Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5536/KJPS.2019.46.2.55

A Survey on Egg Laying Performance and Distribution Status of Animal Welfare Certified Farms for Laying Hens  

Hong, Eui-Chul (Poultry Research Institute, National Institute of Animal Science, RDA)
Kang, Hwan-Ku (Poultry Research Institute, National Institute of Animal Science, RDA)
Park, Ki-Tae (Poultry Research Institute, National Institute of Animal Science, RDA)
Jeon, Jin-Joo (Poultry Research Institute, National Institute of Animal Science, RDA)
Kim, Hyun-Soo (Poultry Research Institute, National Institute of Animal Science, RDA)
Kim, Chan-Ho (Poultry Research Institute, National Institute of Animal Science, RDA)
Kim, Sang-Ho (Animal Nutrition and Physiology Team, National Institute of Animal Science, RDA)
Publication Information
Korean Journal of Poultry Science / v.46, no.2, 2019 , pp. 55-63 More about this Journal
Abstract
This study was conducted to evaluate animal welfare approved farms in three housing systems (open, windowless, and free-range). The survey was conducted in 25 animal welfare approved farms, and 10 farms were surveyed for distribution status. The main breed in all animal welfare approved farms of laying hens was Hy-Line Brown variety. In the case of open house, laying hens were bred in traditional and panel houses simultaneously; however, the ratio of panel house was 58.3%, which was higher than that of the traditional house. All the windowless houses were made of panels and more than 15,000 laying hens were housed in a single windowless house. In the case of free-range house, it was maintained on a small scale of less than 12,000 birds. Fifty-six percent of the surveyed farms were breeding at $7{\sim}8birds/m^2$. In terms of male and female ratios, most farms maintained 1 male:15 females, but there was a farmhouse that switched 17 or 20 females to 1 male. The daily dietary allowance was 110~170 g, and 32% of the surveyed farms provided feed of more than 150 g/day, which showed that forage feed was important. The age of at the first egg was 123 days, 122 days, and 120 days, and the peak percent was 91.8%, 94.9%, and 86.5% in open, windowless and free-range houses, respectively. The average egg production rate was 74.0%, 84.6%, and 72.7% in open, windowless, and free-range houses respectively, thus, there was no correlation between feed intake and hen-housed eggs. Distribution of welfare certified eggs was mainly a direct deal with the consumer or through contract production. The ratio of direct transactions between large-scale marts and eco-friendly specialty stores of welfare approved eggs was higher than that of conventional eggs. The rate of contract sales of eggs in both the barn and free-range systems was high, and the percentage of courier sales farms was also high. Excluding courier services, price of eggs in the barn system rose to more than 30 won/egg in the second half of 2017 (after AI). Price of eggs in the free-range system rose to more than 50 won/egg in the second half of 2017 (after AI). In the case of courier sales, the same price of 500 won was maintained before and after AI. In conclusion, the results of this study can be used as basic data for improving the animal welfare certification system for laying hens in Korea.
Keywords
laying hen; animal welfare; breeding status; distribution status;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 2  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Rodenburg TB, Tuyttens FAM, De Reu K, Herman L, Zoons J, Sonck B 2008 Welfare assessment of laying hens in furnished cages and non-cage systems: assimilating expert opinion. Anim Welfare 17(4):355-361.
2 RSPCA 2013 RSPCA Welfare Standards for Laying Hens. Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
3 Sohn SH, Jang IS, Son BR 2011 Effect of housing systems of cage and floor on the production performance and stress response in layer. Korean J Poult Sci 38(4): 305-313.   DOI
4 Tactacan GB, Guenter W, Lewis NJ, Rodriguez-Lecompte JC, House JD 2009 Performance and welfare of laying hens in conventional and enriched cages. Poult Sci 88(4): 698-707.   DOI
5 Webster AJF 2001 Farm animal welfare: The five freedoms and the free market. The Veterinary Journal 161(3):229- 237.   DOI
6 Sherwin CM, Richard GJ, Nicol CJ 2010 Comparison of the welfare of layer hens in 4 housing systems in the UK. Br Poult Sci 51(4):488-499.   DOI
7 Assembly Bill No. 1437 2009 Legislative Counsel's Digest. The People of the State of California do Enact as Follows: Section 1, Chapter 14. Shelled Eggs 25995.
