Search

The US egg industry is being pressured from many directions to change its production practices, particularly to address concerns about hen welfare in conventional cage systems. Responding to similar pressures, in 1999, the European Union banned conventional laying cages starting in 2012. This now impending European ban has led to the development of several alternative housing systems. These include noncage systems like aviaries and modified (enriched or furnished) cages that include perches, areas in which the hens can forage and dustbathe, and nests. Understanding the European experience is valuable as the United States considers the future direction of the egg industry. In the United States, the proportion of eggs produced in alternative systems is small (less than 5% of output) but growing, in part due to market and political incentives for systems that provide hens with more behavioral freedom than conventional cages. Animal welfare, however, is only one element of a sustainable production system. Other elements include those related to public values, the environment, economics, worker health, and food safety and quality. Eggs are a primary source of animal protein globally, and the United States is the third largest producer of eggs in the world, behind China and the European Union. The national table egg flock comprises about 280 million hens housed in all regions but with approximately 60% of eggs produced in the 10 leading states. Adopting new housing systems will have substantial effects on costs and other aspects of egg production on both a regional and national scale, with some positive effects but also potential negative effects that need to be carefully considered. This paper discusses the US egg industry in the context of legislation and standards related to hen housing systems. It also addresses initiatives by retailers, nongovernmental organizations, and private certification organizations to shape production practices in the egg industry as well as how those initiatives might affect various aspects of the sustainability of egg production.

Conventional cage housing for laying hens evolved as a cost-effective egg production system. Complying with mandated hen housing alternatives would raise marginal production costs and require sizable capital investment. California data indicate that shifts from conventional cages to barn housing would likely cause farm-level cost increases of about 40% per dozen. The US data on production costs of such alternatives as furnished cages are not readily available and European data are not applicable to the US industry structure. Economic analysis relies on key facts about production and marketing of conventional and noncage eggs. Even if mandated by government or buyers, shifts to alternative housing would likely occur with lead times of at least 5 yr. Therefore, egg producers and input suppliers would have considerable time to plan new systems and build new facilities. Relatively few US consumers now pay the high retail premiums required for nonconventional eggs from hens housed in alternative systems. However, data from consumer experiments indicate that additional consumers would also be willing to pay some premium. Nonetheless, current data do not allow easy extrapolation to understand the willingness to pay for such eggs by the vast majority of conventional egg consumers. Egg consumption in the United States tends to be relatively unresponsive to price changes, such that sustained farm price increases of 40% would likely reduce consumption by less than 10%. This combination of facts and relationships suggests that, unless low-cost imports grew rapidly, requirements for higher cost hen housing systems would raise US egg prices considerably while reducing egg consumption marginally. Eggs are a low-cost source of animal protein and low-income consumers would be hardest hit. However, because egg expenditures are a very small share of the consumer budget, real income loss for consumers would be small in percentage terms. Finally, the high egg prices imposed by alternative hen housing systems raise complex issues about linking public policy costs to policy beneficiaries.