Vídeo CASO MARTA
2. Conectamos la parte JUEZ con la adulta para hacer equipo y poder juntas mirar y aprender de la figura de
13.2 evalUation oF national and eUropean regUlations
in France, sweden and the United Kingdom, most farmers were satisfied with current national legislation, although in France and the United Kingdom a few laying hen farmers felt restricted by legislation. in France, a few felt restricted by previous legislation but not by future legislation.
in sweden the battery cages are prohibited by the swedish legislation since 1988, but an exemption was made for producers reaching certain scores in svenska Äggs djuromsorgsprogram until april 2003 (after that 30 egg producers have been reported for infraction of legislation because they still used old cages). also the change from a relative closed market in sweden to an opened market with focus on low prizes and three dominant retailers ruling the market was mentioned as a problem. although many producers were in favour of swedish legislation, many accentuated that their higher production costs made in difficult to compete in the market. to facilitate the situation in animal production the farmers wanted politicians to avoid making too sudden and short term decisions.
British farmers were more concerned about the implementation and monitoring of legislation than the legislation itself. a large proportion of the italian farmers felt too little informed about legislation in order to evaluate it. of those who felt knowledgeable enough, almost two-third approved the legislation, at least partly. dutch farmers were divided in three large groups. the largest group agreed with the legislation, although some measures could be improved in their view such as the provision of keeping poultry indoors during spring and autumn. the other two groups of dutch poultry farmers either considered legislation as too strict, mainly farmers with free-range indoor systems, or too weak – all of them organic laying hen farmers. in norway about half of the farmers felt troubled or ambivalent about the legislation for the welfare of laying hens, especially about the upcoming ban on (un-enriched) battery cages. many of these farmers felt that legislation changed too rapidly and that the accompanying need for large investments would force farmers to end their production. some of these farmers doubted if the free-range system would actually improve animal welfare. they worried about the occurrence of feather pecking and cannibalism in the free-range system. in France about two thirds were aware of the upcoming ban on the battery cage system. Half of these farmers shared the worries of the norwegian farmers.
Broiler farmers worried most about the discussions at eU level on stocking density. they feared that the proposed reduction in stocking density would increase the production costs and decrease their income.
in all countries, more than half of the poultry farmers thought that national and european standards for animal welfare differed. generally farmers believed that their national standards were stricter compared to european standards. most farmers wished for equal standards throughout europe to ensure fair competition. However, there were some
exceptions. a small group of dutch broiler farmers argued that equal legislation was not desirable as it did not take national differences in production circumstances into account. they argued that stocking densities could be higher in the netherlands than in southern europe without compromising animal welfare because of the colder climate and the investments of dutch farmers in climate control. about half of the norwegian poultry farmers were in favour of a stricter norwegian policy to ensure good welfare. in this way they wanted to secure farmers’ good reputation among consumers which they considered essential for the survival of norwegian agriculture. in their opinion norwegian farmers could not compete on volume and quantities and therefore should focus on quality production. swedish farmers agreed with uniform legislation in the eU, but disagreed about whether swedish standards should be lowered or eU standard should be raised to the swedish level. the famers who suggested to lower the swedish standard did not believe that eU legislation would reach the swedish level in a reasonable time. in the meantime the fierce competition would continue while some of the producers found themselves already in an economically very though situation. there was also a suggestion to having monitoring and control of animal welfare at an international level because some countries did not take agreements seriously enough according to some farmers.
13.3 attitUde towards additional measUres
13.3.1 Ban onBatterycages
eU legislation will ban the battery cage system in 2012. laying hen farmers will be allowed to rear their hens either in enriched cages or in the free-range system. Because broiler farmers do not use cage systems, we asked only laying hen farmers about their opinion in this matter.
across countries many farmers saw the advantages of a free range system although they also tended to defend their own production system. Farmers worried about the need for investments, raise of production costs and competition from other countries. they were also concerned about new problems with animal welfare because of for instance higher occurrences of feather pickings. some tried to downplay the importance of changing system by referring to the ignorance of alternatives among individual chicken – a battery chicken did not know how to move freely and was therefore not suffering.