8 Bae JH, Kang HJ, Cho GH, Jung HY 2011 Estimation of willingness to pay for livestock products which is produced under the farm animal welfare regulation. Korea J Agr Econo 52(1):49-70.
9 European Commission 1999 Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens. Official Journal of the European Union, L203:0053-0057.
10 Hong EC, Kang BS, Kang HK, Jeon JJ, Kim HS, Park SB, Kim CH 2017 A survey on performance situation of animal welfare approved farms of laying hens. Korean J Poult Sci 44(1):11-18.   DOI
11 Hong EC, Kang HK, Park KT, Jeon JJ, Kim HS, Kim CH, Kim SH 2018 A survey of Korean consumers' awareness on animal welfare of laying hens. Korean J Poult Sci 45(3):219-228.   DOI
12 Hy-Line 2018 Management Guide (Hy-Line Brown). Hy-Line International.
13 Janczak AM, Riber AB 2015 Review of rearing-related factors affecting the welfare of laying hens. Poult Sci 94(7):1454-1469.   DOI
14 KAPE 2018 Distribution Information (Egg). Korea Institute for Animal Products Quality Evaluation.
15 KFSP 2017 Korean Feeding Standard for Poultry. National Institute of Animal Science, RDA.
16 Kim DW, Kang SM, Yang YR, Kim JM, Yoon HS, Jeon JH, Choi YH 2016 Egg quality in battery cage and free range systems: With reference to comparison of eggs based on price and hens' age. Korean J Org Agric 24(1):115-112.   DOI
17 APQA 2016 Animal Protection Management System. Animal and Plant Quarantine Agency.
18 Koppel P, Timberg L, Shalimov R, Vazquez-Araujo L, Carbonell-Barrachina AA, Di Donfrancesco B, Chambers Iv E 2015 Purchase, storage, and preparation of eggs and poultry in selected European countries: A preliminary study. Br Food J 117(2):749-765.   DOI
19 Kim JM, Yoon HS, Hwangbo J, Kim SH, Choi YH 2012 Effects of an unexpected change in housing environment on stress in poultry. J Lives Hous & Env 18(3):183-190.
20 Koppel K, Sosa M, Gutierrez NG, Cardinal P, Godwin SL, Cates SC, Chambers Iv E 2016 Consumer practices for purchase, storage, and preparation of poultry and eggs in selected north and south American countries: A pilot study. Universidad de Antioquia, Medelin, Colombia 23(1):58-64.
21 Krawczyk J, Gornowicz E 2010 Quality of eggs hens kept in two different free-range systems in comparison with a barn system. Arch Geflugelk 74(3):151-157.
22 Lay Jr DC, Fulton RM, Hester PY, Karcher DM, Kjaer JB, Mench JA, Mullens BA, Newberry RC, Nicol CJ, O'Sullivan NP, Porter RE 2011 Hen welfare in different housing systems. Poultry Sci 90(1):278-294.   DOI
23 Lee SM, Kim KH, Lee JG, Park EJ, Lee SW, Hong JH 2002 Hygienic quality of eggs in the department food stores in the Incheon Metropolitan area. J Fd Hyg Safety 17(3): 129-136.
24 MAFRA 2017 Discussion on Key Policy Issues in the MAFRA. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.
25 MAFRA 2018 Number of Households and Chickens by City & Province/rearing Scale according to Use Chicken (Laying Hens, Broiler Chickens).
26 Pohle K, Cheng HW 2009 Comparative effects of furnished and battery cages on egg production and physiological parameters in White Leghorn hens. Poult Sci 88(10): 2042-2051.   DOI