireland Italy Netherlands UK Canada Japan New Zealand USA Brazil China Colombia India Iran Mexico South Africa INTERNATIONAL EGG COMMISSION ANNUAL REVIEW

12 SUMMARY 2 IEC comparison of international country data Housing systems Layers can be kept in different housing systems. These housing systems can be divided into three main groups: cage system (including enriched cage and family cage), barn systems (floor and aviary systems) and free range (with an outdoor area including also organic). Legislation in EU countries bans the traditional cage housing in As a result of this legislation and also due to changes in market demand, many hens in the EU are already kept in alternative housing systems. Figure 3 gives an overview of the situation in 2007 according to the information provided by IEC rapporteurs. Figure 3 shows that there is a wide variation in housing systems. Switzerland has already banned cages and all hens are kept in barn and free range systems. Within the EU, Sweden, Austria and the Netherlands have a high percentage of hens in alternative systems. This percentage is low in Spain and Italy. Outside Europe cage systems are commonly used. There are some countries with alternative systems, particularly Australia (22%) and New Zealand (21%). The high percentage of barn systems in China (see figure 3) probably relates to small scale / back yard farming. Welfare and income in a country Around the world many countries have some kind of welfare legislation. To show the relationship between the level of welfare and income, a comparison was made by van Horne and Achterbosch (World Poultry Science Journal, Vol 64, March 2008). In this report a survey was conducted to investigate what level of legislation exists in various countries to regulate the welfare of poultry. For layers the level was determined by the space allowance per hen and the status of beak trimming etc. For broilers bird density per square meter determined the level. Each country was given a score on a scale of 1 to 5. At the same time the average gross national income (GNI) per person is available from FAO data for every country. In figure 4 those two factors are related to each other. Figure 4 shows that Switzerland has an exceptional position with a high standard for poultry welfare. In North West Europe some countries, particularly Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands, have standards above the EU level. In general, Southern and Eastern members of the EU have no poultry welfare legislation beyond that required by EU Directives. The EU countries in the east of Europe (e.g. Poland and Hungary) have a medium level gross national income but are obliged to work with the EU standards. Outside Europe, only the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have any kind of animal welfare legislation or guidelines. 14 INTERNATIONAL EGG COMMISSION ANNUAL REVIEW 2009

13 Figure 3. Overview of the percentage of hens housed in cages, barn or free range systems in selected IEC countries (data 2007). cage barn free range Systems % 0 Austria Belgium Czech Republic Denmark Welfare Finland France Germany Hungary Ireland Italy Netherlands Spain Sweden Switzerland UK Australia Canada Japan New Zealand USA Argentina Brazil China Colombia India Iran Mexico South Africa Thailand Figure 4. Index for welfare legislation (score 1 to 5) in relation to income level (gross national income, thousand dollars, FAO) for some countries East EU South EU N-W EU Switzerland Welfare level (index) New Zealand Australia USA Asia and South America Japan Gross national income (*1000US$ per person per year) INTERNATIONAL EGG COMMISSION ANNUAL REVIEW

14 SUMMARY 2 IEC comparison of international country data Egg Consumption For almost all IEC member countries data on total egg consumption is available. This information refers to the total egg consumption per capita per year and includes the consumption of shell eggs and egg products. Figure 5 gives the egg consumption per person per year in Figure 5 shows that in Europe egg consumption is between 150 and 300 eggs. Within Europe egg consumption is low in Finland and Ireland and high in Denmark and Hungary. Outside Europe we see a high egg consumption of more than 300 eggs in Japan, China and Mexico. In India the consumption is very low with 47 eggs per person. Egg consumption is influenced by many factors like culture, tradition and specific food dishes. Also income and religion can play a role. To show the relation with income we produced a graph of egg consumption combined with income (FAO data on gross national income in 1000 dollars). Figure 6 gives an overview. Egg consumption and income in a country In figure 6 we can see that many western countries (North West Europe, Canada, New Zealand and Australia) have an income between 20,000 and 40,000 dollars and egg consumption is between 150 and 300 eggs per person per year. Many countries with a lower average income have similar egg consumption (e.g Argentina and Thailand). China and Mexico have a relatively low average income and very high egg consumption. Probably consumer preferences with special dishes and other food traditions influence the consumption in these countries. The low consumption in India possibly relates to religion where a large part of the population does not eat any animal products (including eggs). Further research should clarify these differences in consumption between countries. This is especially relevant to forecast future consumption levels as income will increase in the years to come. 16 INTERNATIONAL EGG COMMISSION ANNUAL REVIEW 2009

