Egg Marketing in National Supermarkets: Specialty Eggs Part 2

Egg Marketing in National Supermarkets: Specialty Eggs Part 2 P. H. Patterson,*,1 K. W. Koelkebeck, D. D. Bell, J. B. Carey, K. E. Anderson, and M. J. Darre# *Department of Poultry Science, Penn State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802-3501; Department of Animal Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois 61801; Department of Avian Sciences, University of California; Highlander Hall, Riverside, California 92521; Department of Poultry Science, Texas A& M University, College Station, Texas 77843-2472; Department of Poultry Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695-7608, and #Department of Animal Science, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut 06269-4040 ABSTRACT Large eggs promoted as having one or d). Average egg weights for specialty compared to white more features beyond conventional white or brown shell eggs (specialty eggs) were evaluated for quality and price in a national retail study. Subtypes of specialty eggs included: nutritionally altered eggs, organic eggs, fertile eggs, eggs from welfare-managed hens, or hens fed allvegetable diets. Extension Poultry Specialists in California (CA), Connecticut, Illinois, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Texas conducted a survey of egg quality and price and compared 246 dozen specialty eggs with 390 dozen conventional white shell eggs during the summer of 1996. Age of the eggs based on carton dating indicated specialty eggs were older (16.5 d) than white eggs (11.7 were 60.2 and 59.6 g, respectively. Interior egg quality evaluations including albumen height, Haugh units (HU), and percentage HU <55, indicated white eggs were superior (5.0 mm, 67.5, and 10.6%, respectively) compared to specialty eggs (4.7 mm, 63.8, and 16.3%). Although the percentage of cracked eggs was similar between specialty and white eggs (5.4 and 5.7%), the percentage of leakers was threefold higher for the specialty eggs (1.0 vs. 0.3%). Egg price was substantially higher for the specialty eggs, averaging $2.18/dozen with a range from 0.88 to $4.38, compared to white eggs, averaging $1.23/dozen and ranging from 0.39 to $2.35. (Key words: specialty eggs, organic, egg quality, age, price) 2001 Poultry Science 80:390 395 INTRODUCTION According to Looper (1996), there are many bright spots for egg marketing in the U.S. The volume of egg products has doubled in the last decade. Egg exports increased 23% from 1995 to 1996, and specialty eggs now represent 3 to 5% of retail cartoned eggs in this country. Each of these diversions from conventional table eggs to export or a high priced specialty egg effectively reduces the available supply of conventional eggs. For every 1% change in domestic supply, farm price is impacted $0.5/dozen according to J. H. Sumner 1997 (USA Poultry & Egg Export Council, 2300 W. Park Pl. Blvd. #100, Stone Mountain, Georgia, 30087, personal communication). We were interested in the growing presence of specialty eggs available to consumers in the retail setting. Specialty eggs have one or more features beyond conventional white or brown eggs. The real advantage of specialty eggs is that they offer consumers a choice; they do not appear to distract from conventional egg market- ing and may even enhance marketing of conventional eggs, as conventional eggs are priced lower than specialty eggs (Blank, 1997). Niche marketing of eggs in France is increasing with about 2.4 million layers producing specialty eggs in alternative settings (Evans, 1995). Alternative systems include outdoor production and systems with government rules concerning hen age, nutrition, and space per layer. Technical data from alternative production systems would indicate average measures of productivity are impaired in these settings compared to conventional cage systems, including mortality rate, 7.2 vs. 5.2%; egg number per layer, 259 vs. 284; egg weight, 62.7 vs. 63.2 g; feed per egg, 162 vs. 142 g; and rejected eggs per hen, 8.5 vs. 6.3. However, in France eggs from alternatively managed hens are gaining in popularity and represented between 3 to 4% of total eggs marketed in 1995. In Denmark, there has been a marked interest in nontraditional production methods and vegetable and animal organic foodstuffs (Evans, 1995). The cost of producing organic eggs is substantially higher than the cost of producing eggs with traditional practices. The retail Received for publication May 9, 2000. Accepted for publication November 20, 2000. 1 To whom correspondence should be addressed: php1@psu.edu. Abbreviation Key: CA = California; HU = Haugh unit. 390

