Cage egg producers' perspectives on the adoption of cage-free systems in China, Japan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, and Thailand

Abstract

Asia is responsible for ~60% of global egg production. As in most of the world, nearly all of the egg-laying hens are housed in cages. While there is growing demand for cage-free eggs in many regions of the world, challenges have been reported when transitioning to these systems, which may affect the willingness of producers to transition. The aim of this research was to investigate the views of Asian egg producers on the feasibility of cage-free systems and what they perceive to be the main challenges and proposed solutions in adopting cage-free systems. A total of 224 egg producers (165 cage egg producers) completed questionnaires containing a mix of free-form, Likert scale and demographic items. Data were analyzed using thematic qualitative analysis and descriptive quantitative statistics. Responses indicated that cages are primarily used for their efficiency and ease of management. The most common reasons to consider adopting cage-free systems included improved animal welfare, increased market access, and increased product quality. A majority of producers (65%) responded “yes” or “maybe” when asked if they consider cage-free systems to be feasible in their country. Perceived challenges in adopting cage-free systems included reduced profitability, higher costs, and biosecurity and disease. Potential solutions included the development of the cage-free industry and market development. Most producers (72%) said more support is needed to establish cage-free farms, mostly pertaining to technical advice, training and resources. The findings of this study provide an enhanced understanding of the egg industry in these countries and potential areas for producer support in transitioning to cage-free systems.

Suppliers’ Perspectives on Cage-Free Eggs in China

“…In the absence of animal welfare legislation, improvements in farm animal welfare are more likely if these provide financial benefits [16]. Despite a higher cost of production and distribution for cage-free eggs (a challenge also identified by other Chinese producers [20,21]), suppliers in this study found buyers who were willing to pay for their eggs. Given that over 95% of eggs in China are consumed as table eggs [2], engaging domestic consumers will likely play an important role in promoting cage-free eggs.…”

“…Yang [20] interviewed Chinese producers using caged systems and found that they generally held negative views towards cage-free production, citing concerns regarding hen health, productivity, profitability, and food safety; these producers also associated cage-free systems with challenges, including lack of consumer willingness to pay, lack of land, strict environmental protection policies, and difficulty in managing cage-free production. De Luna et al [21] surveyed 22 Chinese producers of caged systems and found they chose caged systems due to reduced cost, land optimization, ease of management, scalability, and lower labor cost; only 14% of these participants viewed cage-free production as feasible. However, these producers were able to identify some reasons for adopting cage-free production, including higher animal welfare, increased buyer demand, improved product quality, and access to higher prices.…”

Egg Quality, Yolk Fatty Acid Profiles from Laying Hens Housed in Conventional Cage and Cage-Free Production Systems in the Andean Tropics

“…Currently, a high percentage of egg consumers in many countries care about hens and tend to purchase more eggs from hens not kept in cages [ 27 ]. However, the growing demand for CF eggs in many regions of the world causes challenges to producers transitioning from CC to CF systems, due to higher costs and biosecurity issues [ 28 ]. Nevertheless, housing seems to impact egg production and quality traits [ 25 ].…”

“…Likewise, Sokołowicz et al (2018) reported that the housing system did not affect albumen height and Haugh units, but the yolk pigmentation was lower in hens housed on a floor litter system [ 34 ]. Nevertheless, Racevičiūtė-Stupelienė et al (2023) did not find statistical differences between housing systems when comparing eggshell thickness identified throughout all trial periods [ 28 ]. This differed from the present study, where statistical differences were found in four of the sampled wks.…”

“…In previous studies, PUFAs n-6 (linoleic acid, arachidonic acid) were present in lower concentrations in the yolk of eggs produced in FR and organic systems than in CC systems [ 34 , 37 ]. Racevičiūtė-Stupelienė et al (2023) found the egg yolks from enriched cage housing systems were 0.04, 0.25, and 0.13% higher in heptadecanoic (C17:0), arachidonic (C20:4 n-6), and eicosapentaenoic (C20:5 n-3) acids than barn-laid eggs [ 28 ]. However, in our study, the linoleic acid (C18:2n6c) in the egg yolk was higher by 18% and 11% in eggs from the CF system than in eggs from the CC at 34 and 64 wks.…”