15 Figure 5. Overview of the total egg consumption in IEC countries (data 2007). Consumption Austria Belgium Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Hungary Ireland Italy Netherlands Egg consumption (eggs/person/year) Spain Sweden Switzerland UK Australia Canada Japan New Zealand USA Argentina Brazil China Colombia India Iran Mexico South Africa Thailand Figure 6. Total egg consumption per person per year and income (data 2005, gross national income per year, in thousand dollars) for some IEC countries. Consumption/ income Egg consumption /person / year India Mexico China Hungary Czech Rep Thailand Argentina Greece Japan USA N-W Europe + Canada, New Zealand, Australia Other countries Gross national income (*1000 US$ per person per year) INTERNATIONAL EGG COMMISSION ANNUAL REVIEW

16 Manuel Lima Fepasa Rue Elas Garcia 30 Venda Nova Amadora Portugal Phone Fax Norbert Papranec Ovotherm Slovakia s.r.o. Biskupa Kondeho 4577/18 Dunajska Streda SK Slovakia Phone Fax: Magda Prinsloo Southern African Poultry Association PO Box 1202 Honeydew 2040 South Africa Phone Fax Maria del Mar Fernandez Poza INPROVO Juan Montalvo 5 I D Madrid E Spain Phone Fax aseprhu@aseprhu.com Therese Schultz Managing Director Swedish Egg & Poultry Association SFS - Svenska Agg Franzengatan 6 Stockholm S Sweden Phone Fax therese.schultz@svenskaagg.se Alois Mettler National Poultry Centre Lindachstr. 24 PO Box 81 Kirchlindach CH-3038 Switzerland Phone Fax alois.mettler@bluewin.ch Iryna Portechyn Agroholding Avangard 7/9 Schchorsa Street Kiev Ukraine Phone Fax stk.iryna@yahoo.com Firas Rabah Al Ghurair Foods PO Box 780 Dubai United Arab Emirates Phone Fax firasr@alghurairgroup.com Mark Williams British Egg Industry Council 2nd Floor 89 Charterhouse Street London EC1M 6HR UK Phone Fax mark.williams@ britisheggindustrycouncil.com Dr Donald Bell Cooperative Extension Highlander Hall C-140 Riverside CA USA Phone Fax don.bell@ucr.edu IEC has members in nearly 60 countries Argentina Armenia Australia Austria Barbados Belarus Belgium Brazil Bulgaria Canada China Colombia Cyprus Czech Rep Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Guatemala Hungary India Iran Ireland Italy Japan Korea Latvia Mauritius Mexico Mongolia Netherlands New Zealand Nigeria Norway Philippines Poland Portugal Rep Ireland Russia Singapore Slovakia South Africa Spain Sweden Switzerland Taiwan Thailand Trinidad and Tobago Turkey Ukraine United Kingdom United Arab Emirates USA Venezuela Annual Review 2009 editorial team Director General Julian Madeley julian@internationalegg.com Statistical Analyst Professor Hans-Wilhelm Windhorst economics@internationalegg.com Economic Analyst Peter van Horne economics@internationalegg.com Office and Event Manager Mrs Philippa Hillier philippa@internationalegg.com Communications Manager Mrs Vikki Millichamp vikki@internationalegg.com Designed and produced by Lighthouse design for business info@lighthouseuk.net The IEC would like to thank for their generosity and support INTERNATIONAL EGG COMMISSION ANNUAL REVIEW

17 The International Egg Commission 89 Charterhouse Street London EC1M 6HR United Kingdom Phone: +44 (0) Fax: +44 (0) Web: The IEC support group We would like to thank the following for their support Interested in joining the IEC support group? The IEC support group provides a unique opportunity to promote your company through IEC publications, the IEC website and through our annual conferences. If you are interested in joining, please contact Philippa Hillier on +44 (0)