NATIONAL EGG QUALITY STUDY PART 2 391 price of organic eggs is 2.9 times higher than for traditional eggs, and producers earn 2.4 times as much for the organic eggs. Although many good things could be said about organic methods, Danish research indicated organic hens had an increased incidence of both tapeworms and pathogenic organisms. Furthermore, beak trimming in organic flocks is not allowed, and feather picking is viewed as a risk factor for cannibalism. Although there is a growing market for organic eggs, the demand appears tied to geographic areas where the standard of living and purchasing power is high. In the U.S., organic is a labeling term that denotes products produced under the authority of the federal Organic Food Production Act of 1990 (USDA, 2000). A more lengthy definition of organic was drafted and passed by the National Organic Standards Board (1995). The 1990 Organic Food Production Act has never been implemented despite two proposed rules (December 1997, and March 2000) and much public input. The March 2000 Revised Proposed Rule would establish a National Organic Program and standards for organic production and handling of agricultural products. The program would determine an accreditation program for certification, labeling requirements, exports, and enforcement provisions for producers and processors to follow. A 1994 USDA survey of organic food and fiber producers reported 44 organizations actively certifying organic production (Dunn, 1995). The majority were private organizations (n = 33), many of which did not include livestock certification in their programs. Only 5% of certified producers raised organic poultry or livestock, although 26% of all certified organic cropland was for livestock feed production. Forty-four percent of the cropland was dedicated to producing certified organic concentrate feeds that poultry could consume, whereas the other 56% was in roughage. Yet in 1994 only 110,500 meat birds and 47,700 laying hens were certified. Of the 11 states with organic certification programs in 1994, only Washington and New Mexico certified organic livestock or poultry. The state of California (CA) requires all growers marketing their products with the term organic to register with the California Department of Food and Agriculture (Klonsky and Tourte, 1996). Organic certification is separate from, and does not act as a substitute for, state registration in CA, as the latter is required by law, whereas certification is currently voluntary. During a 1992 to 1993 survey, more than half (55%) of all registered organic growers were not certified. In the U.S., organic egg producers are expanding production to meet market demand, and retailers are selling organic eggs for double or triple the price of conventional eggs (Blank, 1997). According to Looper (1996) specialty eggs, which include organic eggs, are uniquely different from conventional eggs. These eggs may be fertile, have less cholesterol, less fat, more beneficial vitamins, or be produced by floor- or range-managed hens or any combination above. Specialty eggs may fulfill one or more specific needs, such as a quality attribute, emotional need, health benefit, or others. The objective of this study was to compare the age, quality, and price of large conventional white eggs with specialty eggs available to consumers throughout the U.S. MATERIALS AND METHODS University extension personnel from six states sampled eggs with the help of state departments of agriculture personnel in CA, Illinois, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, and New England states including Connecticut, New York, and Massachusetts. The scope of the project included 115 supermarkets, 38 cities, and 636 dozen eggs (including 