Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T16:44:58.322Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Economics of Regulations on Hen Housing in California

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2015

Daniel A. Sumner ,
William A. Matthews ,
Joy A. Mench  and
J. Thomas Rosen-Molina
Daniel A. Sumner
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Davis University of California Agricultural Issues Center
William A. Matthews
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science and Director of the Center for Animal Welfare, University of California, Davis
Joy A. Mench
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science and Director of the Center for Animal Welfare, University of California, Davis
J. Thomas Rosen-Molina
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science and Director of the Center for Animal Welfare, University of California, Davis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Beginning January 1, 2015, conventional cage housing for egg-laying hens is scheduled to be prohibited in California. We consider the economic implications of the new hen housing regulations on the California shell egg industry. Our data show that egg production is more costly using noncage systems than conventional cages. The main result of the new regulations will be a drastic reduction in the number of eggs produced in California, a large increase in egg shipments from out of state, little if any change in hen housing for eggs consumed in California, and little change in egg prices in California.

Keywords

animal welfare regulationhen housingegg supplyegg pricesegg costs of productionQ11Q18
Type
Invited Paper Sessions
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 42 , Issue 3 , August 2010 , pp. 429 - 438
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aerni, V., Brinkhof, M.W.G., Wechsler, B., and Oester, H. “Productivity and Mortality of Laying Hens in Aviaries: A Systematic Review.” World's Poultry Science Journal 61(2005):130–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aho, P.W. “Introduction to the U.S. Chicken Meat Industry.” Commercial Chicken Meat and Egg Production. Bell, D. and Weaver, W., eds. Nor-well, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002.Google Scholar
Appleby, M.C., Mench, J.A., and Hughes, B.O. Poultry Behavior and Welfare. Wallingford, UK: CAB International, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appleby, M.C., Hughes, B., and Elson, A. Poultry Production Systems: Behavior, Management and Welfare. Wallingford, UK: CAB International, 1992.Google Scholar
Bell, D. “Twenty-Five Years in the Egg Business.” An Egg Economics Update. April 7, 1988.Google Scholar
Bell, D. “Cage Management for Layers.” Commercial Chicken Meat and Egg Production. Bell, D. and Weaver, W., eds. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002.Google Scholar
Blokhuis, H.J. Personal Communication with J.A. Mench. June 2008.Google Scholar
California Health and Safety Code. Division 20, Chapter 13.8, Section 25990. 2009.Google Scholar
California Health and Safety Code. Division 20, Chapter 13.8, Section 25991(f). 2009.Google Scholar
Elson, A. “Do Extensive Poultry Systems Really Offer Superior Welfare?” Poultry International (March 2008):10–14.Google Scholar
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). “The Welfare Aspects of Various Systems of Keeping Laying Hens. Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on a request from the Commission (Question No. EFSA-Q-2003-092)” The EFSA Journal 197(2005):1–23.Google Scholar
Gibson, S.W., Dun, P., and Hughes, B.O. “The Performance and Behavior of Laying Fowls in a Covered Strawyard System.” Research and Development in Agriculture 5, 1988.Google Scholar
Huang, K.S., and Lin, B. Estimation of Food Demand and Nutrient Elasticities from Household Survey Data. Technical Bulletin, Number 1887. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Food and Rural Economic Division, 2000.Google Scholar
Kastens, T., and Brester, G. “Model Selection and Forecasting Ability of Theory-Constrained Food Demand Systems.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78(1996):301–12.Google Scholar
LayWel. Welfare Implications of Changes in Production Systems for Laying Hens. European Commission Sixth Framework Programme (FP6), European Research Programme, WP1-7 (2001-2007).Google Scholar
Moark, L.L.C. Internet site: http://www.moarkllc.com (Accessed June 3, 2008).Google Scholar
Rahn, A.P. “Caged Laying Hen Well-Being: An Economic Perspective.” Paper presented at the 52nd North Central Avian Disease Conference and Symposium on The Science behind Poultry Husbandry. Animal Health Diagnostic Laboratory and College of Veterinary Medicine, Michigan State University, Grand Rapids, MI, September 30, 2001.Google Scholar
Rodenburg, T.B., Tuyttens, F.A.M., De Reu, K., Herman, L., Zoons, J., and Sonck, B. “Welfare Assessment of Laying Hens in Furnished Cages and Non-Cage Systems.” Animal Welfare (South Mimms, England) 17(2008):355–61.Google Scholar
Sumner, D.A., Rosen-Molina, J.T., Matthews, W.A., Mench, J.A., and Richter, K.R. Economic Effects of Proposed Restrictions on Egg-Laying Hen Housing in California. University of California Agricultural Issues Center, 2008.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture-National Agricultural Statistics Service. U.S. Census of Agriculture, Washington, DC, 2007.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Marketing Service. Washington, DC: Egg Market News Reports-Retail, 2010.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture-Economic Research Service. Livestock. Washington, DC: Dairy and Poultry Outlook, 2010.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture-National Agricultural Statistics Service. Chickens and Eggs. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture-National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2010.Google Scholar
Watt Poultry. “Top Company Ratings.” Egg Industry 113(2007):4.Google Scholar
Yen, S., Lin, B., and Smallwood, D. “Quasi- and Simulated Likelihood Approaches to Censored Demand Systems: Food Consumption by Food Stamp Participants.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85(2003):458–78.Google Scholar
You, Z., Epperson, J., and Huang, C. “A Composite System of Demand Analysis for Fruits and Vegetables in the United States.” Journal of Food Distribution 27(1996):11–22.Google Scholar