French and swedish laying hen farmers generally considered the free-range system as better in terms of animal welfare irrespective of their own production system. some swedish farmers saw also disadvantages such as a higher mortality rate among the poultries and dusty environment, also for people working in free range system. some
French farmers perceived the cage system as better for animal welfare as it prevented feather pecking and cannibalism.
in norway and the netherlands, the difference of opinion on the free range system was more clearly related to differences in production systems. most dutch farmers with a free- range system thought that the level of animal welfare in free-range systems was better than in battery cage systems. only few of them thought that free- range or cage system made little difference for the individual chicken. Battery hens did not know better and therefore did not miss the freedom of movement. some also wondered if freedom of movement would indeed add much to the welfare of the laying hens. some farmers with battery cages thought that animal welfare was worse in free-range systems, mainly due to feather pecking and cannibalism. even though most dutch farmers agreed that a free- range system was better for animal welfare, they disagreed with a ban on (un-enriched) battery cage systems. many of the farmers feared unfair competition because the market was not protected against the imports of cage eggs. the free-range farmers also feared a devaluation of the free-range eggs, when all eggs would become free-range. others thought that the cage egg was safer and more hygienic. others worried that the ban on battery systems would require considerable investments in more and larger stables. this would require a higher price for the eggs to compensate for these costs or they feared that a lot of farmers would be forced to close down their production.
in norway most cage producers considered free-range systems as problematic because of feather pecking and cannibalism but also higher mortality rates, a higher level of ammonium in the air and resulting bad smell in the stable, as well as floor eggs. like the dutch farmers some norwegian farmers thought that cage hens in cage would not know any better and therefore not miss the freedom to move. However, some norwegian farmers with cage systems were critical of the cage system. in their view this system was not a natural way to rear laying hens although they would not described the level of animal welfare in this system as poor. Half of the norwegian organic farmers were very critical of the cage system, describing it as ‘factories’ or even as ‘cruelty to animals’. this opinion was shared by three non-organic farmers with free-range system. the other half of the organic farmers argued that norwegian poultry farmer needed the cage system, because not all farmers could become organic farmers and because a cheaper alternative was needed in order to compete with the eastern european countries. many norwegian farmers feared that the ban on the battery cage system would force farmers to close down their production.
13.3.2 redUcingstocKingdensity
while this research was underway the proposal of the european commission for new animal welfare legislation for broiler chickens was discussed. one of the main issues was to limit the stocking density for broilers, focussing on a limit of 38 kg/m2. For laying hen
farmers the reduction of stocking density was brought up as a fictive measure to investigate their readiness to accept such a limitation.
Broiler Farmers
again it appeared that some farmers in some countries argued in congruence with their own production system whereas others agreed with the need for improvement irrespective of their own system. generally speaking farmers feared to lose out in market competition when more investment were required without assurance that such investments would be economically efficient.
most French broiler farmers, irrespective of production system, thought that a reduction in stocking density would improve animal welfare. However, several farmers pointed out that reducing stocking density would have negative financial consequences. some farmers believed that stocking density had little impact on animal welfare.
most dutch broiler farmers were not convinced of the necessity to reduce the stocking density for broilers. they argued that broilers had already enough space to move around, except for the last week before slaughter. many farmers also thought that other factors were more important for animal welfare. some farmers believed that a lower stocking density would negatively affect animal welfare – it would result in empty places that will lower air dynamics creating wet spots in the stable and, hence, problems with animal health and food safety. some farmers said that because of the colder climate and the high level of climate regulation dutch farmers should be allowed to have higher stocking densities than farmers in the south; to limit stock density made only sense in countries with a warm climate in their view. the regulations for stocking densities should therefore not be uniform as this would otherwise result in unfair competition.
swedish legislation already limits stocking density for broilers to 20 kg/m2; this can be
extended to 36 kg/m2 for the producers who participate in svenska Fågel and have
achieved the highest score in the scheme. implementation of the eU proposal would, hence, alleviate density regulation. most swedish broiler farmers opposed a reduced stocking density for broilers. some were unsure and others stressed the importance of having uniform requirements across europe. some farmers underlined that reducing stocking density would only be possible when consumers paid for their additional costs. the organic producers had even lower stocking densities with a maximum of 20 kg/m2or
10 animals per m2. most of these farmers stressed the importance of having sufficient
surfaces to reduce bacteria and to abrade the surface.
in the United Kingdom, there was little doubt among broiler farmers that this measure was important. most broiler farmers thought that the requirement was both feasible and desirable for animal welfare. most farmers already complied with the new norm for stocking density.
Laying Hen Farmers
most countries prescribe different stocking density rates. Farmers across countries had, hence, different standards and numbers in mind. still they responded in a similar way. generally laying hen farmers did not consider a reduction of stocking density as really necessary. in their view the current norms functioned well and ensured already a good level of animal welfare. some organic farmers thought that reducing the stocking density would be a good idea, but only for the conventional farming systems. in general farmers feared that a reduced stocking density would increase production costs because they could keep fewer hens and would need to heat their stables. to compensate for this, they would need a higher price for the eggs, but they doubted if consumers were willing to pay for this. some farmers worried that lower stocking density would lead to more fighting and pecking. others pointed at the need to increase heating when lower stock densities lead to lower temperatures. some organic farmers said that a larger surface alone would not improve animal welfare. the hens would also need to have the possibility to move up on perches, and to withdraw and hide. in addition norwegian and swedish farmers pointed out that the allowed stocking density in their country was already lower than elsewhere in europe.