390 dozen conventional white and 246 dozen specialty). Three replicate dozens of each product were sampled during the period from June through August of 1996. Egg samples were purchased in the morning and taken to a central location for quality evaluations during the afternoon on the same day. Carton and individual egg information included egg age (d), individual egg weight (g), price per dozen ($), candled shell quality including cracked and leaking eggs expressed as a percentage of the dozen, and breakout measures of albumen height (mm) and Haugh units (HU). Egg age was determined by the purchase date minus the packaging date. Underweight eggs were defined as eggs weighing <54.3 g/egg, the USDA (1990) minimum weight for individual large eggs. The USDA requires AA quality eggs to have HU values >72, and A quality to have >66 HU, but for the purposes of identifying cartons with low quality, the percentage of eggs per dozen with HU <55 was also calculated. Large specialty eggs were further categorized into subtypes including nutritionally altered eggs, organic eggs, fertile eggs, eggs from welfare-managed hens, and eggs from hens fed all-vegetable diets. Statistical Analysis Statistical comparison of white vs. specialty eggs was made using one-way ANOVA as a completely randomized design and the general linear models procedure of SAS software (SAS Institute, 1994). A statistical comparison of the subtypes of specialty eggs was made with a weighted ANOVA procedure because of the unequal n. The Student-Newman Keul s multiple-range test was used to separate means when significant differences were determined at P < 0.05. An arcsine transformation of the egg quality percentage terms was performed before the ANOVA. RESULTS White vs. Specialty Eggs In a comparison of conventional white eggs with specialty eggs for major quality and price parameters, white eggs were superior in most categories (Table 1). Egg age

392 PATTERSON ET AL. TABLE 1. Mean comparison of specialty and white egg quality and price parameters Egg type Item Specialty White Pooled SEM P-value Age (d) 16.5 11.7 0.40 0.0001 Weight (g) 60.2 59.6 0.16 0.0196 Underweight eggs (%) 3.0 3.9 0.41 0.0753 Albumen height (mm) 4.7 5.0 0.04 0.0001 Haugh Unit (HU) 63.8 67.5 0.40 0.0001 HU <55 (%) 16.3 10.6 0.97 0.0001 Cracks (%) 5.4 5.7 0.44 0.3437 Leakers (%) 1.0 0.3 0.17 0.0191 Price mean ($/dozen) 2.18 1.23 0.03 0.0001 Price range ($/dozen) 0.88 4.38 0.39 2.35...... in the retail setting, based on carton pack date, averaged 11.7 d for the white eggs, whereas the specialty eggs were approximately 5 d older. Egg weight averaged 0.6 g more per egg for the specialty eggs with 1.1% less underweight eggs than conventional white eggs. All three parameters of interior quality were superior among white eggs, including albumen height, HU, and a lower percentage of eggs with HU <55 compared to the specialty eggs. Cracked eggs averaged about 5.55% per dozen and were not significantly different between the two types, whereas the percentage of leakers was more than threefold greater among specialty eggs. Price differences were significant between egg type with the specialty eggs costing almost $1 more per dozen with a range in price exceeding $4.00/dozen. Major defects of eggs in cartons that might discourage consumers from making a repeat purchase are shown in Table 2. When specialty eggs were compared with conventional white eggs, both types had similar percentages of cartons with more than 25% cracked eggs (average 5.35%). Cartons with one or more leaking eggs were more common among the specialty eggs by 1.7 times compared to white eggs. Cartons with 50% or more eggs at <55 HU approached 10% in the specialty eggs and were almost 2.2 times as prevalent compared with conventional white eggs. Cartons with underweight eggs were infrequent at only 2.5% among specialty eggs and low for white eggs at 4.3%. One-third of the cartons with specialty eggs were 21 d or older, whereas only 10.8% were this age among the white eggs. Finally, carton price reached a threshold of greater than $2.00 per dozen in 45% of the specialty eggs, whereas only 3% of white eggs TABLE 2. Egg cartons with major quality, weight and price concerns (based on individual cartons) Item Specialty eggs White eggs (%) (%) Cartons with more than 25% cracked eggs 5.9 4.8 Cartons with one or more leaking eggs 6.4 3.8 Cartons with 50% or more eggs <55 Haugh units 9.8 4.5 Cartons with 25% or more eggs <54.3 g/egg 2.5 4.3 Carton age >21 d 33.0 10.8 Price >$2.00/dozen 45.3 3.3 reached this price threshold. Collectively these quality concerns within specialty eggs may detract from a return purchase. Although white egg cartons had considerably fewer problems with quality or price, these problems should still be a significant concern to those companies marketing these white eggs. Specialty Egg Subtypes Subtypes of specialty eggs were compared for similar quality and price parameters (Table 3). The majority of eggs were a combination of two unique specialties, including hens fed all-vegetable diets with a nutritionally altered egg (45.4%). Eggs from welfare-managed hens or nutritionally altered eggs as their single specialty each composed approximately 20% of the survey. Eggs featured as fertile or organic as their primary specialty were a smaller percentage of the sample at 6.5 and 6.1% each, respectively. Average egg age at the retail setting varied from 11 to 19 d among the different specialty egg subtypes. Eggs from the welfare-managed hens and fertile eggs were significantly fresher (more than 1 wk) than organic eggs, nutritionally altered eggs, or eggs from the combination all-vegetable diets and nutritionally altered. Eggs from welfare-managed hens were significantly heavier (more than 2 g/egg) than were nutritionally altered eggs, whereas the other subtypes were intermediate in weight. Organic eggs had significantly poorer interior quality, including albumen height and HU, than all other subtypes. Although there were no significant differences (P > 0.05) in percentage of leakers between egg subtypes, cracks were greater among organic eggs and those from welfare-managed hens compared to fertile eggs. Egg price varied greatly with the nutritionally altered eggs costing the least ($1.81) followed by a group including the combination all-vegetable diets and nutritionally altered eggs, fertile eggs, and eggs from welfare-managed hens averaging $2.24 and organic eggs costing the most at $2.72/dozen. DISCUSSION White vs. Specialty Eggs Specialty eggs offer consumers a variety of valueadded options for their egg purchase. Although specialty

NATIONAL EGG QUALITY STUDY PART 2 393 TABLE 3. Mean comparison of specialty egg subtypes Specialty egg subtypes All Vegetable diet and nutritionally Welfare- Nutritionally Pooled Item altered 1 managed altered Fertile Organic SEM P-value Percentage of total eggs 45.4 22.1 19.9 6.5 6.1...... Age (d) 17.6 a 11.0 b 19.0 a 12.5 b 18.5 a 1.23 0.0001 Weight (g) 59.9 ab 61.4 a 59.1 b 59.7 ab 60.8 ab 0.48 0.0113 Underweight eggs (%) 3.4 3.8 2.5 1.7 0 1.11 0.0802 Albumen height (mm) 4.8 a 4.6 ab 4.8 a 4.4 b 4.1 c 0.10 0.0001 Haugh Unit (HU) 65.9 a 62.2 ab 65.2 a 61.2 b 57.6 c 1.08 0.0001 HU <55 (%) 9.4 c 22.4 b 13.1 bc 19.0 b 38.6 a 2.82 0.0001 Cracks (%) 4.3 ab 7.0 a 5.0 ab 2.2 b 8.6 a 1.41 0.0065 Leakers (%) 0.6 1.0 0.4 2.2 3.6 0.87 0.2177 Price mean ($/dozen) 2.19 b 2.29 b 1.81 c 2.24 b 2.72 a 0.089 0.0001 Price range ($/dozen) 1.79 3.19 0.88 2.89 1.42 2.69 1.89 2.39 1.89 4.38...... a c Means within a row with no common superscripts differ significantly (P < 0.05). 1 A combination of specialty eggs from hens fed all-vegetable diets and producing nutritionally altered eggs. eggs may provide consumers with a specific quality attribute, emotional need, or healthful ingredient, they do not appear to provide quality and value in a traditional sense as defined by the USDA standards of quality and grade (1990). Most measures of quality for conventional white eggs were statistically superior to specialty eggs with the exception of egg weight and cracks. Specialty eggs averaged about 0.5 g more per egg than white eggs. Unlike most eggs that are available in multiple sizes including small, medium, large, extra large, and jumbo; specialty eggs were only available in one size in the retail setting. Most were designated as large eggs, or no size designation was provided. Greater egg weight may be due to a number of reasons, including a desire to pack a slightly heavier dozen for marketing purposes or, simply, less precision in weighing eggs, hen nutrition, or management practices. The incidence of cracked eggs among specialty egg samples was 0.29% less but not significantly different from white eggs. Specialty Egg Subtypes Interesting quality differences prevailed within the different specialty subtypes. Combination eggs carrying an all-vegetable diet and nutritionally altered label and those indicating only nutritionally altered eggs were similar to white eggs in interior quality averaging more than 65 HU. Conversely, these subtypes were some of the oldest eggs, averaging more than 18 d. Nutritionally altered eggs also had the lowest price of the specialty subtypes. Eggs from the welfare-managed hens were similar to white eggs in age (11 d), with albumen height and HU results common with other subtypes except organic. Fertile eggs were intermediate for most parameters, except they had the lowest percentage of cracked eggs and a lower age among the different subtypes. Organic eggs as a group had the poorest interior and shell quality and highest price compared to all other specialty eggs. They were older, had the lowest albumen height and HU, the greatest percentage of cracked and leaker eggs, and averaged $2.72 per dozen. The most prevalent specialty egg available in the marketplace was eggs with a combination subtype label from hens fed all-vegetable diets and a nutritionally altered egg (45.4%). Some vegetarians may seek out this type of egg as a means of supplementing their diet with high quality protein or because the hens were fed diets devoid of animal tissues, fats, or by-products. Others may select eggs from these hens because of concerns (whether scientifically founded or not) about the potential of contracting enzootic diseases from animal tissues. Some of the terms used to describe the feeding of the hens included: fed roasted grains, and fed all vegetable diets. Eggs from welfare-managed hens were the next most prominent subtype encountered in the survey at greater than 22%. Cartons with these eggs carried statements such as laid in nests by uncaged hens, 9 generations of uncaged hens, free to run and scratch, cage free, born free, free range, free running, free walking, chickens roam freely in barns, and natural lighting. Eggs categorized as nutritionally altered made up almost 20% of the survey sample. Most modifications to the nutritional profile of eggs included lower cholesterol, less fat, less calories, and more vitamin E. A comparison of nutrient concentrations encountered in nutritionally altered eggs is made with conventional eggs, as percent daily value of a 2,000 calorie diet and on a per gram or milligram basis (Table 4). Although some nutrients from these eggs, such as folate and vitamin E, were readily supplemented two- and sixfold beyond levels encountered in conventional eggs, fat, cholesterol, and total calories may only be reduced 22, 16, and 14%, respectively. Fertile eggs made up 6.5% of the sampled specialty eggs. Although some people may believe fertile eggs are more nutritious or have some other healthful or virulence properties, these claims have been largely disproved by modern scientific methods (Stadelman and Cotterill, 1977). Most cartons had simple statements to indicate the eggs were fertile, whereas others carried

394 PATTERSON ET AL. TABLE 4. Nutrient concentration of nutritionally-altered specialty eggs compared with conventional white eggs 1 Nutrition facts 2 Nutritionally-altered eggs Conventional white eggs 3 Calories total 60 70 Calories from fat 35 40 % Daily value 4,5 Nutrient Total fat 5, 6 (3.5, 4.0 g) 7 (4.5 g) Saturated fat 6 (1.0 g) 8 (1.5 g) Polyunsaturated fat (0.5 g) Monounsaturated fat (2.0 g) Cholesterol 60, 63 (180, 190 mg) 71 (215 mg) Vitamin A 6 Vitamin E 8, 10, 25 4 Vitamin C 0 Calcium 2 Iron 6 4 Thiamin 2 Riboflavin 15 Vitamin B-6 4 Folate 12 6 Vitamin B-12 8 Phosphorus 8 Zinc 4 1 Carton label values from one or more specialty egg company. 2 Serving size one egg (50 g). 