Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T17:22:36.931Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Socio-economic implications of adopting the EU laying hen welfare regulation in Serbia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 May 2012

V. RODIĆ ,
L. PERIĆ ,
M. DJUKIĆ STOJČIĆ ,
N. VUKELIĆ  and
Z. ŠKRBIĆ
V. RODIĆ*
Affiliation:
University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Trg D. Obradovića 8, Novi Sad, Serbia
L. PERIĆ
Affiliation:
University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Animal Husbandry, Trg D. Obradovića 8, Novi Sad, Serbia
M. DJUKIĆ STOJČIĆ
Affiliation:
University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Animal Husbandry, Trg D. Obradovića 8, Novi Sad, Serbia
N. VUKELIĆ
Affiliation:
University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Trg D. Obradovića 8, Novi Sad, Serbia
Z. ŠKRBIĆ
Affiliation:
Institute for Animal Husbandry, Belgrade, Serbia
*
Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Egg producers in the EU had more than a decade to adapt to Directive 1999/74/EC which prohibits keeping laying hens in battery cages after 2012. Meanwhile, numerous studies have been conducted in order to assess the socio-economic implications of this ban and to evaluate consumers’ willingness to support improvement in layer welfare by paying a higher price for eggs produced in alternative systems. The adoption of such regulations in Serbia with the implementation timeframe of less than two years, and without any assessment of consumers’ willingness to pay a higher price for eggs from alternative systems, places the burden of animal welfare on producers. Considering the overall difficult financial situation of egg producers, this poses a risk that a large number of egg producers in Serbia will leave the sector after 2012.

Keywords

laying henseggswelfareregulationSerbia
Type
Review Article
Information
World's Poultry Science Journal , Volume 68 , Issue 2 , June 2012 , pp. 229 - 238
Copyright
Copyright © World's Poultry Science Association 2012