13.3.3 providingoUtdooraccess
Laying Hen Farmers
in France farmers with outdoor runs were generally in favour of providing outdoor access, although some pointed at hygiene problems. in the netherlands the opinion of farmers differed also within production systems. some free-range farmers with outdoor production said that rearing hens outdoors and indoors had both positive and negative effects on animal welfare and they did not think that one method was necessarily better in terms of animal welfare. in their view the numbers of animals in conventional production systems was generally too high in order to use outdoor runs in a responsible manner. also in sweden organic farmers mentioned both advantages and disadvantages of outdoor runs. British farmers with outdoor production considered the use of outdoor runs both feasible for laying hen farms and desirable for animal welfare.
overall laying hen farmers who already used outdoor runs, were positive about the effect of outdoor access on animal welfare, although they might appoint some disadvantages as well. producers with outdoor runs generally mentioned the following advantages and disadvantages:
• freedom for the laying hens; • fresh air;
• better development of the natural behaviour of the hens;
• happiness of the hens in spring, when they can be outdoors again; • to allow natural behaviour such as scratching in sand;
• more work;
• more risk for transmittable diseases like salmonella and the avian flu.
laying hen farmers without outdoor production were generally sceptical about the effect of outdoor runs on animal welfare. the French farmers were different in this respect as most of them considered an outdoor run as beneficial even if they did not use them on their farms. many of the dutch in door producers thought that outdoor access would deteriorate the level of animal welfare because of the exposure to diseases and parasites. some farmers felt that modern laying hens were not suitable to be reared outdoors. most of the swedish farmers with indoor production did not want to use outdoor runs. they feared the risk of getting transmittable diseases like salmonella and avian flu. some added that they had too many animals or too little land to let their animals go outside. the farmers also feared that outdoor systems would increase the work load and harm production. yet, some swedish farmers thought that outdoor runs were beneficial for animal welfare; they would be ready to use them if the extra work load and production costs would be paid for. British farmers with cage system were not willing to discuss the feasibility and desirability of outdoor runs for the laying hens in free-range systems.
Broiler Farmers
like the laying hen farmers, those broiler farmers who already work with outdoor production, were positive about outdoor runs and their effect on animal welfare. Farmers who reared broilers indoors were sceptical. in their opinion modern broilers were too vulnerable to be reared outdoors. they also argued that the lifespan of broilers was too short. By the time the broilers were mature enough to go outdoors, it was nearly time to send them to the slaughterhouse. in addition the farmers feared the exposure to diseases (e.g. salmonella and avian flu) and parasites and the risks for food safety. in sweden it would be very hard for broiler farmers to switch to outdoor production. most swedish slaughterhouses demand from their suppliers that they participate in the svenska Fågel scheme; this scheme requires participation in the voluntary salmonella scheme, which excludes outdoor production. a swedish broiler farmer would, hence, need to find another buyer for his broilers before being able to switch to outdoor production. some swedish broiler farmers thought that outdoor broiler production could become an alternative way of production, provided that farmers were compensated for the extra time and work.
13.3.4 Ban onBeaKtrimming
Beak trimming is an intervention where the tip of the beak is removed in order to prevent other hens from being injured when pecked. this is especially problematic in free-range systems where the number of interacting hens is high, which renders social orders less stable and increases the urge of for pecking. at the moment organic and free-range laying hen farmers discuss the necessity of de-beaking and the possibility to ban beak trimming. the problem exists only among laying hens because broilers are slaughtered at a very early age, before problems with social order occur. in addition broiler breeds are generally less aggressive. we therefore asked only laying hen farmers about their opinion on the feasibility and desirability of a ban on beak trimming.
in norway and sweden de-beaking is already prohibited. we asked norwegian farmers if they welcomed the practice of beak trimming as a preventative measure for feather pecking, but most farmers opposed. they considered it unnatural to change the animal in this way and to cut off the animal’s emotions with de-beaking. they considered it an unethical practice and thought that the problem should be solved in another ways such as breeding, good management and better production systems. the swedish farmers had similar opinions. the majority of the regular laying hen farmers thought that beak- trimming was unnecessary in a good working production system. pecking could be avoided in another way, such as using certain light schemes, good feed and breeding. organic farmers had generally no problems with feather pecking of cannibalism. they emphasized the importance of good light, feed and breeding and added that enough space per hen would also prevent pecking. in addition it would be important to give the hen something to do, like pecking in vegetables, shells, for worms, etc.
most British farmers across schemes thought that it was feasible to ban beak trimming. they disagreed, however, about the question if a ban on beak trimming was indeed desirable on the grounds of animal welfare. Half of the farmers thought it was, the other half thought it was not.