3 American Egg Board: http://www.aeb.org/food/nutrition.html. 4 Percent daily values are based on a 2,000 calorie diet. 5 Actual concentration, given in parentheses. factual statements indicating fertilization is a natural process that will not guarantee 12 fertile eggs per dozen. Organic eggs were the least prevalent subtype of specialty eggs observed in the retail outlets. Organic cartons carried statements such as organic feed, certified organic feed, and fed certified organic grain. In some instances cartons carried the logo or names of the certifying organizations, whereas with others one must take the producer at their word that in fact the hens were fed organic ingredients and diets. Many specialty egg cartons carried statements about the management of the hens or the feed ingredients that might be viewed as desirable from a marketing standpoint. Statements included: free of pesticides and antibiotics, free of hormones and antibiotics, drug free, no hormones or antibiotics, and without drugs or antibiotics. Although such statements may be perceived as statements of assurance to the lay public, no hens are administered hormones in the U.S., and pesticide and antibiotic use in layers is quite limited. According to Kreager (1995) most egg producers voluntarily limit antibiotic usage because they offer little or no medical or economic benefit. So although these statements most likely seek to distinguish specialty eggs from conventional eggs for marketing purposes, they mislead the public with false statements that suggest conventional eggs have residues of hormones, antibiotics, and pesticides. Specialty eggs are an interesting and significant share of the U.S. table egg market. They offer consumers a variety of value-added options for their egg purchase. Although some individuals may view specialty eggs as unimportant, many companies are adding these types of eggs to their product line because of customer demand (Risser, 1999). Specialty eggs will influence the price of generic white eggs because of their own unique price structure, small but significant market share, and advertising promoting eggs as a nutritious food. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to express their sincere appreciation to the state departments of agriculture personnel from Illinois, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Connecticut, New York, and Massachusetts for their assistance in collecting and evaluating the eggs. REFERENCES American Egg Board, 1999. http://www.aeb.org/foor/nutrition.html. Accessed August 5, 1999. Blank, C., 1997. Demand for organic eggs soars. Egg Industry 102:(7)1. Dunn, J. A., 1995. Organic Food and Fiber: An Analysis of 1994 Certified Production in the United States. Agriculture Marketing Service, USDA, Washington, DC. Evans, T., 1995. IEC gathers in Stockholm. Egg Industry 100:3 7. Klonsky, K., and L. Tourte, 1996. Vegetables, fruits and nuts account for 95% of organic sales in California. California Agric. 50(6):9 13. Kreager, K., 1995. Antibiotic use in the laying hen industry. Pages 31 35 in: Drugs and Therapeutics for Poultry. Proceedings of the American Association of Avian Pathologists. Published by the AAAP, Kennett Square, PA. Looper, K., 1996. Egg marketing in the United States. Egg Industry 101:(8)6 8.

NATIONAL EGG QUALITY STUDY PART 2 395 National Organic Standards Board, 1995. Definition of Organic. Minutes of the April, 1995 meeting of the National Organic Standards Board, Orlando, FL. Risser, K., 1999. Designer eggs in the egg industry. Mid-Atlantic Layer Management Workshop, Myrtle Beach, SC. SAS Institute, 1994. SAS/STAT User s Guide: Statistical Version 6.08. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC. Stadelman, W. J., and O. J. Cotterill, 1977. Some misconceptions about the nutritive value of eggs. Pages 106 107 in: Egg Science & Technology. 2nd ed. AVI Publishing Co. Inc., Westport CT. United States Department of Agriculture, 2000. National Organic Program, Proposed Rule December 1997. Agricultural Marketing Service Home Page. http://www.ams.usda.- gov/nop/. Accessed October 11, 2000. United States Department of Agriculture, 1990. Egg grading manual. Agricultural Marketing Service, Agricultural Handbook Number 75. USDA, Washington, DC.