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

AGRA CEAS Cons., (2004) Study on the socio-economic implications of the various systems to keep laying hens. Final report for the European Commission, Brussels, Contract SANCO/2003/SPC.2003258.Google Scholar
BELL, D. (2006) A Review of Recent Publications On Animal Welfare Issues For Table Egg Laying Hens. University of California, Riverside.Google Scholar
BENNETT, R.M., ANDERSON, J. and LANEY, R.J.P. (2002) Moral intensity and willingness to pay concerning farm animal welfare issues and the implications for agricultural policy. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15(2): 187-202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ELSON, A. (2004) The laying hen: systems of egg production, in: PERRY, G. (Ed.) Welfare of laying hen, (CABI Publishing, Cambridge).Google Scholar
EUROPEAN COMMISSION (EC), (2005) Attitudes of consumers towards the welfare of farmed animals. Special Eurobarometer No. 229 (2), Wave 64.4.Google Scholar
EUROPEAN COMMISSION (EC), (2007) Attitudes of EU citizens towards animal welfare. Special Eurobarometer No. 270, Wave 66.1.Google Scholar
FISHER, C. and BOWLES, D. (2002) Hardboiled reality: animal welfare-friendly egg production in a global market, 2001 - 2012: a dozen years crucial to agriculture and trade reform. Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Euro group, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
GODDARD, E., BOXALL, P., EMUNU, J.P., BOYD, C., ASSELIN, A. and NEALL, A. (2007) Consumer attitudes, willingness to pay and revealed preferences for different egg production attributes. Department of Rural Economy, University of Alberta, Project Report #07-03 (http://purl.umn.edu/52087).Google Scholar
GRETHE, H. (2007) High animal welfare standards in the EU and international trade – How to prevent potential ‘low animal welfare havens’? Food Policy 32(3): 315-333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LAGERKVIST, C.J., CARLSSON, F. and VISKE, D. (2006) Swedish consumer preferences for animal welfare and biotech: a choice experiment. AgBioForum 9: 51–58.Google Scholar
LAYWEL, (2004a) Description of housing systems for Laying hens. LayWel project No SSPE-CT-2004-502315: Welfare implications of changes in production systems for laying hens, Deliverable 2.3, http://www.laywel.eu/. Last accessed 08/11.Google Scholar
LAYWEL, (2004b) Overall strengths and weaknesses of each defined housing system for laying hens, and detailing the overall welfare impact of each housing system. LayWel project No SSPE-CT-2004-502315: Welfare implications of changes in production systems for laying hens, Deliverable 7.1, http://www.laywel.eu/. Last accessed 08/11.Google Scholar
MAGDALAINE, P. (2009) Trends in eggs and poultry meat marketing. E-proceedings of the 2nd roundtable on poultry economics and marketing, Antwerp, Belgium.Google Scholar
MAGDELAINE, P., SPIESS, M.P. and VALCESCHINI, E. (2008) Poultry meat consumption in Europe. World's Poultry Science Journal 64: 53-63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NATIONAL FARMERS UNION (NFU), (2001) Egg production quarterly. National Farmers Union, April 2001.Google Scholar
NEWTON, J. (2009) Implications of the ban on the use conventional cages in the UK. E-proceedings of the 2nd roundtable on poultry economics and marketing, Antwerp, Belgium.Google Scholar
PERIĆ, L., MILOŠEVIĆ, N. and STRUGAR, V. (2007a) Effect of housing system on damage of feathers and legs of laying hens. [Uticaj načina držanja na stepen oštećenja perja i nogu kokoši nosilja], Contemporary Agriculture 56(3-4): 259-263.Google Scholar
PERIĆ, L., MILOŠEVIĆ, N., TOLIMIR, N. and ŽIKIĆ, D. (2007b) Results of egg production in different housing systems. Biotechnology in Animal Husbandry 23(5-6): 497-520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PERIĆ, L., MILOŠEVIĆ, N. and TOLIMIR, N. (2008) Effect of housing system and hybrid type on the welfare of laying hens, [Uticaj načina držanja i tipa hibrida na dobrobit kokoši nosilja]. Contemporary Agriculture 57(1-2): 188-193.Google Scholar
POLET, Y. (2005) Abolition of battery cages to cost €354 million to EU-25 egg producers. USDA FAS GAIN Report No E35065.Google Scholar
POZA, and MARIA DEL MAR FERNANDEZ, (2007) Socio-economic implications of the different systems of egg production. http://en.engormix.com/MA-poultry-industry/articles/socioeconomic-implications-different-systems_821.htm. Last accessed 06/11.Google Scholar
RODIĆ, V., PERIĆ, L., ĐUKIĆ-STOJČIĆ, M. and MILOŠEVIĆ, N. (2008) Effect of housing system on basic economic parameters of the table egg production [Uticaj načina držanja na osnovne ekonomske parametre proizvodnje konzumnih jaja]. Biotechnology in Animal Husbandry 24(spec. issue): 237-245.Google Scholar
RODIĆ, V. (2009) Poultry sector in Serbia: Challenges of the EU integration. E-proceedings of the 2nd roundtable on poultry economics and marketing, Antwerp, Belgium.Google Scholar
RODIĆ, V., PERIĆ, L. and ĐUKIĆ STOJČIĆ, M. (2009) Economic results of table egg production on small family farms in Serbia: an estimate of the effects of implementing the EU regulations. Contemporary Agriculture 58(1-2): 67-72.Google Scholar
RODIĆ, V., PERIĆ, L., PAVLOVSKI, Z. and MILOŠEVIĆ, N. (2010a) Improving the poultry sector in Serbia: major economic constraints and opportunities. World's Poultry Science Journal 66: 241-250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
RODIĆ, V., PERIĆ, L., PAVLOVSKI, Z. and MILOŠEVIĆ, N. (2010b) Competitiveness of table eggs from non-cage housing systems. Biotechnology in Animal Husbandry 26(1-2): 117-128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
RODIĆ, V., PERIĆ, L., PAVLOVSKI, Z. and VLAHOVIĆ, B. (2010c) Consumers’ perception and attitudes towards table eggs from different housing systems. CD-ROM Proceedings of the XIIIth European Poultry Conference, Tours, France.Google Scholar
ŠKORIĆ, R. (2003) State and perspectives of poultry production in Serbia [Stanje i perspektive živinarske proizvodnje u Srbiji]. Poultry Business Association, Beograd.Google Scholar
TACKEN, G. (2009) Dutch poultry meat market and Dutch and German egg market. E-proceedings of the 2nd roundtable on poultry economics and marketing, Antwerp, Belgium.Google Scholar
TACKEN, G.M.L., COTTELEER, G. and VAN HORNE, P.L.M. (2003) The future of the Dutch egg processing industry. Agricultural Economics Research Institute, The Hague.Google Scholar
TUCKER, S. (1989) Alternatives? ADAS Poultry Journal 3(1):15-30.Google Scholar
VAN HORNE, P.L.M. (2003) The impact of laying hen welfare on the competitiveness of the EU egg industry. World Poultry 19:18-21.Google Scholar
VAN HORNE, P.L.M. (2007) Impact of EU national legislation on production cost for broiler meat and eggs. Proceedings of the 16th European Symposium on Poultry Nutrition, Strasbourg, France.Google Scholar
VAN HORNE, P.L.M., TACKEN, G.M.L., ELLEN, H.H., FIKS-VAN NIEKERK, TH.G.C.M., IMMINK, V.M. and BONDT, N. (2007) Prohibition of enriched cages for laying hens in the Netherlands; An examination of the consequences. LEI Report 2.07.10, The Hague, Netherlands.Google Scholar
VAN HORNE, P.L.M. and ACHTERBOSCH, T.J. (2008) Animal welfare in poultry production systems: Impact of EU standards on world trade. World's Poultry Science Journal 64: 40-52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WINDHORST, H.W. (2006) Changes in poultry production and trade worldwide. World's Poultry Science Journal 62: 585-602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WINDHORST, H.W. (2009) Recent patterns of egg production and trade: a status report on a regional basis. World's Poultry Science Journal 65: 685-707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar